Laundry list 2007 through 2010

I think someplace along the line I noted that I was on a whole slew of e-mail list from the various campaigns and I check them every so often.

So, the other day I got an e-mail from the O’Malley campaign regarding their “One Maryland” tour, with stops in Kensington, Solomon, Easton, Frederick, and Annapolis. Doesn’t sound like they’re traveling too far from what they REALLY consider the One Maryland – their power base in Baltimore, MoCo, and PG County.

But what I did with the link back to the O’Malley campaign website is done something I thought I couldn’t do anymore. I got (and saved to my computer) .pdf files of all of the promises O’Malley made during the campaign. The reason was for future reference, of course! So grab your wallet now because here’s just a few of the ways where our soon-to-be governor wants to spend YOUR money:

  • “Adequately fund” the Department of Disabilities.
  • Use “state resources” to better promote community oriented support and services.
  • Create a statewide affordable housing fund to support development projects that ensure affordable housing.
  • “Fully fund” the state’s paratransit system.
  • Fund the Maryland Agricultural and Resource-Based Industry Development Corporation.
  • “Fully fund” Program Open Space.
  • “Dedicate funds” based on recommendations of the Kopp Commission study on school construction.
  • “Fully fund” the Thornton Education Plan.
  • Increase teacher pensions and incentive programs.
  • Increase funding to the community college system.
  • Increase weatherization funds for insulation and windows for low-income Marylanders.
  • “Double funding” to the Community Energy Loan Program.
  • “Fully fund” lead paint prevention programs.
  • “Increase funding” to programs to reward farmers for planting cover crops and creating buffer zones.
  • “Invest” in transit to provide “livable, workable downtowns.”
  • “Increase funding” for community health centers.
  • “Dedicate more state resources” to increasing access to care in rural communities.
  • “Adequate support” to assisted living facilities in Maryland.
  • “Double assistance” to counties for violent crime prevention.
  • “Invest” in mass transportation options to allow Marylanders to use alternatives to cars.

That’s twenty bullet points, really just the low-hanging fruit among the myriad promises made while “the Mick” was on the campaign trail. I didn’t include the maze of tax credits he’s proposing for certain actions or any of the money I’m sure his “Environmental Bill of Rights” will cost, nor the millions his additional health care initiatives are sure to add to the toll. Already his Democrat allies in the General Assembly have thrown their support behind an extra $1 per pack cigarette tax, which is supposed to raise an extra $210 million but likely will fall far short of projections as “sin taxes” generally do. (It’ll get spent as if the $210 million was in the bag though.) And an article in the Sun from yesterday lends credence to a rumor that Maryland’s tax system may be overhauled, which would include an expansion (and possibly an increase) in the state’s sales tax.

But remember Maryland, you elected him so obviously you swallowed the promises hook, line, and sinker. (Well, except for folks like me who voted to retain Bob Ehrlich in office.) Unfortuately, the budget in Maryland is going to be balanced on the back of the businessman, the farmer, the landowner, and the other productive people – let the wealth redistribution by fiat begin. Hopefully Atlas will hold off from shrugging for four years and Maryland can rectify its 2006 mistake in 2010.

Day one in Congress

There were a number of bills I’m going to have to keep track of that I found interesting for various reasons.

First off, our own Wayne Gilchrest introduced one of the first bills on the House docket. H.R. 16 would “amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to improve and reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay program.” It was actually the sixth bill introduced since Nancy Pelosi reserved numbers 1-10 for her own pet items. There’s 18 co-sponsors with this, all with districts surrounding Chesapeake Bay.

Here’s one I really like. Maryland’s Roscoe Bartlett introduced H.R. 77, which would “amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to change the deadline for income tax returns for calendar year taxpayers from the 15th of April to the first Monday in November.” That would be cool if passed. Obviously the intent is to have the tax bill fresh on the minds of voters.

H.R. 121 could impact me as the push for “green” buildings continues. Rep. Michael Doyle of Pennsylvania is the sponsor of this measure “to improve efficiency in the Federal Government through the use of high-performance green buildings, and for other purposes.” It’s those “other purposes” that always scare me. This bill has 1 co-sponsor.

Ending the “automatic” citizenship of babies born in the U.S. is the aim of H.R. 133, introduced by California Rep. Elton Gallegly. This would “amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.” He also brought out H.R. 138, which is an act “to require an employer to take action after receiving official notice that an individual’s Social Security account number does not match the individual’s name, and for other purposes.”

On the other end of the political spectrum, fellow Californian Rep. Zoe Lofgren submitted H.R. 182, which would “amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose an excise tax on automobiles sold in the United States that are not alternative fueled automobiles, and for other purposes.”

Texas Rep. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Clinton Social Security tax increase with H.R. 192, a bill that would “amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits.” This actually has 5 co-sponsors.

Congress has jurisdiction over the courts. It’s my assumption that Rep. Michael Simpson of Idaho wants his state out of what’s affectionately known as the “Ninth Circus” Court. H.R. 221 has as its purpose “to amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for the appointment of additional Federal circuit judges, to divide the Ninth Judicial Circuit of the United States into two circuits, and for other purposes.”

Turning to the Senate, I found some of their bills interesting too.

S.48 was introduced by Nevada Sen. John Ensign. He and his two co-sponsors want “a bill to return meaning to the Fifth Amendment by limiting the power of eminent domain.”

S.55 would “amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the individual alternative minimum tax.” Sen. Max Baucus of Montana is the lead sponsor, with 4 co-sponsors.

S.102 also would “amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and expand relief from the alternative minimum tax” but in return it also would “repeal the extension of the lower rates for capital gains and dividends for 2009 and 2010.” Not surprisingly, Sen. John F. Kerry is your sponsor for this “soak the rich” (meaning anyone who happens to sell stock for a gain like I have) bill.

Far-left readers of monoblogue already practically worship this Senator, but Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin is the sponsor of S.121, “A bill to provide for the redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.” (i.e. cut and run.) He has one co-sponsor, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California. Boxer is also the sponsor of S.151, which seeks a law “to permanently prohibit oil and gas leasing off the coast of the State of California, and for other purposes.” That bill, in turn, has one co-sponsor – the other California Senator, Dianne Feinstein.

Barbara’s quite the busy lady. She also introduced S.152, which would “amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to establish a program to help States expand the educational system to include at least 1 year of early education preceding the year a child enters kindergarten.” So the government schools would have control of your kids basically from the age of 3 onward.

Our Rep. Gilchrest has a friend in the Senate. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska placed S.183 into the hopper, a bill to “require the establishment of a corporate average fuel economy standard for passenger automobiles of 40 miles per gallon (by) 2017, and for other purposes.”

