Month: March 2016

A race for 2018?

Bloggers love it when they can tie multiple points together in one cohesive post, and here I have the opportunity to do so thanks to a press release from Delegate David Vogt, who is moonlighting as a candidate for Congress from the Sixth Congressional District. Here’s what Vogt had to say about likely opponent John Delaney and his insistence that Larry Hogan should denounce GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump:

John Delaney should just go ahead and declare his candidacy for Governor so he can stop pretending to represent the 6th District.  Congressman Delaney would rather support an avowed socialist or a career criminal over an accomplished businessman who is tackling the issues that matter.

The Congressman’s time in office has been spent as a rubber-stamp for the failed Obama/Pelosi liberal agenda, and it is no surprise that he is calling on one popular, successful Republican to denounce another.

The people of the 6th District need a Congressman, not a political pundit, and Delaney’s incompetent handling of the Iran nuclear deal, the Syrian refugee crisis, and Obamacare shows that he isn’t qualified to be either.

It’s intriguing to me that Vogt feels that way because I have those same suspicions about Delaney’s plans for 2018. In a lot of respects, Delaney is the Democratic mirror image of Hogan with a business background and, aside from the two terms in Congress, a similar political record. (Had Hogan had a specially-gerrymandered district created for him, perhaps he would have gone in another direction after winning his 1992 Congressional campaign. It was a trajectory his old boss, Bob Ehrlich, employed in 2002.)

Obviously Democrats are trying to throw the kitchen sink at Hogan legislatively but try as they might Hogan’s approval numbers continue to rise, reaching a stratospheric 70 percent in the most recent Maryland Poll released today. (H/T: Maryland Reporter.) Yes, that is 7 out of 10. I have no doubt they may chip away at the approval rating as a strategy but Maryland Democrats also have to find a candidate willing to take on a popular Republican governor running for re-election. Will anyone have the same ambitious streak as Martin O’Malley?

There’s one thing missing from the Maryland Poll that would serve as a counterpoint to Hogan’s numbers, and that is an approval rating for the General Assembly. We know Congress is unpopular (although the “throw the bastards out” mentality stops with their own representative) but no one polls regarding our body politic either during or after the “90 days of terror.” With the number of veto overrides and the blockage of some of Hogan’s legislation, it would be intriguing to see how popular the Maryland legislature is.

But returning to 2018: the Democrats have a relatively short bench of willing candidates with name recognition, and it’s unclear just how well Delaney is known outside the Capital region. The only other statewide candidate being mentioned is Peter Franchot, and right now he has a rather sweet gig as Comptroller – maybe not quite to the extent of Louis Goldstein, but if he wants another term or two it’s doubtful Maryland voters would object. At the age of 70 by the time the 2018 election comes around, Franchot would be the oldest governor to win election in at least a century. (AG Brian Frosh is reputedly not interested in being Governor.)

As for Hogan and Trump, that’s a matchup which seems like oil and water. While I’m sure Hogan respects the business acumen of Trump, the bombast The Donald brings is a polarizing feature among both parties that Hogan is likely to avoid. Hogan was indebted to Chris Christie for campaigning on his behalf, but if I were to pick a remaining hopeful Hogan would back he probably lines up best with fellow Governor John Kasich. But Hogan may just steer clear of an endorsement until mid-April, seeing who is still in the race.

Report: immigrant share outstripping population growth

A fascinating study from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) came across my e-mail the other day.

We all know there has been a massive influx of immigrants (both legal and illegal) in recent decades, but the numbers CIS reports are astounding: approximately 61 million immigrants and their young American-born children now live in the United States. Of that group, 45 million are legal immigrants and their children.

CIS took the data set back to 1970 to find that the share of immigrants and their children in this country has increased from 13 million to 61 million in that timeframe. As a percentage of population, this group has surged from 6.6% to 18.9%, although you may notice CIS concedes there may be an undercount in the number of immigrants.

While CIS has valid reasoning to exclude more recent census counts (because they did not ask about place of birth), 1970 is also a good demarcation line because it came shortly after the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 went into effect. Prior to that, immigration had been limited for four decades so the 1970 census was the nadir for immigrants’ share of the population.

