Andrew Cuomo – monoblogue

Get ready to break wind

Commentary by Marita Noon

If Hillary Clinton becomes our next president, one of the changes you can expect is an invasion of industrial wind development in your community that has the potential to severely damage your property values, ruin the viewshed, impact your sleep patterns, and cause your electricity rates to “necessarily skyrocket” – all thanks to your tax dollars.

The Democratic presidential candidate frequently references her pledge to install 500 million solar panels. Her website promises: “The United States will have more than half a billion solar panels installed across the country by the end of Hillary Clinton’s first term.” And, while we know she wants to make America “the clean energy super power of the 21st century,” finding her position on wind energy is not so obvious. Perhaps that is because, as more and more people learn more about its impacts on their lives, its support continues to wane.

Pragmatic environmentalists find it hard to ignore the millions of birds that are killed by the giant spinning blades – including bald and golden eagles, as well as massive numbers of bats (which are so important for insect control) that are being slaughtered. Some have even “successfully sued to stop wind farm construction,” reports Investor’s Business Daily.

More and more communities are saying: “We don’t want wind turbines here.” For example, in Ohio, a wind project was “downed” when the Logan County Commissioners voted unanimously to reject EverPower’s request for a payment in lieu of taxes to build 18 wind turbines – though since then, the developer is taking another bite at the project, and the locals are furious. In Michigan, the entire Lincoln Township Board opposes a plan from DTE Energy to bring 50 to 70 more wind turbines to the community – despite the fact that four of the five members would profit from easement agreements they’d previously signed.

While not one of her top talking points, a President Hillary will increase the amount of taxpayer dollars available to industrial wind developers. At a July 2015 campaign stop in Iowa, she supported tax incentives and said: “We need to continue the production tax credits.” Previously, she claimed that she wants to make the production tax credits (PTC) for wind and solar permanent. (Note: without the PTC, even the wind industry acknowledges it won’t “be able to continue.”) She frequently says: “I want more wind, more solar, more advanced biofuels, more energy efficiency.” Remember, her party platform includes: “We are committed to getting 50 percent of our electricity from clean energy sources within a decade.” And: “We believe America must be running entirely on clean energy by mid-century.”

So, if your area hasn’t been faced with the construction of the detrimental and dangerous turbines, you can expect that it will be – even if you live in an area not known to be windy. That’s the bad news. The good news is the more wind turbines spring up, the more opposition they receive – and, therefore, the more tools there are available to help break the next wind project.

Rather than trying to figure out what to do on your own, John Droz, Jr., a North Carolina-based physicist and citizen advocate, who has worked with about 100 communities, encourages citizens who want to protect their community from the threat of a proposed wind project to maximize the resources that are available to them.

Kevon Martis, who, as the volunteer director of the Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition, has helped protect citizens in 7 states, told me: “Nothing makes it harder for a wind developer in one community than if the neighboring community already has an operating wind plant. Once they can see the actual impacts of turning entire townships into 50 story tall power plants, they can no longer be led down the primrose path by wind companies and their agents.” Martis’ equitable wind zoning advocacy has been extremely effective. In his home state of Michigan, wind has been on the ballot at the Township level 11 times since 2009 and has never won. In Argyle Township, in Sanilac County, Invenergy spent $164,000 in campaign funds in the 36-square-mile township, yet the people prevailed at the ballot box.

Two communities in Vermont have industrial wind on the ballot on November 8 and it is playing a big role in the state’s gubernatorial race where many Democrats are pledging to vote for the Republican candidate, who opposes more wind energy development. There, the foreign developer is essentially offering a bribe to the voters to approve the project.

Martis uses a concept he calls “trespass zoning” – which he says is a “de facto subsidy extracted from neighbors without any compensation.” Because the definition of trespassing is: “to enter the owner’s land or property without permission,” Martis argues that wind turbine setbacks, that cross the property line and go to the dwelling, allows the externalities of wind development – noise pollution, turbine rotor failure and its attendant debris field, property value loss, and visual blight – to trespass. He explains: “Where the wind developer can use these unleased properties for nuisance noise and safety easements free of charge, they have no reason to approach the neighboring residents to negotiate a fair price for their loss of amenity. Trespass zoning has deprived wind plant neighbors of all economic bargaining power. It has donated their private property to the neighboring landowner’s wind developer tenant.”

Droz agrees that zoning is important – as are regulations. He believes that since an industrial wind project is something you may have to live with for more than 20 years, it seems wise to carefully, objectively, and thoughtfully investigate the matter ahead of time. Droz says: “In most circumstances, your first line of defense is a well-written, protective set of wind-energy regulations that focus on protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the community. They can be a stand-alone law, or part of a more comprehensive zoning document.”

Mary Kay Barton, a citizen activist from New York State, began writing about the industrial wind issue more than a dozen years ago when her home area in Western New York State was targeted by industrial wind developers. Wyoming County was slated to have more than 2,000 industrial wind turbines strewn throughout its 16 Townships. So far, the massive projects have been limited by the outrage of residents to the current 308 turbines in 5 rural districts. Barton told me: “We wouldn’t even be talking about industrial wind if cronyism at the top wasn’t enabling the consumer fraud of industrial wind to exist with countless subsidies, incentives and renewable mandates.”

Minnesota citizen energy activist, Kristi Rosenquist, points out: “Wind is promoted as mitigating climate change and benefiting local rural economies – it does neither.”

Through his free citizen advocacy service, Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions, Droz tries to make it easier for communities to succeed when dealing with industrial wind energy by learning lessons from some of the other 250 communities – including those near Martis, Barton, and Rosenquist – that have had to deal with it.

