All politics is local – Page 169

Gilchrest votes for Popeye over policy

The House just passed a $124 billion funding measure for the troops in Iraq – well, $100 billion for them and $24 billion for a myriad of other projects. The most infamous one is buried way back on Page 115 (the .pdf file of HB1591 is 168 pages):

There is hereby appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture $25,000,000, to remain available until expended, to make payments to growers and first handlers, as defined by the Secretary, of fresh spinach that were unable to market spinach crops as a result of the Food and Drug Administration Public Health Advisory issued on September 14, 2006. The payment made to a grower or first handler under this section shall not exceed 75 percent of the value of the unmarketed spinach crops.

Of course, the key objection MOST of the GOP (with the two exceptions of Rep. Gilchrest and Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, also Rep. JoAnn Davis of Virginia did not vote) had was the withdrawal date of March 31, 2008. The Republicans have zero objection to voting for money for the troops. Like the 198 House Republicans who properly voted against this measure despite its military funding, I’m one of those who objects to any specific pullout date – you withdraw when the job is finished. If this were to pass and somehow survive a Bush veto, the Iraqi people would enjoy a calm before the coming storm with the summer of 2008 becoming a bloodbath in Iraq, and possibly other places far beyond the Middle East. Who knows what an emboldened Iran is capable of?

But we know had this bill been a “clean” bill without the pork, the result would’ve been opposite – the minority GOP voting for it and Democrats voting no. Obviously the Democrats want peace at any cost.

I know Wayne Gilchrest believes that he’s going to vote for this because voting against it could be implied as denying money for our troops and he won’t vote that way. I’m willing to understand the nuance in this, though – no Democrat propaganda that would say Wayne Gilchrest voted to cut funding to the troops would be unresponded to by me. I know what the story is behind this vote.

But once again, I’m furious with the representative I helped to elect. Like I noted in my post yesterday about GOP Delegate Page Elmore siding with the Democrats on Maryland’s HB400, it doesn’t matter how often you vote with the Democrats because they’re still going to run someone against you and lump you in with those evil conservative Republicans. The question now becomes whether a Republican will endeavor to face Gilchrest as a 2008 primary opponent – with an early March primary next year time is short for any candidate willing to step up and challenge the incumbent.

A 50 year plan: Election reform

I don’t remember this sort of attention the last time that we had an “open” seat for the Presidential race but for whatever reason the 2008 campaign has gotten off to a really early start and the trend is accelerating as California recently moved its 2008 primary up to a February date. This instantly makes the Golden State a disproportionate player in the Presidential sweepstakes and all but dooms states that even have primaries as early as March to second-tier staus.

As part of my 50 year plan for election reform, I’m going to address this piece of the electoral pie, but there are other slices that I think merit attention first.

The very first thing which needs to occur is to require a photo ID to vote at the ballot box, or have one on file with a signature card for absentee ballots. It just makes sense to me that, in a society where I’m asked for my ID in order to place money into my own bank account, some form of photo identification needs to be required to exercise one of our most precious rights.

Normally the Democrats scream about this point that requiring ID disenfranchises the poor. (It’s probably why a bill dealing with this died in committee here in Maryland.) I believe Georgia was going to require something similar to this and was willing to pony up a few hundred thousand dollars to allow anyone who could get to the DMV their own photo identity card, but that still wasn’t good enough for the Democrats. I guess then I have to ask what they’re so afraid of? Are they worried that their ideas aren’t good enough to appeal to a majority of those who vote? (I know if I were them I would be.)

So if we adopt part number one above we’ll have voter ID. The next step is to use the electronic machines, but have a backup paper trail set up as a double-check. Conspiracy theories about the 2000 and 2004 elections aside, and using my bank as an example again, every time I put in or take out money I get a receipt. Something tells me that voting can easily be the same way, and with the backup no one in the tinfoil hat brigade can claim a Diebold conspiracy.

Thus, I’ve taken care of making sure the people who are eligible to vote can do so (once) and that their votes would be accounted for properly. But there are two other items that Maryland does (or may do) which, in my opinion, need to be rolled back.

First of all, in 2008 we may have a Constitutional amendment placed on the ballot that allows for early voting but insofar as I can tell doesn’t have a provision to pay for securing the ballots for the extra days necessary nor a common-sense identification check on it. (This has passed the Maryland Senate but is pending in the House of Delegates.)

I believe that we have adequate means of voting between the polling places being open on the days already designated by the state Constitution and absentee balloting (even with some limitations I’d place on it) that the number of voters who actually wish to participate in the process has a chance of doing so. There’s no need to extend the opportunities for voter fraud and tampering by adding several days to the process. For me, I’ve made the time to be there on Election Day, in fact last year I worked the polls for Bonnie Luna’s campaign as well. Voting and then working the polls is something I’ve done for a number of years.

Now, as far as absentee balloting goes, I believe there should be some restrictions placed back on it. I don’t really care for the “shall-issue” rules Maryland has because it leaves some openings for a lack of accountability. A more common-sense approach would be one where certain classes of people remain eligible (such as those over 60 years of age or serving in the military and stationed out of the state), but a qualified excuse has to be provided for others. I’ve voted absentee only about a half-dozen times in my life – mostly while in college but in 2004 I voted absentee for Ohio because I found out I’d move to Maryland too late to be registered here for the November election. Those are legitimate reasons to get an absentee ballot, whereas just because you don’t want to drive to the polling place is not. Hell, the weekend before the 1996 election I was laid up in the hospital with pneumonia but I’ll have been damned if I wasn’t going to be out for Election Day to at least vote for Dole, if I couldn’t work the polls. (Fortunately I recovered enough to be let out on the Sunday before.)

In both state and national election law, there are restrictions on candidate financing. When the McCain-Feingold reforms were passed in 2003, it was supposed to take the money out of politics – but estimates are now coming in for the 2008 Presidential election that suggest the spending total may reach $1 billion. Other changes made by McCain-Feingold gave it a billing as an “incumbent protection act” as regulations were placed on advertising within 60 days of an election.

Personally I think any and all contribution limits should be abolished. But with that carrot comes the stick of daily and accessibly reporting any and all contributions to a particular campaign. So if AFSCME gives $50 million to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, within 24 hours anyone in the pajamas media can say, hey, AFSCME members, look what your union dues are paying for. If the trial lawyers’ associations give $20 million to John Edwards, we can immediately follow the money and ask him what’s the quid pro quo here? Obviously the situation holds true as well if the national Chamber of Commerce gives $15 million to Rudy Giuliani.

But, one may argue, wouldn’t that make the little guy’s $25 contribution to Giuliani meaningless? After all, it’s said that money talks and more money talks louder. Well, this is true, but the people still hold the absolute power of the vote. And if I’ve found out that someone or something donated to a candidate I don’t like, I can choose to act accordingly. For example, when I get the annual reports from companies I invest in, I check and see who their board members make political donations to and withhold share votes from those candidates who support people I don’t feel are friendly to the goals of the business as I see them. If more people did that, it will police the situation.

After all, George Soros donated many of his millions to defeat President Bush, but he only had one actual vote in the matter. I’ll grant he influenced many to follow him and vote against Bush, but others worked and donated to the Bush side and the President prevailed because he and his supporters convinced 59 million people to vote for him.

Now to the California question. To me, it’s insane that we’ve dragged this election process out so long. Here Maryland has plenty of common sense in the way it runs state elections. Last year our primary was September 12, a date that was 8 weeks before the general election. This gives candidates and the public the maximum amount of time to get together and interact so the public can make an informed choice with as many candidates in the running as possible.

However, in the decision for the 2008 Presidential election, by all indications we’ll know who the two leading candidates are a full nine months beforehand. (Even though Maryland has a March primary, we’ll have little say.) In 2004 there was some case of “buyer’s regret” among Democrats that summer when John Kerry didn’t turn out to quite be the candidate they thought they’d get in March when the race was essentially decided. So it looks like most of 2008 will be consigned to mudslinging and negative campaigning between the Republicans and Democrats and nothing will get done in Congress either because no one will want to hurt their candidate or help the opposition.

