All politics is local – Page 170

Reminder (and shameless self-promotion)

Tomorrow morning monoblogue hits the airwaves. Ok, at least I do as I get to sit in Bill Reddish’s “hot seat” on WICO 1320 AM tomorrow morning at 7:40.

When Bill and I set this up, it was ostensibly to give my take on the City Council election tomorrow, but I’m sure we’ll touch on the local blogosphere and maybe a little bit on state politics as well. Hey, it’s his radio show, and as Rush Limbaugh likes to say about his radio show’s callers, I’m just there to make Bill look good. So we’ll see what happens.

WCRC meeting – February 2007

This month we had a relatively low-key meeting compared to many past ones. With no speaker scheduled, it was a chance to see just what kind of draw regular club business had, and I’m proud to say we outdrew the Democrats by a 2 to 1 margin. (Or should I say Democratics? Maybe Democritics would be more apt?)

Anyway, after the regular club business of doing the Pledge of Allegiance, short prayer, approving the minutes, the treasurer’s report, and pretty good news on the voter registration front from Woody Willing, we set to revising our by-laws with some minor changes in format and fixing up misspellings from the old typed version. Also, a change was made allowing our Secretary to concurrently serve on the County Central Committee. Dave Parker requested the change in order to fulfill both tasks – more on that shortly. We also discussed a couple other possible by-law changes but tabled those until the new officers got started, they weren’t of an emergency nature.

Chris von Buskirk filled us in more about the upcoming changes to the Wicomico GOP’s website, which should make it more user-friendly (including a page for the revised by-laws.)

Dustin Mills spoke up about an effort by the SU College Republicans to put together a GOPAC Candidate School later this spring for those interested. He’s also on a parallel track with me as far as getting the Lower Shore YR’s started up again, but I can work with him on that.

We elected our new officers by acclamation. Starting next month the slate will be:

President: George Ossman

First Vice President: Marc Kilmer

Second Vice President: Michael Swartz

Third Vice President: Brad Bellacicco

Fourth Vice President: Helen Shockley

Treasurer: Tom Hughes

Secretary: Dave Parker

Retaining Parker as Secretary was the purpose of passing the by-law change. But we have an interesting mix of people coming in and I look forward to working with them. By the way, part of my duties include the club newsletter and press relations. (That task starts at 7:40 a.m. tomorrow.) They actually asked me to do this a year ago, but I deferred until I felt a little more settled in – now I do.

We heard briefly from our County Councilpersons in attendance, Joe Holloway and Gail Bartkovich. While the honeymoon may be over, they are still working diligently on the county budget, particularly on capital improvements. Louise Smith, candidate for Salisbury City Council, also was there and spoke briefly. We also found out from Brad Bellacicco that another Council candidate forum for the six survivors of tomorrow’s primary will occur March 8th at Salisbury University (PACE is a co-sponsor.)

County Chair Dr. John Bartkovich closed out the proceedings by announcing the Tri-County Lincoln Day dinner date was set for April 29th at the Carousel in Ocean City.

So it was a pretty quiet proceeding tonight, without a lot of fireworks. But things will begin to hum again soon enough with the early Maryland primary barely over a year away. Now’s the best time to lay the foundation for success in the next two election cycles.

Top 10 priorities for the Salisbury City Council

With apologies to David Letterman and despite the fact I don’t actually live in the city (but do work and do much of my shopping there), here’s my Top 10 list of priorities for the new Salisbury City Council.

10. Fill in the blanks on annexation.

I seem to recall that one thing that the “Dream Team” wanted to do was “square off” the city of Salisbury, but instead they’re attempting to do a number of “pipestem” annexations. Work on filling in the unincorporated spaces so we don’t have situations when we drive down a road and pass in and out of the city several times.

9. Finish the Northeast Collector, and make it go someplace.

We all know that the plan for the Northeast Collector takes it up past the future Aydelotte Farms subdivision and to Zion Road – where it stops. Has anyone put some thought into tying Zion Road into the U.S. 13 interchange by extending the on/off ramps that exist? That way one could either get off at North Salisbury Boulevard (Business U.S. 13) or drive farther down the off ramp to a signal at an intersection built along the existing Zion Road for the Northeast Collector (or vice versa from the southeast on 13/50.) That would make the highway more useful.

8. Be more fiscally prudent.

I’ll cheerfully admit that I don’t have much of an idea about city finances, but logic dictates that a municipality that has a lot of existing debt is going to get killed on the bond market if they go to it again to add more debt. If I borrowed money like the city does, my credit rating would nosedive even if I paid the payments faithfully. Stop mortgaging the future.

7. Pay and/or benefits parity for public safety employees.

At least enough to stop the bleeding. Even if it’s not in pay, figure out other incentives for employees to stay. I liked the comp time idea brought up in Tuesday’s forum by Tim Spies, it’s at least something to move along the conversation on this subject.

6. Help Wicomico County update their Comprehensive Plan.

It’s interesting that, despite the fact the city of Salisbury is perceived as the 800-pound gorilla in the county, it’s actually home to only about 30% of the county’s population. But because of its location in the core growth area, the city has a lot to say about how the county is going to grow so the city also needs to contribute its share of decisionmakers to this effort.

5. Do SOMETHING with the Old Mall – preferably without giving away the store.

Because Nero has been fiddling while Rome burns, we’re no closer to doing something with this property than we were in 2004 or even 1998. And I have what I think are legitimate questions regarding the current plan. If this plan is so good and a surefire winner for the developers, why is the TIF necessary? Secondly, has there been a study of the entire existing building? I know some of it was condemned after a fire and other parts are in extreme disrepair, but is it possible to save any of the building? The reason I ask the question is why not look into alternatives to the Natelson/Dzaman plan, like salvaging some of the existing building as a place that could be rented out to entrepreneurs, a sort of business incubator? I’ve seen this successfully done in other places. With the 6,000 or so housing units allegedly in the pipeline, why not take a little time and explore alternatives that don’t add to this burden? Let the market catch up a bit and fill in vacancies we have!

4. Take care of our water situation.

We have the Wicomico River as our backup water supply, but it’s not in a convenient form. Being at 25% of the reserve capacity we should have is truly an unacceptable situation for everything from fire protection to drinking water. From the debate on Tuesday it sounds like water and sewer fees are going to a lot of things that aren’t water or sewer.