In total, there were 230 bills introduced in the House and 173 in the Senate. These are just a few that caught my eye. The Thomas service is a nice way to find these bills and their status.

Surveying the MBA

Wanted to make a quick shout out to two fellow MBA members who have items worth reading:

We haven’t figured out why he doesn’t show up on our list yet, but I’d like to welcome “Fredneck” and the Rockin’ Catoctin blog to our merry little group. Today he has an interesting take on unionism. I really have no problem with unions insofar as organizing and such, but politically they support the wrong team and I think it’s their union-first mentality that gets in the way of what’s better for a free society.

Meanwhile, Soccer Dad talks about an interesting juxtaposition in the Sun yesterday and extends it to make some comparisons between crimefighting in Baltimore under Martin O’Malley/Kurt Schmoke and New York City under Rudy Giuliani.

Speaking of the onetime NYC mayor, his Presidential Exploratory site is up and running. I’m going to start building the links to all of the 2008 contenders and pretenders. (Believe me there’s a LOT of them.) However, my motto on this once again is “let the people decide.”

I’ll place these links down toward the bottom since we ARE over a year away from the “Hawkeye Cauci”. Look for them starting this weekend.

One week until 90 days we’ll pay off for years

In a week the 2007 General Assembly session begins, and Democrats are salivating over the renewed possibilities – they now have the governor’s seat back so no more veto threats or messy override votes. Not only that, just 25 miles or so down the road in DC their party now holds the Congressional purse strings as well. It’s just the matter of that President sitting there but the folks in Congress can sucker him by pledging bipartisanship. (Did anyone check to see if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid had their fingers crossed behind their back?)

But I’m going to focus on Annapolis for this post. Just three articles I’ve run across in the last few days (one in the Washington Times and these two in the Baltimore Sun) told me it was open season on our wallets and our liberty come next week.

You know, one thing that was not noted during the campaign was that Mayor O’Malley raised Baltimore city residents’ taxes by $30 million last year (according to the Times.) A higher property tax rate here, a $3.50 per month tax on cel phones there, maybe toss in a 12% tax on the rest of your phone bill and 2% tax on energy…pretty soon you’re talking about real money. That’s about $50 out of each average Baltimore resident’s pocket. To that end, State Senator Edward Kasemeyer (D- Columbia) noted in the Times article that “increases in state taxes on sales, income, gasoline, and tobacco are ‘in the mix’ for addressing long-term budget needs.” Since he’s the Senate’s Majority Leader, you can pretty much bank on the state grabbing your wallet.

And if that’s not enough, the Sun article regarding auto emissions points to a stricter California-style pollution regulation on autos sold in Maryland. In another case of the Eastern Shore paying for the sins of the rest of the state, it’s cited in the Sun piece that Somerset County’s risk for cancer caused by airborne toxins is 1/6 of that in Baltimore City. Yet the entire state would have to shell out extra (estimates run from $100 to $1,000 for the additional equipment in each car) if the legislation that will be introduced by Del. Elizabeth Bobo (D-Columbia) passes.

However, buried in the tome is one dirty little secret. Pending federal regulations will do much of the work that this bill would achieve. Even more ludicrous, environmental lobbyist Brad Heavner is quoted as saying “the required upgrades could (emphasis mine) prevent one additional case of cancer over the course of 70 years in 25,000 babies born statewide.” Yet those 25,000 babies would pay hundreds extra for every new car they bought to prevent one of them just maybe getting cancer.

And finally, with Democrats in Maryland it will be a case of “if we can’t get what we want because it’s unconstitutional, we’ll just change the constitution.” That’s what they aim to do in my other Sun example. That early-voting law they passed that was unconstitutional according to the Maryland Court of Appeals? Look for it on the 2008 ballot. It’s unlikely that, when an early voting measure was passed, vetoed, and overriden in the last two General Assemblies with solid Democrat support in all four votes, we’re going to see anything less than a 3/5 majority pass this turkey of a constitutional amendment along to Maryland voters. And with practically enough votes just in the Baltimore/PG/MoCo area to carry all four statewide Democrats to election in 2006, there’s little hope that this amendment would fail in 2008.

So in 2010 when Governor O’Malley is up for re-election, how out of the question would it be for busloads of inner-city Baltimore residents to have a nice day trip to the slots down in Ocean City with some of that walking-around money campaigns are allowed to have. The bus will make a stop in each county seat so fill out your early voting ballots and just check off the top name for each office (since Democrats will have the “top” ballot billing again in 2010.)

You see, somehow I doubt that the early voting effort will have a photo ID requirement. Just a hunch.

It’s probably a good thing I don’t read the papers every day because I’m sure that they’re just full of these bright ideas on how the Democrats are going to help out the working man by sticking their hand in everyone’s wallet and their nose into where it doesn’t belong. However, as a blogger and one who craves the return of personal freedom I may have to make this sacrifice more often just so I can point all of this out.

And may I suggest some alternatives?

As far as state spending goes, has anyone ever taken a look at just what the state really NEEDS? I’m not into spending money for money’s sake. For example – does the state really NEED to buy private land to keep it from being developed (and taking it off the county tax rolls?) Or, to use an example I heard on the radio news today, does the state NEED to move part of its Attorney General office to Montgomery County? I don’t sense an attitude in state government that says “we should try to use as little taxpayer money as possible because it’s their money and thus we should prioritize our spending efforts.” Instead we get efforts like the one I noted some time ago about raising the cigarette tax $1.00 a pack to fund Maryland’s bid to combat teen smoking and add people to the state’s health insurance rolls. I don’t care for coercing money from people to do something that private initiative could possibly do better.

Regarding the other initiatives, I believe that the cost/benefit ratio of the auto emissions regulation is too much of a burden on average Free Staters. While no one wants additional cases of cancer, the costs of the emissions equipment would burden everyone from the person who wants a new car to the auto dealer who could lose a few sales to neighboring states. In fact, this law could be counterproductive if the auto dealers’ association is correct and the cost is more like $1,000 plus per car. Then the more polluting older cars likely stay on the road longer.

And most who have read monoblogue know how I feel about early voting, particularly since Maryland already is a “shall-issue” absentee ballot state. It’s going to open a Pandora’s Box of fraud if my gut instinct is correct. However, it’s only when the Democrats lose that fraud seems to be a problem and early voting’s another attempt to game the system so they can’t lose.

Ten questions for…Marc Kilmer of the Maryland Public Policy Institute

My “Ten Questions” series returns with a twist.

Believe it or not, in less than two weeks (January 10) the sausage-grinding begins in Annapolis as the 2007 General Assembly gets underway. With that in mind, I went to a local man who’s quite familiar with many of the issues that will face our state in this and future years. But he’s not an elected official.