At WiseEnergy.org, Droz has a wealth of information available including a model wind energy law that is derived from existing effective ordinances plus inputs from numerous independent experts. He advocates a wind energy law that contains carefully crafted conditions about these five elements:

Property value guarantees;
Turbine setbacks;
Noise standards;
Environmental assessment and protections; and
Decommissioning.

Droz, Martis, Barton, and Rosenquist are just four of the many citizen advocates that have had to become experts on the adverse impacts of wind energy – which provides negligible benefits while raising taxes and electricity rates. Because of their experiences, many are willing to help those who are just now being faced with the threat.

Because I’ve frequently written on wind energy and the favorable tax and regulatory treatment it receives, I often have people reaching out to me for help – but I am not the expert, just the messenger. These folks are dealing with it day in and day out.

Here are some additional resources they suggest:

If the threat of industrial wind energy development isn’t a problem for you now, save this information, as it likely would be under a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Barton explains: “My town was able to stop the ludicrous siting of these environmentally-destructive facilities by enacting a citizen-protective law back in 2007. Since then, however, Governor Cuomo enacted what I refer to as his ‘Power-Grab NY Act,’ which stripped ‘Home Rule’ from New York State communities and placed the decision-making process regarding energy-generation facilities above 25 MW (that translates: industrial wind factories) in the hands of five unelected Albany bureaucrats. Other states are sure to follow Cuomo’s authoritarian lead. I urge people to be pro-active! Get protective laws on the books now – before corrupt officials steal your Constitutional rights to decide for yourselves.”

Think about your community 20, 40, 60+ years from now.

“There was a time when the environmental movement opposed noise pollution, fought industrial blight, and supported ‘little guys’ whose quality of life was threatened by ‘corporate greed,'” writes Martis. “But that was a long time ago, before wind energy.”

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc., and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy – which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.

The Buffalo Billion fraud and bribery scheme: corruption and pay-to-play, a symbol of everything they’re doing

Commentary by Marita Noon

When New York’s Democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo gushed over SolarCity’s new solar panel factory in Buffalo, New York, the audience likely didn’t grasp the recently-revealed meaning of his words: “It is such a metaphor – a symbol of everything we’re doing.”

The 1.2 million square foot building, being built by the state of New York on the site of a former steel plant, is looking more and more like another political promise of help for one of the poorest cities in the state that ends up enriching cronies without ever achieving any potential for the people.

Yes, it is a symbol of everything they’re doing.

Previously, during her first senatorial bid, Hillary Clinton also promised jobs to the economically depressed region of the state of New York – 200,000 to be exact. Citing a report from the Washington Post, CBSNews states: “Jobs data show that job growth stagnated in Upstate New York during her eight years in office, the report said, and manufacturing jobs dropped by nearly a quarter.” The Post’s extensive story reveals that jobs never materialized – despite “initial glowing headlines.” It claims: “Clinton’s self-styled role as economic promoter” actually “involved loyal campaign contributors who also supported the Clinton Foundation.” Through federal grants and legislation, she helped steer money to programs, companies, and initiatives that benefitted the donors but failed to reverse the economic decline of the region.

Now, new corruption charges reveal the same pay-to-play model linked to Cuomo’s upstate “Buffalo Billion” economic revitalization plan – and the promised jobs also look they will never materialize.

Back on January 5, 2012, Cuomo announced a $1 billion five-year economic development pledge for Buffalo. It was to be the governor’s banner economic initiative with the SolarCity factory as the cornerstone and a pledge of 1,460 direct factory jobs. Other companies, including IBM and a Japanese clean-energy company were also lined up.

With the state-of-the-art solar panel factory ready for equipment to be installed, the wisdom of the entire program is being scrutinized – and is coming up short.

First, on September 22, two of Cuomo’s closest aides – along with several others – were charged in corruption and fraud cases involving state contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Addressing the press at his Manhattan office, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara asserted: “that ‘pervasive corruption and fraud’ infested one of the governor’s signature economic development programs. Companies got rich, and the public got bamboozled,” reports The Observer. Bharara described the bid-rigging and bribery arrangement: “Behind the scenes they were cynically rigging the whole process so that the contracts would go to handpicked ‘friends of the administration’ – ‘friends’ being a euphemism for large donors. Through rigged bids, state contracts worth billions of dollars in public development monies, meant to revitalize and renew upstate New York, were instead just another way to corruptly award cronies who were willing to pay to play.”

The 79-page criminal complaint notes that campaign contributions to Cuomo poured in from people connected to the bribe-paying companies as soon as those businesses began pursuing state projects.

One of the companies that received the lucrative contracts was LPCiminelli – run by “Cuomo mega-donor” Louis Ciminelli. He allegedly offered bribes to Cuomo confidante Todd Howe – who has admitted to pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars from developers to rig bids on multimillion-dollar state contracts linked to Buffalo Billion projects.

Ciminelli received the $750 million contract to build the SolarCity plant. The Buffalo News cites Bharara as saying: “the state’s bidding process for the factory being built for SolarCity at RiverBend in South Buffalo turned into a ‘criminal’ enterprise that favored LPCiminelli, where company executives were given inside information about how the deal was to be awarded.”

Part of Cuomo’s deal with SolarCity – in which the state owns the building and equipment with SolarCity leasing it under a 10-year deal – requires the company to meet a timetable of job-creation quotas or pay hefty penalties. Even before the building was complete, however, the company slashed its job commitment from 1460 to 500. According to the Investigative Post, SolarCity claims it will still employ the original number, but due to automation, the majority of them will not be at the Buffalo plant. With the state’s $750 million investment, that works out to $1.5 million per manufacturing job. In a press release, Cuomo promised 1460 “direct manufacturing jobs at the new facility.”