3. Establish a fee schedule that’s fair to both developers and the city.

From all accounts, Salisbury has become known as a city that developers can do business in at little cost to them. The fear I have is that the pendulum will swing too far the other way and growth will be choked off. (Actually it may just go to Fruitland, Delmar, or unincorporated portions of the county.) Obviously developers would pay zero extra if it were up to them, but this just isn’t realistic anymore. Some coordination with others in the county may assist in this as well.

2. The audit.

Hopefully it will be here in time for the general election in April. Someone has to hold the city’s feet to the fire on future audits so this situation doesn’t happen again. Apparently we only have one City Council person who’s willing to do so, but hopefully that number will be at least three after April.

1. Making the streets safer with every method at our disposal.

Crime in Salisbury is the number one problem according to most people you talk to. Lately some extra help has come from the Sheriff’s Office, and that’s good. But we also need to reclaim our neighborhoods. And the crime problem enhances many of the woes that befall Salisbury.

Let’s take a look at crime’s impact on home ownership as an example. Salisbury has an owner-occupied housing rate that runs about 25 percent. Obviously we’ll never be at 100% because of the University, but I’d say 50% is an achievable goal.

There’s been many complaints over the time since I’ve been here about the lack of affordable housing around our area. Much of the housing stock that is moderately priced is so because it’s also in neighborhoods that are crime-ridden. So discerning people who would be in the housing market are apprehensive about purchasing a home in many Salisbury neighborhoods. (I know I was.)

But if we can get a handle on the crime problem and begin to turn it around, perhaps a few brave souls will invest in these moderately-priced houses and make them their own. And an owner-occupied house with a family that takes care of their surroundings can trigger other ones in the surrounding area. Moreover, areas that are just starting to slide into that abyss of blight because of an increasing number of landlords who don’t keep up their properties may reverse this slide if houses that were rented revert back to owner occupation.

(In defense of landlords, most are folks who rent our their properties to supplement their income and do take decent care of them. Obviously it’s a two-way street where renters also should be cognizant of the fact they’re entrusted with living on someone else’s property – so don’t trash the place.)

Of course, this is my list and it’s far from complete. There’s as many priorities for the new City Council as there are voters who can exercise their right to elect their leaders come Tuesday and on April 3rd. (So if you live in Salisbury please do so!!) But I feel we do need people who have a vision of what lies ahead for our area and not people who are seemingly in the game to take care of their personal interests. It’s called public service for a reason.

Odds and ends no. 7

A little bit on a lot of subjects tonight, with some help from the Sun and Gazette.

Today Governor O’Malley testified in favor of Maryland repealing its little-used death penalty, which is already on hiatus following a Court of Appeals ruling late last year. But there was a good point made by State Senator Nancy Jacobs, who related that David McGuinn, already serving a life sentence, stands accused of murdering a guard at the Maryland House of Correction last July. Jacobs noted that if McGuinn is convicted that this killing would be “a freebie for him” if the death penalty were repealed since the state would have no higher punishment available.

Personally, I thought the statistics cited by O’Malley were dubious at best, particularly on the cost of housing the inmate vs. the lengthy appeals and court battles that seem to be necessary to see justice served. It’s the tying up courts with endless and sometimes frivilous appeals that adds to the cost of the death penalty, and a limitation on the number of appeals would cut the cost significantly.

Leaving aside the irony that the party pushing the rights of people tried and convicted of taking another’s life in cold blood is also the one who advocates keeping the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies legal, I think the death penalty needs to stay and does serve as a deterrent. Further, it’s because of DNA testing and other forensic advances that Kirk Bloodsworth and others have come off death row, so the argument that an innocent person may be executed rings much more hollow as well.

Speaking of pushing rights of people tried and convicted, hearings are set for at least one bill that would repeal the three-year waiting period already in place for multiply-convicted felons who have served their sentence to regain voting rights. The gentleman who was quoted in the story only has to wait a few more months to be legally granted the right under Maryland’s current law anyway – and had he been convicted of just one count he’d already be eligible. Interestingly enough, the bill also removes the prohibitations on people convicted of buying and selling votes to regain the franchise.

And of course, here’s more voting madness brought to you by Maryland Democrats. As expected, the early voting bill cleared the House of Delegates 101-31. On the majority side locally were the three Democrats (Cane, Conway, Mathias) and Page Elmore, while Delegates Addie Eckardt and Jeannie Haddaway correctly voted against this measure. (A similar bill passed the State Senate 31-16, and I’m guessing both our Senators were in the minority simply because that roll isn’t on the General Assembly website quite yet.) As I’ve said before, there’s no need for this early voting when we already have “shall-issue” absentee ballots. Those multi-vote bus trips to Ocean City for inner-city Baltimore residents who get the (also legal) “walking-around” money from their Democrat ward heelers might not be as much a joke as I thought when I came up with that analogy.

I’ll put an end to the bad news from Annapolis for tonight by commenting that not only are Democrats trying to pick up votes through the devious means of adding convicted felons to the registered voter list and allowing them weeks to vote as many times as necessary, they’re also trying to buy union votes by ramming through a so-called “living wage” – that hearing was yesterday and all of the anti-business types made it to testify. While state Labor Secretary Tom Perez stated that the goal of this effort was to “strengthen and grow the middle class”, this will certainly make state contracts more expensive by arbitrarily increasing the salaries of particular workers in private companies, and in turn discourage bidders on state contracts who don’t want to deal with the additional red tape – fewer bidders means less competition and higher bids. And of course taxes have to pay for these contracts. So the state puts money in some middle-class pockets but takes it out of a whole lot more of them through higher costs. Plus, see for yourself the bill’s enforcement provisions, which sound like they could be a real good witch hunt against a business who may innocently slip up.

And before I finished, I wanted to make some comments on the coverage of last night’s candidate forum. Apparently my assumption that “Cato” and Joe Albero were both present was correct, as were commenters from Duvafiles – “sneeky peek”, “sbygal”, and “iyeska” – based on what they added to Bill Duvall’s post.

Saying that, I’m a bit disappointed by the bloggers’ heavy emphasis on how poorly Gary Comegys did. Like it or not, I do have to agree with what Tim Spies said this morning on Bill Reddish’s radio show – most voters in Salisbury get their news from the Daily Times so all that they know about Gary Comegys from last night is that he essentially ran on his record. The DT also pegged Terry Cohen as a tax raiser, as well as citing Louise Smith and Tim Spies’ calls for an Adequate Public Financing Ordinance. This effectively plasters the reformers with a high-taxation label. Meanwhile, John Harris and John Atkins were placed in the “growth pays for growth” camp that the current City Council people seem to believe is the case (giving out TIF’s to developers aside.) This implies that they’ll not pass along what are sure to be increased city costs to taxpayers.