Regular readers of monoblogue may recognize the Maryland Public Policy Institute as an organization whose views I amplify from time to time. With a mission to “formulate and promote public policies at all levels of government based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, and civil society” it’s more often than not that I agree with their stances. So, I’m pleased to have discussed the issues in a recent e-mail interview with Marc Kilmer, who is a local resident and Senior Fellow with the MPPI. Mr. Kilmer is also a Research Associate for the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, which was a happy accident since I had a nodding familiarity with that group from my native state.

While Marc did want me to note that his opinions are not necessarily those of MPPI, I’m quite happy with how the interview came out and think local readers will be as well.

monoblogue: I’d like to start out by asking a little bit about your background and how you came to be involved in the Maryland Public Policy Institute.

Kilmer: I was raised in Idaho and when I graduated from Hillsdale College in Michigan I moved to Washington, D.C. While there I worked for Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) for four years and was then the Executive Director/CEO of a trade association representing nonprofit providers of services for people with disabilities (organizations similar to Dove Pointe and Lower Shore Enterprises here in Salisbury). My wife took a job in Salisbury so we moved here a year ago. At the same time, a friend working for the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, a free market think tank in Ohio, was looking for someone to take over one of his projects. Since I was looking for work, I began contracting with the Buckeye Institute to write on technology issues. After a few months I looked around for similar think tanks in Maryland and found the Maryland Public Policy Institute. I contacted Christopher Summers, the President, and offered my services, and I’ve been doing health care work with the MPPI since July.

monoblogue: It sounds like you’re a fairly ambitious entrepreneurial type. Having lived in and studied about several different places (including my native state of Ohio), how would you say Maryland’s business climate compares as far as taxation, red tape, etc. to other areas you’re familiar with?

Kilmer: I’ve really only studied the business climate of one other state (Ohio) and Maryland generally comes off better. That may be a little surprising, since Ohio is a Republican state (the recent election of a Democratic governor notwithstanding) and Maryland is quite liberal, but I guess it goes to show that poor economic ideas are not confined to either party.

Ohio, for instance, ranks 47 on the Tax Foundation’s business tax climate index. Maryland ranks 22. Of course, that isn’t all that great when you look at Maryland’s neighbors, which all rank higher (Delaware is at 8, Virginia is at 19, and Pennsylvania is at 16). The state could certainly do better by lowering taxes and easing some economic restrictions.

I am troubled, however, at the increasingly business-unfriendly actions being taken by the General Assembly. From raising the minimum wage to passing the “Wal Mart bill,” it seems that our legislators are increasingly enamored with passing legislation that is completely symbolic in terms of “solving” a problem and yet is quite destructive for certain businesses. While I am not generally in favor of imposing heavy burdens on business, at least if a legislature is going to do this, these burdens should be an effective remedy to some problem. Our General Assembly, however, does not seem to feel the same way.

Although I am disturbed by the actions of the General Assembly, I am more concerned about anti-business action on the county level. The slow growth agenda so popular here in Wicomico County is much more destructive to business than almost anything the General Assembly is contemplating. Although it is packaged in nice rhetoric, the heart of the slow growth movement is the desire by one group of citizens to tell another group how it may use its private property. Meddling in the choices of others through restrictive zoning, impact fees, and the other tools of “smart growth” is much more destructive to the economic life of Wicomico County than a higher minimum wage or the Wal Mart bill.

monoblogue: I tend to agree with you regarding growth in general, but those who favor slower growth or a complete moratorium on it bring up a valid point in claiming that when growth is too fast or poorly planned it creates large problems because infrastructure isn’t necessarily improved at the same time.

With the state looking at huge budgetary mandates outside the realm of capital spending, what steps (if any) would you advocate the state take to assist the local counties, or is this better left on a local level?

Kilmer: To continue the digression on smart growth policies, I agree that infrastructure needs to keep up with growth. I have issues with people who use terms like “make growth pay for itself,” and then try to increase taxes and fees on developers and newcomers. Growth does pay for itself — new residents pay the same taxes as the old residents.

Governments should use this increase in revenue to pay for new or improved infrastructure and not try to increase the tax burden on new arrivals. Furthermore, everyone uses the new infrastructure, so trying to force only newcomers (or people who buy new houses) to pay for it is unfair.

I could go on, but I should probably get to your question:

As far as mandates, I’m not completely familiar with all the mandates imposed on local governments, so I’ll have to be general. To meet state mandates, I’m not sure what needs to be done at the state level except ensure the state is very careful to impose mandates quite narrowly and give counties the freedom to meet these mandates in different ways. At the local level, however, we need elected officials who are willing to look at innovative ideas that can help local government complete its necessary functions as well as use tax dollars most efficiently. For example, with education our county leaders should consider privatization efforts as well as public-private partnerships. Counties have a lot of authority to experiment, but many county leaders seem to think the only way to do things is how they’ve been done for the past thirty or forty years. That needs to change.

monoblogue: As we speak of change, it has to be noted that with an entirely new leadership at the top of state government (new governor, LG, comptroller, and attorney general) it’s obvious state priorities would change. In the case of MPPI, you’re losing a govenor who I’m assuming was amenable to your interests and getting one who’s likely more hostile. Will this entail a strategy shift for the group, or is it still too early to tell?

Kilmer: I can’t really speak on that, since I wasn’t working with MPPI long enough to get a feel for how it interacted with the Ehrlich administration nor can I speak on its strategy for the future.

monoblogue: Fair enough. Let’s shift gears a little bit here. As I posted a few weeks back, you had an enlightening town hall meeting in Salisbury (one of a series across the state.) The predominant subject of discussion was possible remedies to the problem Maryland has with health care coverage. Last summer Massachusetts passed a measure mandating health insurance coverage for all state residents. Could you share with the readers some of MPPI’s reaction to this idea being translated into Maryland?

Kilmer: While I don’t necessarily speak for MPPI, I do see some troubling aspects of the Massachusetts health plan. I’m even further troubled that in Maryland we have the Chamber of Commerce joining with the liberal advocacy group Health Care for All to push aspects of this plan in the next session of the General Assembly. I’m even more troubled that this plan is being embraced by so many Republicans, who ostensibly hail from the “free market” party.

The key of the Massachusetts plan is that individuals are mandated to purchase health insurance. Individual mandates are flawed on both theoretical and practical levels. On the theoretical level, I do not support the notion that the government should force someone to buy any product as a prerequisite for living in the state. Until Massachusetts enacted such a mandate, no state in the U.S. had done this.

