The McDermott notes: week 3
As I stated last night, this report is slightly behind schedule – from here on out, the intention is to put this up Sunday evening if possible. In case you missed them, here are the week 1 and week 2 reports.
Things must be getting a little more hectic in the General Assembly as Mike abandoned his day-by-day descriptions in favor of a general overview of the week’s proceedings.
The first topic was a quick look at judicial electronic filing, updating the progress and determining how to pay for it. I’m guessing the trial attorneys and others involved in the legal system are going to balk at additional user fees just as those of us in rural areas have no desire to pay a higher “flush tax.” But in their case, I think the benefits would be more tangible.
Second in line is probably the most important thing the General Assembly is entrusted with each year – the passage of the Governor’s budget. It’s the only item the legislature can pass and enact into law without the Governor’s formal approval.
And Mike is definitely a critic of this year’s spending bill, noting the “significant proposals that would affect every family in Maryland if they are adopted”: changes to income tax deduction, a variety of fee increases, a rise in college tuition, and the expansion of sales tax to a multitude of services, including the internet. We call that the “app tax.”
Mike also noted on Wednesday the fifteen House Republican freshmen, a group of which he’s a member, held a press conference to reveal that a majority of Maryland residents were convinced (to turn a phrase) the taxes are too damn high. In fact, 96% believe they are Taxed Enough Already – so I guess 96% belong to the TEA Party. Now if they only voted that way we wouldn’t have these problems.
Another update McDermott added to the notes was the fact both Wicomico County State’s Attorney Matt Maciarello and his Somerset County counterpart Dan Powell came to Annapolis to share their thoughts on the subject of a bill Mike is sponsoring (HB112), which would eliminate the requirement for a public defender at certain court hearings.
Something which really should be carefully read in McDermott’s original notes are his accounts of the Eastern Shore Delegation meetings. Obviously we have a mixed group, with three moderate-to-liberal Democrats interspersed among the 12 members of the General Assembly who hail from this part of the state (Districts 36, 37, and 38.) Most of the others are conservative Republicans, although some tend to stray from the party line from time to time.
My sense – and in looking at the monoblogue Accountability Project I can bear this out – is that McDermott is the most conservative of the group. In fact, the four freshmen Delegates we have from the Shore (all Republicans) rank among the five highest (most conservative) out of the 12-member Eastern Shore Delegation, at least by my measure. Senator E.J. Pipkin breaks that group up; otherwise the freshmen are the ones who most agree with how I would vote.
But McDermott also states that there may be a couple Department of Natural Resources projects in the pipeline; an upgrade to the bathhouses on Assateague Island and a proposed boat ramp on 64th Street in Ocean City. Perhaps that would be money well spent, although I’d be curious to know if any property acquisition is needed for the 64th Street project.
Finally, Mike promises an update in next week’s field notes on the bills he’s sponsored (there are now four where he is lead sponsor, while he’s a co-sponsor of 38 others) and restates his promise not to introduce any bond bills this session. So far, the local Republicans in the House have made good on not introducing any bond bills; however, both Shore Republicans in the Senate seem to want to go their own way on this. (Needless to say, Democrats will introduce these debt creators with impunity, since it’s only our children’s money they’re spending.)
This was a somewhat shorter summary than we had the first two weeks, probably because the routine is now setting in and there’s a lot of ground to cover – so far there are nearly 700 bills in the hopper.
But there is one omission, a bill I haven’t seen yet in the House. Last year Delegate McDermott promised to move our bill on an elected school board early in the session, but to date there is no House version. In the Senate, though, Senators Mathias and Colburn introduced SB99, which is a clean up-or-down vote, on January 17. A hearing slated for January 25 was cancelled, which may mean trouble for our cause. (Remember, a similar bill passed the Senate last year only to be bogged down by Delegate Norm Conway in the House.) Perhaps the Delegate can inquire as to why this cancellation occurred and get this bill moving in the House.
It’s a war, I tell ya!
I’m not sure just how many outlets got this ‘letter to the editor’ but State Senator E.J. Pipkin lays out his case that Governor O’Malley has indeed declared a War on Rural Maryland. I’ll excerpt from his letter here:
Despite protests to the contrary from the O’Malley Administration, it has been clear for the past few years that the Administration’s programs, policies and proposed legislation constitute an assault on rural economies and property rights. Whether the War on Rural Maryland is intentional or not is beside the point. The fact remains that implementation of the Administration’s policies and legislative proposals, from the proposed septic system ban to higher tolls, taxes, and fees will strip rural Maryland of any real opportunity to create jobs and boost its economy.
MDGOP 2011 Fall Convention in pictures and text
At the risk of a slow-loading post, there are 30 photos on this one. But I took a lot more, and you know every picture tells a story with me. And this is the story of the Maryland GOP Fall Convention, brought to you by…
I’ll begin with Friday night, the usual social time for the convention. Even though I’d never been to the Sheraton in Annapolis, once I saw these I knew I was in the right place.
(Of course, I took that snapshot yesterday morning.)
