Stepping over the line

Every year there are bills introduced late in the session which seem to be fraught with peril. For example, last year we were saddled with a new gasoline tax from a bill introduced one year ago Tuesday, well after the cutoff for new bills to avoid the need for Rules Committee approval. Last year’s session also brought a late bill, introduced at the end of February, which radically changed campaign finance law and, among other things, pushed the filing deadline to February from April. Bad idea.

Because the filing deadline was much earlier this year, a certain delegation must not have liked the hand it was dealt insofar as those running for Central Committee. To that end, the Harford County delegation introduced House Bill 1513, which makes a key change to the Central Committee in that county only.

At this time, there are 12 members of the Harford County Republican Central Committee – twelve positions that a whopping 32 people are seeking. (All of them are at-large countywide positions similar to many other counties in Maryland.) Out of that crowd, it’s apparent that a number are members of the local Campaign for Liberty chapter, and those who would be considered the “establishment” came running to their General Assembly delegation for aid. The result was HB1513, which is written as an “emergency” bill so it would take effect once passed and approved by the governor. Generally this occurs no later than May.

The idea behind the bill is that Republican members of the county’s delegation to Annapolis would become ex officio members of the HCRCC, with voting power in just two instances: removal of members and new appointments. At this time, there are seven members of the Harford County delegation who would become members: Glen Glass, Rick Impallaria, Susan McComas, Pat McDonough, Wayne Norman, Donna Stifler, and Kathy Szeliga. With the exceptions of Norman and Stifler, all could be members going forward into next term if this law passes.

What this bill would do is expand the voting from 12 members to 19 members (as it stands now) or perhaps even 20 members if all members of the General Assembly from Harford are Republicans. (There is one Democrat among the eight presently.) The key reason for this is to make the difficulty of having a 2/3 majority on these issues – where 8 of 12 have to agree – to a situation where it becomes 13 of 19 or 14 of 20.

I think the fear is that a majority of the insurgents will win over so-called “establishment” candidates. By stacking the numbers with members of the General Assembly, they need only convince about half of the existing body to vote with them in order to reach a 2/3 majority. (I use this number because it’s an operative one here in Wicomico County.)

While the numbers would be much less significant here in Wicomico County, if a similar law were passed for us it would add four members to our nine. In that case, attaining a 2/3 majority if the Delegates voted as a bloc could require only a minority of original members (4 of 9.) In Harford’s case, it could be a 6-6 split turned into a 13-6 majority.

And while we certainly would welcome our Republican delegates to our meetings, I think this bill sets a tremendously horrible precedent. There was nothing stopping any of these Delegates from running for Central Committee, aside from the obvious fact not all of them live in Harford County – that in and of itself is a terrible feature of the bill. Again using Wicomico County as an example, all four Delegate slots would go to members who live outside Wicomico County. Shamefully, the only two resident Delegates we have are Democrats.

Unfortunately, it wouldn’t surprise me if this bill passes, even if it does so on just Democratic votes (which is very possible.)  And I’m not sure what sort of legal challenge could be made to it, aside from perhaps the fact they would be adding non-residents to the Central Committee – but it could be argued as well that they were voted in by the people of Harford County, too. And if it does, look for a lot of copycat bills in the coming years as the legislative branch consolidates power.

To this I say not just no, but “hell no!” They won’t let us come vote in the General Assembly on bills, so why should they have the right to vote on our Central Committee?

2014 Maryland dossier: part 6 (War on Rural Maryland)

I suspended this process for several days in the incorrect belief that Larry Hogan would jump into the race and give me some direction on where he stands with the various issues I’ve already covered. But since he’s passing until January I will continue to vet the others without him.

The definition of “War on Rural Maryland” is rather broad to me, but generally focuses on land use, environmental, and agricultural issues. In many ways, the three are intertwined but over the last seven years the prosperity and freedom rural denizens of the state enjoy has been significantly eroded by decisions from on high in Annapolis. This is an effort to grade the candidates on how they would react and reverse some of these ill-considered ideas.

**********

David Craig:  As Governor, I will return land use decisions to local government where they belong and will replace a punishment and control regime with a conservation agenda. I will work with the Governors of New York and Pennsylvania to clean up the Susquehanna and reduce that major source of Bay pollution.  I will end the practice of Maryland bearing the brunt of responsibility for cleaning up the Bay and being responsible for a 64,000 square mile watershed that includes surrounding states.