On the practical level, there is no way to enforce this mandate. In Massachusetts the state is doing so by forcing people to report their insurance number on their taxes. The problem is that tax compliance is completely voluntary for most people. Government does not check the accuracy of tax returns for the vast majority of filers. It, on the whole, accepts what taxpayers say as true. In order to ensure that people are not lying about having health insurance, the government would be forced to greatly expand its enforcement efforts. And, of course, what about the low-income residents who do not pay taxes? How will the mandate on them be enforced?

So while using tax returns to enforce such a mandate is deeply flawed, it is unclear what other method would produce the necessary results while avoiding massive government intrusion into the life of average citizens.

Some may be able to justify this expansion of government power because they see the problem of the uninsured as so dire. Well, the facts are that the problem of people not having health insurance isn’t all that huge. Only 16% of Marylanders lack insurance. 61% of them have incomes above the federal poverty level. 40% have incomes twice the federal poverty level. And, if Maryland follows national trends, between half and two-thirds only lack insurance for part of the year. There really is only a small percentage of very poor people who don’t have insurance in the state. The rest either lack insurance for only part of the year (likely due to changing jobs) or have enough money to afford it if they really needed it. There is no need to enact unprecedented government mandates and dramatically expand its power over everyone in the state to address the problem of such a small percentage of Marylanders.

monoblogue: Unfortunately, government expanding mandates seems to be the way of the world. Another area this applies to is the educational arena. I know MPPI has done a huge amount of work in supporting school choice, so what’s the best argument to use against one who contends that the public schools are good enough for our children?

Kilmer: School choice is important because different kids have different needs. Public schools are not set up to meet every child’s needs. Some kids need more discipline, some need a more rigorous academic schedule, some need special help, etc. Giving parents a voucher to send their children to schools that meet those children’s needs just makes sense. There is nothing logical about the government deciding that if you have a certain zip code your kids must go to a certain school. Schools should be freely chosen by the parent, not forced on children by the government.

The one thing we often hear in opposition to school choice is that we should focus on improving public schools instead of taking resources away from “underfunded” public schools via vouchers (it’s a whole other debate about whether public education is “underfunded” or whether more funding increases educational results, so I’ll leave that alone). We have been trying to solve the problem of public schools for decades, and there is scant evidence that these reforms have worked very well. Part of that is due to the opposition of teachers’ unions to any real education reform. While these unions hide behind the rhetoric of helping “the children,” people need to realize that teachers’ unions represent teachers, not children. The interest of teachers comes first to them, and their interests do not always coincide with what is best for kids. So reforms like making it easier to fire bad teachers or instituting merit pay for good teachers — commonsense reforms to help incentivize better education — are strongly opposed by teachers unions.

Instead of holding children hostage to continual social experiments to “fix” public schools, it makes sense to let parents who are dissatisfied with these schools to have a voucher to explore an alternative educational situation. That gives parents an opportunity for a better education for their children, but it also gives public schools an incentive to improve. Look at Ohio, which has fairly vigorous school choice in terms of charter schools and vouchers. Public schools are losing students and money, and these schools are responding by improving their programs. The only people who don’t benefit from school choice are bad teachers and bad school administrators.

monoblogue: Given that, would it be a fair statement to continue in that vein and infer that MPPI isn’t too crazy about the Thornton funding mandates in Maryland, or, to use another example I’m familiar with and you might be as well, the huge capital outlay the state of Ohio has undertaken over the last decade to build and rehab all of the state’s K-12 schools?

Kilmer: In MPPI’s Guide to the Issues, Karin Flynn and Tori Gorman did a chapter on Maryland’s budget problems. Part of that was devoted to education spending. In it they noted that since the Thornton Commissions recommendations were codified (more funding that was supposed to be followed by an increase in student achievement), we have seen more funding going to Maryland schools but not similar rise in achievement. There has been some increase in the Maryland School Assessment test scores since 2003, but the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) test has shown no similar trend. As they point out, “. . . by 2005 (the most recent year for which education test scores are available), the state’s education budget had increased 25%, but by all measures [the state] has not seen a concomitant increase in academic achievement.”

monoblogue: I’m pretty familiar with the book and MPPI should be commended for putting it out to contribute to the discussion of issues facing Maryland. But one topic that’s not covered and is going to be a hot-button issue right off the top is expanding the state’s gambling industry by allowing slot machines at the horse racing tracks (and possibly other locations.) Does MPPI have a stance on the issue; or, if they don’t, as an MPPI contributor where do you stand on it?

Kilmer: MPPI doesn’t take stances on issues — it gives scholars a forum to present research and analysis about public policy. However, back in 2003 Tom Firey and Jeffrey Hook did an analysis of this issue for MPPI. Their conclusion: “if the state elects to adopt slot gaming, it should auction off a small number of slot operating licenses via a ‘Reverse Auction’ whereby potential private sector operators (including state horse tracks) vie for the licenses by offering to retain the smallest portion of the win. Under that design, our modeling shows the state would receive $1.6 billion annually from gaming.”

As far as whether the state should allow slot machines, my personal opinion is that it should. The state is obviously not opposed to gambling. It runs a lottery, after all. If the government can run a gambling enterprise, why prevent private businesses from doing the same? And why force people to drive to Delaware or Atlantic City or West Virginia to gamble? People want to gamble. I say let them.

monoblogue: By your answer to that question, you sort of half-answered my next one, so I’ll ask it this way. Because MPPI isn’t a lobbying organization per se, it doesn’t sound like they’re in the business of supporting candidates or advocating the General Assembly directly for pet issues. Would this mean that the business side of MPPI pretty much depends on book sales and contributions with its overhead just being salaries, printing costs, and keeping the lights on?

Kilmer: MPPI isn’t a political advocacy group or lobbying organization. It does not support candidates or bills before the General Assembly. It’s a think tank that is set up to, as its mission statement says, “provide accurate and timely research analysis of Maryland policy issues and market these findings to key primary audiences.” It does so from a free market perspective, but it does not follow any political party line.

As far as its business side, the president of MPPI, Christopher Summers, could answer that better than I can. In most think tanks, there is something of a wall between the analysts and the business side in order to help preserve the independence of analysts. However, I think MPPI’s funding comes from contributions, foundation grants, and book sales. As for overhead, I think you described it pretty well.

monoblogue: Two final questions. I don’t know how successful your pre-session forums were back in October, but will these become an annual event? And are there plans to publish the Guide to the Issues on an annual basis?

Kilmer: The town hall meetings will not be an annual event (although MPPI does hold other forums) and the Guide to the Issues is published every four years.

