Rick Pollitt – Page 4

Bait and switch

That Governor of ours, he is a slick one.

After hearing from Martin O’Malley for several months before the General Assembly session that we should have a increase in the gasoline tax, the flush tax, or a host of other tax and fee increases, Governor O’Malley instead chimed in his support for the second sales tax increase of his tenure. Certainly we’re no stranger to sales tax increases as the tax on alcohol went up 50 percent last summer, from 6 cents per dollar to 9 cents. It’s almost like he floated the other ideas as trial balloons in order to make the “added flexibility” of a sales tax more palatable.

“I think we should remember that no one in our state lost their house, lost their job, or lost a business because of an additional penny on the sales tax,” O’Malley whined in speaking with reporters. Maybe he should come to Salisbury and ask local business owners about the effects of the sales tax when compared to tax-free Delaware. His assertion may be technically correct, but certainly we’ve seen many lost opportunities with the differential between what we can charge and what can be charged in Delaware.

Continue reading “Bait and switch”

Wicomico County Council: the Holloway & Holloway show

I’m told the fix was in from the start. But last night Wicomico County Council added its newest member in District 4’s John Hall and reorganized. Out was two-year County Council President Gail Bartkovich of District 3 and in was former Council Vice-President Joe Holloway of District 5. He was replaced by at-large member Matt Holloway.

And while Joe Holloway announced the decision was by unanimous consent, the lone Democrat on the body chose to wait until Council comments to express her dissent. Maybe Joe didn’t hear her in the hubbub, but I don’t think Sheree Sample-Hughes needed to take up an attitude, just politely state that for the record the vote was not unanimous.

But this post is more about the direction I’d like to see the County Council take us in.

Continue reading “Wicomico County Council: the Holloway & Holloway show”

More land off limits to development: a sign of things to come under PlanMaryland?

It was just another item on the agenda Tuesday evening at the County Council meeting, and since I don’t have the record of what happened yet I have to presume it passed without a peep of opposition. (I’d be happy to stand corrected, but I know the resolution passed. Whether it was 4-2 or 6-0, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference in the end.)

With that passage the county was authorized to spend nearly $2 million in state money to purchase easements on 710 acres of land along Nanticoke and Royal Oak Roads known as the Tracey Property – that’s a little over one square mile of territory.

Continue reading “More land off limits to development: a sign of things to come under PlanMaryland?”

2011 Good Beer Festival in pictures and text

Fair warning: this post is heavy on the pictures, as I have 27 loaded up and ready to go. Here’s the first:

Of course, there’s much, much more after the jump.

Continue reading “2011 Good Beer Festival in pictures and text”

A time for overwhelming the opposition

For the second time in as many meetings, Wicomico County Council is devoting time to the question of eventually adopting an elected school board. The last meeting, a daytime affair, only drew five participants which split evenly on the question because one was apparently neutral. This will not do.

You may recall that earlier this year the County Council passed a similar resolution and dutifully carried it to our legislators in Annapolis, who introduced both a Senate and House version. As it turned out, the Senate version remained “clean” through the Senate, but both the House and Senate bills were amended by the House Ways and Means Committee (with a little prodding from Delegate Norm “Five Dollar” Conway) to include a second question on whether voters are against the appointed system. Because the two versions were markedly different, SB981 did not become law despite passing both the House and Senate with just one negative vote. (For the record, the “no” vote was cast by Delegate Nathaniel Oaks of Baltimore City.)

The idea of a “hybrid” school board is floated by a very small minority which appears dead set on maintaining the governor’s role in selecting our school board, presumably because a Democrat will most likely be elected governor in this state. The key players in this opposition are Mary Ashanti of the Wicomico County NAACP, County Council member Sheree Sample-Hughes, who has been the lone County Council member opposed to the idea, County Executive Rick Pollitt, and Delegate Conway. They fret that the elected school board may not have a minority member despite the fact that most proposals being floated about an elected school board’s composition would break down the membership similarly to County Council’s, with the same districts used and perhaps two additional at-large members.

But the question becomes one of how much say should we give the state in how to run our board of education? It’s bad enough that the flexibility and autonomy once deferred to local districts has gone by the wayside as both state and federal agencies compete over who can usurp more local control – some skeptics say that having an elected school board would make as much difference as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

There’s still the question of accountability, though. Over a five-year term, those currently serving are essentially locked into place. To be selected or reappointed for a second five-year term they only have to impress a small body of perhaps four to five Central Committee members (depending on party, as Democrats elect seven Central Committee members while Republicans elect nine) in order to send their names on to the governor’s Secretary of Appointments. (The current Secretary was O’Malley’s deputy mayor in Baltimore, so there’s little chance of independent thought there. Worthy of note is that she also chaired the Redistricting Committee, but that’s a story for another time.)