I think I have a better idea then this. Of course, Presidential politics are dictated by the party conventions that generally take place in July and August. The first step is to move those to a mid-September timeframe, right after Labor Day when people begin to pay attention to the campaigns anyway. One can start the Monday after Labor Day and the other the following Monday, alternating between cycles.

(It might mess up Newt Gingrich’s idea a little bit, but there’s still time for several weekly debates.)

So now we work backwards from that point. What I’ve always thought would be a good idea would be to have a series of regional primaries held on consecutive weeks. Six regions of eight states each (more or less, depending on population) would hold primaries, starting the Tuesday after July 4th and ending in August. And to assure each area would get the “prime” first spot once every six cycles, the regions would run elections in a particular order, the first one in a cycle sliding back to last in the next cycle. Thus, the idea Maryland was trying to promote of having a “regional” primary date with Delaware and Virginia would be realized, only on a slightly larger scale. For example, we could be teamed up with Delaware, Virginia, DC, West Virginia, the Carolinas, and Pennsylvania with our regional primary. Iowa and New Hampshire would be exempt and continue with their influential first caucus and primary, but could be moved back into June.

So instead of having this process last almost a year, I’m compressing it into five months. It gives the American people, who are getting less and less of an attention span, a short and focused campaign for our highest office and it also means Congress can get more done because they don’t have to worry quite as much about influencing the Presidential race.

Voting is the most important civic duty most of us do over the course of the year. I believe that these reforms would go a long way to increasing the percentage of people who actually exercise their right as citizens to do so.

Time to quit playing

“When Democrats are criticized, they counter-attack. When Republicans are criticized, they apparently believe in ‘the soft answer which turneth away wrath.’ In politics, however, a soft answer is like blood in the water that provokes piranhas to more vicious attacks.” —Thomas Sowell

I read this in my Patriot Post today (yesterday’s edition, the 07-12 Chronicle.) And these words ring quite true. It seems to me also that Democrats like the politics of personal attack a little more than the GOP does.

If there’s one thing I have to say about Maryland politics, though, right now the GOP isn’t the recipient of much criticism. Comapre this to the oft-quoted Senate President Mike Miller in 2005: (GOP leaders are) “going to be flying high, but we’re going to get together and we’re going to shoot them down. We’re going to bury them face down in the ground, and it’ll be 10 years before they crawl out again.”

Of course, at the time it appeared that there was a pretty good chance that Governor Ehrlich would be re-elected after Democrats Doug Duncan and Martin O’Malley shredded each other in an expensive primary fight for the governors’ chair, while Kweisi Mfume and Ben Cardin were among a host of Democrats threatening to do the same as they ran against odds-on favorite Michael Steele for the U.S. Senate seat. Well, to their credit, the Democrats managed to pile up enough votes in their strongholds to stave off both Ehrlich and Steele.

After the GOP losses in 2006, Maryland is seemingly back to its normal political course as the Democrats hold all of the statewide offices and the GOP is once again beaten back to its few strongholds in Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore. So the anti-Republican political rhetoric has been toned down – after all, they now can keep their powder dry for most of the rest of this election cycle. Besides, by 2010 they’ll need to figure out a way to blame the four O’Malley years of bloated spending and rapidly increasing taxes on the last GOP administration.

Oh, you wonder why we on the right call the Democrats “tax-and-spend”? Here’s just a few examples on just the state level. I’m not even going to go into the federal level, where it’s claimed in the 2008 budget that we’ll stop deficit spending IF Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 (essentially a huge tax hike) – never mind revenues have increased since these tax cuts took effect.

In Maryland, Democrats have called for the following eight “revenue enhancements”. These bills can be found on the General Assembly website, search by bill number. All I did was look under the subject “taxation” and pick the most obvious ones!

A $1 per pack increase in the cigarette tax (HB288/SB207, also HB754);
Sales tax increases of either 1/2% (to 5.5% – HB434) or 1% (to 6% – HB393);
A 10 cent per gallon increase in the gasoline tax (HB821);
Doubling the current tax on alcoholic beverages (HB757/SB422);
If you wish to exercise your Second Amendment rights, an additional 10% tax on guns considered “assault weapons” (HB441), or 5 cents per round on ammunition (HB1393);
An additional 2 mill property tax, which equals 2 cents per $100 of valuation if my math is correct (HB486/SB644);
A 5 cent deposit on cans and bottles (HB839);
And a repeal on the limits on the rate and collection of pollution permit fees (HB1218).

Plus, while it’s not a tax per se, some Democrats want to create a single-payer health system in Maryland (HB400).

So which Democrats support these bills the most? Well, here are a list of co-sponsors who are listed on at least five of these bills. Why am I not surprised that most of these folks represent Montgomery County?

The king of taxation: freshman Delegate Saquib Ali (District 39, Montgomery) who’s co-sponsor of seven of these bills.

The prince: another freshman, Delegate Craig L. Rice (District 15, Montgomery). He has five co-sponsorships to his “credit” and is lead sponsor of HB441.

And the “dirty dozen” who have five co-sponsorships (plus lead sponsorships as noted):

Fourth term Delegate Elizabeth Bobo (District 12B, Howard);
Third term Delegate William A. Bronrott (District 16, Montgomery), who’s the lead sponsor of HB757;
Third term Delegate Rudolph C. Cane (District 37A, Dorchester/Wicomico);
Fourth term Delegate Virginia P. Claggett (District 30, Anne Arundel);
Fourth term Delegate Barbara A. Frush (District 21, Prince George’s/Anne Arundel);
Freshman Delegate Tom Hucker (District 20, Montgomery);
Second term Delegate Anne R. Kaiser (District 14, Montgomery);
First elected term Delegate Jane E. Lawton (District 18, Montgomery);
Freshman Delegate Roger P. Manno (District 19, Montgomery);
Fourth term Delegate Maggie I. McIntosh (District 43, Baltimore City), also lead sponsor of both HB486 and HB1220;
Second term Delegate Karen S. Montgomery (District 14, Montgomery), also lead sponsor of HB400;
And finally, seventh (!) term Delegate Samuel I. Rosenberg (District 41, Baltimore City).

I also need to point out that my delegate (not by my choice, I was outvoted) Norm Conway is a co-sponsor of HB754, which is billed the “Children and Working Families Health Care Act of 2007”. I was going to say that naturally, Conway is a Democrat, but then I saw Wicomico County Delegate Page Elmore on that list too, once of the few Republicans who are calling for this tax increase. Page, it ain’t going to help, the Democrats will run somebody against you whether you vote and sponsor with them or not.

Meanwhile, the GOP has quietly put together two bills of particular interest, neither of which has any chance of passing. HB809/SB942 is a “taxpayer’s bill of rights” that’s desired to appear on the 2008 ballot, while my Senator, Lowell Stoltzfus, introduced what he billed the “Budget Reconciliation Act of 2007.” As he stated last week on Bill Reddish’s radio show, the General Assembly has “no will to do cuts” to the budget. So he introduced some pruning of the budget to help our situation, rather than assuming Free Staters have deep enough pockets to pay for everything on the liberal wish list.

Well, Maryland, you now have a list of suspects in the case of the 2007 taxpayer wallet pickpocketing. And you can let them know how you feel.

In my case, I’m one member of the Maryland GOP that’s not going to be afraid to call people what they are. If Democrats want to tax and spend our state into bankruptcy I suppose it’s their right, but I’ll be damned if they’ll do it without me saying something about it! It’s going to be interesting to see if my left-wing cohort at The Greenbelt sees fit to include this in the upcoming Carnival of Maryland #3 because this will be the article I submit. I guess I’ll find out Sunday, won’t I?

