Month: March 2015

The Salisbury incumbent protection plan?

I was reading in the Salisbury Independent last night and came across an item that piqued my interest. As some of you may know, the city of Salisbury has revamped its electoral system over the last few years.

Step one was moving its elections from the spring to the fall as well as synchronizing the terms of all elected officials to finish at the same time – those who were elected in the spring of 2013 only won terms of slightly over 2 1/2 years.

Last year the new leadership in City Council scrapped the old two-district system where one member was elected from a majority-minority district (District 1] while the other four came from District 2 and redrew it into five separate Council districts, with two having significant minority populations. Going to five single-member districts allowed the city of Salisbury to more closely reflect a minority population of about 2/5.

All that I could live with; in fact, I had encouraged the five-district idea for many years (even asking the opinion of candidates on the subject at a 2011 NAACP forum.) And while you run the risk of a complete turnover in government by having all seats elected at once, this reflects the system we live with in Wicomico County and in Maryland as a whole. So far we’ve not turned over anything close to the whole General Assembly and have managed to keep at least a couple incumbents on County Council.

However, aside from the likelihood of multiple incumbent participants being in the same district this cycle, the blurb I read leads me to think there will be an incumbent protection program in place this fall.

City Council, led by its President Jake Day, is floating a proposal to do away with the city’s primary election and simply place all comers on the November ballot. On the surface it makes sense given that the 2013 primary only eliminated one contender out of eight who ran for office. (Ironically, that one person was later appointed to City Council.) Certainly it’s a taxpayer-friendly proposal as well since only one election would be necessary.

But imagine, if you will, a situation where four or five are on the ballot with a somewhat unpopular incumbent. Each of those challengers will take a share of the vote, and knowing how some voters may go with the name they know it means an incumbent may win re-election with just 20 or 25 percent of the vote. At least with a primary culling the field down to two (at least in most cases, barring a tie for second as we had in 2013) we’re assured the victor has a majority of the vote. It can give voters the opportunity to amass support behind a single challenger.

Even so, there is opportunity in adversity given that City Council is expected to put this proposal into place. But it would take a meeting of the minds between all the conservative groups in town who may want to back a particular horse in a city race.

Since I happen to live in the same district as my friend Muir Boda, I’ll use him as an example. Let’s say I had a scintilla of desire to run for City Council (which I don’t) and that Muir also got in the race, along with a liberal incumbent who wasn’t doing his job. Seeing that Muir and I are both in a conservative mindset, it’s likely we would split the vote against the incumbent and allow him to win because there’s no primary to eliminate one of us and unite the opposition.

This idea goes a little bit against the grain for me, but there may be merit in having the proverbial (or literal, depending on who’s involved) smoke-filled room to decide which prospective candidate to back. Even though it’s a non-partisan race, it may be a good idea for the GOP to endorse a candidate beforehand. With the last election yielding a 5-0 Democrat majority on City Council as well as a Democrat mayor, it’s obvious our procedures heretofore weren’t very good.

Day contends that the new districts will produce a smaller number of candidates for each district, and he may be right. But if the residents of Salisbury want to take the city in a more conservative direction, we don’t want to split the vote by having several conservatives canceling each other out.

monoblogue music: “Ghost Town Girl” by Echo Sparks

If you happen to have the money and a free evening – assuming you read this on the date I put it up – it’s possible to hop on a plane to SoCal and check out the release party for this 10-song compilation by California-based Echo Sparks, a group which describes itself as a “mashup of folk, rockabilly, old Mexico, blues and 1930s jazz.”

The group’s newest release is, at its heart, a relatively simple composition. The trio doesn’t rely on heavy instrumentation; for the most part the songs are done with two guitars and an old-fashioned double bass that creates a relatively unique bottom end with much more of an acoustic echo (almost a beatbox-style thump) which you wouldn’t get with an electric bass without resorting to lots of fancy effects. This video of the title track gives you an idea of how “Ghost Town Girl” essentially works – although there are drum parts added on the actual recording, they aren’t very complex.

What I noticed most about this album is the vocals. Echo Sparks is a band which relies heavily on harmonies to carry their songs. With the exception of the bluesy Torch Song, where the harmonies are held in check until the latter part of the song, the tracks work within the parameters of the interplay between their two vocalists, guitarists CC Kinnick and DA Valdez. Generally this works well, although I found it was a little bit weaker on Rolling 60s and End of the Line than some of the other songs, such as the knockout Mexican Moon, leadoff track Broken Arrow, and Small Change.