It’s quite likely the small but vocal opposition will be out in force trying to be the squeaky wheel, so on Tuesday it’s important to get the drop on them and overwhelm them with sheer numbers. If they send up one person to state the case for the unsatisfactory status quo, we need to send three to four up to rebut their statements. We should flood the e-mail accounts of County Council demanding they stand firm to their vote and their resolution to demand action on an elected school board for a vote in 2012. Action delayed is accountability denied.

Update: This just came from County Council President Gail Bartkovich – seems the Wicomico County Board of Education has slated a “Community Budget Awareness Meeting” in the same time slot as the County Council meeting but over at Parkside High School. Coincidence?

I like the part about “how YOU can support Wicomico Schools in the effort to secure funding for an outstanding education for the children of Wicomico County.” (Emphasis in original.) In other words, we want you to support the tax increases we desire.

WCRC meeting – July 2011

It was a smaller-than-usual turnout, but those who came were treated to interesting information from Wicomico County State’s Attorney Matt Maciarello – not all of which I’m at liberty to share.

Of course, we did the usual Lord’s Prayer, Pledge of Allegiance, and reports, but much of the meeting was devoted to Matt reviewing his accomplishments over the first several months of his term. He also was pleased with yesterday’s Daily Times article which “shows lawyers in a good light.”

Among his accomplishments was improving communication and collaboration with law enforcement. When he took over there were “gangs running amok” and 13 homicides left over from 2010, but his approach of “zero tolerance” and a “Top 25” prosecution list seems to be lowering the crime rate somewhat. Realizing that a small percentage of criminals commit much of the crime, Matt also said he strives for longer sentences and higher bail for certain criminals.

But Maciarello is always asking officers on the beat, “what can we do better for you?” He related the thought that, “when we screw up, people suffer.” That extends to his efforts in the community as well, where he encouraged us to “mentor a child.”

Other accomplishments he cited were cleaning up a “disorganized” budget by cost-cutting and working on their own website along with picking up “low morale” in the office – Matt noted he’d hired the first Hispanic attorney and first woman assistant DA in county history.

Matt had an interesting observation on the local blogosphere when he said “the bloggers were bullying Davis Ruark” into giving them scoops on events. He solved that problem by posting press releases to their website first, guaranteeing access for anyone interested. Being a blogger myself, that insight was most interesting and refreshing.

He then opened up the meeting for questions.

The first asked if more criminals were from out of town, since ECI is so close. Regretfully more are homegrown, said Matt, citing the poor home life some have to endure. He would rather engage in prevention and intervention rather than prosecution, but sometimes that was a choice made by the criminal.

On time served, Matt chided Maryland for not being “truthful in sentencing.” So there were techniques Matt’s office used to keep criminals behind bars longer because “we can’t invent evidence.” It was a problem with shows like CSI which made people believe evidence could be made airtight.

As for drug-related changes, Matt called drugs a “scourge” on the community. But the drug of choice seemed to be pain pills like Oxycontin – “we’re seeing zombies,” said Matt.

Finally, Matt commented on the juvenile system. The problem with the system as it is in Maryland stems from a lack of facilities for the most hardcore kids. It’s why Matt encouraged mentoring to such a degree – “we can be different,” he concluded.

After that, there wasn’t a while lot to report on. The Central Committee had a number of upcoming events, remarked Ann Suthowski, and would make a push at those for voter registration.

Woody Willing noted that Wicomico County produced about 759 signatures for the SB167 petition and the Board of Elections was already preparing for next April’s primary. He also reminded us of the WCRC Crab Feast next month, August 27 to be exact.

After other minor club business was discussed, Gail Bartkovich had some County Council announcements.

First of all, she was looking for volunteers for a Charter Review Committee (prescribed by the county’s charter to be formed every 10 years) which would work toward putting any proposed changes on the 2014 ballot.

Secondly, next week’s County Council meeting (August 2nd at 6 p.m.) would feature Rick Pollitt’s reorganization proposal, so we were advised to either attend or watch the meeting to see what he says.

Gail was asked about the resolution for an elected school board, since there was some controversy over remarks at a prior meeting. As far as she knew, the original resolution was still valid and binding although she would verify it wasn’t a dated resolution. But a new one could be proposed at any time, she added.

Besides Maciarello, her answering these questions may have been the highlight of the meeting. We’ll do it all again on August 22, with a speaker to be determined.

35th Annual Tawes Crab and Clam Bake in pictures and text

As the old saying goes, there are two sides to (almost) every story, and the annual event in Crisfield provides plenty of comparisons.

Take the location for example – a marina filled with boats valued in the tens of thousands of dollars hard by low-income housing. Denizens of the immediate neighborhood look forward to the Clam Bake as it provides an opportunity to sell parking spots to people who don’t wish to walk as far to the event.

In short, they create their own economic development. But bringing 3,500 visitors to Crisfield is an economic boost to the area.