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

I hope readers found this as enlightening as I did. I truly enjoyed doing this format as opposed to my Ten Questions that were aimed at candidates because I got to cover the topics I wanted to hit on but the interchange also suggested additional lines of inquiry that I didn’t think of originally.

For further information on the Maryland Public Policy Institute, their website is www.mdpolicy.org. I highly recommend a visit, and even more highly recommend placing your e-mail address on their mailing list for information on their events and press citations (as mine is.) They’re going to be a busy crew over the next several years as our state faces a number of difficult decisions.

And once again I’d like to thank Marc for taking time out of his work over several days for his participation.

All talk but no action

There’s been so much talk on the local blog scene about getting rid of the “Scheme Team” (three members of Salisbury’s City Council) that I’m surprised we haven’t heard about anyone throwing their hat into the ring. Now that could be because any potential EOB’s (enemies of Barrie) would want to keep their powder dry, but gee, not even good rumors yet as to who’s running.

But after the first of the year it will certainly be getting started as the filing deadline is pretty early (January 30th to be exact.)

The thing that’s sort of crazy though is that I can’t think of any local blogger who actually lives in Salisbury. Maybe one or two do…but the point is they really can’t step in to solve the problems the city has either. (As of 2 months ago, I can’t because now I live in the county.) Local bloggers (myself included) certainly devote a lot of time to uncovering the problems that are ruining the quality of life on our slice of the Eastern Shore but none can do a whole lot about them aside from financial backing and posting reports.

Because this is a key regional election, I’m going to do like I did for Election 2006 as far as linking to websites and such goes. I may also decide to attend and report on the forums and such – after all, despite the fact I couldn’t vote in the Democrat primary I still covered those candidates as part of my overall Election 2006 coverage. It’s going to be an interesting election cycle and something tells me that, despite the fact Mayor Tilghman is not on the ballot, the 2007 election in Salisbury is going to be a LOT more intriguing than its 2005 predecessor.

Who is going to step up and be the new “Dream Team”? Stay tuned.

By the way, I checked today with Brenda Colegrove and no one has filed yet. In reading Joe’s post on Salisbury News, he says he personally knows of four people running, but there’s no names on the dotted line yet. Does Joe care to share that info?

Otherwise, the title stands for the time being.

A question of sovereignty

The local blogger D.D. Crabb of Crabbin’ has spent quite a bit of time and posting on the efforts to create a North American Union of sorts, based on the European Union and certainly a threat to our constitutional government. Today he posts regarding an interview done by American University professor Robert Pastor, a leader of the “North American Community” crowd. Here’s the money quote:

“Our founding fathers created a system of governance that was not designed to be efficient but was designed to protect freedom. Therefore, you created checks and balances that did protect freedom but also made it difficult to move forward on important issues.”

The way Pastor states his belief is troubling. In other words, American freedom and sovereignty is less important than efficiency. Unfortunately, I can’t see Canada and Mexico as paragons of efficiency.

In Canada, we have an industrialized nation much like the U.S. and one with plentiful natural resources (particularly oil), but with them comes the baggage of their socialized health care system and their pacifism in international affairs. Mexico is also rich in oil but their crude is controlled by a state-run entity and those oil riches do not circulate down to the population at large. This is why a huge number of Mexicans live and work abroad in the United States. The Mexican government can charitably be termed as awash in corruption as opposed to described as just plain criminal. In recent elections, the leftist candidate lost by a small margin and (of course) cried fraud so Mexico is a divided country as well.

With efficient organizations, a merger tends to accentuate the efficiency – so usually this holds true with free-market conditions. Additionally, the element of competition is helpful with creating better outcomes. However, government and bureaucracy is the antithesis of efficiency. It’s my fear that a merger of this sort between the three governments would bring out the worst in each. The Canadian health care system would certainly survive and corruption endemic in Mexico would likely take root in the U.S. As opposed to being a leader in protecting freedom, this union would be neutered in that respect.

The best way to move forward on important issues is to allow the most freedom to be innovative. Looking at the European example, a North American Union (with common currency, multi-national legislature, etc.) does not appear to be a course we want to follow.

So how conservative am I?

My thanks to fellow MBA blogger Crablaw, who came across this short quiz and posted his results. Here’s how I came out:

***Your Political Profile:***

Overall: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Social Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Ethics: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

Here’s the link for yourself.

I’ll bet my libertarian side pushed my “liberal” scores up a bit on Social Issues, the question on marijuana probably made that difference. It was a fun little exercise, although there are a few other quizzes out there. The most famous of them is this one, which I’ve taken before and I ended up on the border between conservative and libertarian there as well.

Open letter to Senator-elect Cardin

As I stated yesterday in my last post, I got an e-mail late Wednesday night from Ben Cardin with its subject being his reaction to the Iraq Study Group report. Here’s what he wrote:

Dear Friend,

Today, the Iraq Study Group presented its recommendations to the Bush administration and the American people. I hope President Bush and his top advisers will read them very closely.

After conducting the most in-depth study on the Bush administration’s management of the war in Iraq to date, the bi-partisan commission reached the same basic conclusion that most Americans have already reached for themselves: we need a change of course in Iraq and we need it now.

As the commission notes, the situation in Iraq is in fact “grave and deteriorating.” The Iraqi government needs to take more responsibility, the Bush administration must reach out to the international community, including some of Iraq’s neighbors, and our troops need to start coming home soon.

I believe the decisions we make in the coming weeks and months about our future involvement in Iraq will be among the most important foreign policy decisions of our times. Our approach in Iraq will not only impact the future of that nation, but also the stability of the entire region and America’s standing in the in the world. With so much is at stake, I am honored that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has nominated me to serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where I will work with my colleagues to develop a new policy in Iraq when the new Congress convenes.

The Bush administration’s policies in Iraq simply are not working – and everyone seems to recognize that but President Bush himself.

The American people know the status quo isn’t working and they voiced their opposition at the polls last month. Most members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, know it’s not working. Numerous former generals and military experts have spoken out against it too. We now know that even Donald Rumsfeld, just two days before resigning, conceded to the President that the current course in Iraq wasn’t working. Yet, to this day, the President insists on continuing with the same failed policies.

Hopefully now, with the commission’s recommendations in hand, the Bush administration will hear the concerns of the American people and chart a new course. It’s time to finally put forward a strategy to start bringing home our troops safely and honorably.

I believe the Bush administration should implement the commission’s recommendation to start significantly drawing down our troops – particularly the non-combat personnel. As the commission noted, beginning the process of bringing American troops home will send a strong signal to the Iraqi government that they need to stand up and assume responsibility for their own security.