(snip)

I will work with local governments to promote sound planning but leave the control of land use where it belongs, closest to the people. (campaign site)

*

When asked “where will you stick PlanMaryland?” Craig answered back with, “where do you want me to stick it?” (WCRC meeting, July 22, 2013)

*

What I’ve found is the best way is to actually listen to the farmers have to say and have them come up with solutions for what they think needs to be done, and then convince the other farmer this is the best way to go – it’s not government talking to you. (They’d say) I did this on my farm, it saved me money, it did this and saved me all these rules and regulations.

But we get all these people that are in environmental services, they have this job, they’re lawyers, they’re environmental – but they know nothing. I had a situation talking with the Maryland Department of the Environment, I said give me an example of this rain tax, I have two – or septic tax. I have two farms, tell me which one’s the worst. How will I be able to determine which one – one guy’s doing the good job, one’s a bad job? And the guy looked at me and said we can’t figure that out. (monoblogue interview)

*

Perhaps the biggest environmental enigma about David Craig is Harford County’s on-again, off-again flirtation with ICLEI, or the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. (It’s better known as ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability.) In 2010, to much fanfare, Harford County became one of Maryland’s ICLEI members, saying it had “taken another step towards achieving the goal of environmental stewardship” by joining the group.

But less than three years later, the county more quietly withdrew from the group, with the local Harford Campaign for Liberty taking credit along with an assist from the county’s Republican Party and a resolution it passed early this year. Perhaps they read the group’s charter?

Somehow, though, that notice of withdrawal has escaped the county’s Sustainability Office, which is instead in the midst of promoting another cherished leftist scheme, Car-Free Days, next weekend. (monoblogue, September 15, 2013)

*

He called for a repeal of the state (“rain tax”) law, then went on to suggest that Maryland should back off from a range of measures adopted in recent decades to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. His proposals include elimination of the 1984 Critical Areas Act, a measure regarded by environmentalists as the crown jewel of the state’s Bay protection laws.

“Why don’t you get rid of all the previous bills?” Craig said. “Let’s get rid of of the Critical Areas Act.”

In addition to the critical area law, which restricts development on parcels within 1,000 yards of the bay and its tributaries, Craig said he would like to get rid of a 2007 law requiring developments to avoid any increase in stormwater runoff and abolish a 1998 law requiring farmers to limit the runoff of fertilizer and animal waste. (Baltimore Sun, September 17, 2013)

*

“While I share the desire for a clean and healthy bay, as most of us probably do, I question the priorities of those in Annapolis who feel that no price is too steep to pay for only a marginal improvement in bay quality,” Craig said. “Our businesses and taxpayers expect us, as county government, to act as their last line of defense against over-the-top polices from the state and federal governments whenever possible, and that is what I intend to do.” (Washington Post, September 18, 2013)

Ron George: Ease Farm regulations that over reach while making large areas unprofitable.

Restore, Conserve and Preserve Our Natural Resources without punishing the very people who live, work and recreate here because  they love our beautiful state including businesses, homeowners, boaters, farmers,  watermen or taxpayers…or anyone who gets rained on.

Dredge the “silt pond” above the Conowingo Dam, which causes far more harm to the bay’s ecosystem each time it overflows or the dam is opened.

Encourage planting of Maryland’s tall deciduous tree species including Oaks and Maples.

Allow for the hunting of overpopulated species.

Giving the dollars for bay oyster restoration directly to River Keepers and their volunteers. (campaign site)

*

In a past campaign, Ron George billed himself as the “Green Elephant.” Here’s a list of some of the environmental restrictions he’s voted for in the past eight years – many of which he cheerfully admitted voting for in his 2010 campaign. The number in parentheses afterward is the number of opposition votes in the House of Delegates.

All of these votes were graded in previous editions of the monoblogue Accountability Project.

Maryland Clean Cars Act of 2007 (17 votes)
Clean Indoor Act of 2007 (39 votes)
Chesapeake Bay 2010 Trust Fund (30 votes)
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative – Maryland Strategic Energy Investment Program (25 votes)
EmPOWER Maryland Energy Efficiency Act of 2008 (33 votes)
Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Critical Area Protection Program – Administrative and Enforcement Provisions (15 votes)
Smart, Green, and Growing – Local Government Planning – Planning Visions (7 votes)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act of 2009 (30 votes)
Smart, Green, and Growing – Smart and Sustainable Growth Act of 2009 (12 votes)
Natural Resources – No Net Loss of Forest Policy – Forest Conservation Act (23 votes)
Agriculture – Lawn Fertilizer – Low Phosphorus Fertilizer (19 votes)
Smart, Green, and Growing – The Sustainable Communities Act of 2010 (27 votes)
Stormwater Management – Development Projects – Requirements (13 votes)
Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard – Solar Energy (31 votes)
Smart. Green, and Growing – Maryland Sustainable Growth Commission (20 votes)
Chesapeake Conservation Corps Program (27 votes)
Natural Resources – Forest Preservation Act of 2013 (27 votes)

I will note, however, that the majority of these votes came during Ron’s first term in office (2007-10) and he has moved somewhat away from the “Green Elephant” designation – one key example was voting against the Septic Bill in 2012. But how do we determine Ron’s line in the sand? (monoblogue, September 15, 2013)

Charles Lollar: I am committed to saving the Bay – and to doing it in a right and in a balanced way.