While the event has a reputation as a political stop, there is a business element there too. Some companies look to get or keep their name out in the area.

Others use it as a reward to their customers, hosting elaborate parties within the party.

But the crowd was noticeably smaller than last year’s. Yes, this is not an election year but even the number of businesses which took tent space seemed smaller. How often do you see this?

Maybe it’s something about Area 51? But this is a shot I took around 1:30 or so at the peak of the festivities.

Compare that crowd to this still shot from last year.

Even the mugs weren’t being snatched up as quickly.

As you’ll notice in the panoramic picture, there are two main areas where crowds gather. On one side are the smaller tents set up for businesses and groups. But many people sit in the pavilion and enjoy musical entertainment.

I can’t say I’m a fan of country or bluegrass, but a number of people sat under the pavilion to listen.

I know, I know – you readers are saying, “Michael, you have a political website. What’s the political dirt?” Well, there are two sides to that as well.

One guy who seems to straddle that line is Bruce Bereano, who annually has among the largest tents and his own “corner.” However, with a revised setup this year he was more in the middle.

In a nice touch, Bereano has honored a local leader for the last couple years.

If you don’t believe he works to both sides of the aisle, consider that the following two signs were close together on his tent.

Could this be the gubernatorial matchup for 2014? Peter Franchot could obviously be entrenched as Comptroller for as long as he wants to be but my feeling is he wants something more. Meanwhile, David Craig is term-limited as Harford County Executive but obviously has a run for something in mind three years hence. My guess would be that “something” is a long-term stay in Government House.

A matchup which will occur sooner is a statewide battle for the U.S. Senate seat held by Ben Cardin. Presumably he was a little busy today, but a number of volunteers were sporting his colors and registering voters as they stood in the food lines.

Arriving a little later was a man who’s aiming to be his Republican rival, Dan Bongino. Here he’s talking to Bill Harris of Cecil County.

I also spied Eric Wargotz there with his wife. But he wasn’t openly campaigning at this time.

Like Senator Cardin, Congressman Andy Harris was likely a little busy today but had volunteers and signs with a sharply pointed message about. Eventually a lot of folks were wearing yellow Harris shirts.

By gosh, I think Andy is right. But there was someone quite familiar to him there.

Allow me to pose a question. Why would you spend $200 on tickets and a half tank of gas to come down and eat crabs one can probably get just as readily in Queen Anne’s County? Perhaps it’s a case of best two out of three? For all his talk about time with the family I don’t think, given the power and prestige of a seat in Congress, he can let it go just to be a cheerleader for Ben Cardin.

And there were a few cheerleaders for our state’s junior Senator.

Yet the Democrats had a modest, unassuming presence compared to the GOP.

That’s not to say both parties weren’t represented, to be sure. Here’s two of our best freshman Delegates, Charles Otto and Justin Ready.

They weren’t the only freshmen Republicans there, as I saw Michael Hough, Kathy Szeliga, and of course my Delegate Mike McDermott at the event.

Meanwhile, Wicomico County Executive Rick Pollitt was reaching across the aisle, greeting old friends in the Somerset County Republican tent.

On the other hand, Norm Conway was holed up around the Democrats’ base.

Even the unaffiliated were there. Yes, last I checked Laura Mitchell of Salisbury City Council doesn’t state a party affiliation. I did catch up to her just outside the Democratic tent, though.

Nor was national politics forgotten. Kevin Waterman (who some may know for the Questing for Atlantis website) came supporting his choice for President, Gary Johnson.

Republican politics must run in that family – his mother Diana (who I cut off in the photo) is First Vice-Chair of the Maryland GOP.

Needless to say, the media was there as well. WBOC-TV was on location shooting footage, and I saw print reporters and fellow bloggers about, too.

But I’m curious if anyone else will report on this tidbit.

Notice the flag placed in the corner of the Democrats’ tent? It’s the Wicomico County flag.

Now I’m not convinced that the official imprimatur of our fair county should be in that tent – granted, Democrats have a plurality of voters here but Republicans hold more elected seats in county government. If it’s an endorsement of Democratic principles (such as they are) for our county, consider me as a conscientious objector.

So while the turnout was smaller than in years past, it was still a good event for the Crisfield community. And the rain, which I noticed on my drive back, stayed away.

Look for an interesting cast of characters for next year’s event, which should fall after the 2012 primary on July 18, 2012.

Odds and ends number 30

It seems like I’m doing these quick-hitter articles more frequently; whether it’s because I’m attracting more interesting news or getting the attention span of a 14-year-old is the question. Now what was I saying?

Oh yeah. Let’s start with the public service announcement that’s part of the “Keep Jim Fineran Occupied Act”:

Due to extreme heat and drought conditions, County Executive Richard M. Pollitt, Jr., has issued a burn ban order for Wicomico County effective immediately. Pollitt took the action on the advice of his Burn Ban Committee. The group is composed of representatives of the County Health Department, the Forestry Service, Emergency Management Services, fire fighters and a local meteorologist.