Even the 500 jobs will only materialize if the plant actually starts production – currently slated for June 2017. SolarCity’s future is, as Crain’s New York Business puts it: “uncertain.”

Amid the company’s myriad problems are the facts that it has never been profitable, nor does it have manufacturing experience.

In February 2014, SolarCity’s stock price peaked at about $85 a share. Today, a share is less than $20. Microaxis gives it a probability of bankruptcy score of 48 percent. Crains reports that it posted a $251 million loss in Q1 2016 and a loss of $230 million in Q2. To “stop the bleeding,” Elon Musk (a donor to both the Obama and Clinton campaigns and the Clinton Foundation), who owns more than 20 percent of the company, announced that Tesla (of which he also owns more than 20 percent) would purchase SolarCity – this after as many as 15 other potential buyers and investors looked at the company and decided to pass. SolarCity even considered selling the solar panel manufacturing business.

Both SolarCity and Tesla are, according to the Buffalo News, facing a “cash bind” – this despite receiving billions in federal and state grants and tax credits as I’ve previously addressed. Tesla is described as “cash-eating electric vehicle and battery making businesses.” For SolarCity, its model – which finances its solar panel installations in order to make a profit on a lease that can be as long as 30 years, while it collects the lucrative government incentives worth billions (a practice for which Solar City is currently under Congressional investigation) – requires constantly raising new money from investors. Once the Tesla deal was announced, SolarCity’s lenders started to pull back.

The Buffalo News reports: “Stock in SolarCity…now trades for $4 a share less, or 19 percent less, than what Tesla is offering – a gap indicating that investors are uncertain the deal will be completed.” Additionally, the deal is being challenged by four separate lawsuits – which could delay the deal. Addressing the merger, one analyst said: “We see a lot more that can go wrong than can go right.”

Then there is the manufacturing angle. Originally, the Buffalo plant was going to manufacture high-efficacy solar panel modules developed by Silevo – a company SolarCity bought in 2014. Crain’s reports that it will instead produce complete solar roofs: something it says “Dow Chemical recently abandoned after five years because it could not find a way to make a profit on the technology.” But then, the Buffalo News says: “The initial production in Buffalo is expected to include photovoltaic cells that SolarCity purchases from suppliers and are used in the products that will be assembled in the South Park Avenue factory.”

Whatever the plant builds or manufactures, getting it operating will be expensive – even with the New York taxpayers owning the building and equipment – and will drain scarce cash from SolarCity at a time when its financing costs have increased.

Buffalo residents wonder if they’ll be stuck with the world’s largest empty warehouse and without the promised jobs.

No wonder the entire project is in doubt. Because of the Cuomo administration corruption allegations, other proposed job-creators, including IBM, have pulled out until the probe is completed.

For now, Cuomo is not a part of the criminal complaint – though his name is mentioned many times – and he claims he knew nothing about it, nor does he think he’s a target of the ongoing federal probe. “It is almost inconceivable the governor didn’t know what was going on,” Doug Muzzio, a professor of public affairs at Baruch College, said. “And if he didn’t know what was going on, you can argue he should have known.”

Bharara has suggested that the better name for the program would be: “The Buffalo Billion Fraud and Bribery Scheme.”

Yep, the Buffalo Billion project is a “symbol” of the political promises and crony corruption – “everything we’re doing” – that takes taxpayers dollars to reward political donors and then walks away when the jobs don’t materialize.

Yet another candidate, by George

As proof that the 2016 presidential contest is wide open on the Republican side, I give you the newest entrant: George Pataki.

Many of you are probably saying, “George who?” But as evidence that some people are more than just getting their name out there, Pataki served three terms as the governor of New York, actually establishing a period of sanity before the circus that was the Eliot Spitzer administration, which led to the David Paterson tenure before yielding to current Governor Andrew Cuomo. (Pataki, ironically, succeeded Cuomo’s late father Mario.)

But Pataki fits into the mold that Mitt Romney vacated: a more moderate Northeastern governor. Yet one has to wonder why he didn’t make a bid at the top of his game in 2008, just after leaving office. And at 69 years of age (he’ll be 70 later this summer) he would be older than many in the field. (He’s two years older than Hillary Clinton but almost three years younger than Joe Biden.) Granted, the current President is panned for his relative inexperience at the age of 53 so age may not be so much of a factor in Pataki’s case.

Like many governors, Pataki is running against Washington and has created his own superPAC called “We the People, Not Washington.” He’s also heading to New Hampshire to introduce himself to voters, perhaps believing he can make more of an impact in a state closer to home with an early primary.

But I look at this announcement with the realization that political analyst Larry Sabato has Pataki as a “seventh-tier” candidate – along with another blue-state Republican governor who you might know, Bob Ehrlich – correctly pegs Pataki’s chances. Their similarities include a long near-decade out of office, although in Ehrlich’s case it was thanks to two straight electoral defeats. As I noted yesterday, the list of GOP governors who are considering a run is very long because our side has a deep bench to turn to. Sabato lists close to a dozen possible current or former governors who are thinking about it.

And in looking at the political landscape Pataki would have to run in, he almost has to hope for a New Hampshire miracle where they embrace the populist message that government doesn’t have to be smaller, just run better. That’s not a direction the TEA Party wants to go.

Whether it’s a serious run or a last gasp at relevancy, you can’t fault a guy who had a pretty good twelve-year run as governor for trying. I just don’t know if he’ll succeed beyond the end of this year.