“Racism” raises its ugly head. I’m beheading it.

As my faithful readers know, I was on the radio this morning. I’ll come back to that subject a little later, but the main point of my post this evening occurred after seeing a Daily Times piece that “Cato” showed to me as he was reading his copy. It seems that Salisbury City Councilperson Shanie Shields and Wicomico NAACP head Mary Ashanti are a little miffed at the makeup of the Wicomico Neighborhood Congress, and then the Daily Times piled on by noting that no one living west of Hebron is in the group. So already the group is backtracking and trying to be more “inclusive.”

This raises several questions in my mind. First and foremost, where does “inclusion” end? Are there any Hispanics or Asians on the commitee, or does it even stop at race? Are we going to hear next from the GLBT crowd if we find that all of the steering committee members are straight?

To me, the people to ask about this lack of “people of color” on the committee are Shanie and Mary. Because Shanie Shields is now the membership director, I can throw the question back at her and Mary Ashanti – what have you done to encourage participation from that community? (Complaining to the Daily Times doesn’t count.) Perhaps they’ll say a few words about it on March 29th because District 1 County Councilperson Sheree Sample-Hughes is starting her promised quarterly meetings on that night.

Personally I heard about the Wicomico Neighborhood Congress through news coverage but I recall there were several radio ads on WICO-AM, and I’d guess on their sister stations as well. Between news/talk, midtempo rock, country, and smooth jazz, they should’ve covered a good chunk of the demographics.

Some of you may know this and some may not, but I’m one of those 50 or so volunteers who asked about joining. So I have a vested interest in the WNC, and I didn’t join this outfit because I was looking for “diversity”. Each area of Wicomico County and each community is free to participate as it wishes. And it may be that the fine folks in places like Mardela Springs, Bivalve, and Tyaskin are taking a “wait and see” approach as they warily eye our group. So I participated in the vote, and while I had up to 10 choices I selected just four because they were people I knew and had a good impression about. Unfortunately, I’ve not been able to attend these steering committee meetings because I have another commitment on Tuesday nights; however, I’ll be able to get my input in after April 10th.

Lost in all the hubbub is the simple fact that this body is only being organized at the moment – the purpose of the steering committee is to set rules, bylaws, and guidelines that the WNC will go by. I don’t believe the actual group will get down to business until May. And, while I’d like plenty of participation, a group the size of that discussed in the Daily Times today (up to 400) would, in my estimation, be far too unwieldy to be any good.

My intention in joining the WNC was to represent the neighborhood in which I bought my house. Part of that will actually be attempting to form our own neighborhood group since as far as I know, none exists. To that end, I’m going to represent everyone regardless of race, creed, color, religion…they’re my neighbors. So I wish the minority communities would get over their attitude about someone not of their race representing them. It’s counterproductive and takes away from the work that’s being started.

All right, a few words about my radio time this morning. I’m not as sure I was as on my game today as I could’ve been. At times I find it much easier to write the correct words and string together coherent thoughts than to say them, and this morning was one of those times. Fortunately, my friend G.A. (“Cato”) doesn’t have that problem as much as I do so we did all right. But I could’ve done better, I got a bit off track on my one thought and lost my opportunity to tie it back to where I wanted to go with it.

I still like the thought of a portion of the old mall becoming a business incubator if the building is structurally sound enough and can be refurbished at a reasonable cost. I know it may be far too late for that, but at least I’ve made the effort and placed the idea in the hopper. I also know the old Station 16 firehouse was discussed today by John Robinson and Terry Cohen, and I know my blogging cohort Joe Albero has a cash offer for the building on the table. What I’d like to see is his plan, as well as any other ones for the building. I’m led to assume that it’s reasonably sound structurally, so it’s not a likely candidate for the wrecking ball like the old mall is.

As I noted this morning, my job depends on investment from people with a dream. Since I like this area and have adopted it as home, I’d like to stay here. Dealing with petty squabbles about racial makeup of a steering committee detracts from the goal we should all have, one of making this community a better one for people like me to adopt.

My impressions on the FOP/CFF Salisbury City Council forum

Editor’s note: at noon today, the firefighters announced they’re endorsing Terry Cohen, Tim Spies, and Louise Smith for the City Council race. It’ll be interesting to see how the Daily Times plays this and who they’ll endorse here in a couple weeks.

In talking to “Cato” of Delmarva Dealings and Joe Albero of Salisbury News after tonight’s forum, it appears they’re going to leave the field to me for comment for the time being. (As he rubs his hands in glee…) So here goes. Besides, I’m sure Cato will have something to say to me on this tomorrow morning.

Just like last time, I’m scoring the candidates on a scale from 1-10 for their remarks, but there are a couple exceptions which I’ll go into when they occur. I also like it better when candidates do and say things that to me represent out-of-the-box thinking, so that scores higher with me. So, without further ado, I’ll begin with the…

Opening statement: No one got off to a really clear advantage here. As usual, most of the candidates went into the items in their background which they thought gave them an advantage in seeking the seat. Terry Cohen did mention that she was the “luckiest woman alive” because of her experience so far, and Louise Smith noted that, despite the fact she’s running for City Council, she really isn’t crazy. (It brought a chuckle from the audience.) Don Ewalt billed himself as efficient and effective.

But Tim Spies got out of the gate quicker than the rest, producing a pledge that he bade all of the other candidates sign to maintain what so far has been a reasonably clean campaign (with the possible exception of “Leadership for Salisbury’s Future“). It was a bit of grandstanding, but the message of keeping the campaign positive and on issue appealed to me best. Ewalt 6, Smith 6, Atkins 5, Comegys 5, Spies 7, Cohen 6.

TIF/infrastructure: Let me state once again for the record that I thought the TIF was a bad idea, and to some extent rewards a developer who behaved badly by allowing his property to become decrepit. This affects my point scale. Also, with each question all the participants had an opportunity to rebut statements made or add to their point, so candidates who took advantage got extra points on a scale from 1 to 5.

On the side of the TIF it was Ewalt, Atkins, and Comegys. Of the three, Don Ewalt made the most compelling pro-TIF argument, noting that the mall property collects $40,000 in taxes now but the development would lead to 4,000 construction jobs. (Thinking about that, was that a misstatement?) But Ewalt called the Old Mall project “smart growth” and noted that you have to spend money to make money. Of those speaking against the TIF, Terry Cohen made the best point when she noted that private property should be financed with private money. Tim Spies chimed in that the city needed to be responsible to see that the Old Mall building was down, and that the developer paid the freight. Ewalt 4, Smith 8, Atkins 2, Comegys 2, Spies 10, Cohen 10.

On rebuttal, Louise Smith did call for the five acres at the southwest corner of the site to be reserved for Civic Center parking. John Atkins claimed that the TIF was financing, much like one would finance a business. For his part, Gary Comegys claimed that the TIF was an “investment in the community” and would bring in $400,000 in revenue in five years’ time. And while Tim Spies thought that TIF’s were only appropriate for commercial entities (as opposed to residential), Terry Cohen mentioned the fact that the site had an approved redevelopment plan (with no TIF) as far back as 1998. Outstanding detective work. Don Ewalt made no rebuttal, thus no points. Ewalt 0, Smith 3, Atkins 2, Comegys 2, Spies 2, Cohen 3.

Pay parity: This was a question I expected, and the first of several that covered a lot of the same ground. Obviously, all of the candidates were in favor of paying cops and firefighters more. Don Ewalt noted that “some candidates” would raise taxes, but also wondered if the pay parity would have to be extended to all city employees. Louise Smith suggested (for the first of three different times) the possibility of attaining state or federal grants. John Atkins stated an obvious fact that turnover cost the city a lot of money, while Gary Comegys did a Clintonesque finger wagging in stating he’d “never voted against the fire service.” Terry Cohen did bring up the aspect of impact fees, but Tim Spies actually had numbers – stating a first-year Ocean City police officer made $20.54 an hour for a 48 hour week, or over $50,000 a year compared to an SPD rookie making $32,000 per year. He wanted to find the money where it could be found. Ewalt 6, Smith 7, Atkins 5, Comegys 4, Spies 6, Cohen 5.