Of course, there are exemptions so one can still fire up the grill and watch the fireworks after Shorebirds games. (If the ban is still in effect next month the July 4th fireworks will go on.)

It seems to me that Rick Pollitt has wised up on that account, since I recall a few years back that fireworks displays were part of the burn ban and the Shorebirds had to scrub a couple slated shows.

Speaking of which – the next resolution the county needs is to provide an exemption from the 11 p.m. curfew on fireworks. It seems like several times a season the Shorebirds manage to play their extra-inning marathons on fireworks nights and if an inning starts after about 10:40 the fireworks can’t go on. That’s ridiculous.

Now it’s time to go national. For all his faults, Newt Gingrich can sometimes get to the heart of the problem:

To make Washington smaller, we as citizens must become bigger.

We must persuade one person at a time, one family at a time, and one community at a time that we have better solutions than the corrupted, collectivist policies we’ve seen from Washington.

Because the renewal of America can only begin with you, this will be your campaign.

As someone who has been in public life for nearly forty years, I know full well the rigors of campaigning for public office. I will endure them. I will carry the message of American renewal to every part of this great land, whatever it takes.

Next Monday, I will take part in the first New Hampshire Republican primary debate.

The critical question of how we put Americans back to work will be asked of me and the other Republican candidates.

It is the most important question of this campaign.

For Newt, though, a close second in “critical” questions will be who’s going to run his effort. There’s a lot to like about Newt, but perhaps his time has passed him by. I’ll still be interested to hear what he has to say about issues but his intangibles are a definite minus.

Now we come to an interesting dichotomy. This was an e-mail I received from the Barack Obama campaign – I like to get these for laughs. (My editorial comments are in bold.)

We’ve been working on bringing new people (illegal aliens and others dependent on government) into the political process. That will be the story of our campaign from start to finish. (Aside from the billion dollars you plan on raising.)

But right now there’s a concerted effort being made in states from New Hampshire to North Carolina to Ohio to make sure fewer people (Democrats) vote in 2012.

Here’s how they’re doing it: In some crucial battleground states, more than 50 percent of ballots are cast as part of early voting, which makes voting an easier and more flexible process. In 2008, a third of voters nationwide cast their votes before Election Day. (Something tells me this includes absentee ballots, which have nothing to do with early voting.)

These voters tend to be working families and young people, and a whole lot of them voted for Barack Obama — in some states providing our margin of victory. (If they’re still working families, they’re lucky. The young aren’t generally among the working.)

So Republican-controlled legislatures are cutting the amount of time people have to vote early, restricting when and how organizations like ours can register new voters, and making the voting process itself more difficult by requiring new types of identification, which lower-income voters are less likely to have. (So we can’t commit fraud as easily. ACORN screwed the pooch for us.)

They’re doing this because they have cynically concluded that they do better when fewer people vote. (We do better when more informed people vote.)

That’s the opposite of the kind of politics we believe in, and of the kind of campaign we want to run. (Obama believes in raw power and eliminating the field before the vote is held. See Illinois.)

So when we talk about the work this campaign will do to bring new people into the political process — registering new voters, training new volunteers, building an organization — it’s not just the right thing to do. It’s absolutely urgent.

Help us protect the right to vote for all. (Whether they are legally entitled to or not doesn’t matter as long as they vote the correct way, right? That’s why you don’t work too hard to make sure military votes count.)

Personally, I’d love to see 100% of the informed voters turn out. While I think early voting is a crock and didn’t support the concept, the numbers last year proved that not all that many people in Maryland came out to vote early anyway. A state which has “shall-issue” absentee ballots for the asking doesn’t need early voting.

And it looks like voter ID is a losing issue for Obama. Here’s the other, more important half of the dichotomy:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 75% of Likely U.S. Voters believe voters should be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to vote. Just 18% disagree and oppose such a requirement. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republicans support a photo ID requirement at the polls, as do 77% of voters not affiliated with either major party and 63% of Democrats. But then support for such a law is high across virtually all demographic groups.

Supporters of photo ID laws say they will prevent fraud at the polls; opponents insist the laws will discourage many including minorities and older Americans from voting.

By a 48% to 29% margin, voters think that letting ineligible people vote is a bigger problem than preventing legitimate voters from casting a ballot. (Emphasis mine.)

So how does that crow taste, Jim Messina?

Often I refer to the “nanny state” of Maryland, and a study released last week shows I’m pretty much right.

With a hat tip to my uncle Jay, I found out the Mercatus Center at George Mason University ranked all 50 states on a variety of issues related to personal freedom and civil liberties. (Or maybe he reminded me of something I forgot.)