That’s not to say all the songs sound just the same, though. A little flavor is added to Shallow Water (the one song written by bassist Cindy Ballreich) with the inclusion of piano, and I found the guitar work on the final track I Think It’s You to be a highlight as well. The lyrics of Princess of Fresno made me smile – it’s one of many songs with California references, whether in place names or items associated with the state. In that respect, the band pays a great deal of homage to their roots.

I noted above that, at times, the band sounds a little uneven with its harmonies. But this also gave me the thought that it may best reflect how Echo Sparks would sound live. Certainly they don’t have thousands of dollars to spend on making sure everything sounds just so with nary a note or pitch out of place, but having that sterile studio sound may make one wonder what happened when you see the band live. With a steady schedule of shows around their SoCal base, I’m betting this album sounds quite a bit like they would sound live if they had a drummer for those shows.

All in all, “Ghost Town Girl” conveys the fact that Echo Sparks occupies a rather unique niche. Perhaps it won’t lead to overwhelming commercial success, but you almost have to think they may not mind so much if it means they can stay true to themselves. Don’t take my word for it, though: go ahead and listen for yourself. If you move quickly enough you can still catch that release party.

Democrats ignore voters, keep rain tax in place

According to published reports, Annapolis Democrats ignored the will of the voters and opted to maintain the state’s dreaded “rain tax.” More formally, the House Environment and Transportation Committee rejected HB481 by a 14-7 vote – all 14 Democrats on the committee voted to kill the bill, while all seven Republicans voted to send the bill to the floor.

Because it was a party line vote, it’s easy to note who voted for and against:

In favor of maintaining the rain tax were Delegates Barve, Beidle, Carr, Fraser-Hidalgo, Frush, Gilchrist, Healey, Holmes, Knotts, Lafferty, Lam, McCray, Shane Robinson, and Stein. Twelve of the fourteen represent some part of Baltimore, Montgomery, or Prince George’s counties, with one from Baltimore City and one from Anne Arundel County. Basically they represent the I-95 corridor.

Voting properly to kill it off were Delegates Anderton, Cassilly, Flanagan, Jacobs, O’Donnell, Otto, and Szeliga. Three of these represent the Eastern Shore, two have districts in Harford County, one comes from Howard County, and the other from southern Maryland. (Anderton and Otto represent portions of the Lower Shore.)

Governor Hogan is quoted in the WBAL story by Robert Lang as stating:

No issue resonates as strongly and no tax is as universally detested as the rain tax. Passing a law that forces only a handful of counties to raise taxes on their citizens – against their will – is wrong, unfair, and it needs to end.

Marylanders have spoken loudly and clearly on this issue. The overwhelming majority of voters across the state are strongly opposed to it, and some counties have already taken steps to repeal this burdensome tax. Considering the surge of opposition to the current law, I am confident that the General Assembly will still move forward with a repeal of the Rain Tax.

Apparently there is another measure in the General Assembly which will weaken the rain tax but not suspend it entirely. But this is a blow to a relatively robust Hogan agenda, and shows once again the entitlement mentality Democrats in the General Assembly have as none of them broke ranks to vote in favor of repeal. This despite the fact all fourteen Democrats represent counties which are forced to pay it.

On the other hand, just three of the seven Republicans represent “rain tax” counties, although two communities which have adopted a similar tax, Salisbury and Berlin, lie within the districts of Delegates Anderton and Otto, respectively.

While the Change Maryland group vows “the fight is not over,” it’s fairly likely that no bill repealing the rain tax will be passed this year. And now that we got yet another reminder of how bipartisanship works in Annapolis – it’s a one-way street because only Republicans are expected to be bipartisan, such as on the so-called “death with dignity” bill – perhaps it’s time for Republicans to consider Maryland’s answer to the “nuclear option” and begin to petition administration bills to the House floor.

You see, it’s only political junkies like me who pay much attention to committee votes, and chances are that most people have no idea which committees their particular member of the General Assembly sit on. In most cases, Democrats who control committees determine which bills will get votes and which ones will stay in their desk drawer after a hearing. The more damaging a bill could be to their special interests or to vulnerable members, the greater chance a bill never sees the light of day. Yes, fourteen Democrats had to take a hit on this one but being a Democrat on the Environment and Transportation Committee probably means approval from Radical Green groups like the Chesapeake Bay Foundation or League of Conservation Voters so they are probably safe from voter wrath in three years.