A key cultural difference, however, seems to permeate the most recent wave of immigration. My ancestors came over in the late 19th century, along with millions of others, in order to better their lives with the opportunities America provided for them. But they also chose to be part of a “melting pot” where, if the initial immigrants didn’t assimilate, their children were eager to conform with American culture.

Now we have more of what is described as a “salad bowl” mentality where we are supposed to honor whatever culture comes along – good, bad, or indifferent. This more recent wave of immigrants, at least anecdotally, is content to live as they did in the old country and raise their children as foreigners. Granted, American culture still has its pull but as time goes on we seem to be losing that which makes us exceptional.

CIS asks a number of valid questions:

While the national debate has focused on illegal immigration, the enormous impact of immigration is largely the result of those brought in legally. These numbers raise profound questions that are seldom asked: What number of immigrants can be assimilated? What is the absorption capacity of our nation’s schools, health care system, infrastructure, and, perhaps most importantly, its labor market? What is the impact on the environment and quality of life from significantly increasing the nation’s population size and density? With some 45 million legal immigrants and their young children already here, should we continue to admit a million new legal permanent immigrants every year?

It’s a series of questions that can’t just be answered with a wall, whether Mexico pays for it or not. Border security can be part of the solution, but 40% to 50% of the illegal immigrants had permission to be here initially – they chose to overstay their visas. That’s a challenge a wall won’t address.

My cohort Cathy Keim proposed a pause on immigration last year, which would address some of the problem. Although her point was more with bringing a halt to Syrian refugees and accepting student visas from particular nations, hopefully the mess that is the current system will be among the first things addressed by a new administration.

America is, as always, a welcoming nation. But it’s up to those who come here not to wear out their welcome by insisting that things be just like where they came from – otherwise, what was the point in coming here?

Small bits of good news in evil times

By Cathy Keim

It is great to receive good news when the Maryland General Assembly is in session. Too often one opens the morning emails to find a call to arms to fight off the newest horror that our Delegates and Senators are perpetrating on us. So it was with great pleasure that I read this announcement from Maryland Against Physician Assisted Suicide:

We had to share this exciting news with you as soon as we could. Today, the physician assisted suicide bill, SB418, was withdrawn from consideration by its lead Senate sponsor, Sen. Ron Young. Sen. Young stated that he didn’t believe the bill had enough support in the Senate Judicial Proceedings committee to pass, and he’d rather withdraw it than have it voted down.

This bill was cross-filed with HB404, sponsored by Delegate Shane Pendergrass, so there is still a small (but unlikely) possibility that it could proceed from the House side. Sadly, it can be assumed that the bill will be reintroduced again next year since the progressives never, never give up no matter how bad the idea.

In fact, the Washington Post reports that:

Kim Callinan, chief program officer for the advocacy group Compassion & Choices, said her organization will continue to push for passage of such legislation in Maryland and elsewhere. “From our experience, it takes multiple times,” she said. “This is not uncommon.”

Compassion and Choices was formerly known as the Hemlock Society. You have to give the progressive groups credit for advancing their cause by changing their language to fit the times.

Nor was this their first bite at the apple. I covered the issue last year when it was called Death with Dignity. This year they tweaked the bill and called it the End of Life Option Act. We will just have to wait and see what new name it appears under next year.

I took the time to watch the committee hearings for the House bill a couple of weeks ago and wanted to mention some thoughts I had on the newest attempt to push the Culture of Death in Maryland. First of all, the many citizens that came to testify against the bill were articulate, compassionate, and informed. They included doctors, nurses, pharmacists, caregivers, social workers, and family members.

Advocates for the disabled made a particularly poignant argument for not passing this bill because people with intellectual and developmental disabilities are already discriminated against by the quality of life argument.

“Not Dead Yet, The Resistance, is a national, grassroots disability rights group that opposes legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia as deadly forms of discrimination.” I found them while reading up on the issues. I do not know if they participated in the testimony at the Maryland hearings, but their website is a great resource for information and facts such as:

Although intractable pain has been emphasized as the primary reason for enacting assisted suicide laws, the top five reasons Oregon doctors actually report for issuing lethal prescriptions are the “loss of autonomy” (89.9%), “less able to engage in activities” (87.4%), “loss of dignity” (83.8%), “loss of control of bodily functions” (58.7%) and “feelings of being a burden”(38.3%). (Death With Dignity Act Annual Reports, PDF download) These are disability issues.

