Easy pickins

You wouldn’t necessarily think of him as the farmer’s candidate, but Charles Lollar has at least paid a little bit of attention to how environmental factors affect one of Maryland’s top industries. Recall that he spoke at length about the Hudson case in one of his initial campaign stops, and it may not necessarily surprise you that he’s now making hay out of what’s he dubbing the “chicken tax.”

The “Chicken Tax” is another “Rain Tax” moment in Maryland history. Farmers in Maryland should be outraged. Agriculture is the number one economic industry in Maryland. It accounts for $2.3 billion in gross receipts to the economy annually and generates approximately 46,000 jobs. More than half of these jobs are on the Eastern Shore. Why are legislators willing to risk all that?

We need a balanced approach to solving environmental issues in Maryland. Keeping the Bay clean is a regional problem that involves more than controlling agricultural run off from Maryland farms. Sediment from adjacent states, like Pennsylvania, contribute to the pollution. Leadership in Annapolis needs to craft a regional solution to this problem that requires all states that pollute the Bay to “pay their fair share” to keep it clean. We must not allow legislators in Annapolis to “hurt Maryland first” by bankrupting hard-working farmers with a “Chicken Tax” and putting the future of Maryland’s number one economic industry at risk.

Given Lollar’s propensity for shrill populism, I took the liberty of reading the bill in question, Senate Bill 725. (The same bill is in the House of Delegates as House Bill 905, a common Maryland practice.) The Senate bill’s lead sponsor is Richard Madaleno, a Montgomery County senator whose experience with chicken is probably that of seeing it at Whole Foods. (He seems the vegetarian type.)

Basically the bill as proposed, called the Poultry Fair Share Act (PFSA), tries to “achieve” two things: raise money from poultry processors like Perdue, Mountaire, Tyson, etc. at five cents per bird and establish a bankroll to “fund cover crop activities on agricultural lands upon which chicken manure has been applied as fertilizer.” The secondary purpose of the bill is to increase the share of money going into an existing state fund to reimburse owners of failing septic systems who have to replace them with a system with enhanced nitrogen removal – currently that fund shares its proceeds with the cover crop program on a 60/40 basis, with the cover crops getting the 40% share.

Needless to say the local producers are feeling a little put upon, as would anyone subject to a bill arbitrarily deeming that it pay a “fair share.” Madaleno is probably upset because his county has to pay the aforementioned “rain tax” but no Eastern Shore county yet has to (although certain muncipalities in the region already collect such a tax.) Prominently featured on the webpage of the Delmarva Poultry Industry homepage is a series of questions about the PFSA.

So my question is simple, and it applies to any candidate, including Lollar. How many of you will put your money where your mouth is and go testify against the Senate bill when it comes to a hearing on Tuesday, February 25th at 1 p.m.? Certainly these candidates are willing to put themselves out for gun rights and stand against taxation in general, but who is going to face down the environmental lobby in this state and politely (or better yet, impolitely) tell them to do the anatomically impossible and go f–k themselves?

Writing a press release is one thing, but we need activists. Personally I’m tired of seeing the agricultural industry in Maryland – no, wait, the entire rural slice of the state in general, whether it be farmer, resident, or small business – be the featured whipping boy for groups which would just as soon see the non-urban portions of the state revert to their once-wild condition. Yes, that means you, Waterkeepers Alliance, Food and Water Watch, and even certain members of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. I’ve only been here a decade, but I spent my teenage years in a rural area and I think we all got along just fine without you because – as they often note – farmers are the original environmentalists. We might not have liked it a whole lot when the wind blew the perfume of the pig farm down the road our way, but it was a small inconvenience for the rural living my parents desired.

I happen to think we can have it all – a great quality of life, economic growth and the jobs it creates, and water quality suitable for the recreational and aquacultural purposes we demand from Chesapeake Bay – without these environmentalists coming in and mucking up the works with overregulation and harsh taxation. Hopefully we can count on all four GOP gubernatorial candidates to stick up for the farmer in this fight.

Wicomico Pathfinders meeting reset – again

As I predicted last week given the high probability that Delegate Justin Ready would be unavailable on date number 2, the Wicomico County Pathfinders gathering was rescheduled once again, for Saturday, April 13. It will be held at the original intended location, the Salisbury Chamber of Commerce building (where Wicomico County Republican Club and Republican Central Committee meetings are generally located) from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Most importantly, lunch will be provided.

Registration is $35 and a direct link to the registration site is here. The MDGOP also has some background information on the concept.

Something we have harped on is finding good candidates who will fill up the ballot in 2014 – no exceptions. Okay, perhaps one exception as Republicans can’t run for the Democratic Central Committee. (But conservatives certainly can, and I encourage those who just can’t shake the concept of abandoning their daddy’s party but nevertheless agree with our pro-liberty principles to give that a shot.)

In Wicomico County there are a total of 22 elected positions available – 15 for the county and 7 for the state, although 6 of those are shared to various extents with other counties. Obviously some of these offices are already held by Republicans so we don’t necessarily need a challenger for those positions, but there are a number of Democrats who have been in their respective offices far too long and need to be replaced with people bringing fresh blood and new, conservative ideas. (Yes, I’m looking at you, Norm “Five Dollar” Conway.)

But with as much bashing of the state GOP as I’ve done over the last months and years, I have to credit them for doing something right. Two copies of this appeared in my mailbox today.