But if Republicans band together and use their power to petition bills to the floor, things get a little more uncomfortable for the Democrats because they can’t as easily control the process. Seeing this key piece of Hogan’s agenda being defeated, along with the bush-league antics surrounding the Democrats’ reaction to the State of the State address, tells me that it’s time to embarrass the other side into action. Don’t let Democrats get away with painting Larry Hogan as a do-nothing governor without putting them on the spot and making them go on the record.

Congressman Harris, we are waiting!

By Cathy Keim

The failure of Congress to hold President Obama accountable for his increasingly aggressive executive overreach is about to make them irrelevant. They have reneged on their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The protection against a tyrant that our Founders put into our Constitution was the separation of powers. Congress has abdicated their responsibility to resist and stop illegal actions by this president particularly by the power of the purse.

Back on January 6, 2015, in response to pressure from many angry constituents over his vote to re-elect John Boehner as Speaker of the House, Andy Harris posted the following on his Facebook page:

In November, Speaker Boehner was re-nominated by the Republican House Conference without a single opponent stepping forward. That was the appropriate time for an alternative to step forward and be considered by House Republicans. Today’s vote on the House floor was simply whether Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner was going to be Speaker of the House. I hope that we can now move forward and work with the Senate to pass common-sense conservative policies. If Speaker Boehner does not deliver on his promises, a Republican House Conference can be called by 50 members and I would join in that call. (Emphasis mine.)

I have no problem standing up for conservative principles to the Speaker and Republican leadership, such as my vote against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, as well as my votes against the Ryan-Murray budget deal and debt ceiling increases. Please know that I will continue to fight for conservative values and Maryland’s First District in the 114th Congress.

So, I am asking, “Congressman Harris, Speaker Boehner has clearly failed miserably at stopping the executive amnesty overreach. What are you going to do about it?”

The loss of jobs to illegal immigrants, the cost of welfare benefits, Social Security payments for older people that have not paid into the system, tax credits from the IRS for the previous three years amounting to thousands of dollars, etc. etc. The costs are extremely high both in taxpayer dollars expended and in stress to our citizens that cannot find jobs.

Congressman Harris, the damage from this illegal amnesty is far reaching. Again, I urge: please tell us what you plan to do about it.

P.S. Governor Hogan, our state budget is already in the red. This amnesty is going to cause additional drains on our taxpayers. Maryland joined in supporting the executive overreach prior to you being sworn in, but I cannot find any statement from you to say that you disagree with the amnesty.

In a “friend of the court” brief filed Monday, attorneys general from 12 states and the District of Columbia threw their backing behind the president’s executive actions, which could help nearly 5 million undocumented immigrants who currently live in the U.S., allowing them to seek work without fear of deportation.

Officials from 12 states – Washington, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont – and the District of Columbia filed the brief Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

In fact, according to WorldNetDaily, your press secretary ducked questions on the subject when asked.

A resurrection

Once in awhile I’m wrong. Maybe it was bad information, and maybe I just misinterpreted what I heard. But I was glad to be incorrect in this case.

A few weeks ago I posted on what I thought was the demise of Pork in the Park. But since we celebrated National Pig Day this week, I’m very, very happy the report of its demise was premature!

Instead, the annual festival was retooled and scaled back to a two-day event to be held on Friday, April 24 and Saturday, April 25 – the dates the now-shuttered Salisbury Festival would have fallen on. After the ill-fated move by Pork in the Park to Mother’s Day weekend last year (thanks to Easter occurring on its usual April weekend) the closure of the Salisbury Festival in favor of a fall event gives Pork in the Park a little better weather potential.

Other big changes immediately apparent are the serious reduction in admission prices from last year’s $7 to a much more affordable $3. When you factor in the food costs, families didn’t seem as willing to shell out the money to get in. You may not have the ambitious entertainment schedule of recent years, but as long as there are ribs to eat most will be happy to have the same sort of bands we usually hear for most of the fall festivals. (You can bring back Smokin’ Gunnz for me.)

It’s most likely the cost came down once the decision was made to broom the wing eating contest that comprised most of the Sunday entertainment and the national recording acts on Friday and Saturday nights – although I haven’t seen an updated entertainment scale yet the promotions are for the Eastern Shore Wing War (a people’s choice contest), the cornhole tournament, and pig races. (No wagering, please.)