Many people are so afraid of being disabled that they would rather kill themselves than suffer the ignominy of being disabled. However, their demand for death puts all disabled people at risk. Once it is deemed acceptable to kill people to end their suffering – since poor quality of life is considered suffering – then all disabled people are one step closer to being denied care and the ultimate form of discrimination: euthanasia.

I have generally thought about life issues in term of Judeo-Christian ethics, which are more than sufficient for me to oppose abortion, suicide, assisted suicide, and euthanasia. The concept of Imago Dei, that we are formed in the image of God, which gave us the basis for our Declaration of Independence and the foundation of our whole system of government based on the God-given rights of the individual, is what I base my principles on.

However, in this present age of post-Christian thought, it is not bad to have some principled arguments from others that come alongside the Church to make the stand for life to an unbelieving culture.

One moment of the testimony that I found revealing was when a physician who works with elderly patients and helped craft the Maryland patient rights law told the Delegates that HB404 was poorly crafted and would cause many problems legally and ethically if they passed it. The Delegate who was questioning him declared that they had taken a lot of time and care to write the bill. Despite his testimony pointing out flaws, she was unwilling to admit that there might be problems in the offing should the bill pass.

The hubris of this Delegate was a picture of what we are up against when our politicians get together for ninety days to wreak havoc on our state to please their advocacy groups. Their lack of understanding of the basic issues at hand is readily evident and their lack of concern for what the laws will unleash is disconcerting. Single party dominance of our state has not enhanced our legislative experiences.

The second piece of good news that I saw this week concerns SB868 which would require that all students have three doses of the HPV vaccine prior to entering ninth grade. Senator Shirley Nathan-Pulliam, the sponsor, pulled the bill after receiving more information about the vaccine.

The American Academy of Pediatricians stated in January:

It has recently come to the attention of the College that one of the recommended vaccines could possibly be associated with the very rare but serious condition of premature ovarian failure (POF), also known as premature menopause.

They call for additional testing to be done to ensure the safety of the vaccine.

This bill is also cross filed with HB1178. I called Delegate Angela Angel’s office to inquire if she would pull her bill also. Her office responded that there was discussion between the bill sponsors to decide what to do. The hearing is currently scheduled for March 10, so we will have to continue to watch that bill.

Just a word on the inconsistencies of the human mind. It is in vogue to eat hormone free meat and to avoid all sorts of food that is deemed not healthy, but at the same time we push young women to be on hormonal birth control and try to mandate that all students be vaccinated against human papilloma virus (HPV).

No one questions whether it is healthy for our girls to be on hormonal birth control for years, but you won’t eat a chicken breast from a chicken that is fed hormones?

Furthermore, while HPV is a sexually transmitted disease that does cause cancer, young people can avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy by not having sex! Perhaps we need to spend more time teaching our youth about the dangers of promiscuous sex rather than subjecting them to hormone manipulation and vaccines which may cause premature menopause.

Editor’s note: In verifying the websites (as I always do to check the links) I read what Cathy sent and then found this from the Patients Rights Action Fund:

Maryland – This week assisted suicide proponents withdrew legislation noting to the Associated Press, “it became clear the measure did not have enough votes…” The bill author further mentioned that it is unlikely a new bill will be reintroduced next year due to the strong opposition. The Maryland Senate includes 35 Democrats and only 12 Republicans, and the House of Delegates holds 98 Democrats and 43 Republicans. (Emphasis mine.)

So we will see if they keep to their word or try it again under yet another name. They could also be saving it to make it an election-year issue in 2018.

Explaining the partisan difference

Reader Joe Ollinger forwarded to me a recent Washington Times summary by Anjali Shastry of a Democratic counter-proposal to Governor Hogan’s redistricting reforms.  On the heels of our latest Wicomico County Republican Club meeting that featured Walter Olson, co-chair of the state’s Redistricting Reform Committee, the timing is fabulous.