This election is not just a referendum on one City Councilman. And Joe, because of what I’ve stated above I doubt Gary will finish out of the top six as you think he will – in fact I’m of the opinion he’ll be the number one vote getter in the primary, solely on name recognition. It’s a lot like people think about Congress – Congress as a whole is terrible and corrupt, but my Congressman isn’t one of those terrible and corrupt people.

While we as bloggers are gaining influence in the city of Salisbury, I’d still guess that 80% of the voters in Salisbury couldn’t name one of the local blogs. Obviously our writing community is one made up of people who are more than average in the motivation department; otherwise, I wouldn’t sit here for two hours writing this, perusing the Maryland media for backup items to my assertations while trying to make this effort sound like one that makes sense to the reader AND one they enjoy reading. The same sort of thing applies to my cohorts, who spend a lot of time on their websites as well.

So when bloggers complain about the lack of balance in the regular media, they need to avoid being the pots that call the kettle black. While as a group they may not like the actions of “Bubba” Comegys, they also need to give reasons that people should vote FOR the alternative candidates too.

One final note. Speaking of the regular media, yours truly is going to get a crack at it on Tuesday morning. I’ll be filling the “hot seat” at 7:40 on Bill Reddish’s AM Salisbury radio program (1320AM, WICO). This is literally hot off the press, so there’s a scoop for you all.

Missing the event

Well, I have to apologize to “lwd”, whoever he or she is. I didn’t get the e-mail message in time yesterday to post on tonight’s candidate forum, nor could I make it myself. I did see that there was notice posted on the other three “major” blogs in town so I’m sure hundreds read it.

But I was surprised that there were no articles regarding the forum up yet on Salisbury News or even Delmarva Dealings (as of about 10:30.) The reason I would’ve liked to have seen something on either (or both) website(s) was to gather the attendance and mood of those present. To be honest though, my guess is that there were almost more candidates and hangers-on than general public. The Daily Times story cites “dozens” but that could be as few as two dozen. So I’ll figure about 60 folks and hope I’m quite low.

The larger point that I want to make is that I spent a little time upon my return home looking up the numbers from previous Salisbury elections. My supposition for this election is that about 2,200 voters will vote. I believe they get three votes apiece, which leaves a “pool” of about 6,600 votes. Thus getting 1,000 votes should be enough to make it into the general election field, but more often than not the contest is between the top four in a race that eventually is weeded down to three.

So who looks like the top six? It’s very hard to figure since there really hasn’t been all that much said about most candidates. Aside from incumbent Gary Comegys and Terry Cohen, who both seem to have decent financial backing and name recognition so they should easily advance, I think most of the other eight could finish anywhere from third to 10th. But I’d say the “bubble” candidates are Neil Bayne, Patrick Hannon, Keith Wright, and maybe John Harris. John Atkins, Don Ewalt, Louise Smith, and Tim Spies are probably the middle tier but turnout will be key for them, making sure their supporters make it out to the polls. If they can’t get people out for them, they could slide down to 7th or 8th and not advance.

A lot of decisions will be made based on a small number of factors, though:

How the candidates come across in the media – in particular what is said about them in the Daily Times, their performance in Saturday’s televised debate, and to a lesser extent, their interviews with Bill Reddish on WICO and their coverage on the local blogs.
How much actual door-to-door and face time campaigning they can get in.
And how much assistance they get from loyal supporters in putting up yard signs, making sure people get to the polls to vote for them, etc. etc. Don’t be surprised if there’s not a push to vote for a single candidate (bullet vote) sprung up someplace along the line.
Name recognition may help here. Obviously Gary Comegys has been on the ballot before, as has Neil Bayne in the recent past. I know Louise Smith has been on for GOP Central Committee, and I believe Patrick Hannon, Don Ewalt and Keith Harris have ran for some public office as well. It’s my recollection that the other four are first-time candidates.
On the other hand, any gaffes made will hurt their cause, like the “blite” mailing debacle.

I do want to open up a little more as far as comments go regarding tonight’s performances, which is why I brought up the topic. Not knowing what the other blogs will do regarding their coverage, I did feel that it was important to post on the Salisbury Council race even though I have no say in the matter. So feel free to share your impressions if you were there!

President’s Day appeal

I actually wrote this piece about 2 weeks ago (on the day before Reagan’s birthday) as an e-mail to my fellow GOP office holders and a few other candidates. To date I’ve received more responses telling me that my mail has bounced back to me than responses to the actual e-mail (exactly ONE.) It’s a pretty sad state of affairs.

You’ll understand what I’m attempting to do once you read this message. By the way, through the magic of postdating my post, I’m sitting here Sunday morning doing this but the post will come up at midday Monday. In reality I should be sitting at work when this posts, because I’m a member of the productive private sector!

So here is the appeal I sent out to perhaps 30 to 40 people. Let me know if you’re interested yourself or know someone who is…

Greetings to my fellow Central Committee members, and others:

With today being the eve of Ronald Reagan’s birthday, I thought this would be a great time to recommit ourselves to the task of building our local Republican Party. Among other things about this great President, he inspired me to get involved in my local political scene. Naturally the outlet I chose once I learned of the opportunity was joining my local Young Republican chapter.

It is part of our task as Central Committee members to “establish and support Republican clubs.” While there is a Lower Shore Young Republican Club, insofar as I know it’s currently inactive and this leaves a serious void in getting our message to resident voters between the ages of 18 and 40. And let’s face it, the membership in the “regular” GOP organizations is graying. It’s time to start to rebuild the party structure here lest we begin to suffer the demographic decline that already affects the Democrat Party.

So today is the day we need to recommit ourselves as a group to building up the Lower Shore Young Republicans. I’m starting this by seeking contact information for those folks you know who could be interested in giving the Lower Shore club a boost. (This is also why I’ve added other former candidates and elected officials to the mailing list; some of their younger campaign volunteers or they themselves would also be likely to want to join the reestablished YR club.) Once I can get a database of current members and other who are interested, we can begin the work of making this club more active.