First, I will support full annual funding – $50 million – of the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust Fund, created in 2007. Those trust funds must not be diverted to general and other purposes, as the O’Malley/Brown Administration proposed in FY 2010. Other budget needs and challenges will be addressed directly – and not bailed out by grabbing Trust Fund monies.

Second, we must find deal smartly with the sources of pollutions, including those coming from other states in water that flows into the headwaters of the Bay. Our approach to the public and private point and non-point sources of the pollutants that threaten the Bay must be prudent, balanced – not extreme. Our approach must avoid economic dislocations and injuries that can result from overzealous regulation.

As Maryland’s Governor, I will fully engage directly with the Governors of the other Chesapeake Bay states and federal officials at the Environment Protection Agency to determine the best approaches to be taken to continually improve the quality of the bay and protect its eco-systems. (campaign website)

*

“This cronyism, and this opportunity to shut down the agricultural industry in this state, is going to come to a stop.” (YouTube video at Hudson Farm, September 8, 2013)

**********

Since the Democrats are the ones perpetrating the War on Rural Maryland it’s doubtful they will back off. In fact, Doug Gansler’s entire environmental platform seems to be one of making chicken farmers convert waste to energy, while the other two major candidates basically ignore rural needs.

**********

I think that, in order to give David Craig a fair evaluation, I have to know which one I’m talking to. Telling them to stick PlanMaryland, repealing the rain tax, and wiping out the Critical Areas Act would be a great start to restoring balance, although I guarantee the media coverage sensationalized what he said in the latter case just to make him look like he’s for dirty water. (I don’t fall for the hype, figuring local areas could have regulations which are just as strident, which is the beauty of local control. Or they could work toward something more reasonable.)

But then again, three years ago he was signing up for ICLEI and the county he runs still has a Sustainability Office. So I’m left to wonder just how serious he is about ridding us of overbearing government and over-the-top radical environmentalism. I think I’ll give him 8 points of 12 for now.

To a great extent, the same applies to Ron George. It’s worth pondering how he was pushed from being a “green elephant” to the point where he at least talks about easing farm regulations (but doesn’t provide a lot of specifics) and votes against an onerous septic bill. It seems to me that Ron is trying to skate a middle ground between what he thinks people want to hear and actions which would potentially help farmers and rural counties but can be portrayed negatively by the major media outlets (as Craig was.) So I can only give him 6 of 12 points, right in the middle.

In listening to Charles Lollar speak at the Hudson farm, I was struck by his passion. But when I read his brief statement on environmental matters – one which accepts the premise that the state has to spend $50 million (or more) a year in a vain attempt to coddle an environmental group which will never be satisfied, I wonder what his real plan is. Certainly it needs more study, but I can’t see at this point where he would make a bold statement on repealing legislation or rolling back regulations. If he can accept the status quo on the trust fund, what else will he leave in place? So I can give him just 5 of 12 points.

**********

I haven’t decided if I will double back to Obamacare before tackling the higher priorities or not. Only one candidate has answered me directly on the subject, while another is promising me more information. With this being a holiday week I will likely make the decision for Friday, since I already have a book review planned for Saturday.

More on the environment

I was thinking about the appearance by Charles Lollar at the Hudson farm earlier this month, particularly in the wake of a federal judge’s decision allowing the EPA to continue with its assault on our agricultural livelihood. U.S. District Court Judge Sylvia Rambo, a Carter appointee, ruled the EPA is within its rights under the Clean Water Act to “partner” with the six states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed in cleaning up the Bay. Yes, Judge Rambo, putting a proverbial gun to our heads is truly partnership from the federal government.

While we know a little bit about where Charles stands on environmental issues, how do his GOP opponents weigh in?

Perhaps the biggest environmental enigma about David Craig is Harford County’s on-again, off-again flirtation with ICLEI, or the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. (It’s better known as ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability.) In 2010, to much fanfare, Harford County became one of Maryland’s ICLEI members, saying it had “taken another step towards achieving the goal of environmental stewardship” by joining the group.

But less than three years later, the county more quietly withdrew from the group, with the local Harford Campaign for Liberty taking credit along with an assist from the county’s Republican Party and a resolution it passed early this year. Perhaps they read the group’s charter?