There are a couple great tacit admissions that we should take away from the Maryland majority’s plan. In essence they were conceding that, indeed, these districts were put together for partisan advantage. But rather than be contrite, they whine that they can’t “disarm” unless some other Republican state somewhere does the same. That condition may already be met: North Carolina had to postpone its Congressional primary elections in order to redraw two districts deemed to be inappropriate, and that is a state with a Republican-controlled General Assembly.

Of course, even that won’t satisfy Maryland Democrats who have thrived on the ability to redraw the maps to suit their purposes. For example, what are the odds that random chance would dictate 44 of the 50 Republicans in the Maryland House represent districts that are larger than the state average? And did the voting tastes of the state change so much that in two years (2000 to 2002) the state’s Congressional delegation went from a 4-4 split to 6-2 Democrat at a time when then-President George W. Bush’s popularity in the aftermath of 9/11 was at a peak?

People are fed up with the crap. While I question their wisdom in believing Donald Trump is the appropriate candidate to convey the point, there are millions who are tired of the political gamesmanship. Here in Maryland Larry Hogan rode into office as a centrist Republican, has arguably become the state’s most popular politician with the impending retirement of Senator Barbara Mikulski, and has decided one of his priorities is to make the redistricting process more equitable between not just the two parties, but voters all over the spectrum who may not like the two party options. I can’t argue with that. (It’s not like he asked to go back to the old system where each Maryland county had its own Senator, which times two is the method I would favor to restore balance to our state’s government by making sure counties have their interests protected. Instead of direct elections, it would be the county’s legislative body making the selections.)

And then we have Jamie Raskin’s “ranked choice” idea. This video probably explains it better than I can:

270ponents claim that RCV encourages turnout and discourages negative campaigning, insofar as it’s been applied on a local level. However, there’s an argument that voters won’t take the time to familiarize themselves with the multiple choices and that RCV can still be manipulated by the formation of slates.

Yet Raskin’s idea of multiple-candidate Congressional districts is already being implemented here in Maryland, a state which has a variance of House districts based on their overlaying Senate districts: some are three single-member divisions, some are divided into a two-member district and a single-member district, and others are completely at-large. In most of those at-large cases a single party wins and oftentimes the opposition doesn’t even fill out the ballot.

As is often the case, when Maryland Democrats don’t get their way they point the finger of blame at outside entities. Sorry, this one is on you guys.

Pricing themselves out of the market?

Class envy comes once again to the sports world.

I was perusing my browser when I came upon an article from AP writer Paul Newberry, one which whines about baseball sending the wrong message to its fans. This is a good example of its tone:

Given that many struggling Americans haven’t had a raise in years, their frustration epitomized by a tumultuous presidential race, perhaps it wasn’t the best time for (MLB player Yoenis) Cespedes to arrive at New York Mets camp in a different ride six days in a row.

The flashy outfielder pulled up in a Ford F-250, Lamborghini Aventador, Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione, Jeep Wrangler and a pair of Polaris Slingshot three-wheel motorcycles — all of them customized to the tune of about $80,000. Of course, that’s a pittance compared to the cost of the actual vehicles, with the Lamborghini alone going for more than $300,000.

Cespedes signed a three-year deal over the winter for $75 million, so he has the coin to spend on these cars. Yes, to most it would seem excessive to have so many cars but then how many people make $25 million a year to play a game? This is nothing new: back in the early days of the Depression, Babe Ruth held out for a contract that exceeded the amount President Hoover was paid at the time. His reasoning? “I had a better year than he did.”

The point is that these athletes are participating in a relatively free market, so the owners of the teams are willing to pay $25 million a year or more to the most elite players, those who have played long enough to earn the right to be free agents. (By comparison, the Orioles’ Manny Machado had an outstanding season last year for the bargain basement price of $548,ooo. This season he will make a cool $5 million, and that will likely increase again next year when he becomes arbitration-eligible. Machado can become a free agent after the 2019 season.)

Perhaps it’s a function of having the most games in a season (and most opportunities to create revenue) but baseball is still a cheap ticket in comparison to other sports. The average ticket price for MLB runs about $30, but one can go to anywhere between 4 and 14 MLB games for the price of one average NFL ticket.