Last year had to be a disappointment for the county’s tourism board, with the number of competitors way down from previous years. The trick will be getting those who passed on the event last year to place it back on their contest calendars. I think if they can get back to around 80 to 100 competitors that will be a success. It’s likely the cyclical nature of the food business has weeded out some of the weaker, less serious competition teams as barbeque is not necessarily the “in” thing right now so doubling the number who participated last year would be a good goal.

As for us, I am pleased to see the event come back. It may not be as ambitious as it was before, but at least the organizers conceded they reached a dead end and decided to give it another shot on the scale we were accustomed to. I’m sure I’ll be there, so hopefully I’ll have a goodly amount of company.

A White House welcoming committee?

By Cathy Keim

As I mentioned in yesterday’s post regarding DHS funding for Obama’s executive amnesty for illegal immigrants, there is much more to this than meets the eye. The plan is already in place to change our country by bringing in millions of immigrants.

Starting back on November 21, 2014, the White House started the White House Task Force on New Americans. (Editor’s note: this should not be confused with the Task Force on New Americans that former President George W. Bush created in 2006.) They held a series of calls. Sue Payne, co-host of the Pat McDonough Radio Show, was on those calls.

Here is her summary:

Task Force began meeting until Jan – Feb 2015, when a series of three (3) listening sessions was conducted to gather information for the preparation of a report due to the president by March 2015.

During the three listening sessions, it was disclosed that representatives of the white house and all cabinet members as well as immigrant groups would share information to be included in the report.

Some of the information exchanged was:

  • Immigrants should be viewed as seedlings to be planted in fertile soil to grow. The fertile soil was equated to the “receiving communities” which would be those communities the illegal aliens are now living in, but once out of the shadows, these communities become welcoming or receiving communities.
  • Others commented that these same communities would be viewed as “emergent immigrant communities.”
  • As a listener on the call, it was easy to logically see how these communities would welcome immigrants out of the shadows, but also, it could be construed that the host community members might well be relegated into the shadows. In essence, the seedlings consume the host and what was once the original community is transformed.
  • One comment cautioned against assuming these “New Americans” would want to assimilate. The interest was in navigation, not assimilation, and the navigation was through the system, focused on benefits.
  • Another commented that not all the New Americans would want work permits; rather many of the immigrant women wanted to be home with their children and not work, provided taxpayer benefits are secured for them and their children.
  • Another suggestion indicated that the Task Force consider these New Americans as refugees or asylum seekers, and as such considered for cash, medical, educational, and housing benefits.
  • This wave of New Americans will include many elderly and these older and unskilled immigrants need help to age successfully, i.e. getting into Social Security benefits as soon as possible.
  • In closing, there was a suggestion that another Executive Order declaring Thanksgiving be renamed Celebrate Immigrants Day.

Sue has also been interviewed on the Mark Levin radio show.

Despite the huge victory in the November elections with a clear mandate from the voters to stop Obama’s executive amnesty, Boehner and McConnell gave away all their bargaining power by passing the CRomnibus bill in December. What has just played out today with the House folding on the DHS funding is the final act of the play that was determined in December.

We need to replace the GOP leadership. If our current Congressmen will not remove Boehner now, then we need to remove our current Congressmen.

Stacking the deck by rule?

If you’re not aware of this, the saga of appointing new legislative members in Carroll County came to an inglorious end when the state Court of Appeals ruled it was within the Carroll County Republican Central Committee’s right to send multiple names to Governor Hogan for the selection of a new member of the legislature. Personally I think it should remain as one name, but apparently Larry likes having choices.

But you may not be aware – in fact, I wasn’t either until it was alluded to at Monday night’s Central Committee meeting – that the next state party convention, to be held next month in Ocean City, will feature a push to have counties adopt a standardized policy on filling legislative vacancies.

Indeed, there is logic and sense behind this as a whole. However, if it’s up to each county to make this official I would recommend the Central Committee in Wicomico County adopt this with at least one change. In Section 13, where it reads:

The Chair shall submit one name, however, at the request of the Governor, may submit more than one name.

I would ask the sentence be amended thus:

The Chair shall submit one name.

Here’s the reasoning why we should stay with a one-name approach (and why the Court of Appeals got it wrong.)

It has long been the practice that Central Committees in each county submitted just one name – problems only tended to occur with multi-county districts where more than one name was sent because counties preferred different candidates. (Senate District 36 is a recent example.)