While Maryland scores reasonably well in the category of fiscal freedom – surprisingly, we are 11th while Delaware is 43rd – once we get to regulatory policy the numbers are more of what most would expect: Delaware is 20th and Maryland 44th. Yet in the economic freedom ranking Maryland is again ahead of Delaware, but not by much (28th compared to 33rd.)

The scary part comes when authors William P. Ruger and Jason Sorens calculate the personal freedom index, where Maryland is indeed the ultimate nanny state as we rank dead last. Delaware’s not much better as they rank 44th.

So what states are the most free? South Dakota leads the pack in fiscal policy and economic freedom rankings, Indiana is the standardbearer in regulatory policy, and I was sort of amazed to discover Oregon was tops in personal freedom. Yet the overall winner was the state whose very motto of “Live Free or Die” would suggest they would be on top: New Hampshire. Delaware is 39th and Maryland 43rd.

I do have a few quibbles with the author’s recommendations for Maryland to improve its rankings, because their number one priority would be to legalize civil unions. I think that’s a little bit too radical of a position to make top priority as their number two and number three suggestions are sound regarding marijuana laws and occupational licensing. Their analysis of Maryland as a nanny state is otherwise very sound.

Finally, a personal note of sorts.

There was a blogger awhile back who believed so strongly in his Alexa ratings after a number of “record days” that he thought himself mainstream media. In truth, I haven’t had any “record days” lately because my years of experience tell me political blog readership tails off during the summer, only to rebound after Labor Day.

So I was pleasantly surprised to see that my rank among websites reached a new low for me last week (like golf, a lower score is better.) Yesterday my U.S. Alexa number declined to 61,383 while my world rank reached a new low of 357,454.

Of course, when I compare this to Pajamas Media (U.S. rank 1,402) or even local media outlets like the Daily Times (U.S. rank 22,686) or WBOC (U.S. rank 23,789) I harbor no delusions of grandeur. (I am ahead of WMDT, though – their U.S. rank is 68,045. To me that’s sort of funny.)

But in the end I’m just a guy who writes and is blessed with a fairly solid readership. It’s the reason I write for Pajamas Media, because if I were a more obscure blogger no one would have read what I’d written and decided it was worth taking a chance on.

Unlike many in the writing field, I don’t have a journalism or English degree so I am essentially self-taught. God-given talent and years of practice and perfecting this craft got me to where I am insofar as ability goes, but it’s thanks to my readers that the word spread. It’s why I keep doing this day after day for not a lot of pay, because I enjoy putting together good things to read.

I have a lot of interesting items coming up over the next few weeks, so stay tuned. (No summer reruns here.)

Taking a waiver off the table

To me, this is a confusing request Rick Pollitt has made. In a letter released today, he told the state to not bother giving Wicomico County a Maintenance of Effort waiver for the next budget year:

Wicomico County Executive Richard M. Pollitt, Jr., announced today that he has notified the Maryland State Board of Education that he is withdrawing the county’s application for a waiver of the Maintenance of Effort (M.O.E.) standard for funding public education for Fiscal Year 2012. Pollitt was to lead a Wicomico County delegation to Baltimore to appeal to the State Board for a waiver on May 24, but the withdrawal negates that presentation. Wicomico is the last of the six counties that initially filed for the waiver to take this action.

In a letter to the State Board, Pollitt said, “Withdrawal of the requested waiver does not indicate that Wicomico County will reach the M.O.E. level of funding in the next fiscal year. In fact, it will not.”

Under normal circumstances, if a county funds its local school system to the level designated as Maintenance of Effort, it receives millions of dollars in new State aid. However, as a reflection of the current state of the economy, no additional State funds are at risk next year for failure to meet M.O.E.

Pollitt noted that there is currently a legal challenge involving the Montgomery County Board of Education and their county government where the Board claims that M.O.E. is mandatory upon the counties and the only way to avoid funding M.O.E. is through the waiver process. “We, along with the Maryland Association of Counties (MACo), are watching that case with a great deal of concern as a ruling favorable to the Montgomery Board could be devastating to county fiscal policy. I believe the major risk to failing M.O.E. is the loss of additional State money. With no new money at stake, the exercise is moot.”

Recently, the Wicomico County Board of Education, by a tie vote, declined to endorse the county’s application for the waiver. Pollitt noted without the support of the local educational community, gaining the waiver would have been unlikely. Pollitt was successful in receiving a waiver last year but then had the support of the local school system.

Pollitt concluded, “providing adequate funding for the superior education of our young people is the most serious challenge we face. While I deeply believe that most Maryland jurisdictions have a strong commitment to do the right thing for our children; the precarious state of the economy, further exacerbated by an antiquated system of public school funding, points to a troubled future for local school funding and I have called on the State Board of Education to join with MACo, local boards of education and the Maryland General Assembly to work vigorously to develop a better plan for funding public schools.”