Nor does this consider the plethora of minor league teams out there, where the average ticket price may be less than $10 a pop. That’s still more than you’ll pay to see a AP writer bang out a column complaining about how much pro baseball players make.

You see, when people complain about how much money others earn – particularly when they do these comparisons of how much CEOs make compared to workers on the assembly line or checkout lane – they fail to comprehend the skill level and hard work required to be that successful. In the case of pro sports players, there is also the relatively brief length of career to consider. (Some players have accounted for this – for example, Chris Davis of the Orioles will have $42 million of the $161 million he signed for in a seven-season deal deferred over 15 years after the playing contract expires. Davis turns 30 later this month, so he will be paid under this contract until he is 51 years old.)

Similarly, there is only one CEO of a company and perhaps just a few thousand individuals who have the talent and experience to perform the tasks required. On the other hand, the job description of most of those on the low end of the pay scale is generally unskilled or semi-skilled. Granted, some of these tasks require a good face to the public but in general they aren’t adding a tremendous amount to the bottom line on an individual basis.

So pardon me if I think the writer is a whiner. If you don’t want to watch a baseball game, don’t go. But you’ll find me at my Shorebird games, which are still really affordable.

Adding another voice

Ask and you shall receive.

You might recall that I said in my latest odds and ends piece:

Finally, if there were a third person I would like to add to monoblogue (at least on a weekly basis) it’s this lady.

“This lady” is energy columnist and commentator Marita Noon, and beginning next week she will indeed be a third voice for monoblogue. Right now the plan is for me to run her weekly columns in this Thursday morning timeslot.

When I brought Cathy Keim on board last year, I did so with the hope to increase the number of posts and readers. The situation changed when I began working again full-time so I’m definitely not complaining about having Cathy in the fold – she has been a Godsend in terms of keeping this website full of daily content and even covering some events I couldn’t get to. Moreover, Cathy brings a passion and expertise in several key conservative areas such as immigration and abortion – she makes the site more well-rounded since I focus on different areas of the political world such as legislation and electoral races and prospects.

In that same way, I expect Marita to bring a very similar perspective to mine when it comes to energy issues. She understands that using the resources we were blessed with is one ticket to the prosperity we’re able to achieve in a capitalist system. Yet rather than just an armchair quarterback like me she’s a recognized expert in the field, so she will be a valuable contributor to monoblogue. I’ve dabbled in the arena for awhile, but I thought Noon could make some definite improvements in making energy more of a staple topic here.

I’m going to quote her short bio from the website called Energy Makes America Great. (I’m certainly sure it helps.)

Marita Noon is the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts have made Marita “America’s voice for energy.”

Marita is also a columnist for Breitbart.com and a regular contributor to many online commentary sites including The American Spectator, RedState.com, Canada Free Press and NetRight Daily. Additionally her writing can be found in numerous newspapers and websites. (Next week this one will be included.)

Yet there’s also a sneaky reason I’m putting her on Thursday – come April, I will have a website that can grab two very diverse audiences that aren’t necessarily nuts-and-bolts political observers. Marita will come along in the morning and my Shorebird of the Week will return for the evenings. Since I write SotW on Wednesday nights for Thursday posting, I have a free day to work on other things – I’m not promising anything, but maybe there’s a book for the post-Trump world in the making. So We May Breathe Free just begs for a sequel.

So I hope you’re looking forward to the addition as much as I am.

Carson runs out of path

After a disappointing Super Tuesday round of fourth- and fifth-place finishes, Ben Carson saw the writing on the wall and, while not officially suspending his campaign, promised a different way forward. In a statement released by the campaign, Carson said that new direction would be established later this week at CPAC:

I have decided not to attend the Fox News GOP Presidential Debate tomorrow night in Detroit.  Even though I will not be in my hometown of Detroit on Thursday, I remain deeply committed to my home nation, America.  I do not see a political path forward in light of last evening’s Super Tuesday primary results. However, this grassroots movement on behalf of “We the People” will continue. Along with millions of patriots who have supported my campaign for President, I remain committed to Saving America for Future Generations. We must not depart from our goals to restore what God and our Founders intended for this exceptional nation.