Passing on prosperity

Since both have been mentioned in the news as potential Presidential candidates, governors Martin O’Malley of Maryland and Andrew Cuomo of New York have been natural rivals for the attention of the various interest groups that make up the constituency of the Democratic Party. It seems that they are always trying to one-up the other in enacting off-the-charts liberal legislation – when one allowed gay marriage, passed draconian gun laws, or pandered to illegal immigrants, the other tried to follow in rapid succession.

Martin O’Malley and Andrew Cuomo also both cast their lot with the radical environmentalists who claimed (falsely) that hydraulic fracturing for energy extraction would ruin their state’s environment. Yet while O’Malley relented ever-so-slightly in recent weeks, allowing the practice but with regulations one energy expert called “onerous and time-consuming,” Cuomo stopped the practice cold in his state by decreeing in an announcement last week that fracking would be banned, timed nicely after his re-election. Observers of both states are scratching their heads about these decisions, both in the media and in the energy industry. In New York, local media bemoaned the lost opportunity while landowners in the affected area called Cuomo’s ban a “worst-case scenario.”

Yet in the middle of all this sits the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a state which has embraced the economic benefits of the practice to such a degree that Tom Wolf, the incoming Democratic governor of the state won’t ban it. (However, he may stiffen regulations and increase taxes on energy producers, which will be something to watch in the coming months.)

Granted, their good fortune of geography means Pennsylvania has the largest share of the Marcellus Shale which yielded all that natural gas, while Maryland only has a small slice and New York has a small but significant portion. For their part, Ohio and West Virginia also have sizable portions of the formation, while Virginia’s share is similar to Maryland’s. Ohio has been nearly as aggressive as Pennsylvania in taking advantage of the shale – although recently re-elected Republican Governor John Kasich is also trying to increase taxes on producers – while West Virginia is lagging behind their neighbors and just beginning the process of allowing extraction.

It’s a given that fracking isn’t without risk, but neither are installing large solar farms or erecting 400-foot high wind turbines. Yet the natural gas and oil provided from fracking make for a much more reliable energy source than the intermittent electricity provided by the latter pair, sources which ironically need a natural gas backup to be consistent.

As time goes on we will see just what economic effects a fracking ban will have on the affected areas of New York. But as we have seen in states which have already began the extraction, the Empire State is missing out on the potential for investment and return that having the Marcellus Shale provides for those lucky enough to live over it. Hopefully our neighbors in western Maryland will see some benefits in the next couple years as Governor-elect Hogan puts “sensible” regulations in place to benefit all concerned parties.

Odds and ends number 69

It’s not meant to be a weekly Saturday fixture, but thus far in 2013 it was worked out that I’ve done an O&E post each Saturday. (I have to look the prior one up to see what number I am on – can’t duplicate the series, you know.) So once again I have a boatload of items which deserve anything from a sentence to a few paragraphs, but not enough for a full post by themselves.

First of all, the news is full of angst over the Sandy Hook massacre, mainly because the knee-jerk reaction has been: we need more gun laws. But MDYR president Brian Griffiths called Governor Martin O’ Malley’s new gun provisions just simple posturing:

Instead of introducing supporting meaningful proposals that would actively reduce gun crime, O’Malley has decided to sign on to proposals that will have only one meaningful impact: to inhibit the ability of law-abiding Marylanders to purchase and possess firearms.

Yet I suspect one proposed Maryland gun law will go nowhere. Delegate Pat McDonough is slated to introduce “The Criminal Gun Control Act,” which, as he terms, will:

…prohibit any offender convicted of a criminal act involving a gun from receiving any form of early release. This proposal would include parole, probation, or good time early release credits. The bill would also disallow a plea bargain.

After claiming 40% of all Baltimore City gun murders were perpetrated by felons with previous gun law violations, Pat added:

The solution to gun violence is not to destroy the Constitution and law abiding citizens’ rights to bear arms. Politicians are hypocrits (sic) when they attack good citizens and pass laws that benefit criminals like early release.

I thought, though, there was already an extra five years tacked on to a sentence for committing a crime with a gun. Perhaps someone in the judicial system can clue me in on why that’s not effective.

Meanwhile, Maryland Shall Issue is more succinct and to the point:

Respectfully tell those you speak with that you are against Gun Control in all its forms. You do not need to pick the magazine limits, or discuss the definition of so-called “Assault Weapons.” You must make your representatives understand that all Gun Control must be off the table.

Compromise is not possible when it comes to fundamental rights. Our lawmakers must be told that we will not willingly give up any of our rights. They will need to take them from us.

Maryland faces elections in 2014. Make sure they know we will remember who stood for our rights, and who wanted to deny your fundamental right.

Of course, when the chips are down and government has overstepped their bounds, there is the option of non-compliance, a route that Patriot Post editor (and one of my few bosses) Mark Alexander is vowing to take.

I hereby make this public declaration: In keeping with the oath I have taken in the service of my country, I will “support and defend” Liberty as “endowed by our Creator” and enshrined in our Constitution, “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Accordingly, I will NOT comply with any defensive weapons ban instituted by executive order, legislative action or judicial diktat, which violates the innate human right to defend self and Liberty, as empowered by “the right of the People to keep and bear arms.”

After all, wasn’t it Hillary Clinton who said “we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration?” Last time I checked, inalienable rights endowed by our Creator trumped laws which violate same.

Now it’s time to turn to another issue where our state government is failing us: economic growth and opportunity. I talked about one aspect of this the other day, but Change Maryland and Chairman Larry Hogan also had some suggestions for Martin O’Malley on rebuilding Maryland manufacturing:

Since 2007, Maryland lost 20% of its manufacturing employment base, the 10th worst decline in the country. Over 26,000 manufacturing jobs vanished during that time.