Because I’m (barely!) over the age of 40, I technically cannot be a member of the Lower Shore Young Republicans. However, I’m willing to take some time to be a facilitator and mentor to this group, as I was a member of the Toledo Metropolitan Area Young Republican Club from 1995-2001 and served as TMAYRC President in 2000. So I have a little bit of expertise on the subject, and I’m sure the state chapter would help with whatever blanks we would need to have filled in.

I did a little bit of research over the weekend. There are 36,282 registered GOP voters between Somerset, Wicomico, and Worcester counties. Based on the Wicomico numbers, roughly 1/4 of these are considered active voters, and about 1/8 of that active group are between 18-40. That leaves about 1,100 voters in the tri-county area who fit both categories. (There’s probably more now as many have just registered and voted in 2006, my information on active voters is pre-election.)

But a good club can be formed and run with 25 dedicated people – that’s just 2% of these voters. And as the group becomes more active, more people join, and more can be accomplished.

A modest YR club can be just a gathering of people who meet on a regular basis to socialize and discuss political issues. As they become larger and/or more ambitious, they can add to this effort by sending their representatives to state conventions. The next step would be campaign involvement – volunteering as a group to start, then taking the step to assist in fundraisers (eventually hosting their own). Some ambitious YR members may run these campaigns or even become candidates themselves for local or state offices.

Eventually, a YR group can become large enough to host a state convention or hold standalone events for the general public like a Ronald Reagan Birthday Party or their own straw poll. I know all this because I was a member of a club that did all of these things. At our peak, we had about 55 registered members. While the base population is smaller here than in Toledo, the Lower Shore is also far more Republican.

What the reformed Lower Shore Young Republican Club will do is totally up to them. But this is the perfect time to push for a renewal. We’re already seeing the disastrous effects of Democrat leadership on the state and local levels, yet we have plenty of time to build momentum for a big push in 2008 for the Presidential election and then again in 2010 for our next state election.

One reason I ran for my Central Committee post was to get more youth involved in the party, because of my firm belief that our next two generations can be the ones who return the country to the path our Founding Fathers intended. Thus I apologize for the length of this communication; however, America’s freedom is a subject I’m damn passionate about.

So here’s how you can help. If you know of people who would be interested in becoming a YR, please get their contact info to me – heck, forward them this note if you want and they can put in the effort. My e-mail address is michael@monoblogue.us.

Right now, in our state our party has nothing, and on a federal level we only have the Presidential post assured for two more years. When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose. But our nation has everything to lose if we don’t begin to act.

Sincerely,

Michael Swartz

Member, Wicomico County Republican Central Committee

Let’s see if this does any better at creating a database for me to work from. As I said, I can’t be a member because I’m over the age but I can be the person who helps get things underway again. Despite the voting record of some of our GOP representatives (who shall remain nameless, you know who you are) we at the grassroots can create a push to reinvent the GOP if the youth want it to be reinvented in a manner to become more reflective of its principles. Reinventing the party and making it a majority locally, statewide, and nationally is the goal I’m out to achieve.

Give Doris a chance

I really do not understand why this is such a big deal. From the Wicomico County Charter, Section 304, here are the duties of the Council Administrator:

Council Administrator. There shall be a Council Administrator who shall keep minutes of its meetings, maintain its journal, and perform such other duties as the Council may direct. The Council Administrator shall serve at the pleasure of the Council and shall receive such compensation as the Council may determine.

The County Council could theoretically have Doris make coffee for them if they so direct. And in both Daily Times articles I read about this appointment that’s the position she was named to. It’s almost making me wonder if her position is being confused with the Director of Administration’s position, which is a much more powerful post. From Section 412 of the Charter:

The Director of Administration shall perform administrative duties and exercise general supervision over the departments and agencies of the executive branch as the County Executive may direct. Prior to assuming the duties of the office, the Director of Administration shall be a resident of the county and shall continue to reside in the county for the duration of his term of office. The Director of Administration shall cause all county budgets to be prepared and submitted to the County Executive for modification approval and submission to the County Council. Such budgets shall be prepared in the manner and form provided in Article VII of this Charter. In addition, the Director of Administration shall study the organization, methods, and procedures of each department of the county government and submit to the County Executive periodic reports on their efficiency and economy.

And I think the reason for this confusion can be traced back to something Joe Albero said on Salisbury News. From January 26, 2007:

There is a buzzing rumor going around that Doris Schonbrunner is now THIRD in charge of the County. She was supposedly voted in yesterday as the new assistant county administrator.

However, it’s far from certain that, even if she is third in the pecking order, Doris really would have a lot of power – after all, in her position she serves at the pleasure of the Council with duties as Council may direct.

Some people on the local blog scene seem to be under the impression that Doris Schonbrunner will be a power-mad Cruella de Vil. Having met and spoken to her at some length on several occasions, I can’t see that happening at all. Her new position is an administrative job somewhat like the one she had in the Sheriff’s office, but without the law enforcement component. (Perhaps it’s a job more befitting a lady, since I heard some say during the campaign that we weren’t ready for a lady Sheriff.)

So give the woman a chance to do her job. If she’s not up to it, one of the four who voted for her on the County Council will certainly have the opportunity to change his or her mind, and they can dismiss her. I think she’ll do just fine myself, at least until a higher-level job that she’s interested in opens up.

Legislative checkup, February 2007 (Maryland)

After dealing with Congress yesterday, I’m going to look at the influence our local legislators have in Annapolis. Similar to Congress, I’ll look at bills sponsored or co-sponsored by each of our local Delegates and Senators in Districts 37 and 38. This information can also be found on the Maryland General Assembly website. Since there haven’t been many votes to speak of involving the General Assembly, I won’t have much of a voting record to go on quite yet (oh, but just wait.)

Working in district order:

Delegate Rudy Cane (District 37A) is a co-sponsor of a whopping 104 bills. The majority of these (60) haven’t even had a hearing scheduled yet. 37 bills have a hearing scheduled, and seven have had a hearing. One bill co-sponsored by Cane (HB 61) has cleared its committee.