Somehow, though, that notice of withdrawal has escaped the county’s Sustainability Office, which is instead in the midst of promoting another cherished leftist scheme, Car-Free Days, next weekend. (I’ve discussed this before because the CFD date always falls on my birthday and I have better things to do than worry about going without the freedom of having the means to go where I wish on my own schedule.)

So the question is whether the ICLEI withdrawal was a fig leaf designed to burnish Craig’s conservative credentials at a time where he has to “run right” to win a primary election. Seeing that the Office of Sustainability is still in operation leads me to believe David is making that a priority. There’s no question efficiency is important, and “waste not, want not” is a valid way to approach government. But I draw the line at advocating for those entities in which I have no say dictating how my life and time should be spent, and a group like ICLEI falls into that category.

Unfortunately, Ron George also has a reputation for this type of issue advocacy. In a past campaign, Ron George billed himself as the “Green Elephant.” Here’s a list of some of the environmental restrictions he’s voted for in the past eight years – many of which he cheerfully admitted voting for in his 2010 campaign. The number in parentheses afterward is the number of opposition votes in the House of Delegates.

All of these votes were graded in previous editions of the monoblogue Accountability Project.

  • Maryland Clean Cars Act of 2007 (17 votes)
  • Clean Indoor Act of 2007 (39 votes)
  • Chesapeake Bay 2010 Trust Fund (30 votes)
  • Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative – Maryland Strategic Energy Investment Program (25 votes)
  • EmPOWER Maryland Energy Efficiency Act of 2008 (33 votes)
  • Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Critical Area Protection Program – Administrative and Enforcement Provisions (15 votes)
  • Smart, Green, and Growing – Local Government Planning – Planning Visions (7 votes)
  • Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act of 2009 (30 votes)
  • Smart, Green, and Growing – Smart and Sustainable Growth Act of 2009 (12 votes)
  • Natural Resources – No Net Loss of Forest Policy – Forest Conservation Act (23 votes)
  • Agriculture – Lawn Fertilizer – Low Phosphorus Fertilizer (19 votes)
  • Smart, Green, and Growing – The Sustainable Communities Act of 2010 (27 votes)
  • Stormwater Management – Development Projects – Requirements (13 votes)
  • Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard – Solar Energy (31 votes)
  • Smart. Green, and Growing – Maryland Sustainable Growth Commission (20 votes)
  • Chesapeake Conservation Corps Program (27 votes)
  • Natural Resources – Forest Preservation Act of 2013 (27 votes)

I will note, however, that the majority of these votes came during Ron’s first term in office (2007-10) and he has moved somewhat away from the “Green Elephant” designation – one key example was voting against the Septic Bill in 2012. But how do we determine Ron’s line in the sand?

It goes without saying that the Democrats won’t refuse any restriction couched in such a way as to “save the Bay.” To me, the problem is that we have no idea what approaches work best because we don’t give them any time to work. My thought is that we need, at the least, a five-year moratorium on new regulations in order to better gauge the success of what we already have. An even better case scenario would be rolling back restrictions to the level of, say, a decade ago and telling the EPA to go pound sand and pick on the states which are really causing the problem upstream. Dealing with their sediment behind the Conowingo Dam would be a good beginning.

What we don’t need is to keep the trend line going in its current direction, lest there be no agricultural industry remaining in Maryland.

Observations on observations

Perhaps the pro-liberty crowd is still a little restless in Maryland.

Today I got an e-mail from “the Susquehanna Conservative,” a.k.a. Scott DeLong of Harford County. Let me toss out a couple caveats before I begin with my analysis of his remarks: one, he was a Collins Bailey supporter for Chair as I was,  and two, Scott is part of the Campaign for Liberty group, which probably makes point number one unsurprising since that was Bailey’s base of support. This rather lengthy e-mail mainly speaks to Scott’s thoughts about our recent convention, although he opines on some other topics as well.

Upon his arrival, he noticed the same thing I did: a handful of Waterman signs but many passionate Bailey supporters out sign waving. Of course, he also highlighted the Maryland Liberty PAC hospitality room to a much greater extent than I did, because I went to several others in my travels that evening. I didn’t realize, for example, that Delegate Michael Smigiel spoke to the group and the information Smigiel related about the SB281 gun bill was quite enlightening. I truly appreciated the overview and wonder if anyone recorded all of the speakers there for future reference.