“It is unacceptable that the state’s most powerful elected officials do nothing with numbers as clear and convincing as these,” said Hogan.”These are the results you get when economic development is nothing more than cherry-picked pie charts and bar graphs in the Governor’s power point demonstrations.”

Just over a year ago, (New York’s) Governor Cuomo forged a three-way agreement with the senate majority leader and assembly speaker on executive proposals to cut taxes and create jobs in advance of the 2012 legislative session. The corporate income tax rate for Empire State manufacturers was cut to 6.25%. Maryland’s rate is 8.25%. New York’s decline of year-over-year manufacturing jobs is 1.4%, less than half of Maryland’s decline during the same period.

Hogan urged that, like so many other areas where O’Malley has followed Cuomo’s lead, a tax cut for businesses should be considered. Yet the advocacy group stayed on O’Malley this week like white on rice, also condemning his bloated budget:

This budget increases spending 4% over last year, to a record $37.3 billion, and does nothing more than continue the spend-and-tax governing that Martin O’Malley feels will further his political objectives.

Nowhere in this budget document is any mention made to helping Maryland’s blue collar workers and other regular working people. However, we’re all told to wait for some undefined sales and gas tax increase later on that will hit poor people the hardest.

Missing is any understanding whatsoever on how to bring jobs and businesses back to Maryland.

Hogan had more criticism for the Governor:

Martin O’Malley also showed again today in the budget briefing slide show for reporters why he is the most partisan governor in America, lauding the President for wanting to raise the debt ceiling and blaming in advance the U.S. House of Representatives for any largess that may not come Maryland’s way.

Martin O’Malley only wishes he had a debt ceiling, but unfortunately for hard-working Maryland families he has to raise taxes and fees on an almost annual basis to maintain the wish list he calls a budget. The $37.3 billion docket proposed for FY2014 is the largest in Maryland’s history and is a far cry from Bob Ehrlich’s last budget in FY2007 that totaled $29.6 billion. (Ehrlich’s last budget, by the way, was 12% higher than the $26.4 billion tab the previous year, in FY2006.) Up 4 percent from last year, O’Malley speaks of “cuts” but those cuts are only in his fantasies because the budget is 26% higher than it was seven years ago and up 41% from FY2006 levels. For most of the rest of us, we’ve not seen a 41% increase in our salaries since 2006.

It’s worth pointing out on the whole job creation issue that small businesses across the country fret about the impact of government, with the results of a new survey by the advocacy group Job Creators Alliance pointing this out. Taxes were the number one issue, with fully one-quarter of the 600 small businesses survey placing it atop the list. Add in the effects of Obamacare and government regulations, and the response swells to nearly half of those surveyed.

The group was pessimistic in its assessment, stating:

As America’s small business owners look forward at 2013 they do so with a great deal of concern about the obstacles Washington is placing in their path. As the engine of job creation, pessimism among small business owners does not bode well for job growth this year.

Lest we forget, 7 to 8 percent unemployment seems to be the “new norm.” Of course, if they untied the hands of the energy industry we could do a lot better. (That includes Marcellus Shale, Governor O”Malley, but not your pipe dream of offshore wind.)

But to get jobs, we need a better educational system and that means giving parents a choice in where to send their child for their education. National School Choice Week begins next Sunday, but no local organization on Delmarva has yet stepped up to participate in an event. (There are 22 in Maryland, but all of them are on the Western Shore. No events are planned in Delaware or on the eastern shore of Virginia.)

As it turns out, my fiance made the choice to send her child to a private, faith-based school. It’s good for her, but it would be even better if money from the state was made available to cover her tuition and fees. Years ago I volunteered for a political candidate whose key platform plank was “money follows the child” and I think it makes just as much sense today.

So that’s yet another wrapup and cleaning out of the e-mail box. We’ll see if I go four Saturdays in a row next week.

2012 Wicomico County Lincoln Day Dinner in pictures and text (updated)

Update: Rich Douglas responds to my assessment of his statement, see end of column.

We were expecting around 100 to show up, along with most of the 10 contenders for U.S. Senate and a host of local Republican elected officials. Well, two out of three ain’t bad, as Meat Loaf used to say.

I don’t have the official numbers, but I would guess our attendance were closer to 120. But we had just four U.S. Senate contenders make their way down here, with Robert Broadus showing up well before the 6 p.m. opening.

Senate candidate Robert Broadus.

Those candidates who came had a spot to put their literature. However, we did not have a visit from Ron Paul – just local supporters.

A literature table filled with campaign placards.

I would say of the four Senate candidates who came, Broadus had the most stuff, with Dan Bongino and Rich Douglas bringing a more modest amount. David Jones had no literature (or support staff; he was truly a one-man operation.)

And we had a few ideas for promotion of the event, with some of the patrons taking advantage of this one.

We made photos with Abe Lincoln available for the first time.

The who’s who of local Republicans came out for the event, as well as several from around the state – included in that complement were MDGOP 1st Vice-Chair Diana Waterman and both candidates for National Committeewoman, Nicolee Ambrose and Audrey Scott.

As always, we had President Lincoln make his appearance at the event, too. He brought a small regiment of troops for protection.

Lincoln with three reenactors.

There were also reenactors in each corner of the room as well as Civil War-era photographer Mathew Brady taking snapshots of the proceedings.

President Lincoln.

“Our country is in great peril now,” said President Lincoln. What I’ve found interesting each year is that the President brings the problems of 150 years ago to compare with the modern day. “In my opinion, we would do better to leave the Constitution alone,” Lincoln echoed from long ago, “It can scarcely be made better than it is.”

“My hope is that our Republic can be redeemed,” he concluded, “and that you will kick the scoundrels out.”