That District 36 situation illustrates the problem with a multiple-name approach. If my memory serves me correctly, two counties selected eventual winner (and then-Delegate) Steve Hershey while the two other ones tabbed former Delegate Michael Smigiel. The choice was eventually made by Martin O’Malley, a Democrat. (Note each of the four counties sent up one name.)

Someday there will be a Democratic governor again who will preside over the selection for filling a vacancy in a conservative Republican district. Based on the language in this prospective amendment, what is to stop this governor from informing the Central Committee that he or she wants ten names rather than just three? Or instead of making a formal selection, the governor simply requested the forwarding of the name of everyone who applied, regardless of merit?

There are not a lot of representative functions for which the local Central Committee is charged – mainly their job is to represent the county at the state conventions. But it does serve at times as the electorate in those situations where it’s not practical to have an election – in recent meetings, the committee I serve with has selected applicants for the Board of Elections and interviewed for vacancies in our Board of Education. In the recent past, our local Central Committees have worked to select members of the General Assembly who died in office – Republicans for Page Elmore in 2010 and Democrats for Bennett Bozman in 2006.

Because Maryland doesn’t have the provision for special elections, we have to take that task seriously as voters won’t be able to correct us for many months or even three-plus years. It’s interesting that Kathy Fuller, who was one of the plaintiffs in the Carroll County case (supporting the submission of just one name) has the idea of prohibiting the selection of a member of the General Assembly for an administration position. With one exception, that’s the root cause of all this commotion.

But I digress. While there are many times we would be satisfied with any of a number of candidates, there is generally one who stands above the others in our estimation; however, there’s no guarantee the Appointments Secretary will feel the same since it’s likely he or she won’t do an in-depth interview.

One name has worked well in the past, and it’s a shame Larry Hogan mucked up the system because he didn’t like the Central Committee’s original choice. That’s what it boils down to. A more stout Central Committee would have stuck with their first choice, so I think we need the rules that will stiffen their collective spines.

Immigration and the DHS

By Cathy Keim

I thought that we would have a one-week reprieve to fight the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding showdown, but Boehner and the House caved today. Boehner passed the clean funding bill with 182 Democrats and 75 Republicans voting yes and 167 Republicans voting no.

We can take a moment to look at what the struggle was about. At its most basic level we had about 50 to 55 Congressmen and a handful of Senators that were fighting to stop the illegal amnesty overreach of the President. These few are men of principle that were standing for the rule of law that is the only protection the states have against federal dereliction of duty. At PJ Media, Andy McCarthy says:

The federal usurpation of the states’ capacity to defend themselves makes Congress responsible for the security and economic welfare of the states. Toward that end, Congress has enacted laws to protect the states against the wages of illegal immigration – the threats posed to public safety, to social services underwritten by state taxpayers, to the job market, and to the rule of law. These are the kinds of laws the states would enact themselves, and would enforce in a manner consistent with local conditions and sensibilities, if the federal government had not gobbled up their powers.

Those congressional laws are the states’ only defense. Those laws are what President Obama, through his illegal executive actions, is eviscerating. Therefore, Congress not only has an obligation to protect the institution of Congress, the legislative authority of which President Obama is usurping. Congress also has an extraordinary duty to defend the security of the states, which federal law has rendered defenseless.

Republicans should stop talking about this lawless amnesty as if it is only Obama’s decree. From the point of view of the states, the offense is coming from the federal government – not just the president. Congressional Republicans are a part of that government. They have their own constitutional obligations. If they aid and abet the president’s shredding of immigration laws that are meant to protect the states, then they are betraying the states and their citizens every bit as much as the president is. (emphasis mine)

The federal government has extended its control over the immigration laws and regulations so that no state can protect itself from the effects of immigration. Notice that I said immigration, not just illegal immigration.

It is time to take note that our federal government has been bringing in thousands of immigrants legally by deeming them refugees. Since they are classified as refugees, they are entitled to all the welfare benefits immediately upon entering the USA. In addition, these refugees are placed around the country (called seeding) so that they can change the very fabric of our nation. The states are not allowed to refuse these refugees, but they are required to pay for the additional costs due to increased school enrollments, health care costs, housing, etc.

There are reports that the illegal immigrants that this amnesty covers will be deemed refugees so that they can collect the benefits that they otherwise would not be eligible for.

Many, if not most, of the current refugees are Muslims, including refugees from Syria. We are completely unable to ascertain whether these refugees are actually fleeing for their lives or whether they are coming into our country for the purpose of jihad. At this time, we have not been giving priority to Christian refugees despite the brutal persecution that is occurring in the Middle East.