Odds and ends number 36
Let’s begin with an item that only gets a couple paragraphs because of the circumstances. While I’m not at liberty to share the names of those who applied, I think I can safely say that we have no shortage of applicants to send four qualified prospects up to County Council in order to fill the District 4 seat made vacant by Bob Caldwell’s passing. Offoceseekers are both male and female, represent a broad spectrum of ages, and should be very interesting to screen. So that seat will be in good hands.
Now I could have had a great scoop in releasing the names but I respect the wishes of my Chair and the process too much to let any undue influence sway the decision, a circumstance which would certainly occur if the names were made public. Remember, this is not a typical political campaign because we as a Central Committee only make recommendations. The time for voting will be later and it will be done by County Council, not our committee.
All right, now for something a lot different.
Odds and ends number 34
Believe it or not, I have been besieged with another plethora of items which deserve perhaps an paragraph or three of comment on my part. So let me get crackin’ on them.
Since I’ve had the opportunity to speak with him in person, I would suggest that those of you who are political activists consider attending David Craig’s campaign school. It will make a stop here on the Lower Eastern Shore at the Comfort Inn in Cambridge this Saturday (October 1st) from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. It’s absolutely free and includes lunch too. You can sign up for the event here.
You know, I’d be curious to know if any liberals show up because it’s a freebie. But if it’s conducted like the “Bloggers and Burgers” confab you should leave the Craig campaign school neither hungry nor uninformed.
Speaking of liberals and freebies, there’s 116 people in Salisbury who really must suffer from terminal ignorance. I got this in my e-mail the other day, simply because September 30 is coming:
Here’s something you don’t have in common with 116 other supporters of this movement who tell us they live in Salisbury, MD.
That many of your neighbors have decided to own a piece of this campaign by making a donation of whatever they could afford. For some, that meant just $5. For others, it meant $100 or more. But each had their own personal reason for giving.
Our records show that you aren’t one of the 116 people where you’re from who have stepped up for 2012. Now’s your chance to change that.
Since the e-mail came from Jim Messina of the Obama 2012 campaign, don’t hold your breath waiting for my gift. I might give a little to Herman Cain, though.
It makes me curious, though – how many of my readers have donated to a Presidential campaign? I haven’t done so yet this cycle, but I did donate to Rep. Duncan Hunter’s ill-fated bid last time. He was my first.
The war on rural Maryland
In response to legislation prohibiting septic systems in rural developments, State Senator E.J. Pipkin and Delegate Michael Smigiel created a website called The War on Rural Maryland.
It’s no secret that people in Maryland care about Chesapeake Bay. I’ve noted before that any legislation deemed to be “for the Bay” would likely pass in Maryland regardless of its merits – even the mythical Chesapeake Bay Legalization of Murder Act of 2011 might get the support of rabid environmentalists if they could kill off the right people – after all, it’s “for the Bay!”
(For all you high-strung progressives and PC police types, yes, I’m only kidding. Sort of. Somewhere in this state I’m sure a Jared Loughner type is lurking and he or she may just take up that type of offer if presented.)
But when septic systems in Maryland create a relatively small portion of the problem, the effect on rural development may be akin to taking a sledgehammer to an ant. It’s not like Wicomico County is growing by leaps and bounds, despite what the Census may have said – I’d wager most of that population growth occurred before 2006. Since that point, planned residential developments such as Aydelotte Farms and the Village at Salisbury Lake (a.k.a. the Old Mall) have built up slowly, if at all. The building slump also affected commercial plans such as the Hobbs Road development I was involved in. Overall, the number of building permits issued is well off its mid-decade peak.
While it’s true that other counties in Maryland may be developing faster, the idea of the ban is simple and can be summed up in two words: “smart growth.” (To me, it’s more of a “so-called” concept because who’s to say what is smart for us here on the Eastern Shore? Certainly not some faceless planner locked in an Annapolis or Washington office building.) In other words, under “smart growth” you will develop property where we (the government) tell you to, and if you happen to own property outside that area you may want to build on sometime down the road, well, you’re shit outta luck. We need to preserve those wildlife corridors and wetlands for mother Gaia’s creatures.
The state moved in this direction several years ago with the “flush tax” and accelerated the process last year by requiring nitrogen removal on new septic systems - but they only could cover a portion (if any) of the additional costs incurred by hapless homeowners forced to switch to or install these units.
A hearing on HB1107 is slated in front of the Environmental Matters Committee on March 11 at 1 p.m.
But even if we can stave off the ban for a year or two – you know O’Malley and his environmentalist buddies are going to keep knocking on this door until we finally tire of the fight and relent - we Maryland drivers also have the prospect of an additional gas tax hanging over our heads.
Now, the argument on this one is that we’ve not raised the gas tax in nearly twenty years and we need to make sure there’s money in the Transportation Trust Fund. (Of course, that’s until the fund is raided by a certain governor – who shall remain nameless – to balance his budget.) One bill which would make the pilfering more difficult but raise gas taxes 10 cents a gallon now AND provide for automatic increases in the future was introduced by Western Shore Democrats in the House and Senate. Another bill which would force Eastern Shore drivers to subsidize mass transit used across the bay via a 4% sales tax on gasoline is SB451. The House bill will be heard March 1; the Senate bills on March 9.