I voted against the going to war in Iraq four years ago and have remained an outspoken critic of the President’s management of it. Last June, I outlined my own plan for moving forward in Iraq, which like the Iraq Study Group report, included gradually drawing down American troops and aggressively engaging the international community in the rebuilding of Iraq.

The Iraq Study Group’s report has provided the Bush administration with many thoughtful recommendations on how to chart a new course in Iraq. Now it’s time for the Administration to take action – change is long overdue.

Sincerely,

Ben Cardin

After receiving this e-mail I thought this would be a great chance to post about my feelings on the ISG and the Long War in general.

Dear Senator-elect Cardin:

As one of many on your e-mail list because of my interest in political affairs, I am in receipt of your e-mail note of Wednesday, December 6th. To me, it’s quite ironic that the report came out when it did, as the next day we commemorated the 65th anniversary of the previous (to 9/11/01) surprise attack on American soil, Pearl Harbor.

I find it enlightening that you support having a study group to tell us how to conduct warfare. Back in 1941, the only group that mattered was America as a whole, and as a nation we rolled up our sleeves and got to work defending ourselves regardless of cost in material and lives.

But I thought a good, simple to understand analogy would be to compare our war efforts in Iraq to the current success enjoyed by the Baltimore Ravens. In actuality, the scenario I describe becomes quite possible as the remainder of the football season plays out.

Having defeated an opponent in their first round playoff game, the Ravens would find themselves having to make the long trip to San Diego for the next round of the playoffs. During the prior week, the Ravens study film of previous Charger games to determine what tendencies San Diego has and how best to combat them. And once the game starts, they use their strength and power on both offense and defense to jump off to a quick 14-0 lead.

But as any good team would over the course of the game, the Chargers adjust and start to find some of the weaknesses in the Ravens’ attack. Plus, having the advantages of home field and a week off to prepare, San Diego tosses out a few wrinkles that the Ravens weren’t expecting coming in. The combination of these factors knocks the Ravens back on their heels – Baltimore becomes inept at even the simplest tasks of blocking and holding on to the football. Penalties, turnovers, and mistakes compound and by halftime the momentum has shifted and the Chargers have come back to take a 17-14 lead. And the contingent of Ravens fans who were loudly and boisterously cheering on the purple and black early on becomes openly derisive of their chances in the second half while the ever-skeptical “experts” sneer that “we told you that the Ravens weren’t good enough to win.”

Hopefully it was quite easy to determine which parties in the Long War were analogous to the ones in my semi-mythical playoff game. Our country took the fight to the Islamofascist forces much as the Ravens would have to take their playoff fight to San Diego in order to advance.

So halftime has arrived. It seems to me that the course that you seem to advocate (and have all through the campaign) would be for the Ravens to play their second-stringers during the second half and walk off the field after the third quarter. But true Ravens fans would expect their team to make whatever adjustments were necessary and shift tactics back to other areas they were strongest at to come back for the win. To that end, I find it interesting that nowhere in the main body of the ISG report is the word “victory” mentioned aside from the citation that pulling out would hand the terrorist forces a victory.

As I see it, there’s only one good outcome in the Long War. We win. America cannot win this by retreating nor can diplomacy save the day. Five Presidents (since Jimmy Carter in 1979) have had to deal with these terrorists to one degree or another, with the first of many incidents involving Islamic terrorists being the kidnapping of 52 hostages at the American Embassy in Teheran. One of the hostage-takers is a man who the ISG advocates negotiating with!

President Bush said early on that this fight would not be easy nor would it be short. I read a news article the other day that noted we’ve now fought the battles in Iraq on the ground for a longer period than our involvement in World War 2. As the media almost gleefully reports a daily body count and works to move the nation into an anti-war frenzy as occurred with Viet Nam, it makes me wonder if the length of this fight has as much to do with the lack of support from people like you, Senator-elect Cardin, as it does the anti-Semitic, religiously extreme resolve that drives our enemies on the battlefield. We learned today that this resolve may have led a young man to sacrifice himself and kill hundreds of others in an Illinois mall during the holidays if not for good work by FBI agents.

The other good work has been done by many thousands of young men and women who do support our country and what it stands for. Some of them have made the ultimate sacrifice as Derrick Shareef may have planned to as part of jihad. But with any outcome other than our eventual victory, those fine Americans (and other coalition forces) who’ve died in Iraq and Afghanistan die in vain.

Sincerely,

Michael Swartz
www.monoblogue.us

Open invitations

I actually began to write this post earlier tonight but then my cable modem decided to fritz out for some reason. That’s probably a good thing because I started to think after awhile that my tone in the article would’ve been too bitter.

The article came about because I still occasionally get e-mail in the mailbox I established prior to the election for campaign news. And yesterday I got this from Brian Hammock of the Martin O’Malley campaign, under the subject of “Inaugural Workers Needed”:

Dear Michael,

One month ago you helped make history by electing Martin O’Malley as our 61st Governor of Maryland. I’m writing this morning to ask for your help once again as we prepare for the Gubernatorial Inaugural.

Invitations for the inaugural need to be sent out next week. We are looking for volunteers to help assemble the invitations next Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday at the 5th Regimen Armory in Baltimore (219 Twenty-Ninth Division St, Baltimore, MD 21201). We have three shifts available each day: 3:00 – 5:00pm, 5:00 – 7:00pm, 7:00 – 9:00pm.

This will be a good opportunity to see friends from the campaign and be a part of this historic event. Food and beverages will be provided. Please let me know if you can help and which day/shift you are available. You can let me know by email or call the inaugural office at 410-547-8884 ×200.

Leaving aside the fact I wouldn’t vote for Martin O’Malley for dogcatcher (let alone governor), this got me to thinking about a simple question. Of all the volunteers this envelope-stuffing gig will draw (since that’s basically the purpose), how many of the actual stuffers will have an invite sent to them? They may get a courtesy invitation for helping out, but the real movers and shakers who gave big bucks to O’Malley’s campaign (union leaders, trial lawyers, etc.) are going to be the ones who get access to the more exclusive events. And I doubt the high-dollar donors will be the ones in the trenches doing the grunt work.

I suppose the MBA member with the most cogent thoughts on the subject would be Stephanie of Jousting for Justice, she’s done volunteering for the O’Malley campaign and it’s quite possible she’ll be one of those stuffing the envelopes. But if one were to just glance at the subject line like I did, I would be thinking of helping at the actual inaugural event, not a solicitation to stuff envelopes.

Anyway, on to bigger and better things. I also got another note today from Delegate Jeannie Haddaway that I’m happier to pass along:

Dear Friends,

It’s time once again for the 5th Annual Care & Share Santa Swim!!! The event provides funding for families and senior citizens in Dorchester County that need food, clothing, toys and other items to make their holidays brighter.