The State Department assures us that the refugees are vetted to weed out any danger. This is the same State Department that cannot state that ISIS is a radical Islamist organization.

If you want to do due diligence on the refugee resettlement problem, then you must go to Refugee Resettlement Watch and start reading what Ann Corcoran has been blogging about for years.

We need to demand that our leaders stop the flow of immigrants, both legal and illegal, into our country to give us time to assess who is coming. We really do not know how many illegal and legal immigrants are here. We have no idea whether they are assimilating into our way of life. There are dangerous indicators that assimilation is not occurring as it did with previous immigrant waves due to the multi-cultural mania that pervades our schools and media.

I was told last week that some students at our local high school will not even stand to say the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag. If we cannot get our homegrown youth to exercise rudimentary allegiance, then why would we think that we can assimilate masses of people from societies that loathe our way of life?

Now, back to the DHS debacle. We needed our Republican leaders to use the power of the purse to shut down Obama’s illegal amnesty. They had the ability to do this. The House could have refused to give one penny to pay for the illegal amnesty. If the Senate continued to refuse to pass a bill that would provide funding for DHS, but not fund the illegal portions, then the House should not have budged. They should have stood their ground and let the DHS shut down.

About 200,000 of the 230,000 DHS employees are essential, so they would have shown up for work anyway. Andy McCarthy points out:

Homeland security in the United States is more than adequately provided for by the hundreds of billions of dollars that continue to be spent each year — and that Congress has already approved for this year — on the Justice Department, the FBI, the 17-agency intelligence community, the armed forces, and state and local police forces.

Boehner, Andy Harris and the other GOP congressmen should have found the courage to join the bold few men of principle that are standing up for us. You can see who voted no on the final vote on Friday by going here. These were the men that were standing on principle that Obama’s amnesty was unconstitutional.

Today Andy Harris voted no for the DHS bill, but it was too late. Boehner passed it with Democrat votes. The betrayal is complete. Andy Harris will tell us that he voted no and and that should be good enough for us. Do not fall for the final vote tally. You must look at the whole episode. The Republicans that voted no to the DHS funding bill today should now do what they should have done in January: vote John Boehner out as Speaker.

Maryland’s top prize

I have to admit I was shocked as anyone else to hear Barbara Mikulski was not seeking re-election. Although I figured she was closer to the end of her tenure than the beginning, I would have thought she would privately anoint a successor. In that respect it would have been a good landing spot for Martin O’Malley if Anthony Brown won the governorship, giving O’Malley a leg up on the 2016 Senate race once it became clear his Presidential bid was going nowhere fast. Sadly for the former governor, Larry Hogan won.

But among the blizzard of reaction from mainstream state news outlets and other political commentators, there are several things to keep in mind. First of all, this opening in a statewide race would favor those with plenty of money and a team in place. It doesn’t have to be a person who has run statewide, and because this election allows members of the Maryland General Assembly to “run from cover” because their seats aren’t involved in the election, it’s very possible a few may take a shot.

Secondly – and perhaps more importantly from a “bench” standpoint – if you assume that at least three or four sitting Congressmen decide to make a run for the seat, the same rules apply. Consider, if you will, an Andy Harris run on the Republican side – how many local elected officials would be interested in that seat as it suddenly opens? You could imagine Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio taking a shot, along with politicians from the other side of the Bay in Harris’s district. Multiply that by three or four Congressional districts and the prospect for several changes in the General Assembly for the second half of Larry Hogan’s term is significantly higher.

Yet in any of these cases, the decisions will have to be made early, probably no later than June. And that’s not just for the Senate seat, but those who may see themselves on the lower rung of the ladder in the House. Once those dominoes begin to fall, there’s no telling how far the stack could reach because it will all depend on who wins the respective primaries.

But just as the 2014 election proved to create a tremendous shakeup in the House of Delegates, the 2016 election may be cataclysmic for the state’s Congressional delegation. Even if just three or four run for office, the effect would be huge given that no more than two seats of the ten have changed hands in any recent election. The effect may be similar to 1986, when Mikulski first won office and several other Congressional seats picked up new faces (however, that was also a state election year, unlike 2016.)

So rather than try and predict the parlor game of who will run, the point of this piece is to remind people of the importance of a strong political bench. You have one seat that is a six-year term with no term limits and (quite honestly) not a lot of responsibility when you compare it to the governor’s chair. The last time this opportunity came up was 2006, but that was a year when state office holders had to weigh the odds of emerging from a crowded field against the certainty of re-election – not so a decade later.