I am sure some are going to make an issue of the second bullet point about redefining marriage, saying it’s an issue we shouldn’t discuss in a city election. Indeed, though, Ireton has publicly expressed his support for same-sex nuptials. Nor would it surprise me to find out that a large proportion of Ireton’s out-of-town contributors – a subset which accounts for more than half of his individual donations – are active in the gay community. A cursory look at two of his more prominent contributors, Victor Shargai and Duane Rollins, led me to believe that a significant backing comes from that political arena. (Rollins is alleged to have a shady political past, too.) Four of Maryland’s complement of openly gay legislators (Delegates Luke Clippinger, Anne Kaiser, and Maggie McIntosh, along with Senator Richard Madaleno) have also chipped in to Ireton’s cause.

One has to ask, then: is their support more about the job Jim’s doing or promoting the rainbow banner he’s holding up? Is Jim Ireton one of the quota of gay mayors we must have to be an “inclusive” society? Personally, I’d rather have someone who does a good job in getting the local economy going again – too bad I don’t have full faith in either candidate to do so.

The party had talked about getting more active in local elections this year, and with the investment of a few hundred dollars have done just that. Kudos to them – and guess what? It spawned some new media involvement, too.

A sneak attack (on our county taxpayers)

Two similar (but not identical, thus not crossfiled) bills have been introduced in the General Assembly this term, measures which would thwart the will of voters in Wicomico County and elsewhere in Maryland.

First among them was SB740, which was introduced February 3 by Senator Richard Madeleno of Montgomery County, which is one of the counties that inhibits property tax collections in some manner. (The others are Anne Arundel, Prince George’s, Talbot, and Wicomico.) It’s a bill which would simply allow counties which have this sort of cap to circumvent it, provided the money goes to the county’s school board.

But HB1412, which was introduced on February 28 – and got the extraordinary benefit of a hearing just two days after introduction – would do grave damage to the financial bottom line of several counties, most particularly Wicomico. It’s notable that Delegate Norm “Five Dollar” Conway is a co-sponsor of the bill, which is led by Delegate John Bohanon of St. Mary’s County and also backed by members from Baltimore City and Baltimore, Howard, and Montgomery counties.

Apparently this will affect Wicomico County in two ways: first of all, their maintenance of effort (MOE) won’t come down to a more realistic level based on tax revenues – for FY2012 they were over $14 million short of the $50 million MOE goal, the largest percentage of any of the state’s 24 counties – and our MOE will likely automatically increase up to 2.5% each year after FY2015 because we’ll almost certainly be considered a “below average” county. At a starting point of $50 million, that’s an extra $1 million we would have to come up with (or roughly 1.5 cents per $100 extra on property tax rates, based on what the county currently receives) annually. That’s also faster than our revenue cap would allow, since it’s based on an increase of no more than two percent.

But the other problem the bill will create is shorting other areas of the county’s budget which depend on the state – according to the fiscal note for HB1412, “(i)f a county does not fully fund MOE and has not received a waiver, the county’s income tax revenues will be intercepted and sent to the school board.” In other words, we lose the local control we have on state funding.

Now some may argue that because the state is providing the funds, they should call the tune. I don’t disagree with that, but if they want to play that game I’d like to see an opt-out provision. Call their bluff: okay, if you want to take away our local control of the money then we don’t want to send you our taxes. Obviously that’s not going to happen anytime soon.

And the problem most people have with the local Board of Education isn’t one of necessity. Few would argue that we don’t need public education as an option.

But there are a lot of us who feel money should follow the child, regardless of where the parents wish to send them to school. By bringing that element of competition into it, schools are forced to improve and provide more bang for the buck. Certainly I’m aware that Wicomico County schools have been studied and found to spend a below-average amount on administrative costs, but it certainly seems to me that the things the Board of Education likes to project as cuts are the ones which provide the greatest shock value. Yet what would our financial situation be like if we simply increased the average class size to 25 students? How much help would that provide?

I seem to recall that once upon a time our County Executive vowed he would do zero-based budgeting as he did as Fruitland’s city manager, beginning each year from scratch. It doesn’t seem to work that way at the Board of Education, which seems to assume they are entitled to every dime they can extract out of our pockets and then some.

And, needless to say, this bill would also provide impetus to opponents of the revenue cap to push for its removal – “the children are hurting,” they’ll whine in a tone which will remind me of those who are dismissed as the “Bennett babes.” But that squeaky wheel got the grease, didn’t it?

I suspect the long-term answer, however, may be for Maryland to give local districts taxing authority like they have in most other states. Certainly this has its drawbacks – for example, my alma mater district derives revenue from both a local income tax and a local property tax, which is somewhat rare among Ohio districts – but at least there may be a little bit of a chance for local control and reform. (The reason for this dual taxation practice is that a vast percentage of the district consists of low-value agricultural land but many of the families on the eastern edge of the district have reasonably high-paying jobs in nearby Toledo and moved to the school district for its lower property taxes.) If a school board isn’t doing its fiduciary duty by the taxpayers, the option is there to “starve the beast” until needed changes are made.

I don’t know what the fate of these two bills will be, but if one or both are passed it will change the local financial landscape for the worse. Those on the side of the statists never fail to make everything they do hurt the “country class” like hell, and this will be no exception.