In speaking to Lincoln beforehand, he remarked that the portrayal gets a little easier every year because he’s getting more wrinkled. But he does a good job in setting the mood each year.

County GOP Chair Dave Parker.

And this guy does a good job in setting up the affair each year. As always, sporting the red (naturally) blazer, Wicomico County GOP Chair Dave Parker set up the rest of the program.

As it turned out, we had a total of eight featured speakers; four Senate candidates and four state elected officials. We also heard briefly in between from Mark McIver, who is the Lower Shore liaison for Andy Harris. Andy could not attend our dinner this year.

Each Senate candidate was given about seven to eight minutes to speak, while local officials were allotted five. Now one would think that having the Senate candidates speak first, before the local officials, would be a mistake, but I didn’t see anyone heading for the exits before the benediction to close the proceedings (from Wicomico Central Committee member Dave Goslee, Sr., who also did the invocation.)

U.S. Senate candidate Dan Bongino.

Dan Bongino had eight minutes but took five to deliver an uplifting message that “Maryland is not a lost cause.” He was quite feisty, as a matter of fact, telling those assembled that “it’s time to pick a fight…this is our home.” The statists have no entitlement to the state, he added.

While he didn’t get into many policy specifics, Dan said that conservative ideas have won before, citing Ronald Reagan’s re-election. (George H.W. Bush also carried Maryland in 1988.) What we need is a “clear delineation” on the issues, said Dan, and if we can get that “we can win this.”

And when all his friends told him he should move to Virginia from New York, Dan instead chose Maryland because “I saw Maryland first and I fell in love with it.” Now he’s made it home.

Robert Broadus at the podium.

Robert Broadus was in the Navy. When he got out, he “saw a government that was not following its charter, the Constitution.” Furthermore, his representatives were “unresponsive” and weren’t listening. So he became involved and aware.

While he was “raised to vote Democrat” by virtue of his skin color, Broadus asserted that, in Maryland, “too many vote their identity” and we need to change the narrative of Republicans as rich and white – after all, President Lincoln helped end slavery as the first Republican president.

Yet the NAACP, supposedly an advocate for his race, instead supports things like illegal immigration and same-sex marriage, he continued. And when Ben Cardin came to Prince George’s County to announce his support of Obamacare, backed by the purple shirts of the SEIU, everyone – even the Republicans – was applauding. But he wasn’t.

“I stood up to Ben Cardin two years ago,” said Broadus, and “we can’t let that destruction of liberty continue.” His agenda was simple: repeal Obamacare, end the IRS, and protect marriage. The state should stop pushing a social agenda.

Broadus has run for Congress twice before, but is perhaps best known in Maryland as an advocate for protecting the concept of marriage between one man and one woman – a value system most in the room agreed with wholeheartedly.

U.S. Senate candidate Rich Douglas.

I found it quite telling that Rich Douglas brought a book with him; a book I had a blurry picture of, unfortunately. The tome contains the rules of the U.S. Senate, and this dogeared volume was several hundred pages thick.

And while the last attack on the Bill of Rights was at Fort Sumter under President Lincoln, Douglas opined, this White House has also attacked the Bill of Rights as well. But Rich’s task of the evening was “to persuade you I am the right candidate to defeat Ben Cardin.”

He attacked the incumbent on three levels. First of all, the Senate has a lot of input on national security, but Douglas was “alarmed” by the lack of military veterans in the Senate. Bolstering his credentials in that respect was his endorsement by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.

Secondly – and this is a point he’s made frequently – Ben Cardin has never worked in our private-sector economy. He’s been an elected official since 1966, fresh out of law school. Someone who understands the private sector may have convinced Caterpillar to bring its new plant and 1400 jobs to Maryland – Douglas “would’ve camped out at the front door of Caterpillar” to bring the jobs here. (Imagine that in Salisbury.)

But most important was “backbone.” Douglas worked for the late Senator Jesse Helms, and Helms had principles, said Douglas. But Maryland has no Senate representation because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s priorities are “high priorities” for Cardin. That’s why we have spent nuclear rods in the open at Calvert Cliffs instead of at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, Douglas said.

As I noted about the Senate rules book, another advantage Rich claimed was knowing how the Senate rules work and using them to our advantage.

But perhaps the most controversial thing Douglas said was that the “only good conservative outcome” of the Supreme Court battle over Obamacare was that it be upheld. Congress has greater discretion under the Commerce Clause, he argued.

It was interesting that after the event was over he and Robert Broadus were having a friendly debate over that very subject.

Republican Senate hopeful David Jones.

David Jones actually spoke the longest of the four candidates. Now it’s obvious that, at just 32 years of age, he doesn’t have the pedigree the others do so that wasn’t his message.

Jones is a working man, who makes $32,000 a year and is the single dad of a four year old son. He conceded that it’s “damn near impossible” to run and win as a 32 year old Republican in Maryland.

But then again, Bob Ehrlich won in 2002. Of course, part of that was the fact that Kathleen Kennedy Townsend was an “insult to the people of the state” and Ehrlich was a “good leader.” But Martin O’Malley didn’t insult the Democrats so he won. Republicans have to “speak for all,” Jones added.

David jumped into the race because he believes “nothing is being done for the majority of the country…I’m tired of it.” And those people he encounters as part of his job “don’t believe it works anymore” either. The people need leadership, Jones believed.

But while he certainly played the role of a disaffected youth well, I never heard exactly what he stands for. Certainly he’s a likable guy, and he asked the bartenders afterward what they thought of his remarks, but I’m curious whether he can flesh out a platform next week at a Worcester County candidate forum he’s planning on attending.