Only Gary Comegys, Tim Spies, and Terry Cohen took advantage of the rebuttal in this case. Comegys noted that a balance was required because tax increases would hurt those on fixed incomes. On the other hand, Tim Spies made the point that a tax increase was all but promised for next year anyway. But he wanted to work harder at increasing the tax base through commercial and industrial development. And for her part, Terry Cohen went with a true rebuttal, saying that she wanted to “stop the distortions” and state clearly that to her a tax increase was a “last resort.” Ewalt 0, Smith 0, Atkins 0, Comegys 2, Spies 5, Cohen 3.

Police attrition: This question dealt with an interesting statistic. Salisbury’s police department has had a 58% turnover rate in the last few years, whereas the national average is 8%. Once again, no one accepts this rate, but what to do about it was mixed. Don Ewalt wanted to add more officers and bring the force up from 88 to even 100. He also advocated more patrols, expanding block watch programs, and keeping the substations open 24/7. I just wasn’t quite sure how that answered the question. Louise Smith brought up the specter of collective bargaining because the department was so frustrated with their situation, and Terry Cohen talked about this affecting the quality of life. On the other hand, John Atkins thought that pay wasn’t the only issue and input was needed from the public safety rank and file.

Looking back at his record, Gary Comegys stated that police starting salaries had increased 22% since he took office, along with better retirement benefits. He warned not to promise what couldn’t be delivered. But I thought Tim Spies had a good answer, tying it into pay increases created by additional commercial development, but also looking into things like housing incentives, which I believe already exist in other places. Ewalt 4, Smith 6, Atkins 4, Comegys 4, Spies 8, Cohen 5.

Again, not all candidates took the opportunity to expand their remarks in rebuttal. Louise Smith went back to mentioning the idea of exploring federal grants to supplement public safety pay (none went to Salisbury last year), and Gary Comegys restated that the public safety employees got a larger increment raise last year than other city employees. This was noted after Terry Cohen spoke about the 2% increase for senior officers, a charge that had Comegys shaking his head in disagreement before he had a shot at rebutting. Ewalt 0, Smith 2, Atkins 0, Comegys 1, Spies 0, Cohen 2.

Singer study: This was the final “prepared” question and definitely the weakest among them. The city spent $40,000 on a study relating to pay parity among city employees, and only Gary Comegys had seen it. In fact, no one even rebutted the question after it was answered, and the only piece of information not rehashed from before that came out of it was when Gary Comegys said that, to give each police officer a $10,000 raise, it would cost the city over $800,000 – that translated into a 6% tax increase for everyone. So I’ll give him 2 bonus points for putting a number to this. Ewalt 0, Smith 0, Atkins 0, Comegys 2, Spies 0, Cohen 0.

After a break, there were five questions from the audience and selected by the public safety folks who were in attendance. Frankly, none were great and some were really bad so I only scored three of the five.

Oversight: This question was one regarding oversight of department heads by City Council. To me, the proper answer was that City Council had no direct oversight (being the legislative branch) but could act in an advisory capacity – if the people had problems with a particular department, the people would let the Council know and they could advise the Mayor. The best answer of the six was Terry Cohen’s, as she stressed a need for “diligent” oversight and used the late audit as an example of when Council needed to speak up. Don Ewalt did ponder the idea of expanding City Council, which didn’t really answer the question but bears study as Salisbury grows. Ewalt 5, Smith 5, Atkins 5, Comegys 5, Spies 5, Cohen 7. No one rebutted the question so no extra points.

Non-police crime solutions: Because the question specifically excluded the salary aspect, it was the best question of the audience group. Don Ewalt tied crime to growth, and repeated his call for more officers, along with a Police Athletic League or something along that line to engage the youth. Louise Smith touched on her five-point plan for fighting crime, which included the PAL idea and neighborhood watch, along with a community police coordinator and more patrols at hot spots.

But John Atkins and Gary Comegys tied the problems more to a general decline in values; Comegys in particular saw a need to invest more in the children. And while Terry Cohen also treaded that same path (speaking about those who had no father figure), she also added the element of strengthening neighborhoods. That part was heavily emphasized by Tim Spies, who brought the issue of affordable housing into the discussion. This had some good answers. Ewalt 3, Smith 8, Atkins 6, Comegys 5, Spies 6, Cohen 6.

Only Tim Spies didn’t take advantage of the rebuttal time. Both Don Ewalt and John Atkins expanded on Spies’ point by adding a mention of the Habitat for Humanity program, and Louise Smith hammered on the grant idea again. I have one disagreement with her, though – grants are taxpayer dollars, just shared by a wider range of people. We may not pay for a federal grant to Salisbury directly, but we might be paying for one to Bozeman, Montana our of our pocket. Gary Comegys thought we were an attraction to crime as we’re a business attraction for the Delmarva region. But Terry Cohen claimed that she “didn’t accept” the theory that growth creates crime. It’s a matter of managing resources as we grow, she noted. Ewalt 3, Smith 2, Atkins 4, Comegys 2, Spies 0, Cohen 4.

Now, the next two questions that were asked, I just thought they were awful. One regarded a study as to why officers leave the SPD, and the other was simply asking whether the Council candidates thought they could live on the SPD starting salary of $32,000 a year. The best answer to the former question was given by Terry Cohen, who wondered what the “real story” was behind the turnover. But no one answered the latter question as I would have.

If one is serious about being a police officer, they have to know that the pay rate for a rookie officer in a small city is not going to be particularly high. That’s one sacrifice they make in pursuing a career in public service, and it’s a factor a young person needs to weigh. On the other hand, most officers are eligible for a full retirement at a relatively young age (Sheriff Lewis being one example.) Indeed, their job is fraught with potential danger – after all, we read often about a traffic stop turned fatal or a officer killed in the line of duty pursuing a suspect. But in many respects our military earns a much smaller salary for work that’s at times much more dangerous and deadly. I drove by a reminder of that on the way to the forum. In other words, to become a cop is a trade-off and no one going in has any excuse to be unaware of the circumstances under which they will toil.

Audit: The final question regarded the city’s tardy audit. And once again, there is a proper answer to the question, which is that the audit is the sole responsibility of the executive branch. Because Tim Spies was first to answer the question exactly that way, he got the most points. (He went second in the rotation, it was Terry Cohen’s weakest answer of the night that went first.) And by saying what he did, Spies placed everyone else in the position where they had to agree with him. The rest did with varying results. Ewalt 6, Smith 7, Atkins 6, Comegys 7, Spies 10, Cohen 4.

Only Ewalt, Smith, and Cohen took time to rebut, and all added a valid point or two. Don Ewalt observed that the timing for additional auditing help is bad – although on second thought, he’s not that correct because the audit’s actually due in November, not over the winter when accountants are busy preparing taxes. Louise Smith did correctly state that a late audit affects the budgetary process, while Terry Cohen indirectly made a nod to the blogs by saying the people can make their voice heard on the subject as well. Ewalt 1, Smith 2, Atkins 0, Comegys 0, Spies 0, Cohen 2.

Finally, we got to the closing statements. In a nutshell:

Don Ewalt: His experience sets him apart from the field. He’s “concerned” about the tone of current City Council meetings and wanted more respect and civility. Also, he wanted to reinterate his support of “smart growth.”

Louise Smith: Simply, end the contention and bring integrity to City Council.

John Atkins: Citing a number of community leaders from the past, he stated a need for that sort of leadership, but you also have to work with the people that you currently have.

Gary Comegys: There are certain things in the community that reflect well on us, and he was “excited about the opportunity” to serve again.