I suppose I can see the point if the question is moot, but it can’t be determined whether the point is moot until the court decides the Montgomery County case, can it? Perhaps leaving the request in may have been a better move. Sure, there’s no state money at stake – for now.

But more interesting to me is the tie vote at the Board of Education. Since there are seven members of the board, my question is who abstained, who voted to seek the waiver, and who voted against the deal. All I know is that it was a 3-3-1 split.

So apparently our ball is in the court of the court deciding the Montgomery County case. If things don’t go Wicomico’s way we may have another fiscal emergency come up later this year as the county scrambles to cut other areas to feed the beast that is our Board of Education.

Update: I’m told the three “no” votes were Don Fitzgerald, Ron Willey, and Michelle Wright, with Robin Holloway abstaining.

The silent majority

While it isn’t unprecedented, it is rare that I open up monoblogue to guest opinion. This is the case today, though, as Marc Kilmer of the Maryland Public Policy Institute counters the argument made by Wicomico County PIO Jim Fineran in a recent Daily Times opinion.

As Mr. Pollitt’s public spokesman, Jim Fineran is paid to put a positive spin on his boss’s proposal to raise our property tax rate. However, I’d caution anyone from mistaking the apathetic public response to Pollitt’s tax hike proposal for approval.

Yes, the people who showed up at the budget meetings generally spoke in favor of a tax hike. Government programs have concentrated benefits and diffused costs. Those who use programs are few and focused; those who pay for them are many and inattentive. Of course people who are benefiting from taxpayer largesse are going to rally when their favored programs are threatened.

During last year’s election, however, a large number of people spoke when they cast their ballots. They elected six very strong fiscal conservatives to the county council. Mr. Pollitt barely won a second term. Mr. Pollitt’s re-election was no doubt aided by the fact that last year he didn’t propose raising the tax rate even though the revenue cap would have allowed it. Now that it’s not an election year, Mr. Pollitt is certainly singing a different tune.

The results of the 2010 elections indicate a majority in Wicomico County supports low taxes. They may be silent at budget meetings but they speak loudly at election time. If our county council members stay true to the fiscally conservative message they advocated during the election, they should know that the people of Wicomico County support them.

Marc Kilmer is a Maryland Public Policy Institute senior fellow specializing in health care issues. He and his family reside in Wicomico County.

Observations on a budget

It seems to me that political theater in Wicomico County only comes around once or twice per annum, and that occasion reared its head again last night.

Since I have a life which doesn’t revolve completely around local politics, and since I already knew just how the proceedings would go from previous experience, I chose to sit and watch the hearing from the comfort of my living room on PAC-14. And while there were a couple occasions when I was ready to bolt out of my chair and make the five-minute drive down to the Civic Center, I refrained knowing that I would have the opportunity to say my piece in this space. Besides, I write better than I speak and I’m not limited to five minutes at the mike sitting here in my easy chair.

In essence, what this fight boils down to is whether we need to tax ourselves into oblivion or not. Sure, it’s only a 5 cent per $100 tax which affects only property owners that’s the largest controversy. But increasing the property tax rate also increases the personal property tax (also known as the ‘inventory’ tax) because it’s calculated on the property tax rate, times a factor of 2.5. So that rate will leap 12.5 cents per $100. Other ~~fee~~ tax increases proposed (remember, according to the Democrats, a fee is a tax) include charging homeowners more for mosquito spraying, setting a minimum tipping fee of $5, and increasing the price of solid waste permits by 9 percent.

A large part of last night’s discussion seemed to center around the Board of Education’s budget, with one commentator stating the case that a decrease in the BOE budget would end up increasing the budgets for law enforcement and the county corrections facilities. The school board seemed to have the largest lobbying group there.

However, the grousing shouldn’t be at the local board of education. Nope, our problems began when no one had the guts (or a judge who exhibited a little common sense) to tell the Thornton Commission to go pound sand. Supposedly the state didn’t fund education enough, so a formula was established to mandate how much counties were required to spend per pupil. Whether the number has any basis in reality or not, that’s what the state and county has to come up with to meet ‘maintenance of effort’ requirements. Some whined about the fact Wicomico needed a waiver from MOE, but I think we should have a permanent waiver. The state would be far better served to let the money follow the child and allow the parent more choice, but that’s a discussion far beyond the scope of a modest-sized county’s budget.

G.A. Harrison brought up a point I’d brought up before, and one promised by the County Executive before he was even elected. We were told that the budget would be stripped down to nothing (as County Executive Rick Pollitt claimed to do in Fruitland) then rebuilt as needs were apparent.

Unfortunately, our process seems to lean too heavily on department heads who aren’t even willing to level-fund their departments, let alone make cuts. Perhaps the budget building needed to proceed as follows – and bear in mind Rick Pollitt has threatened to create a ‘shadow budget’ in the past.