I appreciate the support, financial and otherwise, from all corners of America.  Gratefully, my campaign decisions are not constrained by finances; rather by what is in the best interests of the American people.

I will discuss more about the future of this movement during my speech on Friday at CPAC in Washington, D.C.

So what began as a groundswell of support for over three years – an odyssey which began with his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013 that aroused the interest of God-fearing conservatives around the nation – comes to an apparent end today. But I don’t think Carson is done contributing to the campaign.

There is a segment of the electorate that needed a person like Carson in the race as the moral backstop. While his positions were not conservative in a classical sense and could be construed as being all over the map in some cases, we have a front-runner who exhibits even more that same tendency to pander to an audience. In Carson’s case, once the conversation got outside the realm of certain issues he hasn’t studied or thought a lot about he ran into trouble – of course, being anti-Christian the media was always there to make a big deal out of it.

I’m sure Dr. Carson is a very intelligent man, and given his line of work I also reckon he’s a quick study. Yet in this year of the outsider candidate, it seemed like Carson didn’t get the pass that Donald Trump did when it came to speaking about the issues given neither have a great deal of political experience. (However, Trump briefly ran for President when he sought the Reform Party nomination in 2000. So he has a little bit of practice, but not much. Since Carly Fiorina ran for the Senate from California in 2010, she doesn’t count in this category.)

So I will be interested to see when Carson’s new path leads, and how many of his supporters will follow.

Updating my tier map – the middle tier is now empty:

  • Bottom tier: George Pataki (Marco Rubio), Donald Trump
  • Fourth tier: Chris Christie (Donald Trump), John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina
  • Third tier: Rick Santorum (Rubio), Jim Gilmore, Ben Carson
  • Second tier: Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee, Lindsey Graham (Jeb Bush)
  • Top tier: Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal (Rubio)

Time for a Cruz/Rubio unity ticket

As I write this, the votes are being tallied on Super Tuesday. While Donald Trump is grabbing the headlines (and the largest share of the delegates) by finishing first so far in all but three or possibly four states, it’s worth stating that in all but two of those states the combined vote totals of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio exceed Trump’s. It’s likely Donald Trump has the most passionate supporters – I can vouch for it on my Facebook feed – but the question is that of whether he has reached his ceiling. Polling has indicated that in a two-person race both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio would prevail in a head-to-head matchup with Trump.

So the time is now for one of them to get out, and based on the results of tonight it’s Marco Rubio who should be voted off the island. Now I know that Rubio backers will argue that states where he projects well have still not voted yet, and Marco will get on the winning board tonight in Minnesota. But Cruz has three wins under his belt and has generally outperformed Rubio overall. There’s no clear second place winner, but Cruz seems to have the advantage and we need to break up this logjam if there’s any hope of saving the Republican Party from the absolute disaster a Donald Trump nomination would present.

Over the last few days I’ve heard a lot of people say the GOP has had it coming – their inaction and lack of principled opposition to the Obama agenda has placed the rank-and-file voter in a position where they demand a tough-talking outsider to roll into Washington and unclog the sewer. I get it, but Donald Trump ain’t Roto-Rooter.

Instead, he would just replace one dictatorial regime with another while presenting another classic problem for the Republican Party – how do conservatives oppose the President who is the titular head of your party? When Trump puts forth the wall with the “big, beautiful door” that lets the illegal immigrants we have stay here and encourages thousands more, what conservative can oppose him? And if he doesn’t get his way with Congress rewriting libel laws to suit his fancy, do you honestly think The Donald wouldn’t write executive orders so he can sue his press opponents into oblivion? The First Amendment seems strictly optional to him, unless you favor him in a “yuge” way.

The longer three of the other four non-Trump candidates linger, the more possible it is for Donald Trump to win the nomination without polling over 50 percent in any one state. Unfortunately, this primary season has been an argument that we need to change the system but that won’t happen until 2020 at the earliest, and by then it may be too late to save the Republic. 12 straight years of ultra-liberal rule did a lot of damage to us during the Depression, and we’re in a far more weakened condition this time around.