Tim Spies: He drew the first closing statement, so he exhorted those in attendance and eventually watching the taped rebroadcast to “tell others what you’ve learned” as a result of the debate.

Terry Cohen: Relating recent events in her personal life, she called public safety forces an “integral part of life” and told the gathering that her run had been a good experience for her. Leaders learn by listening, she concluded.

Closing: Ewalt 6, Smith 4, Atkins 5, Comegys 4, Spies 5, Cohen 5. No one had a dynamite closing statement, but it was evident the crowd was restless too.

So who do I think won the debate? Let’s total them up…

Ewalt 44, Smith 60, Atkins 44, Comegys 45, Spies 64, Cohen 62.

It’s sort of odd, because the difference on the TIF question set the two groups of three apart but not to this extent. I’m sort of surprised at Smith’s total since I thought she was a little bit behind Cohen and Spies, but she took advantage of her rebuttals.

By this debate, I think the top three all solidified their position and put the heat on Gary Comegys more. His presentation was much better than previous forums, though, so he remains a formidable candidate and may end up squeaking through on name recognition. Between the two debates I scored, both Cohen and Spies placed themselves above the other four. But if Comegys gets back in and Louise Smith doesn’t fall far from her primary win, it’ll be a shame that one of these two leaders on the issues is locked out of a seat on the City Council.

Well, my work is done here, and the Salisbury blogosphere is sated for another day. “See” you on the radio in, oh, about 7 1/2 hours.

Radio days volume 2

Apparently someone thinks I’m a political expert. I already know I have a face for radio (and a voice for the print media); nevertheless, I’ll be back on WICO tomorrow morning at 7:40 a.m. discussing tonight’s political forum with host Bill Reddish. It’ll be a double treat for Salisbury political junkies as my fellow blogger “Cato” from Delmarva Dealings will be joining us.

So I may or may not post on the forum tonight – most likely I will but if it’s just more of the same I’ve heard at the three others I’ve seen on TV or live I might choose to combine a forum post with my thoughts on radio day #2 either tomorrow night or Wednesday.

There’s your heads-up for tomorrow, be listening! It should be a good twenty minutes if not more.

More on Michigan vs. Maryland

Nope, it’s not the NCAA draw. This is in response to the comment on my last post as I refine and extend my arguments. I started this as a comment and decided it was long enough to warrant a second post.

I used government as a growth “industry” because it’s truly an industry that can perpetuate itself like no other. Every new regulation, every new program, every new department means additional workers that work on the public dime. Maryland has the fortune of being close to the seat of federal government and benefits from many of the additional federal jobs that are created – it’s no coincidence that Maryland’s two largest counties populationwise abut the District of Columbia.

In turn, these two counties (Prince George’s and Montgomery) which are home to almost 1/3 of Maryland’s population vote reliably Democrat, and it seems like they feel the farther left Democrat the better. With the voting bloc just these two counties command in the General Assembly, combined with the large numbers in Baltimore City/County (which also are pretty heavily Democrat voters), they allow rule by a party that is known for being much more conducive to the interests of labor unions than the employers which make those unions possible – with the exception of employers that are governmental entities. In America today, the largest percentage of unionized labor is now in the government sector.

On the other hand, Michigan is far away from the seat of government so it depends on private sector employment for the most part, and its policies are chasing business away at a time when that state needs to be more business-friendly. Indeed, they also have a heavy union influence because of the UAW, and it was those Big Labor votes that placed Governor Granholm back in her chair. But by being so militant, the unions in Michigan are biting the hand that feeds them in a time when business of any sort needs to be welcome there.

The economy in much of the Midwest is struggling right now because of the heavy union influence. (That poor economy is the prime reason I live in Maryland now.) While workers should have the right to organize, they need to keep in mind that their employers also have to stay competitive in a global economy.

Let me take a moment and talk about the Eastern Shore in particular since you addressed us in your comment. Our three largest industries are poultry, agriculture, and tourism. In many ways, the interests of those Democrats who hail from PG/Montgomery are greatly at odds with the farmers who till the land and raise the chickens here, particularly regarding what effect the farms have on Chesapeake Bay. By many accounts, our previous Democrat governor treated Maryland’s farmers as a (barely) necessary evil.

Additionally, we have one fairly large tourism haven in Ocean City. The majority Democrats in Maryland have no problem advocating two items that will certainly hurt that portion of our local economy – a 50% jump in the gas tax and a 20% hike in the sales tax, with an expansion in its current scope already in the General Assembly hopper. (No bill to raise the sales tax is under consideration, at least for the moment.) Raising the gas tax might lead to a smaller number of trips across the Bay Bridge to our end of the state. The only compelling interest Eastern Shore residents might have with the additional bite each time we fill up is whether we can get another bay crossing to help alleviate weekend congestion. But it’s more likely that the extra money will either go into the general fund or pay for more mass transit around Baltimore and DC that’s not likely to be utilized anymore than it already isn’t. And jacking the sales tax up when we already have sales-tax free Delaware competing with our businesses is going to compel even more businesses to flee our part of the Eastern Shore. Drive up Route 13 into Delaware and see just how many big-ticket retailers like furniture stores and car dealers set up shop just across the line.

If I were to have a magic wand and suddenly have the power to make economic decisions that would assist the Eastern Shore economy I would first eliminate the sales tax entirely for the nine counties of the Eastern Shore. The hit on the state budget shouldn’t be that large since we’re only about 10% of the population and it’s still not going to be easy to drive over here from the Western Shore. The second thing I would do is work on a way to make our region a little more accessible to other parts of the country by improving Delmarva’s main north-south highway (U.S. 13) to expressway grade. It would make things easier for transportation and can provide an impetus for manufacturing and transport jobs to come to the Eastern Shore.

Obviously there’s a lot more that’s necessary than just these two items to create a thriving local economy but they’re two good-sized pieces of the puzzle if you ask me.

Talking about an amazingly “blue” state

Duvafiles made mention of this OpinionJournal.com editorial this morning. Originally I was going to make this a comment to his post but as I kept writing I saw it as an opportunity to expand my thoughts into a complete post. I have a soft spot for the state of Michigan, partially as an Ohioan who roots for “that team up north” (I’m even wearing my UM sweatshirt this morning) and Detroit sports teams in general. Plus they have a great pair of bloggers I link to.

The main similarity between Maryland and Michigan is that their economy essentially depends on one industry. But that one industry makes all the difference between the states.

It’s been said that when the Big Three sneezes, Michigan (and my native northern Ohio) catches a cold. Since the auto industry is struggling it’s put Michigan’s economy in the dumper – unfortunately the poor in the Detroit area put Jenny Granholm back in office last November and she’s going to continue her anti-business policies. So look for lots of traffic southbound on I-75 as both retirees and jobseekers head out of the state. It’s a shame but the Big Three put themselves in a less competitive position by allowing themselves to be cowed by Big Labor – after all, how many industries pay people who don’t work?

And the union seems entrenched with this idea. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger was quoted thus back in Walt’s Auto World, July 1, 2003:

“To be sure, the cost of the pensions and retiree health care is a significant issue for UAW employees,” he tells journalists, adding the union views legacy costs as “a legacy of fairness, a legacy of cooperation between labor and management.

It’s a legacy that was given to us by the generations of auto workers who founded this union…and we intend to defend it.”

Even with the numerous plant closings since this quote was uttered, the UAW is likely not going to change its bulldog stance when the next round of labor contracts with the Big Three are negotiated this year.

On the other hand, Maryland seems to have a dependence on a growth industry, that “industry” being government. Unless the nation comes to its collective senses, that particular industry shows no signs of ceasing growth, especially on the federal level.