District 37B’s co-Delegate, Addie Eckardt, has her name lent as co-sponsor to 92 bills. 45 do not have a hearing scheduled, 38 bills are scheduled for a hearing, and 7 have been heard. Eckardt is also a co-sponsor of HB 61, which got through committee, and HB 89, which didn’t survive committee. Her counterpart, Delegate Jeannie Haddaway, has co-sponsored 82 bills – 51 with no hearing scheduled, 26 that have a hearing scheduled, 5 which have been heard, and the above-mentioned HB 61. She’s also the sole sponsor of HB 540, which would set up a laptop computer distribution program to the state’s 7th grade students. No hearing is slated for this measure at this time. As a tandem, Eckardt and Haddaway sponsor three bills, two of which are to establish a state debt for items in Talbot County.

Turning to District 38A, I note that Page Elmore has co-sponsored 96 bills. 50 of these have not had a hearing yet, 40 have one scheduled, and 6 have been heard. Page has also been a solo sponsor of 6 bills, all having to do with Somerset County affairs. Two bills he’s sponsored are already through committee – HB 54, a bill that assists the seafood industry in Somerset and Queen Anne’s counties; and HB 145, a bill that will give the next Somerset County Treasurer a 35% raise beginning with his or her term commencing in 2011.

One of my Delegates is Norm Conway. He has co-sponsored a relatively pedestrian 45 bills, 2 of which he shares with his 38B cohort Delegate Jim Mathias. These bills (HB 683 and HB 964) would extend the power of Worcester County fire investigators and prohibit oyster dredging in the Atlantic Coastal Bays, respectively. 32 of these bills (including the aforementioned two) have no hearing set, 12 have a hearing scheduled, and one hearing has occurred for a Conway-sponsored measure. Conway also has a solo bill (HB 1078) for “(a)ltering the purposes for which the Maryland State Firemen’s Association may use money appropriated in the State budget.” No hearing is set for that one. Similarly, Mathias is a co-sponsor of 48 bills – 31 with no hearing set and 16 with one slated. Like Conway, Mathias is among the sponsors of the one bill which has had its hearing.

Additionally, Wicomico County’s delegation as a group sponsored HB 102, which exempts training fires from any “burn ban”. This bill’s already had its hearing.

Now I’ll shift over to the Maryland Senate and see how our two local Senators are faring. Those of you roughly west of Salisbury are represented by Senator Rich Colburn, who’s co-sponsored 81 bills in all. The Senate’s a bit more efficient in hearing schedules, with 37 of these bills having a hearing date scheduled while just 33 do not yet. Nine bills have already had their hearings completed.

In addition, SB 54, which Colburn co-sponsored, has been withdrawn (as of last Wednesday.) This was an act that would’ve mandated young female students receive the controversial cervical cancer vaccine. On the other side, SB 203, a bill he co-sponsors with Senator Stoltzfus of my District 38, has passed committee. It’s an interesting bill that has to do with the Salisbury Chamber of Commerce and existing law.

Speaking of my Senator, J. Lowell Stoltzfus, he has the fewest co-sponsored bills of any local Assemblyman (29.) But he has the highest number of solo-sponsored bills, 12. While most of these bills have to do with local issues within the district, there’s a couple other interesting ones which have to do with the practice of health care (affecting dental hygenists and radiologists) plus a bill requiring a hotel to keep on reserve an accessible room on the lowest floor until either an individual requiring its use reserves it or it’s the final room available. (It’s sort of like codifying common sense to me.) 19 of the proposals he’s sponsoring or co-sponsoring have a hearing scheduled while 21 do not, plus the aforementioned SB 203 that’s through committee.

With over 1800 bills already introduced, the pace will slow down as effective last Friday new bills are automatically sent to the Rules Committee first. So the last 2/3 of the session is set up for hearings and votes on things already introduced. In fact, a number of these bills bear watching as they embark on a path to become law. With over 100 bills co-sponsored and being in the majority party (not to mention an almost certain safe seat for as long as he wants to hold it), note that District 37A Delegate Rudy Cane is a co-sponsor of all of the following House bills (unless noted otherwise.)

HB 44/SB 51 is the “Maryland Clean Cars Act of 2007”. The bill has had its hearings already and awaits committee votes.

HB 148/SB 634 is the bill D.D. Crabb posted on a few days ago, a measure to change over Maryland’s Presidential electoral votes to reflect the winner of the national popular vote rather than Maryland’s results. This had a hearing in the House last week, no Senate hearing is yet scheduled. While Maryland has been a reliably Democrat state (thus sort of defeating their purpose if, as in 2004, a Republican wins the national popular vote), this is part of a nationwide effort to subvert the Founders’ idea of an Electoral College, a body that gives smaller states more power in determining national leaders. Rudy Cane is not a co-sponsor of this bill, surprisingly enough.

HB 225/SB 211 repeals Maryland’s seldom-used death penalty once and for all. A Senate hearing on this proposal is slated for February 21.

HB 273 eliminates the waiting period and other conditions already extant for felons to regain their voting rights upon release from prison. No hearing has yet been scheduled.

HB 288/SB 207 is the “Healthy Maryland Initiative”. It should be titled the “Extra Dollar a Pack Cigarette Tax” because that’s the true purpose of this legislation. Saying that, there’s a LOT more to it and it deserves a careful reading. The House hearing is set for February 16 and the Senate does its hearing February 21.

HB 289 is a local interest “bond bill” – it establishes a $2.5 million grant to Wicomico County to fix up the Wicomico Youth and Civic Center if county matching funds are provided by mid-2009. This bill’s sponsored by local Delegates Cane, Conway, Elmore, and Mathias. No hearing is scheduled.

Similarly, HB 312/SB 373 is a “bond bill” granting $500,000 to the Salisbury Zoo for an Animal Health Facility with the same timeframe for matching funds. The same four sponsors are on the House bill; on the Senate side both local Senators are the sponsors for this measure.

HB 359/SB 91 is the “Clean Indoor Air Act of 2007”, which essentially bans smoking in any building open to the public. Along with Delegate Cane, District 38A Delegate Page Elmore is also a co-sponsor. (Uh, Page, how about leaving these things up to the business owner? Very disappointing.)

HB 365 codifies a date certain that absentee ballots must be received by, taking discretion away from the state Board of Elections. A hearing on that is set for February 28.

HB 400 is known as the “Maryland Universal Health Care Plan”. One of its purposes is to, “(p)rovide public financing of health care services for all residents of the state.” That hearing is slated for February 28.

HB 430 mandates state contractors and subcontractors to pay a “living wage” (set in the bill at $11.95 per hour less any health benefits) to their employees. They do exempt non-profit companies from this law, though. Does this mean a business that will lose big money by following this law? February 20 is the hearing date on this proposal.