My request is that you join Delegate Addie Eckardt and I in the swim (PUHLEASE!!!!) or sponsor us for being brave enough to wear a bathing suit in December. So come cheer us on, jump in with us, or sponsor us with a donation!!!

The event is set for this Saturday, December 9th at the beach at the Hyatt Regency Chesapeake Bay resort. Santas will jump in to the brrrr-isk river at 10:00 am (registration starts at 9:30am). There will be awards, refreshments, and other entertainment during this wonderful holiday event – and – don’t forget, the Hyatt has HOT TUBS!! :o)

If you would like to help out, give me a ring at (443) 786-2137 or reply to this email. If you cannot help us this time, please consider joining us for the Polar Bear Plunge in January (to benefit Special Olympics) and say a prayer that it warms up a little before Saturday!!!!

For more info, you can also visit www.votehaddaway.com.

Thanks and Happy Holidays,

Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio

Sorry Jeannie, I don’t think your prayers will be answered. Looks like mid-30’s for temperature with a light wind out of the north.

And wouldn’t you know it, I guess I’m Ben Cardin’s “friend” as well. His campaign dropped a note in my mailbox this evening regarding the Iraq Study Group (or, as Rush Limbaugh calls them, the “Iraq Surrender Group”) and their recommendations. I think I’m going to post on that one tomorrow or Friday.

Just another day with my mailbag. It had actually been quiet for awhile but I guess it’s time to gear up the political machines. We’re only a few weeks away from the resumption of politics-as-usual in both Annapolis and Washington. One thing about having a bipartisan mailbox is it gives me all sorts of opportunities to compare and contrast the two parties, and this example shows why I’m on the right side.

Thoughts on Jim Pelura

In my last post I noted that the incoming head of the Maryland Republican Party was one Jim Pelura. Whether through reading monoblogue or the article in the Baltimore Sun, already several people have the opinion that Dr. Pelura may not have been the best choice, particularly Cato at Delmarva Dealings.

As I noted, I took the time to speak with both Pelura and opponent John White on Friday night as I was making my rounds. I actually enjoyed speaking to both of them and figured either would make a good chairman; however, in the end I thought White would’ve been the better choice and voted accordingly. But I was in a relatively sparse minority as almost 2/3 of the eligible voters at the convention selected Pelura. To me though, it was clear from the start that Pelura was the “establishment” candidate. Several of the e-mails I received in the last couple days before the convention were pro-Pelura and there was one that openly advocated not voting for John White. Nothing wrong with that, obviously some people wanted Pelura to win and stuck their neck out for him. No hard feelings whatsoever.

The most bizarre thing about this chairman election was there were some counties that strongly supported White. He won 8 counties and Baltimore City by a combined 50-11, which was over 70% of his total. Three of our four local counties went into the White column (including Wicomico – Somerset was the lone exception.) The tally in our area was 14-8 White with 7 Pelura votes being Somerset’s. But Pelura pitched shutouts in seven counties and had just one dissenter in three others, which racked up an insurmountable 76-3 margin for the chair.

However, just like the November election that I was on the losing end of for the most part, I’m going to choose to look forward. Here are the items attributed to Pelura that Cato questioned in his post, which actually comes from an Anne Arundel County blog called The Conservative Refuge. I’ll give my thoughts on each afterward.

1) The majority of Marylanders are basically conservative.

To one degree or another, I think Pelura is correct in saying this. Obviously, a place like Takoma Park has the people farthest from this ideal, but in areas like the Eastern Shore and Western Maryland Pelura is spot on, even if there’s more registered Democrats in some counties.

2) The Republican Party of Maryland must reach out to the actual voter and make them feel proud to be Republican.

This comment is pretty much a platitude, on this I have to agree with Cato. Its sentiment is better said in point number 5.

3) The Republican Party should simply promote Republican ideals which will benefit all candidates on the ticket.

I sort of like this “keep it simple stupid” approach because the GOP does have several issues that would appeal to most IF they choose to govern accordingly. Unfortunately, they didn’t do so in Washington over the last 4 to 6 years and that’s why they’re in the minority.

4) There should be active and open cooperation between the Republicans in the House and Senate and the State Party.

Nothing wrong with that. The elected officials should help us out when they can.

5) Most voters want to vote for something or someone and not against something or someone.

On this I agree wholeheartedly. Because disappointed conservatives had no one to vote FOR, the 2006 election was one that was won by a party that simply benefitted by not being in power, as happened in the 1974 post-Watergate election. Did the Democrats really have a lot of bright ideas? Not particularly – at least nothing that rivaled the Reagan “morning in America” or “city on a shining hill” or the Gingrich “Contract With America.” Come to think of it, all the Democrats had in their last big victory (1992) was Bill Clinton’s aw-shucks charm and a country pissed off because of “read my lips” and the Clinton claim of the worst economy in the last 50 years. Times weren’t great in 1991-92 but they weren’t the Great Depression either.

But in talking to Jim Pelura Friday night, I got the impression that he wanted to get a lot more input from the grassroots, which would be folks like me. I think he had a goal of meeting with all 24 local parties in his first year, and I know we here on the Lower Shore can make his life easier because I believe we do tri-county meetings (Worcester, Somerset, Wicomico) three times a year…save him a couple trips. If he wants the party to get away from conservative ideals, he’ll get an earful from us folks down here, particularly me.

I look forward to working with the new Chairman, and hopefully John White will send out a press release of some sort indicating he’ll be happy to support the incoming chair. As I stated at the outset, we had two good candidates running so we were bound to have someone worthy in the role of Chairman. Now it’s time to get cracking on 2008 and 2010, and I have some e-mails to write.

2006 Maryland GOP Fall Convention

The Doubletree Hotel in Annapolis, site of the 2006 Fall Maryland GOP Convention.

The Doubletree Hotel in Annapolis was the site of my first convention as an invited guest. Rather than do a laundry list of all the business that occurred, I’m looking at this post as an opportunity to give some of the flavor of the event, particularly happenings on Friday night. Honestly, a lot of that is because my pictures from today did not turn out well. The ballroom we had the business portion of the convention in was pretty dark and my attempts to compensate for this by changing camera settings made those pictures too blurry for use.

I actually arrived in Annapolis about 4:30 yesterday afternoon and took that time to restudy all of the information I had on our various candidates for party offices. After checking in and receiving my packet, the first event on the agenda was actually the Executive Committee meeting that I sat in on. But at the table where credentials were verified lay some popular stickers:

A sticker sure to be on many GOP cars in the coming four years.