In general, we on the Shore drive a lot. It’s not uncommon for a resident to put 20,000 miles a year on their car or truck and if they get 20 miles from a gallon of gas the extra dime a gallon would cost them $100 a year. That may not seem like a lot, but for those who make their living on the road and pile on even more mileage it’s a serious dent placed on their finances. This provision also puts in place a permanent tax hike each year, meaning the state takes more and more out of your wallet.
If I didn’t know liberals as well as I do I’d be perplexed that they can back the state getting another dime of pure revenue out of a gallon of gas through taxation yet bitch and moan about the oil companies who actually do the work of extracting, refining, and delivering the gasoline to the pump for your use making a nickel a gallon profit. But I know them so I just shrug my shoulders at their hypocrisy. I’m used to it.
(And yes, I bitch and moan about the state of the roads, too. My suggestion for improvement: stop subsidizing mass transit that no one rides and start filling potholes. Oh, and get rid of that “living wage” crap while you’re at it so we can save a little bit on road construction labor costs.)
But if you’re tired of the state always trying to take, take, take, you may be interested in a brand new website called stopthegastax.com. (Frankly, I’m amazed they got the domain name considering there’s always someone in some state trying to gouge motorists.) There’s still a little construction to do there but you can sign a petition against the gas tax and vent your frustration.
Instead of raising the gas tax, the alcohol tax and income tax rates for the upper crust, why not prioritize what we have and live within our means for awhile? That’s what the private sector has been forced to do.
Maryland Senate GOP picks new leadership
The Eastern Shore is again represented in the upper echelon of Maryland Senate Republicans, for the first time since former Senator Lowell Stoltzfus walked away from leadership a few years back.
State Senator Nancy Jacobs, who was Minority Whip, was promoted to the leadership post yesterday in a vote among the Senate caucus. The new Minority Whip is State Senator E.J. Pipkin of the upper Shore.
A press release from the Senate caucus included reaction from the two:
“I am honored and humbled by the support of my colleagues in electing me Minority Leader,” said Jacobs. “While there are many difficult issues we need to address during this legislative session, I look forward working with my fellow senators to ensure Maryland’s success.”
“We have significant budgetary challenges facing us in the 2011 legislative session,” Pipkin said, “fortunately I feel that our caucus has a united sense of mission and passion in facing these challenges. I’m ready to get to work.”
Now that the leadership question is settled, Republicans can get down to work being solid, conservative opposition. I’m especially looking forward to seeing how Pipkin can use his enhanced profile as a leader for sanity in the budgetary process.
The vote yesterday means the Eastern Shore is home to both Minority Whips as Pipkin joins Delegate Jeannie Haddway-Riccio of Talbot County in this leadership post.
Ideas for the right direction
On Thursday the BrinkleyPipkin budget reduction act (in Maryland that’s SB1004, Budget Reconciliation and Balancing Act) had its hearing. When I got the release on this hearing this was the part which jumped out at me:
The Brinkley-Pipkin budget reduction act had a hearing before the Senate Budget and Tax Committee today. By taking significant steps to further reduce spending in this year’s budget process, the Brinkley-Pipkin plan buys additional time to constrain spending to the existing available revenues without the need to raise taxes.
A key feature of the plan is the elimination of built-in statutory increases in state programs. This feature and an additional $75 million in spending constraint over the next three years would allow current revenues to “catch-up” with spending, thereby bringing ongoing spending and revenues into balance.Many lobbyists and county officials testified today against additional cuts to state spending. Representatives of unions also opposed the Brinkley-Pipkin plan of additional cutbacks including the removal prevailing wage from state projects. The majority of citizens and taxpayers who testified supported all efforts to cut back government overspending. (Emphasis mine.)
So once again we have the government and big-government interests (i.e. the lobbyists) vs. the people. The information I was provided also had a chart showing the difference between our current budget path (which will certainly lead to higher taxes) and the Brinkley-Pipkin projections.
In theory, at least, the Republicans’ proposal not only balances the budget but creates a small surplus.
Obviously the counties were there to argue that the budget would be balanced on their backs and perhaps they have a point. But this should also lead the local governments into an effort to prioritize what services they wish to deliver, with the public being involved by determining how much they want to pay. For example, it would fan the flames of the ongoing debate here in Wicomico County regarding the revenue cap the county currently employs.
Government cannot co-exist with a free society as a cure-all. Every dollar taken out of your pocket to pay for services they wish to deliver is a dollar that you cannot use as you wish, despite the fact it was freely given to you. (In more and more cases, however, that dollar was given to you by the same government who wishes to take it away.)
It’s way beyond time to consider that role government has to play and amend it accordingly. Maybe not all of the cuts in the Brinkley-Pipkin proposal are wise, but they can begin this vital discussion of the role our state government plays in our lives.