HB 537 is a Republican bill (which our three local GOP Delegates are co-sponsoring) mandating compliance with the federal Real ID Act and preventing the issuing of drivers’ licenses to those who cannot document legally being in the United States. Not surprisingly, no hearing for this has been scheduled.

HB 620/SB 494 is a bipartisan (all local Delegates except Rudy Cane are co-sponsors) bill that mandates insurers cover property in “coastal areas” within 50 feet of certain bodies of water. No hearing has been set for that item yet.

HB 754 is the “Children and Working Families Health Care Act of 2007”. Along with Delegate Cane, Delegates Conway and Elmore also serve among the co-sponsors. The hearing on this bill is set for February 16. HB 754 is a long, involved bill that bears reading as well.

HB 890/SB 409 is entitled “Global Warming Solutions – Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Geez, like more regulations in Maryland will solve the problem. One nice part of this request:

“MARKET-BASED COMPLIANCE MECHANISM” INCLUDES:

(1) A CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM THAT SETS DECLINING ANNUAL EMISSIONS LIMITS AND ALLOWS EMISSIONS TRADING WITHIN A SYSTEM THAT IS GOVERNED BY RULES AND PROTOCOLS ESTABLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT; OR NONTRADING POLICIES AND MEASURES, INCLUDING

(I) TAXES ON EMISSIONS;

(II) LABELING REQUIREMENTS;

(III) LIABILITY MEASURES;

(IV) PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS;

(V) PROGRAMS COMMONLY KNOWN AS FEEBATES. (Emphasis mine.)

Anyway, that hearing is February 20 for the Senate bill.

HB 909/SB 674 is called the “Maryland Energy Efficiency Standards Act of 2007”. Once again, Delegate Elmore joins with the predominantly Democrat co-sponsors of this bill. This bill was just introduced Friday so all I have on it is essentially the title and a short synopsis. Thus, no hearing’s been scheduled yet.

The GOP is once again trying to enact “Jessica’s Law”, in this term it’s known as HB 930/SB 413. Our two local Senators, along with GOP Delegates Elmore and Haddaway, are among the co-sponsors. No local Democrats are on that list.

HB 994/SB 475 wishes to establish a “Task Force on the Policy and Funding Implications of Requiring Passage of the High School Assessment for Graduation.” So the poor souls who couldn’t pass the state graduation test (and most likely the teachers’ unions, who are held somewhat accountable by these tests) must have whined to the right people. Just introduced in the House Friday, no hearings are set yet.

SB 564 would submit a proposed Constitutional Amendment to voters in 2008 establishing that in Maryland, a legally recognized marriage is only that one between a man and a woman. Both local Senators are co-sponsors, as they should be. Look for a lot of gay activists in Annapolis on March 1st, the date the hearing on this Senate bill is slated.

Senator Stoltzfus is a co-sponsor of SB 597, which would require election judges to verify a voter’s identity and address. Like that has a chance in Annapolis? It’s not shocking to me that no hearing on this has been scheduled.

He’s also a co-sponsor of SB 598, a measure that would put telephones already on the federal “do-not-call” list off limits to politically related calls as well. No hearing is set on that, which is surprising given the number of people I heard complaining about this very subject last fall.

******************************

It looks like I’ll be doing a LOT of tracking in the weeks to come, just to see how these bills fare in Annapolis. Those are far from the only bills of importance out there, but these 21 I picked out give a pretty good rundown on some of the most important issues.

Quick link(s)

Well, the first one out of the chute for the Salisbury City Council insofar as the Internet goes is, not surprisingly, the incumbent Gary Comegys. Challenger Terry Cohen is probably going to be second since she’s secured a URL, just hasn’t placed anything on that website yet.

I’ve added Gary’s link to the side, and the 2007 Salisbury race will be on top of the board since my bloglist comes up in alphabetical order. Obviously, if more people have websites I’d love to know about them. I truly don’t have a horse in the race since I can’t vote in this election. But I will say that I know a few of the candidates a little bit, since I spoke at some length to the aforementioned Mrs. Cohen at our last WCRC meeting and know Louise Smith from her service as one of my predecessors on the Republican Central Committee. I also covered Neil Bayne’s County Council efforts last summer, so I’ve spoken to him briefly a time or two.

Soon I would think that the candidate forums and such will get underway and hopefully I’ll be able to devote a bit of coverage to this race to join Debbie Campbell and Shanie Shields on Salisbury City Council. (Speaking of Debbie, she had a quite informative 20 minutes on the radio today.)

I’m going to expect that I’ll end up with 4 or 5 linked sites when all is said and done. My feeling is that each of the three eventual winners will get their votes in part due to having a website. With the blogs in Salisbury becoming home to much of the political discourse, an Internet presence is vital in my opinion.

I have other surprises and events coming up in the next few weeks on monoblogue, so stay tuned.

Salisbury News wins again…

I figured I’d get people ready because I know Joe Albero will be excited again after he sees this.

On January 26 Joe placed a post on Salisbury News claiming that Doris Schonbrunner was to become the new assistant county administrator.

I was just looking over the Daily Times website and at 5:24 p.m. today Joe Gidjunis posted an article for tomorrow’s paper, “Schonbrunner to become Council Administrator“. However, this selection was only confirmed today by the Wicomico County Council.

So Joe’s going to be pretty pleased about beating the DT by what, 9 days?

As for myself, having supported Doris in the primary election I’m happy she’s staying in the county and I think the naysayers who commented on the Albero article will be won over by the professionalism that I’m sure Doris will handle her new duties with. If not, I guess they’ll just have to stew in it, won’t they?

A 50 year plan: Eminent domain/property rights

I actually wasn’t going to do this particular subject yet, but I received an e-mail at work yesterday that bothered me and I wanted to share my reaction. In turn, since I’d planned on doing a “50 year plan” post on the issue anyway, this was as good of time as any to do so.

Recently, partially at the behest of my company but moreso to keep my continuing education requirements straight (and maintain my architectural license) I rejoined the American Institute of Architects after a hiatus of about 5 years or so. So now I’m a member of AIA Chesapeake Bay instead of AIA Toledo, but the national song seemingly remains the same.