State Senator Rich Colburn.

After going over a list of his upcoming fundraisers, State Senator Rich Colburn announced he now officially represented about 49,000 of Wicomico County’s residents thanks to redistricting. The Democrat majority didn’t look at any alternative redistricting bills in the first 45 days of the session.

Instead, to keep up with potential 2016 Presidential rival Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York, Martin O’Malley’s top priority was getting same-sex marriage passed, Colburn said. This prospect even affected the timing of his State of the State address, which was late because they “needed him here” rather than out traveling the country.

And apparently the new definition of millionaire was someone who made $150,000, since those who make that amount would begin losing tax deductions. Throw in the proposed gas tax, the septic bill – a “feelgood bill by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation” which won’t address the bulk of the problem – and the flush tax, and there’s a lot of damage which can yet be done in this session.

Colburn saved the last part of his enmity for the Waterkeepers Alliance, a group which is suing the Hudson family of Worcester County with assistance from the University of Maryland Law School. Colburn noted “North Carolina would love to have” our poultry industry and “every farm (in the country) is jeopardized” by the Waterkeepers’ efforts. Rich has a bill pending which would compel the University of Maryland Law School to reimburse the Hudsons $500,000 for damages. “I will continue to fight against the injustices of the University of Maryland Law School,” he vowed.

Delegate Addie Eckardt.

After she sang ‘God Bless America’ as part of the opening festivities, Delegate Addie Eckardt returned to the microphone to give a more sobering report, although she was “excited to see friendly faces.”

Republicans in Annapolis were “working very diligently for a way to offer an alternative budget proposal” as they have for several years now. All we need to do is “take a break” and let the revenues catch up, she assessed.

But when entities are coming up and asking for huge increases in the capital budget – which is paid for mostly from property taxes and proceeds from bond sales – she was “concerned (about) how we’ll survive.”

“There needs to be discipline in spending,” she concluded.

Delegate Mike McDermott.

But while Eckardt and Colburn were rather subdued in their remarks, Delegate Mike McDermott had the delivery and cadence of a Pentecostal preacher during Sunday service. When reminded of the five minute limit, McDermott quipped “I don’t listen to the Speaker of the House, I certainly can’t listen to you.”

“We need to re-adopt the founding principles of the Declaration of Independence,” Mike thundered, as “liberty is a gift from God.” He believed that “your enemy (in Annapolis) has overreached…when (they) have to pray to God to get 71 votes.”

But all over the state, “people are infuriated with the overreach of government,” Mike continued. “They fear the people.”

Candidates for office this year need to tie themselves to the two referendum efforts going on. McDermott cited a poll taken which showed 96% of Marylanders thought they paid too much in taxes, which was awfully coincidental with the 96% of transportation money going to serve the 4% of the state which actually rides mass transit, while our roads and bridges crumble.

He also announced that Friday they saved the state $100 million. Well, they are on their way as two bills Mike sponsored are winding their way through the House. He singled out Wicomico County State’s Attorney Matt Maciarello for his help on HB112.

And because of this overreach by the other side, Mike concluded, we can divide and conquer the opposition. Then we can wistfully look back and tell our grandchildren about the time Maryland was a one-party state. In the meantime, it’s time to “take back our state.”

Delegate Charles Otto acknowledges Mike McDermott.

And poor Charles Otto. He drew the short straw of following McDermott, saying “we may as well pass the plate right now” but on the other hand he would be the last word.

In his typical low-key style, Charles implored us to get the vote out since we have a “so-called leader in the White House that needs to be replaced.” As part of that GOTV effort, Otto encouraged us to check in often at mdpetitions.com and work to get the same-sex issue on the ballot. Our GOP delegation “represents the values we grew up with,” Otto said.

Delegate Charles Otto.

But he also noted one thing the previous speakers didn’t bring up – the possible upcoming shift in state pension obligations to the counties. Charles claimed that, for Wicomico County, it would be a $4 million hit and taxes would almost certainly need to be raised locally. (As I recall, each penny increase in the property tax per $100 of assessed valuation equals about $750,000 to the county. So it would mean about a nickel’s increase.)

Yet maybe, concluded Charles, the opposition party which has already spent a lot of political capital on passing same-sex marriage will be fiscally responsible.

I’m not going to hold my breath on that myself.

It’s worth mentioning in closing that I had the chance to speak at some length with Nicolee Ambrose – not necessarily about her run for National Committeewoman but about the political scene in general. Now I agree with some things regarding the two who seek the post and I disagree with some. I haven’t made up my mind yet but speaking with Nicolee helped to lean me in a particular direction. To be fair, I also spoke more briefly with Audrey Scott before the event.

Early on Saturday, I wasn’t sure how we were going to pull this off. We had no idea how many Senate candidates would come and the person who originally was supposed to do our sound had to work. But the event turned out to be a success thanks to my cohorts on the WCRCC and all who attended. We’ll review this edition when we next meet and start working on a bigger and better one for 2013!

Update: Rich Douglas’s campaign communications director Jim Pettit sent me the following from the candidate:

Monoblogue provides a vital service for all Marylander’s, namely, covering important political events that mainstream media often misses.

Such was the case in the February 27 coverage of the Wicomoco County Lincoln Day Dinner.

I was quoted about the Supreme Court and its relationship to Congress. Let me elaborate.