The problem with this is that growth isn’t equal throughout the state. Growth in government is great for the Baltimore/DC corridor but making the state less business-friendly hurts Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore big time. Business can grit its teeth and deal with these policies along the I-95 corridor because there’s a lot of people with a lot of disposable income to make up for the regulations and loss of profit stemming from the red tape, but where income is in shorter supply and a competing, more business-friendly state is available in close proximity (true at each end of the state, not so much in the center) Maryland is hurt almost as badly as Michigan.

Unfortunately, the solution to both problems isn’t likely to be seen in either case for quite awhile as both states are locked into four more years of Democrat governance, Maryland moreso than Michigan. As Duvafiles points out, at least one legislative body is Michigan is still GOP-controlled and will do its best to fight Granholm’s tax and spend policies. Sadly for Maryland our “Politburo” is rarely more than a rubber stamp for far-left policies, and the places in Maryland that benefit most from all of the make-work government jobs are the places which roll up huge majorities for the Democrats at the polls. The Maryland GOP serves as the Washington Generals for this game – hapless foils for the antics of Martin O’Malley and the General Assembly.

I’m still fighting the rear-guard, guerrilla battle to change this though! One small step in this fight is to make sure HB448 and HB1022 don’t pass – the House holds a hearing on both on Wednesday at 1 p.m. Just take a read of these and see how many services they want to expand the sales tax (and associated business red tape) to cover. No one has made a move to raise the overall sales tax yet but I know that’s on the table too.

It’s time for the folks in Annapolis to wake up and realize that they may yet have two large sections of their state that become economic basket cases like Michigan, just with a better climate.

Impressions on Salisbury City Council forum

Tonight I was one of over 100 people who attended the City Council forum at Salisbury University. It was a nicely packed house, and the crowd listened intently as the six survivors of the February 27th primary answered six questions dealing with various topics. Candidates were asked for answers on what they considered their number one issue, plus pay parity for our police, ways to increase home ownership in Salisbury, relations between the city and the university, their views on TIF’s, and how they felt about the perception that the candidates were being split from a “six-pack” into two “three-packs” based on their views.

In this case, I don’t really have much of a say in the outcome because I can’t vote for any of them – however, I still can work on their campaigns and/or donate money to their cause. How I approached recording my view of the event was to pick out one or two points from each answer (where I could); also, I rated the answer on a scale from 1-10 based on both their presentation and how I felt about the issue.

I also had the bonus, if you will, of sitting next to current Councilperson Shanie Shields and getting her reaction to some of the answers. (She came in just before the start and took the seat next to me, so she could see I was writing notes.) Now one may say that putting my impressions of her reactions to answers here is dirty pool, but she made her opinion known by wearing a sticker advocating the reelection of Gary Comegys – so I feel that gauging her reactions is fair game. Moreover, if Shields reads my blog she’s certainly invited to respond as she feels fit.

I’ll go in alphabetical order, which means I begin with John Atkins. In his opening statement, he stressed his “public service” and desire to participate in the city where he lives. His adage of “if you’re not growing, you’re dying” led into an answer about managing revenues. But he also pointed out that for the police, it wasn’t all about salary, it was also about a good working environment.

I liked his advocacy of the Habitat for Humanity program as part of the solution to home ownership because that’s a private entity, not just another government program. He added that problems between the city and university were “solvable” and there should be a partnership between the two in doing so.

In answering the TIF question, John said that the city government needs to be involved with developers. (I like the idea of involvement but I’m not so keen on the handing out of big money incentives – so now you know how I feel about the issue.) He also thought that all six candidates get along well, and though they disagree on the methods of doing so, they all wanted to make Salisbury a better city.

Next comes Terry Cohen. Cohen opened her remarks by pointing to her experience in legislative affairs. But her pet issue is having Salisbury be more business-friendly and work on quality of life issues rather than big incentives to draw business. (I could hear Shanie sigh on that; meanwhile I looked over to see Debbie Campbell nodding.) Terry wanted to use money freed up by impact fees to help with police salaries, and made a very valid point regarding home ownership that current zoning laws also need to be enforced in order to help that process along.

In answering the town and gown question, Cohen noted that we need to get away from the “us vs. them” mentality. Terry also quoted a developer regarding the question on TIF’s, noting that the developer said in a hearing, “without the TIF, we’d have to charge more for the housing.”

What I found most interesting in both reaction and statement was Cohen’s answer to the “3-pack” question. Cohen stated a need to work together, and while Shields was heard to mumble, “yeah right”, Terry also blasted the tone of Gary Comegys’ opening statement. She closed by vowing to “put citizens first” and work to improve the quality of life for city residents.

As I’ve alluded to, incumbent Gary Comegys came out swinging from the get-go, telling the assembled that his “record speaks for itself” and that this election was a choice between a City Council that would find fault or a City Council that would find solutions. Intriguingly to me, his number one issue was keeping Salisbury as the “hub of Delmarva.”

I tried to find an answer to the question on police salaries, but nothing in his statements must have leaped out at me. However it did register when he pointed with pride at the city’s program to turn rentals back into owner-occupied homes, with 31 restored since he came on board to City Council. He also termed relations between the city and SU as “successful”, noting that SU funded a ladder truck for the city’s fire department to the tune of $200,000.

As would be expected, he defended the city’s TIF for the old mall, saying that the mall property was now underutilized and the TIF “commendable” as a solution. Gary continued defending his record in the “3-pack” question, hammering home his view that the candidates “need to be truthful” about the issues and look forward instead of assigning blame. He presented the choice again in his closing statement, terming it “conflict vs. consensus”. Of course, when he said as part of his close that the city also needs to “celebrate diversity” that lost me right there. His overall theme was to “vote for our future.”

Don Ewalt “believe(s) in Salisbury.” His number one issue was affordable housing. (Shields agreed with his assessment.) Don also wanted to make police salaries “competitive” and look for funding to that end without resorting to a tax increase.

On the question of home ownership, Ewalt pointed to the program brought up by Gary Comegys that already exists in Salisbury. Also, he thought also that the city should help SU as much as possible. The statement I question personally was where he “(doesn’t) see where the TIF (for the old mall) would hurt us.” That focus on the mall carried into his answer on the “3-pack” question as well.

But I did like one idea Don brought up in his closing statement. He thought that the city needed to work better with the County Council, and on that I agree.

Louise Smith really hammered on her message, almost to a point where she didn’t answer a couple questions. The themes of accountability and integrity carried over throughout her answers, although she also touched on the crime and neighborhood issues in her opening statement. When she brought up the wastewater treatment plant fine in her answer to the number one issue question, there was a chuckle from my neighbor Shanie. Louise also advocated restraint and prioritization when answering the question on police salaries.

She disappointed me a little on her next three answers. I know the need for affordable housing in Salisbury is “extreme” and that personal incomes need to cover cost. I also hope it’s not necessary to “open a dialogue” between the city and university when they cooperate in some matters already. And it’s unfortunate that she didn’t have a little more time to expand on the matter of a TIF given in 1998 for a strip mall vs. the 2006-07 TIF for the old mall, but she only had a minute to answer – it needed to be more brief.

Smith distanced herself from the “three-pack” controversy, saying that her “message is my partner” and that she was “her own person.” Driving home her main theme one more time in her close, Louise said that the city needs to be more responsible with its tax dollars.

Now I know Louise a little bit because she’s one of my predecessors on the Central Committee. Obviously she feels accountability is paramount, and with her background and experience I’ve no doubt she’d be quite an asset to City Council. But she does need to expand her range a bit now that the primary’s done, she’s in danger of becoming a one-note samba.

Finally, there’s Tim Spies. Tim touched on many good points throughout the forum, beginning with a powerful opening statement where he said he’d “never let people down.” He also struck a chord with me when he opined his number one issue as being growth – but more specifically, jobs for the housing we’re getting. Salisbury needs to “improve its business outlook” with commercial and industrial development helping to increase police salaries; after all restraint “only works so far.” Spies also wanted to curtail the changeover to rental housing (which drew an audible sigh from Shanie Shields).