I figured out that my membership had gone through when I started receiving AIA e-mails at work, which I have zero problem with. But yesterday’s e-mail was a newsletter called The Angle, which documents their political lobbying efforts and other related items the AIA pursues. Part of this newsletter was soliciting input for an AIA position statement, as follows:

Proposed Position Statement 46 – Eminent Domain

The American Institute of Architects believes that eminent domain is a critical tool for revitalizing our cities and improving the quality of life in urban and suburban neighborhoods. State and local governments must ensure that eminent domain laws do not curtail smart growth efforts, brownfield cleanup, or otherwise limit new development and improvements to existing development.

Well, since they asked for my input, they got it…

I would feel much better about this if the statement read as follows:

“The American Institute of Architects believes that eminent domain is a critical tool for revitalizing our cities and improving the quality of life in urban and suburban neighborhoods. While the AIA acknowledges and agrees that private property rights are paramount in our free society, we also feel that state and local governments can and should balance the rights of existing property holders with eminent domain laws that do not curtail smart growth efforts, brownfield cleanup, or otherwise limit new development and improvements to existing development.”

As I read it, the AIA is taking a position of property holders be damned, we just want to develop sites regardless of who’s hurt in the process and all these damn libertarians who insist on actually following the “takings clause” in the Fifth Amendment are just meddling with our profession.

Many eminent domain proceedings in the last decade have stretched the term “public use” way beyond its intent. Personally, I do not believe in government using its power and taking one’s private property to benefit another person simply for additional tax revenue.

And so begins this portion of what I’ve come to call my “50 year plan.” It’s pretty simple, really. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution reads, in part, as follows:

(N)or (shall a person) be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Emphasis mine.)

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court handed down what’s popularly known as the Kelo decision. In a 5-4 decision (Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer the majority; O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas found for Suzette Kelo) the Court held that, despite the fact that “the city is not planning to open the condemned land – at least not in its entirety – to use by the general public.” They noted, “this…Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the…public.”

You know, sometimes the Supreme Court gets it wrong. The idea behind eminent domain was to allow the taking of private property for a public use, such as a highway, airport, or a building that would be owned by the taxpayers rather than a private entity. But in the case of Suzette Kelo, her property would be used by a private developer – a developer who was planning on developing the land to boost the city’s tax base.

In the time since, many states have enacted laws to prohibit this practice. According to the Castle Coalition, 34 states either have a prohibition on this practice or strengthened its position on the law in 2006. Maryland is not one of them.

There is a fairly weak reform bill in the hopper in the Maryland Senate this session, SB3. A similar bill last session, also SB3 (along with HB1137), was referred back to committee once it was amended to change from a legislative matter to a Constitutional amendment by an amendment from Senator Allan Kittleman. (The House bill did not make it out of committee at all.)

Interestingly enough, the eminent domain power in Maryland has not been used much recently for “traditional” items such as highways, airports, government buildings, etc. The heaviest user of eminent domain in recent years has been the Maryland Stadium Authority, as they cleared out blocks of homes and businesses to build, among others, M&T Bank Stadium and Oriole Park at Camden Yards.

I like the idea of a Constitutional amendment at the state level, as long as the amendment clearly states that the power of eminent domain is to be used only for the public good and not to enrich one powerful private entity at the expense of a class of lesser entities as happened in New London, Connecticut. Theoretically, the federal level is already taken care of in the Fifth Amendment; all that needs is a Supreme Court which remembers that our laws are based solely on what the Founders wrote, not what they feel is in our best interest at the time or on incorrect precedents.

Because this eminent domain issue has a fairly simple solution and can be settled rather quickly, it’s one of the easiest planks to rectify in my 50 year plan. So I’m going to expand on the subject a little by talking about private property rights and other property issues.

Obviously in our nation one has some restrictions on property rights, which are mostly common-sense sorts of things. For example, it would not be a good idea if I built a rifle range in the midst of a residential area. If I had complete property rights theoretically I could do this, but most areas have some sort of zoning to prevent such incompatible uses from occurring on adjacent plots. Generally things like usage, setbacks, building area as a percentage of a lot, and building height are covered. These can also be waived if the property owner presents a compelling reason to do so in front of an elected or appointed local body.

However, I see a trend where government is restricting land usage by regulation. A recent example was embodied by the number of National Monuments established by President Clinton by his interpretation of the Antiquities Act of 1906. Whereas national parks need Congressional approval, in many cases national monuments do not. Clinton established a total of 19 national monuments, mostly in the final year or so of his term. While much of the land was already federally owned, this action also further restricted its usage. With the strokes of his pen Clinton placed over 5 million acres of land out of reach to mining and development. (That’s about 2/3 of the size of Maryland.) By comparison, President Bush has enacted just one land-based national monument of about 1/3 acre in New York City. A summary of concerns can also be found here.

While local zoning codes are generally fair, the scale of regulation of private property by the federal government is much less so – and much harder to combat. Another area of regulation that concerns me is hypersensitivity by people concerned with environmental issues such as endangered species. A number of projects have been thwarted nationwide because some so-called endangered species MIGHT have a nesting ground or habitat there. While there’s a case for preserving habitat, the balance is currently way too far in favor of militant environmentalism at the expense of economy.

Now I’ll shift my focus to a more local level.

In last year’s state election, Maryland voters unwisely placed the General Assembly in charge of the disposition of state land rather than retaining it under executive authority. This ballot issue arose from the proposed sale of state land in St. Mary’s County to a developer – something I personally had no problem with. Just like the argument in the Kelo case about the economic benefit to the city of New London, the land in question could have possibly benefitted the coffers and overall economy of St. Mary’s County. But in this case government took the opposite side.

Ideally to me governmental entities will own the least amount of land necessary to function. Further, land that is owned by the government should be as free of restrictions to private use as possible. While development would have limits, something where the public good outweighs the risks (such as drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) can be done if managed properly and carefully.

This portion of the 50 year plan will take much longer to implement than the eminent domain issue will because again it’s going to take a sea change in attitude by the powers that be. The more land they have, the more power. It’s going to take a forceful voice from the people to make government give back to the private sector what is rightfully theirs.

“So let’s get to work.” (Then we’ll pick your pocket.)

Once again, I probably saved a half-hour in my life by reading over Martin O’Malley’s “State of the State” address. Obviously he’s only been in office two weeks so he has no accomplishments to speak of – hell he doesn’t even have his full cabinet yet.