And since I’m sure I have the attention of the pro-liberty crowd – and hopefully the MDGOP leadership as well – I’d like to offer a suggestion. I’ve alluded to this before, but honestly I’m not sure I have done so in this particular forum: why not move the Maryland Liberty PAC suite out of Friday night, when the focus is more on socializing and schmoozing, to Saturday morning? As DeLong explained later, not all of the Saturday morning fare was well-attended, and to me it would be like a miniature MDCAN conference before our convention business began. Perhaps we could integrate a continental breakfast into it, but in either case I bet it would draw more than seven people.

So only a small portion of Scott’s reflections focused on Friday night. The next part, though, I found interesting. To quote Scott, “It was the Establishment versus 2 grassroots candidates,” but by the very next paragraph he darkly alludes that “The Establishment was going to pull out all the stops to make sure their candidate, Waterman, would win” by “Thugging The Vote.”

Personally I found what I heard to be happening reprehensible, then again, this is politics and “politics ain’t beanbag.” While we had a proxy unsure of the direction to go, having heard conflicting information about following the wishes of the person being substituted for versus following their own desire, I was hearing some of the same stories being related by DeLong in his account.

So let me back up the scenario a little bit. In previous discussions, Dave Parker (our county Chair) and I agreed that our county’s vote could easily (and likely would) split three ways. I actually was mildly surprised by the split as one person I thought of as a Waterman supporter picked Bailey and one other did the reverse. In the end, we were about as split as any county was – but our Chair was perfectly fine with that, and allowed us to make up our own mind.

Contrast that to the browbeating some county chairs gave to their charges, particularly those in the Waterman camp. It was disappointing, but frankly not too surprising. They weren’t going to repeat the same mistakes they made when they thought Audrey Scott had the National Committeewoman’s seat in the bag last spring. Granted, the three votes DeLong alludes to would not have changed the end result – unless it was the tip of the iceberg, and we may never really know that.

But after Scott goes through the voting process, he points out some of the goings-on between ballots for the Chair position:

The chain of events after the first round of balloting for Chairman was interesting.

The Kline and Bailey camps appeared to be genuinely cordial to one another.

It was reported that during that pow-wow that when Kline was deciding what to do that Bailey told him that if he thought he should stay in for one more round, he should.

That’s just Collins being Collins.

However, if one of their goals was to get a grassroots chair and get Pope off the RNC Rules Committee, then the Kline team really needed to be able to see the writing on the wall.

The only thing that would be accomplished with Kline remaining in the race would be the election of Diana Waterman as Chairman since she was 11 votes away and it would be virtually impossible for Kline to get enough to get close.

The Bailey team was prepared to endorse Kline had the outcome been reversed.

The supporters of these two groups clearly had more in common with each other than with Waterman and Pope.

Had either become the Chairman the other groups would have certainly had a seat at the table and would have had their ideas and input considered, and if found workable, implemented.

The Kline guys seemed like a decent bunch, but they clearly need to get better at reading the tea leaves.

Now that last statement will probably earn Scott DeLong the everlasting enmity of the Red Maryland crew, for whom I am an erstwhile contributor (as they like to point out.) One result of this particular election, though, is that it may create a change in the bylaws or the adoption in the future of a special rule where the lowest-ranked candidate is automatically evicted from the ballot. Again, we will never know if a Kline withdrawal and endorsement of Bailey would have been enough to push Collins over the top given how close Diana was in the first place, but as things turned out Bailey supporters got the next best result.

From here, Scott implores us in the pro-liberty movement to “unite for common goals” and launches into a discussion about national party affairs. I believe DeLong is correct that National Committeeman Louis Pope will be extremely resistant to change, and given some of his statements regarding the “Liberty Pack” (as he calls it) it doesn’t appear he will be of much use to the purpose of revisiting the RNC rules.

Yet some of the ideas in the “Growth and Opportunity Project” that DeLong doesn’t like are ones I happen to be in favor of. Personally. I would like to see multi-state primaries – but I don’t want the calendar front-loaded because I would prefer the primaries occur in the timeframe of May through early July, with the conventions remaining in September. With such a compressed schedule, there would be plenty of time for a grassroots candidate to gather support beforehand, not to mention “as much debate and discussion as possible.” (By the way, we should tell the cable networks that either we pick the debate moderators or they can pound sand.) On the other hand, the idea of all caucuses intrigues me as well – perhaps we can have a cutoff number of Republicans in a state (say, just for an example, one million) between a state which can caucus and a state which must hold a primary. (And yes, I think the primaries should be closed. Don Murphy hasn’t convinced me yet.)

DeLong returns to the convention narrative to talk about the reports from Senate Minority Leader E.J. Pipkin and now-former House Minority Leader Tony O’Donnell as well as the “usual parliamentary chaos.” I have to agree with Scott on that one.

