But what have they done to deserve it?

An article yesterday in the Washington Times by Michael Drost details the early handicapping of the 2010 race for Maryland governor – while he’s holding off on the official announcement, it’s all but assured that Martin O’Malley will run for a second term.

It’s intriguing to note the Drost piece talks about aspirations O’Guvnah has beyond his term, although as the “reluctant politician” that Martin portrays himself to be he’s certainly sounding a little bit like someone who has even higher aspirations and plenty of time on his hands past 2014…just in time for a second Obama term to be completed (that is, if the 22nd Amendment isn’t repealed).

I took some time yesterday (since it went well with related research I was doing) to remind myself what some of O’Malley’s objectives have been since he moved into Government House.

One of his first objectives 2 1/2 years ago was to reward his union backers by imposing service fees to non-union state workers. The issue didn’t pass then nor did it make it through the General Assembly this year either. But Martin did see his pet StateStat program instituted and shepherded California-style emissions standards for new cars through – they’ll take effect in 2011, just as tougher federal mileage standards are placed on the horizon for automakers. (Remember, it takes a fairly lengthy period for a new car to move from concept to showroom.)

Because O’Malley was working within a budget created by immediate predecessor Gov. Robert Ehrlich as he took office and wanted to hold off on radical changes in his first few months, we didn’t really get to see what many of Martin’s spending priorities were until he called a Special Session in late 2007. This was the infamous General Assembly gathering which raised our sales tax and our tobacco tax, yet created even more spending as O’Malley added $500 million to our bloated budget to supposedly give health insurance to thousands of Marylanders – naturally the money isn’t there to insure the number he thought his program would because health care costs continue to go up and as we all know “free” health care isn’t truly free.

After O’Malley “solved” our financial problems, he turned to creating a number of environmentally-based hurdles to progress during the 2008 session. The utility companies were stuck with the Regional Greehouse Gas Initiative, the EmPOWER Act, and an increased renewable energy portfolio (read: much higher energy costs). Other anti-free market initiatives came in a push for “transit-oriented” development, the High Performance Buildings Act, and grants for solar and geothermal energy (which were underfunded as people again sought “free” government money).

Intrusive government also came in the form of expanding the area covered under Critical Areas restriction (which affects the Eastern Shore disproportionately) and instituting speed cameras in specific situations as a cash cow for local and state governments.

Finally, adult education was moved out of the auspices of the Maryland Department of Education and placed into the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation.

Obviously 2008 was an aggressive year for the O’Malley agenda, and as the year wore on we found that revenue continued to lag behind projections – necessitating cuts in a number of programs to maintain the budget’s balance lest we end up like California. It also meant 2009 saw a scaling back of O’Malley’s legislative program.

Probably the biggest controversy faced by the General Assembly this spring was whether to end the state’s death penalty, which turned into a compromise that satisfied neither side. But there were also efforts to extend unemployment benefits to part-time workers (which would have by necessity led to higher unemployment insurance premiums for businesses large and small), another bid to reduce greenhouse gases (also putting Maryland businesses at a competitive disadvantage), and a mandate to grab guns from those who have protective orders against them. (One amendment to that bill which would have made more sense was to allow those who sought the protective order easier access to firearms. But this common-sense amendment was rejected on a largely party-line vote.)

Obviously many who reside to my left would argue that much of the state’s problem comes from the national economic situation. However, given the expansion of both federal and state government over the last 2 1/2 years it’s apparent that those woes lie mainly in the private sector.

Unfortunately, the policies enacted by Governor O’Malley and his Democrat allies in the General Assembly have tended to favor confiscation of power and freedom from the private sector to use as they see fit, shifting the largesse to those in Annapolis who would run things to favor their friends in the unions and public sector. Notice that much of the additional spending goes to labor because it’s focused on government jobs and service industries rather than on creating private-sector jobs in making goods or building infrastructure for public or private usage. (O’Malley also signed so-called “living wage” legislation that made state contracts more expensive for private employers who bid on state contracts.)

At the same time, complaints have come from local government about having the budget balanced on their back. Perhaps coincidentally to the Washington Times article on O’Malley, the local Salisbury Daily Times printed an article by Greg Latshaw on Wicomico County Executive Rick Pollitt. As with his executive mate in Annapolis, Pollitt was somewhat coy about future plans but admitted he’ll “probably” seek re-election.

Latshaw’s piece went over a number of problems which have surfaced under Pollitt’s watch, although many of them predated his inauguration of the County Executive post in 2007. Admittedly as well, many of the county’s financial issues come from having to count on the generosity of Annapolis to fund county programs. It is my contention, though, that Rick’s continuing carping on Wicomico’s revenue cap solely serves as an excuse for what he believes we cannot have rather than as an incentive to provide better, more efficient government as voters seemed to indicate they wanted when they adopted the cap earlier this decade.

While I’ve not spoken to Rick Pollitt regarding the process he uses to come up with his budget, I recall that he claimed during his campaign to work from scratch in setting the city of Fruitland’s annual budgets. If so, wouldn’t we have seen some inefficient county programs eliminated now that we’ve had three years’ worth of budgets to work with? That’s plenty of time to evaluate the effectiveness of budgetary items in both a reasonably prosperous economic situation as well as a much more dire one. Instead, he leaves cuts to the hands of County Council – in essence they become the whipping boys and girls for whatever pet program is cut in this executive-based budgetary process.

In neither case, though, have we seen much of an effort to bring incentives into place to draw business and development to our fair county. Instead it seems like we’re quite happy to allow those industries we have to muddle through without a whole lot of incentive to grow and expand operations. (Needless to say, though, we’re handicapped severely by the anti-business economic development approach taken on high in Annapolis.)

In short, I don’t think either O’Malley or Pollitt has made a compelling case for why they should be re-elected. Neither has exhibited leadership in making government work for the people rather than all of us working to support government.

No wonder there’s a nascent Tea Party movement in Maryland. The trick is harnessing that effort into electing those who would be more favorable to having government stay out of the way for the most part, or lend a temporary helping hand when needed – above all, work within the parameters our Founders envisioned when they came up with the idea over 200 years ago.

At the moment we’re a long way from that ideal and I see little effort from either of these two to bring us back.