The question isn’t so much who, but how many. It wouldn’t surprise me if the 2006 total of 28 aspirants isn’t surpassed in 2016. Most of them will be no-names or perennial candidates with no shot, but there will be some turnover in our Congressional delegation because of this sudden opening.

The Democrats’ biggest fear (for now)

It’s a concept I first heard from Rush Limbaugh, but it makes common sense: your opponents will show you what they are most afraid of by what they speak about and the terms by which they do so. In this case, perhaps their biggest fear going into 2016 is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who was the subject of a DNC e-mail I received featuring this quote:

The DNC characterized this as an unsavory comparison, which some called a “gaffe.”

Obviously Walker was trying to portray himself as one who actually has a spine, unlike a lot of those who are in federal office at this time.  As a governor he has little foreign policy experience, but he has faced down more than his share of policy-based adversaries given his stance against the public-sector unions in Wisconsin. (It’s interesting to note that the Democrats in that Wisconsin case turned tail and ran rather than stand and fight for their beliefs. Par for the course.)

But Scott Walker has surged to the top of the polls because he’s maintained a relatively conservative line through the four-plus years he’s served as Wisconsin governor, winning not just two but three elections where Democrats have thrown the kitchen sink at him, including a trumped-up ethics investigation. A state that was considered to be safe for Democrats is now up for grabs because a conservative has led it for an extended period of time and performed successfully. That turnaround and the fact he actually stared down a key liberal constituent group and prevailed explains much of Walker’s appeal at this stage of the game. It’s a record none of the Democrats currently eyeing the nomination can match.

You may also recall that Walker was the subject of liberal wailing and gnashing of teeth a week or so earlier when he didn’t bite on questions about Rudy Giuliani’s remark questioning Barack Obama’s love of America. Add this to the CPAC speech and more and more on the Right are convinced Scott Walker is the Left’s biggest fear going into 2016 – so, to the liberals, he must be destroyed at all costs. Walker is hardly an elite or establishment GOP fellow, and it’s that relationship with the common man that Democrats fear, unlike Mitt Romney who they could (and successfully did) portray as a Wall Street patrician.

At this point, though, what difference does it make? To Americans who want a clear choice for President it makes all the difference in the world.

The DHS funding disaster

By Cathy Keim

This week in DC was the disaster that we all saw coming last December with the passing of the CROmnibus bill. The GOP promised that if only they passed the massive budget that gave Obama everything he wanted, they would hold the line on the illegal immigrant executive overreach when funding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). So they gave up the momentum of the huge election win to allow the lame duck congress to vote for CROmnibus. In the outrage that followed this betrayal, conservatives begged for Boehner to not be returned as House Speaker. Despite 25 brave Congressmen voting against Boehner, the rest voted for him and the status quo.

Now the final betrayal that was set in place last December is coming to fruition. The proposition that the GOP would stand firm in a budget battle where the main leverage was a government shutdown of the DHS was already unlikely at best – then the Charlie Hebdo massacre happened in Paris and unlikely became impossible. The GOP is terrified that if the DHS were shut down, they would be blamed if a terrorist attack occurred. Never mind that of the 230,000 DHS employees, 200,000 are deemed essential and would be required to show up to work during the shutdown. (As in many of these instances, the so-called “shutdown” is more like a slowdown, and it’s almost certain they’ll be paid in the end.)

The House Republicans passed a DHS bill with a full year of funding but with amendments that addressed the illegal immigrant amnesty dictated by President Obama. The Senate has had the bill for several weeks but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was unable to get the bill passed, so he stripped the House amendments out and sent it back to them on Friday. This is where it got somewhat confusing, because When the two bodies pass different bills they have to be reconciled.

The House voted at 2:43 pm on Friday to go to reconciliation with the Senate. All the Democrats voted against reconciliation. The Senate will vote on this on Monday and it is expected that all Democrats in the Senate will vote against it. The Democrats only want a clean bill passed, so they are not willing to try and reconcile the House bill with the Senate bill.

As the deadline drew near, there was a flurry of votes, which I found difficult to follow from the press coverage. However, Congressman Thomas Massie (KY – 4th Congressional District) posted an explanation on his Facebook page.