There have been far too many conventions where we simply ran out of time before important business could be concluded, and to me that’s inexcusable. In one case, I had a pending bylaw change on the short end of the time stick; this time, there was the Tari Moore resolution which was tabled last fall. It always seems like we have some sort of high-priced dinner afterward that no one really wants to attend because they’re dragged out from 24 nearly non-stop stressful hours with very little sleep and – for many – a long drive home. (Next spring in Rocky Gap will be a classic example of that for those on my end of the state, just as Ocean City conventions were difficult on those who came from out west.) I understand we weren’t expecting a Chair election when this spring gathering was scheduled, but why put people through this?

Another place where I part ways with DeLong is over the Tari Moore resolution. If you want to be critical of her budget and other decisions she’s made since becoming Cecil County Executive, that’s one thing and I can accept that. But unless and until she files to run for re-election as an unaffiliated candidate, I think she deserves the benefit of the doubt that she will revert back to her Republican registration so I wouldn’t support such a resolution coming off the table.

To me, Scott is beginning to let the perfect be the enemy of the good and not looking at the 80% rule. Certainly I can pore over anyone’s voting record and find at least a few flaws, but until a better alternative comes along the idea is to try and steer them right.

Yet I think we could have had a better alternative than Nic Kipke for Minority Leader; unfortunately none stepped up to the plate. DeLong correctly points out some of the many flaws in Nic’s voting record but also savages Tony O’Donnell for his mistake of supporting Thomas Perez for a federal position several years ago.

I think Scott’s letter is shorter than my analysis, but in the end he does point out that:

I hope that some of the issues I’ve highlighted in this e-mail provide you with a starting point.

So I made it such. It’s better to get this discussion underway now so we can get through it in plenty of time for 2014, since it’s not like the Democrats aren’t dealing with their own problems.

Revolutionary

The message is one of real change, summarized by one line:

But now that the standard-bearer has been defeated, it is time to help build a home for the Liberty voters in the Republican Party here in Maryland and nationwide. And so, the restructuring begins with us.

I think I’ve said this someplace before but I have been a Central Committee member for over 6 years now, which means this is the fourth election cycle I’ve gone through. And every one of the even-numbered year Fall Conventions I’ve gone to – the ones occurring immediately after an election – resemble a wake in most respects. The only signs of life seem to come from the “renegades” of the party who are sick of losing and top-down leadership. Count me in among that group.

We’ve been told that the insurgents can’t win, so the people at the top have asked us to back (in order) Bob Ehrlich, John McCain, Bob Ehrlich, and Mitt Romney. Based on Maryland election results that would be foul out, strikeout, strikeout caught looking, and whiff once again. 0-for-4.

So it seems to me we have two choices: accept being a permanent minority and run candidates who scurry to the so-called center the first chance they get, paying lip service to conservative principles, or selecting a candidate who paints his political canvas in bold colors, daring voters to follow his lead. Some guy named Reagan did that pretty well, as I recall. Considering the record of success we’ve had, we may as well stand on principle and present a clear choice – am I right?

Obviously this all comes with a caveat, because Patrick McGrady of Maryland Liberty PAC – the sponsor of the e-mail message – has his share of critics both inside and outside the party. Some would argue he’s not a good role model since he’s failed to win elective office (he ran for Aberdeen mayor last year and lost.) Well, that makes him just as successful as a lot of other Republicans.

From what it looks like, the idea behind the e-mail was one of infiltration, a new “Renegade Room” of sorts. The group has raised enough to have a hospitality suite at the Fall Convention, where it’s likely they’ll be joined by several would-be statewide candidates trying to line up early support.

So I’m very tempted to ignore the postmortems on a campaign season gone bad, delivered by a group who has failed to make a dent in the Democratic dominance and had to be dragged kicking and screaming into opposing several key issues. (Note well that it was mdpetitions.com, not the state party, which led the effort against Questions 4, 5, and 6. I wasn’t seeing Alex Mooney or any of the officers canvassing the state campaigning against these ill-considered laws which will now be placed into effect, to the state’s detriment; in fact, two former MDGOP Chairs were instrumental in expanding gambling via crony capitalism.) I also know there’s a group out there who would like to see all new officers put into place before 2014, and while a leadership struggle is perhaps the last thing the Maryland GOP needs – consider the case of Jim Pelura – one can argue that the future can’t get any more bleak than an election where the national candidate gets less than 40 percent in Maryland and Congressional candidates average 33.4% between the eight – a number which includes Andy Harris’s 64% of the vote. The other seven come in at less than 30 percent on average.