We generally have an idea of what our revenues should look like before the budget is even created. I’ll present the following scenario, with numbers that are generally close to the mark but may not be exact.

Let’s assume that projected revenue without tax or fee increases of any sort is $110 million. By prioritizing what services need to be provided, the budget is prepared as if that would be the actual revenue. We should have an idea of what employees are paid, how much facility costs are, price of office supplies needed, and so forth.

At that point, we can estimate the impact of any tax or fee increases, regardless of how small, and then assign an extra expenditure to each – it doesn’t necessarily have to be in that department. Let’s say the $5 tipping fee creates $100,000 in revenue and thanks to that influx of cash we can hire (or retain) two teachers. For that matter, it could be any of a menu of options that we can think of – it’s two teachers, or staffing for an economic development office, or new radio equipment for the sheriff’s department, or HVAC renovations to a county facility. Whatever it is, at that point we can determine whether we want to bear the extra cost among ourselves for (the statists’ code phrase for this would ‘invest in’) the additional service or improvement.

Instead, we are just told that to maintain this county’s ‘quality of life’ (and how do we measure the cost/benefit analysis of that?) we have to increase these taxes and fees to match the budget wants County Executive Pollitt has set forth. If we don’t tax ourselves this way then someone has to suffer.

This method is working the system exactly backwards – it’s like walking into a restaurant with $15 and wanting the $19.95 buffet. They’ll let you up to the serving line, but you can’t have the steamed crabs, prime rib, or cheesecake. All you can eat are the items no one else will have like the Brussels sprouts and tofu. Maybe – just maybe – we’ll allow a plain lettuce salad; no dressing.

The better way would be to have the buffet come with a selection of inexpensive foods and cost $15, with the steamed crabs, prime rib, and cheesecake a $4.95 additional option if you desire to pay for it.

Our problem is one of perception. Everything goes up in price constantly, and the pound of flesh the federal and state governments extract out of us every year is beginning to feel more like they’re extracting five pounds apiece. Meanwhile, the quality of services doesn’t improve as quickly as the costs escalate. People notice this most in the perceived quality of our educational system, citing anecdotal evidence of high school graduates who can’t count change, speak proper English, or fill out a job application. Roads which were fixed a couple years earlier are already falling apart, they say, and they have to visit four governmental offices to get a simple permit. We all have our horror stories of dealing with government bureaucrats.

Of all the suggestions made during the portion of the county budget proceedings I watched, I thought those made by Tom Taylor made the most sense. His campaigns were always ones of thinking out of the box, seeking limited government solutions. (It was surprising that Tom twice sought the Democratic nomination for County Executive, but perhaps he’ll change those political stripes someday.) Contrast that with the person who spoke after him, Joe Ollinger – he basically said go ahead and raise my taxes because you’ve always (except for last year) raised them the maximum amount allowed. Sometimes precedents are made to be broken, and he of all people should realize there was a reason taxes weren’t jacked up to the max in 2010 – it was an election year! Rick Pollitt may not look like the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he possesses some political savvy.

If my math is correct – and generally it is – doing without the 5 cent tax increase would require about $4.5 million in cuts from a budget of $111 million. (Property tax revenue consists of about $3.9 million of that, with the corresponding inventory tax increase accounting for the other $600,000 or so.) That’s essentially a 4 percent across-the-board cut, and I believe that’s doable if the budget is pieced together in the proper fashion. (Remember, my theory is that it should have been based on the lower number, with optional buys and personnel placed as extra line-items.)

Instead, we get this annual (or semi-annual, as lean times have sometimes forced a mid-year course correction) whinefest where everyone pleads to either not have their pet services cut or not have their taxes raised. It’s pretty apparent whose side I’m on, because I don’t equate spending taxpayer money with gaining a better quality of life like Brad Gillis does. In my eyes, we should worry about the core of the core services first, then come up with the extras as we can afford them – taking into consideration their economic impact.

I trust our County Council will do just that, and the ball is now in their court. They just have to stand strong against the seductive pressure of constantly hearing that it’s only a little tax increase of money we’re entitled to anyhow under the revenue cap. Until the working people don’t have a revenue cap placed on them, the county government needs to do with less.

One final note: the speed camera legislation we thought was dead is rearing its ugly head again. Be at the County Council meeting June 7th and tell them they don’t need Big Brother as a revenue source. Speed cameras are not about safety, they’re about the cash. And Wicomico County will be the first to tell you they need more cash.

Not taxed enough already?

And to think I voted for this guy?

Perhaps Joe Ollinger doesn’t explain his case very well in a recent Letter to the Editor published in the Daily Times, but his contention is that we should gladly pay the nickel per $100 increase in property taxes here because, “in those years that property values decrease, such as this year, to maintain a revenue flow that keeps pace with inflation and population growth, the tax rate must increase by the maximum allowed by the cap.”