The entire post is worth reading to understand exactly what happened on Friday, but the bottom line is:

In summary, using the power of the purse to keep the executive branch in check is a legitimate and constitutional strategy, but our republican leadership chose poorly last December when selecting security funding as a point of leverage. Having backed themselves into a corner, last night House republican leadership abandoned their own plan and struck a deal with minority leader Pelosi that gave the President what he wanted for at least another week. In my estimation, the long-term prospect of using the power of the purse to stop the President’s unilateral action is bleak now that House leadership has signaled a temporary retreat without gaining a single concession from the Senate.

Our current Republican leadership is unable and/or unwilling to stop the tide of the President’s executive overreach. The citizens that voted last November for the opposition party to use the power of the purse to stop the President are left with nothing to show for their votes. It would appear that we are in for a painful two years as an uncontrollable President is left to execute his whims on a defenseless populace.

MCAC and CBF to Hogan: drop dead

As I suspected, the slight bend toward agricultural interests that Governor Hogan made with the revised Phosphorus Management Tool regulations – now re-dubbed the Agriculture Phosphorus Initiative – was met with hostility from the environmental community. On Friday the Maryland Clean Agriculture Coalition and Chesapeake Bay Foundation released this joint statement:

We commend the Hogan Administration for taking the problem of phosphorus pollution seriously and are pleased that the Administration embraces the scientific evidence showing we must implement the Phosphorus Management Tool to better manage manure on oversaturated farm fields.

The environmental community was not involved in the drafting of Governor Hogan’s proposed regulations that were released on Tuesday, and we have gone over them carefully since. Unfortunately, the regulations do not provide the adequate protection or assurance we need, and as such, we must oppose them. Our concerns are detailed in the attached analysis.

The regulations include a significant loophole, referred to by the agricultural industry as a “safety net,” that makes it unclear if they would ever result in full implementation of this much-needed tool. We adamantly oppose this lack of a clear, enforceable end date for putting the Phosphorus Management Tool into place.

It is also unclear whether the proposed ban on phosphorus on fields with FIV over 500 would actually reduce the amount of manure being applied to farm fields or protect Maryland water quality. The Maryland Department of Agriculture has been unable to clarify this.

Additionally, the regulations add one more year of delay, and they include troublesome secrecy provisions.

We continue to whole-heartedly support legislation sponsored by Senator Pinsky and Delegate Lafferty (SB 257 / HB 381) to implement the Phosphorus Management Tool with a six-year phase-in. Given the difficulties we’ve had with the regulatory process over the past three years, we prefer having a strong statute in place.

Their statement is an expanded version of a statement I posted on Wednesday from the Maryland Clean Agriculture Coalition. The MCAC is an interesting group in that none of the 21 groups involved has a thing to do with farming; instead many of these are “riverkeeper” groups from around the state. These groups blame farmers for a disproportionate share of the problems with Chesapeake Bay, imagining they are just wantonly dumping manure into streams and creeks.

While the groups have done a comparison sheet (or “detailed analysis”) between the O’Malley and Hogan proposals, their chief complaint can be summed up in this paragraph:

The Hogan PMT provisions for an “evaluation” for assessing manure markets and transportation programs, available land acreage, etc., allow for this “evaluation” to stall movement of PMT implementation for a year while MDA conducts a re-evaluation. The result is the possibility of an endless year by year postponement and re-evaluation possibility. (Emphasis in original.)

The way I read this is that, whether the infrastructure is in place or not – and, to be honest, I’m dubious of whether it can be in place – the CBF wants to move ahead on the PMT issue. Even the large-scale concession of immediately stopping the application of manure to certain fields, which is a provision allegedly affecting 1 of every 5 farmers on the Lower Shore, isn’t satisfying to the environmental coalition. They demand the data on how this would affect farmers, but pooh-pooh the need for data on how these regulations might affect the rural Maryland economy through the actual on-site studies sought by the Hogan administration.

In short, the contempt for the agricultural community by these groups is palpable.

So Larry Hogan tried to walk the middle ground. In backing off his original dead-set opposition to the PMT as “mandating how (farmers) use their property” to implementing a slightly less onerous version he still alienated the environmental community as well as discouraging some of the farmers who will be most adversely affected.

This whole episode will hopefully be a lesson to the new administration: you won’t get the friendship or the votes of those who would just as soon see the Eastern Shore collapse economically thanks to the demise of the agricultural industry regardless of what you do. So stick to those issues you ran on: improving Maryland’s economy and lowering the tax and regulatory burden on its citizens. Remember, no amount of regulation is enough for liberals, so why cater to them in the first place?