Since the Democratic incumbents want to rest on their so-called laurels, we will have to stop bringing knives to a gun fight. Those who know me know I don’t often mince words and right now I consider the 66.6% who voted for the status quo as someplace between sheer idiocy and a state of woeful ignorance. Maybe that violates the old rule about attracting flies with honey rather than vinegar, but a spade is a spade and I saw no reason to retain any of the seven incumbent Democrats who ran when all of their competition was better suited for Maryland.

I don’t have the politician’s gift of gab, so I have to use the sharpest of words to state my case in written form. There’s a place for me in the new and improved Maryland Republican Party and the question is: who will allow me to find it?

Odds and ends number 55

My e-mail box was flooded with interesting nuggets over the last few days, so on these topics I’ll devote somewhere between a few words and a few paragraphs. You’ve probably seen this enough that you know the drill; in fact the very first of this long-running series came in the first month of monoblogue’s existence. It’s been a fairly regular feature of late, typical for an election year.

Speaking of elections, our Congressman Andy Harris is up this year as are all 434 of his cohorts. His most recent radio address talks more about the failures of the President, though. That’s sort of like picking the low-hanging fruit but is still a good reminder.

The failure-in-chief, though, is playing the class envy card by creating a tax calculator which claims Mitt Romney will raise your taxes while Obama lowers them. Yes, it’s laughable on the face but the assumptions being made are even more hilarious:

Because the tax code is complex, the calculator makes a number of simplifying assumptions that may differ from the circumstances of any particular user. It assumes all income is from wages. For married filers, it assumes that income is split evenly between two earners. It assumes that income does not vary over the years analyzed. It assumes that taxpayers claim the standard deduction for the purpose of analyzing the impact of the expiration of the middle class tax cuts. The impact of Mitt Romney’s tax plan is based on an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which determines the tax increase or tax cut the average family in each income group would face if Romney paid for his $5 trillion tax plan by cutting tax benefits. The analysis assumes that Romney eliminates all tax benefits, except those for savings and investment, for households earning over $200,000, and reduces those benefits for households earning under $200,000 to cover the rest of the cost – resulting in a reduction by more than half. The Tax Policy Center uses income thresholds based on “cash income”, a measure broader than AGI commonly used by TPC. The calculator is intended for information purposes only.

In other words, this is complete fiction – we’re just going to lie like a rug to those on our e-mail list. Besides, I think people wouldn’t mind paying a little more in taxes if they were convinced the money they sent in wasn’t being wasted on bailouts, handouts, and crony capitalism. With Obama you have all three, and with Romney the chances are somewhat better of that not happening.

And it’s Democratic policies which are destroying the working class. This point is taken to an extreme by a Missouri Congressional candidate’s radio ad, the transcript of which follows:

Narrator: “We interrupt your regular programming for this breaking news.”

** Apocalyptic catastrophe sound effects**

Reporter: “I’m standing here at what remains of downtown St. Louis after the disaster.  It is complete and utter devastation.  A sad day for St. Louis indeed.

** Apocalyptic catastrophe sounds fade out**

Narrator: “Congressman Lacy Clay wants you to think the world will end if he isn’t re-elected, but the problems facing St. Louis after a decade under Lacy Clay are apocalyptic enough.  Under Lacy Clay’s anti-business policies, thirty thousand residents have left St. Louis.  The unemployment rate for African American males in Lacy Clay’s district is 20%.  That’s higher than the unemployment rate in Baghdad.  We deserve better.  We deserve a representative who will work for all of us, and not just sit in Washington DC collecting a lavish paycheck.  We deserve Robyn Hamlin for Congress.  Find out more at HamlinForCongress.com.”

Robyn: “I’m Robyn Hamlin and I approve this message.  Paid for by The Committee to Elect Robyn Hamlin.  Dwayne Hinch, treasurer.”

Hamlin sounds like a good TEA Party candidate but admittedly has an uphill struggle in a almost exclusively urban D+27 district not unlike our Seventh Congressional District. But she’s got some good ammunition to use against a Congressman who’s the second generation of a political dynasty that’s been in office for over forty years because it’s all true. Why should those people settle? But they do, and likely will continue to do so to their detriment.

Similarly in Maryland, Fourth District Republican Faith Loudon is the underdog against incumbent Donna Edwards – admittedly, Edwards isn’t as entrenched as the Clay family has been in Missouri and the district is a touch more friendly to the GOP. Still, it will be a slog for Faith but she’ll get a bit of help: Loudon is the second Maryland Congressional candidate to be backed by the Conservative Victory PAC:

Before a packed event hosted by Dr. Jim and Marianne Pelura at their Davidsonville home, CVPAC Treasurer Ruth Melson presented the endorsement.