Probably Spies’ worst answer was to the “town and gown” question, where he just wanted the relationship to continue onward and upward. He recovered quite well on his TIF answer, noting they were great for commercial development but in our case a “thinly veiled subsidy” for the developer. Tim also poorly worked around the dual three-pack question, instead saying that the city needed to work toward increasing the job base and the the Wicomico River was an “undiscovered treasure.” Spies closed by pushing for cooperation between the various elements in local government – legislative with executive, city and county, university and city.

As I stated at the beginning, I rated answers from 1 to 10 based on how they were presented and how I felt about the issue. It’s tough to do a tabular form with this format, so these lists will be a bit jumbled.

Opening statement: Atkins 4, Cohen 5, Comegys 7, Ewalt 6, Smith 5, Spies 6. While Gary Comegys was negative, it was a powerful opening that left an impression.

#1 issue: Atkins 4, Cohen 5, Comegys 6, Ewalt 5, Smith 4, Spies 6. Actually, my number one issue is crime and I think many of the other issues depend on taking care of public safety first. So no one really scored well.

Money for police: Atkins 6, Cohen 4, Comegys 2, Ewalt 3, Smith 4, Spies 8. I liked Tim’s approach to the issue best because it addresses another big issue; Comegys didn’t really answer the question and Ewalt wasn’t as specific as I’d like.

Home ownership: Atkins 8, Cohen 6, Comegys 6, Ewalt 6, Smith 3, Spies 6. Atkins cited the Habitat for Humanity example I spoke of above and Louise Smith restated the problem without really providing an idea for a solution.

City and SU relations: Atkins 5, Cohen 6, Comegys 5, Ewalt 4, Smith 5, Spies 5. It’s not a big issue to me – in fact, it mostly falls to SU students who act with immaturity. If they acted properly this would be a complete non-issue. I can excuse the folly of youth (I was a wild partying college student at times too, as evidenced by my GPA) but some things just go beyond the pale.

TIF’s: Atkins 3, Cohen 7, Comegys 1, Ewalt 1, Smith 3, Spies 9. Spies hit this one out of the park, and I’m sorry Don, but losing big-time revenue over several years will hurt the city. Gary Comegys correctly called the mall underutilized but fails to recognize that a good developer wouldn’t need city funds to tear it down.

2 – 3 packs: Atkins 7, Cohen 10, Comegys 2, Ewalt 1, Smith 5, Spies 1. This rates with the blog question in the WMDT debate and was sparked by the blogs in some ways. I liked Terry’s answer both for the reaction it elicited from Shanie Shields and the smackdown it gave Gary Comegys’ opening. While the Comegys opening statement was powerful, it was also divisive and turned out to clash with his closing statement where he called for conensus instead of conflict.

Closing: Atkins 4, Cohen 6, Comegys 1, Ewalt 7, Smith 5, Spies 6. The reason I thought Ewalt’s close was best was because of the idea that the city needs cooperation from Wicomico County as well – after all, city residents are county residents too. This isn’t Baltimore. And as stated above, Comegys spoke about “consensus vs. conflict” but will have to get along with at least two new members of City Council if he’s re-elected, and it’s highly doubtful they’ll agree on everything.

Total scores (in rank order): Cohen 49, Spies 47, Atkins 41, Smith 34, Ewalt 33, Comegys 30. In my humble opinion, two of the three primary leaders helped their cause tonight while Louise Smith didn’t hurt herself enough to drop down. Louise has a great core issue, but she needs to broaden it now and talk about what she’ll try to accomplish once the accountability has been achieved. John Atkins helped his cause, but it’s a question of whether he did enough to knock out two people in front of him.

But it was a good night for the voters of Salisbury. I liked most of the questions, and I did get an opportunity to talk some with both Cohen and Spies afterward. In addition, it was a local bloggers’ get-together as Joe Albero was snapping pictures and Cato from Delmarva Dealings came out near the end. And I got the chance to meet Debbie Campbell and her family, which was a pleasure.

There will be another pair of forums scheduled for March 19th and 20th. I may be able to make the one on the 19th and comment on it (the 20th is definitely out.) Also another WMDT forum is in the works and something tells me that Bill Reddish and John Robinson may be featuring some or all of the candidates on their respective radio shows.

I did submit one question that wasn’t used but I wanted to bring up as a closing. To paraphrase it, with 6,000 new housing units in the works locally, what steps can the city take to attract the good-paying jobs we need to fill all these houses? Retirees aren’t going to buy them all. So hopefully the debatees (or other interested folks) will read my question and answer it.

Legislative checkup, March 2007 (Maryland)

Early this a.m. I did the federal side, so now it’s time to check in on our local state legislators. This time, I’ll format things a little differently because a lot of this ground was covered the last time I did this.

District 37A Delegate Rudy Cane is now up to 119 co-sponsorships, which leads the local pack. As far as status of these bills go, 3 have passed the House (HB62, HB303, and HB416 – all passed with identical 136-0 votes), 3 have passed through committee, 1 was defeated in committee, 4 withdrawn, 34 have been heard with no further action, 45 are on the hearing schedule, and 29 have no hearing scheduled.

In District 37B, Delegate Addie Eckardt is listed as a sponsor on 108 bills, of which 3 have passed the House (HB62, HB303, and HB670. I want to know who voted “no” on the 134-1 vote passing HB670!). Of the rest, 1 passed committee, 5 lost in committee, 3 were withdrawn, 31 have been heard with no future action, 35 are slated for hearings, and 30 are not on the hearing docket yet. Counterpart Delegate Jeannie Haddaway has 99 bills under her name, with the same set passing. Also like Eckardt, 1 bill has passed committee (same bill), but 3 have lost committee votes, 3 were withdrawn, 21 have been heard but not acted upon further, 40 have hearing scheduled, and 28 bills have no hearing set at this time.

Delegate Page Elmore in District 38A is second to Cane with 115 bills bearing his name as sponsor or co-sponsor. Along with the aforementioned HB303, he also had HB164 passed with a 137-0 vote. One bill has made it through committee, 5 lost in committee, and 5 were withdrawn. As far as hearings go, 33 of his subject bills have been heard with no further action, 44 are on the hearing docket, and 25 are still awaiting a hearing date.

In my district of 38B, both Delegates Norm Conway and Jim Mathias are listed on 59 bills (but not the same ones.) Both sponsored HB303, but after that things are a bit different. For Conway, the scorecard has one bill through committee, 2 withdrawn, 17 heard without further action taken, 19 bills to be heard, and 19 with no hearing date. Mathias is a little less complicated – 2 measures bearing his name have been withdrawn, 15 have been heard and nothing else, 19 are on the hearing schedule, and 22 aren’t on the slate. No bill co-sponsored by Mathias has either died in or passed committee except HB303.

Senator Rich Colburn of District 37 will be a busy guy. This is because of 107 bills he’s lent his sponsorship to, a whopping 60 have hearings scheduled. 28 others have been heard, and just 13 await a hearing time. Of the rest, one was re-referred, 2 withdrawn, and three have passed their second reading so they should be acted on early this upcoming week.

On my side of the lower Shore, District 38’s Senator Lowell Stoltzfus is only on 50 bills. One of these (SB374) is completely through the process, having passed 47-0. Another one is through its second reading. Seventeen of his bills have been heard without any action taken, 26 are still awaiting a scheduled hearing, and just 5 languish with no date set yet.

Last time I went through this, I had a laundry list of bills of note. Here’s an update.

HB44/SB51 was one version of the Maryland Clean Cars Act. But the version that actually passed was HB131/SB103. Locally, voting yes on that bill in the 122-16 House vote were Cane, Conway, Elmore, and Mathias; on the flip (and correct) side were Delegates Eckardt and Haddaway. In the Senate’s 38-9 vote the local delegation split as Lowell Stoltzfus voted yes (and was quoted in the Sun), Rich Colburn voted no.