But of course, he had to get in his gratutitous slams. Moments after noting that Maryland has “good and decent people on both sides of these debates (over the death penalty, slots, etc.)” he then remarked, “We cannot resolve every unsettled issue in just 90 days; nor can we heal in 90 days divisions that were four years in the making.” He also opened the speech by noting, “the drift of recent years.”

On a philosophical level, O’Malley is making mostly proper initiatives insofar as most of these items will be paid for (and paid for, and paid for some more) by Maryland’s taxpayers. The only whining he did about something he wanted from the federal government was asking for an expanded National Capital Region (ostensibly to receive more federal funding.)

But on a practical level, there are many problems that I think Maryland will face because of O’Malley’s so-called solutions. I can just run right through the text of the speech to point out a few of the more egregious ones; it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

I’ll start with where O’Malley states, “we now have an opportunity to put professional regulators back on the job at the Public Service Commission.” Regardless of who he places on the PSC, the fact remains that energy is going to cost more in the near-term future. A sustainable business model cannot be had by going back to the days where utilities have to beg and plead to raise rates. Further, in order to comply with the almost-certain state mandates on pollution control, the utilities need to raise the money from someplace. Putting anti-business hyper-environmentalists on the PSC will do nothing for consumers in the long-term, but by then O’Malley will be on to his next political stop.

“(W)e will also start making regular, measurable strides toward increasing the participation of minority and women-owned businesses in the economy of our state,” continued the governor. To me, that sounds like just more set-asides and other discriminatory programs in state government. I want the best businesses to succeed, regardless of ownership. How many times has it been the case where the money behind the business is from white males, with the token woman or minority owner just to qualify for the set-asides?

Martin then worked through a number of spending programs for both K-12 education and working to freeze the cost of college tuition. The sad fact is that college costs will continue to rise regardless, and the costs passed on through additional fees or a higher cost for room and board. A tuition freeze sounds great, but tuition is only part of the outlay. Meanwhile, I suppose building new facilities for K-12 is a good idea, but I’m not sure at all that bricks and mortar will solve the problems within our public schools.

O’Malley spent a good deal of his effort on proposing his solutions to our health care issue. “Among other things the (Maryland Healthcare A)ct will create a Health Insurance Exchange to help small businesses find more affordable coverage for their employees – on a pretax basis. It will require insurance companies to allow younger adults up to age 25 to be covered under their parents’ policies. And it will also provide healthcare coverage to more children in our state.”

The biggest trouble I see with this concept is that it applies more of a burden on the companies that sell health insurance in the state of Maryland. Unfortunately. O’Malley doesn’t address how this HIE program will promote competition. With the number of coverage mandates Maryland has, it’s like giving the consumer a choice of a Cadillac, Lexus, BMW, or Ferrari when their budget dictates a Chevrolet.

(As an aside, MPPI Senior Fellow Marc Kilmer has a good commentary piece regarding health insurance in today’s Baltimore Examiner. Kilmer also touched on this subject in a recent monoblogue interview.)

You know, Governor O’Malley worries a lot more about “saving the bay” than I do. Believe me, I lived by Lake Erie and if mankind couldn’t kill that body of water, I’m not worried much about Chesapeake Bay. Obviously there are a lot of common-sense solutions and Salisbury getting a good chunk of the $138 million O’Malley pledges toward improving local water and wastewater systems would help a great deal.

However, saying that, “(e)very dollar of Open Space funding this year – an estimated $289 million – will be spent on open space” means that the state will spend huge money buying land to take it off county tax rolls and further burden the counties who need the revenue themselves. And re-establish the Office of Smart Growth? Martin, let’s just call a spade a spade – it’ll be the office of anti-growth. It’s bad enough your party’s established a terrible business climate in Maryland (with the possible exception of one being a woman or minority), now you want to really make things tough by killing residential development.

And of course we come to where Marylanders “accept our responsibility in the fight against global warming.” Leaving aside that we really don’t have a lot to do about global warming, this was the opening for O’Malley to press for passage of the Clean Cars Act.

The biggest problem I see with the CCA is that it’ll raise the price of new cars anywhere from $200 to $1000. It’ll be a boon to car dealers in adjacent states that don’t have similar restrictions, but it also may mean that older, more polluting cars stay on the road longer. Moreover, those polluting heaps will sit in traffic that’s becoming worse.

Martin O’Malley and his allies seem to think that if you throw more money at mass transit, people will take advantage of it. Of the billion-plus dollars devoted to transportation in his budget, over 20% will go toward mass transit projects. The reality is that these modes of transport won’t ever carry more than a small fraction of the workforce and negligible amounts of non-commuter trips. These budgetary dollars simply do not address where the demand is and will be.

These are the monetary issues I have with the “State of the State” address. I also have an issue with some of the attitude.

“This year, together, we are choosing to make progress on the priorities of the people who elected us. Implicit, however, in the choices we make this year is the faith that we have the courage to face up to the fiscal reality before us in the year ahead.”

“If not, we risk going back to a time that we were not particularly proud of — making life less affordable for middle-class families. Cutting funds to local government. Stealing from our children’s future by taking money away from open space, and shifting transportation dollars away from reducing traffic. I don’t believe that is the sort of future we would choose.”

Well, Governor O’Malley, what I chose was to have a fiscally responsible governor who didn’t find every excuse in the book to balloon the size of government. Unfortunately, I was in the minority in the last election. However, I don’t plan on being in the minority in 2010, nor it is likely you’ll earn my vote by advocating the programs you advocate.

Unfortunately, the GOP’s response left me wanting as well. It did a brief job of comparing and contrasting the Ehrlich record with O’Malley’s proposals, but I wanted to see some alternatives given to the people of Maryland as well.

Start by making Maryland more business-friendly by instituting tort reform and allowing more competition in the health insurance industry by reducing or eliminating coverage mandates. Worry less about the school buildings and more about the students. How about allowing state school funding to follow the child regardless of the schooling choice made by the parents?

Rather than re-establishing an “Office of Smart Growth”, let those who know the local situation best in the counties and municipalities decide what is smart growth for them. Instead of more regulations for the auto industry, accept the choice that most Free Staters have made as far as their personal commutes go and build better, safer highways.

The Maryland Republican Party missed an opportunity in their response. Let’s not be like the Democrats in Congress, who won not because they presented a better alternative, but simply because the GOP House and Senate members failed in living up to their promises. We are the party of better ideas, let’s act like it.