Melson remarked: “We are here to help our friend Faith Loudon finish strong and win this November. Let’s congratulate Faith on running a strong campaign. We can win! We must win! Faith Loudon will bring honesty, integrity, and sanity back to Washington. That is why Conservative Victory PAC is endorsing Faith as the next United States Congresswoman from Maryland’s 4th District.”

Melson’s comments struck a chord with the audience disappointed by Faith Loudon’s opponent, incumbent Congresswoman Donna Edwards.

Conservative Victory PAC’s support of Faith Loudon for victory in November is to ensure that Maryland’s elected leaders in the US Congress represent the voters of Maryland and not the special interests catered to by Donna Edwards. Under Donna Edwards’ tenure: Maryland is ranked by the Federal government as the second highest in food stamps fraud, Maryland’s seniors have lost $500 million from Medicare to subsidize Medicaid that is rife with corruption and little or no verification of legal residency, Maryland’s small business has been impoverished by new taxes and regulations, and Federal stimulus funds have been sent overseas to China and funded crony capitalism for the likes of Solyndra.

Of course, one can make the argument against any incumbent Maryland Congressman of any party, including the GOP. But, particularly on the third point Melson makes about the new taxes and regulations, the GOP is trying to eliminate them while Edwards isn’t working to stop them.

You know, I could go on a real rant about all this. But there are others taking up the torch on the state and local level.

Witness Senate Minority Leader E. J. Pipkin and his tirade about the lack of a gambling bill to read. On Thursday, he demanded Governor O’Malley release the gambling bill immediately. Insofar as one can bellow in print, Pipkin bellowed:

The Special Session begins in less than a week. The Governor has had all summer to craft the proposal. Where’s the bill?

A week from now, after he crams his bill down the legislature’s throat, we will hear his platitudes about ‘tough decisions and working together.’ If we are going to work together, the Governor should present his bill today!

In the last year, the Governor has waited to the last minute to release his legislative proposals for Special Sessions. Last October, before the Redistricting Special Session, the Governor waited until 36 hours before the session to release his proposed bill.  For the Special Session to increase the state income tax opening on Monday, May 14, the Governor waited until 3:30pm on Friday to allow legislators to see the bill.

(snip)

The entire legislative process of careful debate and review should not be abandoned in a Special Session. The General Assembly membership must have ample time to examine the legislation before it is introduced on the floor.

Marylanders know that those whom the Governor wants to be informed already know and that the fix is in. Certainly MOM knows who’s in his pocket and who can be bought off with favors – releasing the bill early means no opportunity to add those goodies to sway recalcitrant members of the General Assembly who may have leaned against the bill at first glance. It’s sad but true, and the next chance to take care of this problem doesn’t come until 2014.

Yet there are those who are trying pre-emptive strikes. Witness the Maryland Liberty PAC, which is accusing three Carroll County commissioners of “spending like drunken sailors.” Of course, Carroll County is among the most heavily Republican in the state (one reason it was divided up in Congressional redistricting) so all five of the commissioners are Republicans. It’s likely they’ll be recruiting candidates for primary challenges to the so-called “drunken sailors.”

Similarly, in Harford County the Harford Campaign for Liberty is condemning the “Craiganomics” of granting a development loan to a British company:

On July 10th, 2012 the Harford County Council, at the urging and recommendation of County Executive David Craig, voted to hand over $850,000 of your hard-earned tax dollars to a foreign company!

Apparently County Executive David Craig and the County Council believe in Craigonomics, the idea that government should tax and spend – and then claim it as job growth and economic development.

You and I know better.  Government doesn’t create jobs and that government handouts do absolutely nothing to stimulate our economy.  Free markets and innovative entrepreneurs have and will always make our economy grow.

Obviously this is presented as a shot across the bow of David Craig’s nascent 2014 campaign for governor, and from the details given in this article by Bryna Zumer in the Harford Aegis the money is a required matching fund to a state grant. So Craig and his council were presented with a choice: take the state money or don’t, but the expansion is apparently already built. Realistically, is the company going to pull out now over $750,000? Certainly this will be something the Campaign for Liberty watches as local elections draw closer in Harford County.

Both the Harford Campaign for Liberty and The Maryland Liberty PAC share in the disappointment some feel locally when our 6-1 County Council majority doesn’t act in a conservative manner. I look at it this way: while I want a Republican to win, it doesn’t always have to be the Republican who’s already in office because I demand conservatism and limited government. Personally, I’d be happy with contested GOP primaries up and down the ballot – maybe that’s not what the party apparatus wants but I put my faith in voters to decide, not a tiny group of self-appointed elites who like the power of being kingmakers.

When those who claim the conservative mantle screw up, we should take note and call them out for it.