HB148/SB634 has had no action since its hearing.

HB225/SB211 also has had no action (aside from media coverage, it’s the death penalty repeal) since its hearing.

HB273 has a hearing set for Wednesday (the 7th) at 1:00 p.m.

HB288/SB207 have now been heard but no further action taken. Big tax increases tend to be slipped in late in the session.

HB289, the bill concerning the Civic Center, has been withdrawn.

HB312/SB373 will have hearings March 12 at 10 a.m. (Senate) and 11 a.m. (House).

HB359/SB91 (the “Clean Indoor Air Act”) has a House hearing on March 7th at 1 p.m. and a Senate hearing March 15th, also at 1 p.m. Look for those news stories Thursday.

HB365 had its hearing, and that’s the status of it. Same for the next one down on my list, HB 400.

HB430, the “living wage” bill, also sits in limbo after its hearing.

After my previous post, commenter “Georgia” brought up HB445/SB37. This also had its hearings but no further action.

HB537, a GOP-sponsored bill regarding driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, now has a hearing set for March 14 at 1:00. I’m sure CASA of Maryland has that date circled on its calendar.

HB620/SB494 just had its Senate hearing Friday, so both hearings are complete and that’s the status of this bill.

HB754 has progressed no farther than the hearing stage.

HB890/SB409, the global warming bill, had a Senate hearing but awaits a House hearing this coming Friday at 1:00 p.m. So look for a big snow or ice storm to hit.

HB909/SB674 has had that same treatment – Senate hearing complete, House hearing scheduled for March 14 at 1:00 p.m.

Jessica’s Law, known in this session by the moniker HB930/SB413, will have hearings on consecutive days starting with the House March 13 at 1:00 p.m. The Senate has its turn the following day at that same time.

That same pattern applies to the combo HB994/SB475, except one week earlier. The House hearing is Tuesday at 1:00 p.m. and the Senate is Wednesday at that same time.

I didn’t hear a large rumbling about this in the media, but SB564, an act to place a Constitutional amendment to declare marriage as solely between one man and one woman on next year’s ballot, did have a hearing and awaits more action.

The Voter ID act, SB597, will be heard by the Senate on Thursday at 1:00.

Finally among the older bills, SB598 had its hearing and awaits a new move.

I also found a few new bills of interest. Awhile back I posted about my morning listening to the Holly Center’s legislative agenda. Their pet bills were introduced recently as HB1358, the Freedom of Choice Act, an act allowing state institutions to be on the menu for care for individuals with developmental disabilities; and HB1359/SB920, which repeals the sunset provision of respite care for these individuals. Respite care is allowing a state institution to care for a developmentally disabled person for a short amount of time in order to give the primary caregiver a break. These were introduced last week so no hearing is set yet.

Another combination bill I didn’t catch the first time through is HB885/SB943, allowing the state to recognize English as its official language. Of course the GOP is behind it, so of course there’s no hearing scheduled for it yet.

Finally, there are two gun control and crime prevention items that were introduced, and surprisingly both of these have a hearing scheduled for March 21 at 1:00. SB761 “(authorizes) a person charged with a specified crime to assert a claim of self-defense even though the person failed to retreat or seek safety by escape”, and SB762 repeals “the requirement that the Secretary of State Police find that a person has a good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun before issuing a handgun permit to the person.” In other words, shall-issue. Both are sponsored by Republicans, so unfortunately I doubt either of these have a hope in hell in the not-so-free state we live in.

So another few weeks has passed in our 90 days of chaos in Annapolis. I’ll probably do two more of these updates for the state session, one may be a Maryland-only update since their session is so compressed compared to the federal one (which gets an Easter break sometime in early April anyway.) The count for the state is now a shade over 2,400 different items introduced with most of them flying under the radar. It’s a shame how government works sometimes – fortunately we do have a pretty good system of tracking these things. I have to put out a big “thank you” to the folks who run the General Assembly website, without whom this post would’ve been impossible.

Sneak-a-tax

This was a little tidbit in the news recently. While efforts to raise the tax on a gallon of gas 50%, jack up the price of a car by up to $3,000, and add 1% to the state sales tax have grabbed headlines recently in Maryland, one legislator has come up with the bright idea of a fund that will take in the proceeds of gift cards that the state would consider forfeited property after four years.

Joseline Pena-Melnyk is the leader among 38 sponsors (none local) in the House of Delegates for H.B. 1080, which creates the “Maryland Education Fund”. By fiscal year 2012, estimated revenue from this bill would be close to $100 million. So those gift cards you may stash in a drawer and forget about will become state property in 48 months.

Of course, that’s just the start. You know that sooner or later, the General Assembly will push the time frame back to 24 months, then to 12. Regardless, when someone gives you a gift card, you already have to pay sales tax on what you buy with it (in most cases) so forfeiting the leftover dollar or two (or the entire amount if you don’t use it at all) simply amounts to a sneaky extra way for the state to dig into our collective pockets.

The hearing for the bill was held last week, but no committee vote has been held on H.B. 1080 yet.

I know the state faces a structural deficit in coming years, but could it be that maybe, just maybe, we look at ways to cut spending instead of automatically looking to the taxpayer to pick up the slack? Or, if you really must enhance revenue, start by not giving illegal immigrant children in-state tuition.

Sooner or later, the taxpayers of the state will get it. I just hope it’s before what we get is the short end of the stick shoved where the sun doesn’t shine.

And then there were six…

Actually, my prognostications weren’t too bad, with a couple notable exceptions. If I had flipped the positions of Louise Smith and Gary Comegys I would’ve batted pretty close to 1.000. The four I had as the lowest tier all missed the boat and, with the exception of Smith, my predicted middle tier finished three through six. But congratulations to Louise Smith as the top vote getter. I know she worked hard to get that honor and will continue to do so until all the votes are in April 3rd. (Then the hard work begins, right?)

Realistically, the race now becomes whether Tim Spies can hang on to the number three slot and make this a Crisfield-style “clean sweep.” With such a dreadfully low turnout, the more motivated voters (which tend to be blog readers as well) managed to turn out and they pushed the three favored candidates of my partners in crime, if you will. It looks like the seemingly relentless favorable coverage of Comegys in the Daily Times backfired and all of those signs in rental yards only showed that the support of the Ewalt/Atkins/Comegys team was as real as a Potemkin village. Meanwhile, this also pointed out that the televised debates made a huge difference because Smith, Spies, and Cohen seemed to perform the best in those while Gary Comegys stumbled in both. That hurt him in the vote, but with his incumbency and its advantages he can’t be counted out – he needs only to make up 11 votes to stay in his Council seat.

What will be interesting to see is who the four ousted candidates throw their support behind. (I know Neil Bayne reads monoblogue on occasion, perhaps he’ll comment.) And I’ll continue to watch with interest as the campaign doesn’t have much of a break – only 5 weeks until the general election April 3rd, but a lot can happen in that time. (Maybe we’ll get an audit? You never know.)

There’s one other fascinating aspect to this result. When you think of the Eastern Shore in particular and rural areas of America in general, you think of the “good old boy” network. But should Cohen and Smith be elected, Salisbury’s City Council will be 4/5 female (with a female mayor to boot) and the County Council is close behind as there’s 3 of 7 members who are female, plus their Council Administrator. (Not to mention the parts of Wicomico County represented in the House of Delegates by women.)

And to which party do the majority of these women belong? (Hint: it ain’t Hillary’s.) Just grist for the mill and a point to throw out.

I was also going to do a post on my experience this morning on AM Salisbury and how I thought I did, but it’s late and I have an all-day seminar in Snow Hill tomorrow (that continuing education stuff, you know) so I’ll defer that until tomorrow or Thursday. But there is another post I wrote over the weekend in the monoblogue pipeline so you’ll have lots of new stuff to close out February and bring in March like a lion.