At the beginning of the meeting, outgoing Chairman John Kane joked that anyone chanting “four more years” would be escorted from the room. But he went through a list of things that were accomplished under his tenure, particularly in the financial arena. He reiterated a favorite saying of his, that “the price of relevancy is discipline.” Despite losing the elections this year, the party had become relevent as a legitimate opposition party poised for future growth. National Committeewoman Joyce Lyons Terhes and National Committeeman Louis Pope echoed Kane’s emphasis on where things were successful for the MDGOP in this election cycle and thanked John for his service.

We also heard from some of the auxiliary groups that the Maryland Republican Party affiliates with, as the Young Republicans, College Republicans, and Teenage Republicans all detailed their GOTV efforts in the 2006 elections. The Executive Committee meeting was rather brief, as time was given at the end for the various committees to meet and work out details for the actual meeting held today. With that, most of the group was free to socialize at one of several gatherings in the hotel.

Despite the recent tough election, the GOP elephant was in good spirits.

The outgoing Chairman had a party thrown in his honor.

Chairman candidate Jim Pelura had a large party room as well.

The Maryland YR suite hosted a party well into the night.

One item that Kane also noted was his belief that there should be only one convention a year while the other one could be reserved for regional events. I don’t agree with this approach because I see these conventions as an opportunity to interact with Central Committee folks from all over the state, as well as some of the other people from the host city. In this case, I met several other active Republicans from Anne Arundel County who stopped by to enjoy the socializing, and I’m sure they enjoyed interacting with Republicans from all across Maryland.

In my case, I also took the time to try and have a few minutes with each of the candidates who were running for party offices because I’d gone to the convention with just the information I alluded to in an earlier post. And another oddity was meeting a few people who had Eastern Shore roots but were now living in different areas. They’d see my badge from Wicomico County and ask me, “what part of the county are you from?” And either they would be originally from the county or have close relatives nearby. It’s a real-life example of the theory that we raise and educate young folks who can’t find good-paying jobs here so they move across the bay.

I ended up socializing and schmoozing with many nice folks from all over the state until about the time the clock struck midnight. But the alarm was set for an early start for today.

(One aside regarding the hotel. I had a nice room and its best feature was a Sleep Number bed. Never slept in one before but I have now and I can say that I like it and my Sleep Number for the night was 30. Loved sinking right into that bed, it was cocoonlike. Rush would be proud.)

Either I slept REALLY soundly or my mind was on overdrive because of the events to come today, but I was up at 6:00, in time to see this:

The sun rises over Annapolis.

I went down to breakfast and had a good meal. Our speaker was Cathleen Vitale, who’s a local Anne Arundel County Councilwoman and their representative on the state Critical Areas Commission. Her basic themes were learning to tell our story (before the other side does), finding a farm team of candidates from people involved in the community, and setting goals on a regular basis. She likened these achievements to making a playbook for use in this and future election cycles.

The convention hall awaits the transaction of our business.

After breakfast, the actual business meeting began. When I posted about the spring convention in Cambridge, I noted that there was a rather hastily drafted change to the by-laws to allow for regional chairs rather than the vice chairs that the state had at the time. But after reviewing the proceedings later, it was concluded that these changes weren’t properly made per the rules and we would have to revert to the old system of electing three vice-chairs. This led to some confusion among the gathering who were expecting to vote for regional chairs. It’s a problem sure to be revisited in the spring (this time with proper notice, which was the issue.) But the party should be commended for making sure things are done by the book, unlike some other parties who like to make things up as they go. So despite the overwhelming support for the idea in May, it was accepted that the old system would be kept in place until the changes are made properly and to me that is the correct course to take.

Once again, the reports were given much as the Executive Committee meeting’s were. But we also had other speakers who were allowed to address the 205 Central Committee members in attendance (plus guests.) Both of our “downticket” competitors in November, Anne McCarthy (Comptroller) and Scott Rolle (Attorney General) made remarks. Particularly interesting to me was the degree to which they were outspent in their races. McCarthy noted that she spent 7 cents per vote to Democrat Peter Franchot’s dollar plus; while Rolle claimed he was outspent in an 8:1 ratio. But both said they’d “be back” so it’s to be believed they’ll remain in the mix for efforts in 2010.

Two guests were given plenty of time to speak. Both Lt. Gov. Michael Steele and Gov. Bob Ehrlich were introduced to raucous, thunderous ovations. Steele stated that allowed himself to be despondent about the results on election night “for about seven minutes” but at seven minutes and 30 seconds, he was thinking about what was next for himself and the Maryland GOP. This was an opportunity to move on, he continued, and the close races proved once again that the party was “relevant.”

Bob Ehrlich opened by alluding to a sign in his office which reads “No Whining Allowed.” We lost the election but were not defeated, pointing out the difference where losing an election happens but abandoning principles because of losing the election was defeat. He urged the assembled to emphasize his four years of policy successes (he gave a long list of these) and “compare and contrast” the record of his administration to the incoming O’Malley one. This, he added, would require a vigilant effort to track the doings of the new administration – after all, it was pointed out during the convention that Martin O’Malley had pulled down the “promises” portion of his website the moment he was declared the winner.

After our speakers, it was time to elect the new officers. Despite the fact that I seemed to be the kiss of death for the candidates I ended up voting for in each contested race (3 of my 4 that I voted for in contested races lost), I’m still proud to announce the incoming slate running the Maryland Republican Party for the next four years because we had a bushel of excellent choices where we pretty much couldn’t go wrong. For the next four years, these are the leaders of the Maryland GOP.

Chair: Jim Pelura (Anne Arundel County)
1st Vice Chair: Chris Cavey (Baltimore County)
2nd Vice Chair: Chuck Gast (Anne Arundel County)
3rd Vice Chair: Mike Geppi (Harford County)
Secretary: Rex Reed (Montgomery County)
Treasurer: Chris Rosenthal (Anne Arundel County. He’s a Salisbury native.)

With that, we finally ended a long morning (into early afternoon) of business and adjourned to a farewell lunch where we heard from some of the winners. In a nod to my argument that we should remain with the two conventions a year, I’d like to note that at breakfast I sat with nice folks from Frederick and Garrett counties, but at lunch we had an all-Eastern Shore table with Wicomico, Queen Anne’s, and Talbot represented.

Now that I’ve actually been sworn in and got to go through my first full convention, I can say that I truly enjoyed the experience and can’t wait for the next one. Hopefully I’ve made a few friends along the way, or at least now people can put a face to a name that’s on the list of Wicomico County members. If they are relatively diligent about “turns” (and want to save my friends in Western Maryland another long drive) it’s likely time for that side of the state to get a convention, but we’ll see. Somewhere about March I should be given the time and place, and I look forward to another great political experience.