Information is power. The Constitution’s Commerce Clause says Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the several states. In the courts, President Obama cited Congress’s Commerce Clause power as the authority for the insurance mandate. Over the decades, the US Supreme Court (including Marylander Robert Brooke Taney) has held that Congress has significant leeway to regulate commerce under the the Commerce Clause. So on Obamacare, the main question for the US Supreme Court is likely to be: is Obamacare a proper exercise by Congress of its power under the Commerce Clause? At this point in our logic-walk, it is vital to remember a fundamental principle of conservative judicial thought: Courts should not substitute their will for the will of the legislature. And please: don’t take my word for this — read Judge Robert Bork. My point at Salisbury was that the conservative wing of the Supreme Court (assuming that they, too, believe what Robert Bork believes) should not be expected to substitute their will for Congress’s will unless they find that Congress clearly violated the Commerce Clause with Obamacare. I’m not sure they will do this. To put it another way: if the Court is NOT offended by this ‘new’ Commerce Clause power asserted in Obamacare, and in keeping with Bork’s philosophy, the mandate will be upheld.

This tosses the hot potato back to Congress. For men like Bork, that’s where it belongs in the first place. I think this is what will probably happen. Here’s my Salisbury point: I don’t count on the Supreme Court to save our bacon. So Maryland will need a Senator who has the guts to take the hard votes on Obamacare after January 2013. Now here’s a new point: Maryland also needs a Senator who genuinely understands the Constitution, who understands how it has been interpreted, and who has taken the time to explore and understand conservative judicial philosophy before talking about it.

As a Senator I will vote to repeal Obamacare.

R. Douglas
US Senate Candidate (R-Md).

Now, allow me to add something. As an assistant in covering the event, I recorded each candidate’s speech and took notes on what I heard last night as I compiled the post into the wee hours of the morning.

I’m going to go ahead and add links to all four Senatorial candidate speeches so you can check my work:

Just think, we paid $40 for the privilege. Of course, you may get the occasional comment or two from me.

Delegates: Gay marriage “O’Malley’s path to the White House”

As badly as he has bungled our state, Lord help us if that happens.

Delegates Susan Aumann and Kathy Szeliga released a joint statement on gay marriage shortly after Friday evening’s vote which made several valid points. Here’s what they had to say.

The Governor is pushing his same sex marriage bill he knows that by passing it here in Maryland would look great on his political resume. In fact the Washington Post stated “Perhaps no other O’Malley effort is being watched as closely nationally as same-sex marriage.” I find it extremely appalling that O’Malley is using and abusing our State to advance his own national political agenda to the detriment of our Maryland families.

For those who are ambivalent, thinking that “this won’t affect me”, the consequences of passing gay marriage will permeate many aspects of our society. The definition of marriage does not need to be redefined. I support traditional marriage, one man and one woman, and here is why:

Traditional marriage builds families – mom, dad, and children – and gives hope that the next generations will carry that family into the future.

In states where marriage has been redefined, activists have implemented a homosexual agenda in the schools to children as young as kindergarten. I am opposed to promoting gay marriage in our public schools and once it is “legal” in this state the curriculum will follow the law.

The people of Maryland don’t need the legislature to tell them what marriage is. Marriage is an institution of the people, not politicians, and the legislature should know better than to try and take the definition of marriage away from them.

This legislation has taken a front seat this session and it is the biggest family issue we are facing but I know it is not the ONLY issue. I know that the taxes and fees, which the Governor is proposing, are an assault on your way of life and I am in Annapolis fighting for you.

There’s no doubt in my mind that gay marriage is strongly backed by a small minority who wants to rationalize their behavior by imposing it on the rest of us. I don’t really care who sleeps with who, but it bothers me when activists couch it as a question of civil rights when truly it’s a matter of choice.

I made the point a few days ago in a comment to this post that perhaps being gay is like coming from an alcoholic family in the sense that if you know booze is going to be a problem you can simply address it by being a teetotaler. In other words, you make the decision and there are consequences. In the case of an alcoholic family, there’s a larger possibility of health problems or accidents caused by excessive drinking, while in the case of choosing to be gay or lesbian you run afoul of most religions and can’t naturally have children – prior to a few years ago you couldn’t be “married” either. Of course, there is a tendency for alcoholism to run in families but I have a harder time seeing a genetic origin for homosexuality – thus, it must be behaviorally based. Remember, up until the middle part of the last century homosexuality was thought to be a mental disorder. Only in the last 40 years or so has political correctness removed that stigma.

But the push from Governor O’Malley only seemed to come once one of his chief rivals for the 2016 nomination, Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, got his state to approve gay marriage. Critics on the far left have lambasted O’Malley’s record so he had to pander to the uber-liberal crowd which runs the national Democratic establishment and use gay marriage to establish his social issue bona fides. Raising taxes, falling for the global warming nonsense, spending on environmental boondoggles, sucking up to Big Labor, and playing guitar wasn’t enough; O’Malley had to up the ante.

So unless the citizens of Maryland restore common sense and defeat the bill in referendum this November – and certainly proponents are shrewd enough to know that the larger turnout of a presidential election helps their cause because the proportion of voters who can be seduced by their “fairness” argument will be larger in a presidential election than a gubernatorial one – come January 1 there will be a run on whatever locales will be open that day for gay and lesbian couples to be “married.”

Will it make a difference in the short term? Probably not, but this was never really about here and now. As Delegates Aumann and Szeliga point out, legitimizing the homosexual agenda in schools will only be the start, particularly in an era where children are vulnerable to that sort of exploitation. There’s a reason that support for gay marriage is much stronger among youth than it is among older people, and it has nothing to do with “tolerance” because true tolerance would welcome all views, and it’s clear not all views are appreciated in schools – Christians and others who believe in traditional values need not apply.

The next two years promise more of the same because it’s no longer about what’s best for Maryland. Instead, it’s going to be about what’s perceived to be best for Martin O’Malley’s future political plans. California may have some company as the loony liberal trendsetter.