But it didn’t last year because his opponent, incumbent County Executive Rick Pollitt, was fretting over his re-election chances. So where was Joe then? Certainly he wasn’t advocating that Rick bleed local property owners dry! Remember, Pollitt was the one who complained for the entire first three years of his term about the cap and threatened to create a “shadow budget” with items he had to cut because revenues weren’t to his liking.

Yet even after the piece in the Daily Times, Joe was at the Republican Club meeting last night handing out a flyer which claimed Pollitt’s proposal to zero out the homestead credit has several “shortcomings.” These are directly from the flyer:

It is unfair. One group will benefit at the expense of other groups (renters, commercial property owners, future homebuyers, our own children and/or grandchildren)

It is a subsidy, and as with all subsidies, one group receives an economic benefit to the detriment of others.

It is not the “American independent – I’ll pay my own way” conservative attitude. Instead, it is a liberal socialist idea that expects a faceless society to pay for a portion of your expenses.

It will artificially increase the real property tax rate.

It will artificially increase the personal property rate.

It is bad for business and economic development.

It will decrease residential real estate activity.

It will increase the complexity of the tax code.

I suppose the best way to look at this is point by point. Joe has some good arguments, and some clunkers.

First of all, I don’t care a lot for the emotional appeal of calling something unfair; that sounds like something an eight-year-old would do. While it’s indeed true that the government is using the tax code to promote a certain behavior, I don’t think that a family or a homeowning couple is going to let a tax break of a few hundred dollars over time stop them if they want to move to a better school district, buy a larger (or smaller) home, or pursue a better economic opportunity. Unfortunately, our modern society is littered with these cases where one group has an advantage over other groups; case in point – the home mortgage interest deduction, which is a much larger incentive to buy a home than a minor property tax break.

My thought on point number two (the “subsidy” point) is much along the line of the first item.

But I don’t see where that tax break is such a “liberal socialist” idea – after all, we all want lower taxes. Right now, we have two options on the table: a 10% homestead exemption or a zero homestead exemption. So far, given Joe’s track record of questioning the opposition to a nickel property tax increase (even one which falls within the revenue cap) I wonder why he’s chosen this hill to fight on. No one has yet justified why we couldn’t cut another three percent from our overall budget, which is approximately the amount being discussed.

Since I don’t know whether our current homestead exemption is factored into the existing rates for either property tax or personal property tax (better known as the inventory tax; a tax Wicomico County is alone among Maryland jurisdictions in charging) I can’t rebut or agree with Joe’s fourth and fifth points.

But I do think it’s a stretch to say that a homestead tax exemption change would be “bad for business and economic development.” Perhaps I need some examples of counties which have tried this and how they fared. My guess is that there were a number of much larger factors which had to do with other overtaxation, red tape, and regulation that sent them spiraling downward economically.

I’d also like to see proof of point number seven (“decrease residential real estate activity”) with examples. We’re pretty much at the bottom of the barrel now.

I can agree with Joe’s final point, though. But then again, we should already have a pretty complex system based on the rates in effect when a home was purchased and then increased by the maximum amount when times were good and assessments shot through the roof. Does the 10% increase now in effect take into account all the money “lost” to the county when a property’s value shot up 40 percent but taxes only increased 10 percent? Is there a “catch-up” provision?

For example, take a mythical home assessed at $100,000 in a particular tax year and taxed at $1 per hundred dollars of valuation; their annual tax would be $1,000. The way I figure it, raising the assessed value a year later to $150,000 (assuming the same tax rate) would increase taxes to $1,500 – but under the 10% rule they could only go up to $1,100 because your taxable assessed value only can go up to $110,000. Does the county lose out on that $400 entirely or is that worked into the next year’s tax rate?

The whole idea behind the zero homestead exemption is to have a tradeoff; as Pollitt notes in his budget presentation:

“(I)n return for a slightly higher tax rate, I’m proposing to make sure our home-owning citizens get a permanent tax break starting in fiscal year 2013 to go with the increase.”

Beginning in FY2013, Pollitt wants the amount you’re assessed on to never go up – if your FY2013 assessment is $100,000 that’s where it will stay. But (and this is a BIG but,) that doesn’t mean your taxes wouldn’t increase. Whatever the state determines for “constant yield” and can be slid under the revenue cap, that rate increase will still hit you. Next year it may be a nickel again – or it could be a dime.

Of course, there’s a corollary to this as well – what if assessed values continue to plummet? Does this provision allow you to have a lower assessed value and remain there? We don’t know the answer to that, but there’s a very real possibility we haven’t weathered the real estate storm yet and that this scenario could apply.

The proposal needs to be explained in terms a layman can understand, with real-life examples from counties which have taken the lead in this area.

Julie Brewington has her take on the situation as well.