2012 campaign comes to Salisbury as Gingrich gives a ‘different’ speech

The line stretched outside Holloway Hall at Salisbury University. It’s not often you can be up close and personal with a presidential candidate.

They were lined up an hour early at Holloway Hall at Salisbury University to witness a little history – for the first time in recent memory the presidential campaign came to the lower Eastern Shore.

And true to the advice given by one university official who stressed the school wanted to promote “critical thinking” without heckling or other inappropriate disruptions, the audience of about 200 inside the hall was very well-behaved. The parents of these SU students should be quite proud of how their charges acted inside the hall. Once the question-and-answer period began it was obvious that not all in the room shared Gingrich’s worldview but the discussion was extremely civil.

Thanks to SU College Republican president Nikki Hovercamp for the invitation.

However, I’m getting a little ahead of myself. First I’d like to thank Nikki Hovercamp of the Salisbury College Republicans for getting me into the event, because even the local Central Committee was taken by surprise with the announcement. She had the distinct honor of introducing the candidate.

(I tried four times to catch her with eyes on the audience but these old fingers are too slow.)

Gingrich walked in to a thunderous ovation, and after praising the Salisbury Zoo (which he had the opportunity to visit, saying “I have a passion for dropping by zoos whenever I can”) he revealed a little-known fact: one could consider Salisbury University the birthplace of the Contract With America, as House Republicans held a retreat here in early 1994. Newt went on to claim that Republicans won “because we were positive” and the net gain of 10 million votes gave the GOP the largest off-year gain up to that point.

While the Contract was successful as a “management document” it also provided them a guideline for what to do when they assumed power. Newt reminded us there was no “institutional memory” for House Republicans, as none had ever served in the majority.

I have to say it was an unusual point from which to begin a campaign appearance, but Newt told us that this would be “a different talk.” This speech would serve as part of an overall statement in the academic setting to be expanded on tomorrow at Georgetown University, Gingrich announced.

“I have been trying to wrestle with what I have not been able to communicate,” continued Newt, bemoaning the fact that during the campaign “I got sucked into normal politics, which is frankly…a waste of time.” The two challenges he wanted to address were, first, the core nature of this country, with American civilization being “profoundly different than other models around the world,” and, second, the “role of innovation in meeting challenges in creating a successful 21st century America.”

Regarding the first point, Newt went into an explanation of “the American Experience,” reached back to the Founding Fathers to remind us their first complaint was taxation without representation, but the second was judges. He recalled Hamilton saying the judiciary branch would be the weakest part of government, but now we’re at a point where the future could depend on “where one lawyer could reinterpret the Constitution based on a whim.” Obama is the personification of the opposite school of thought, said Newt.

He spent the bulk of his time expanding on the second point. “There is no reason for this country to have any significant problems,” Newt continued. Instead, the blame lay on a “really bad governing structure and a really incompetent bureaucratic system.”

There were two sides to this coin, with the “world of innovation” going up against the federal government. Newt joked we could easily find all 11 million illegal aliens by simply sending them a package via UPS or FedEx and tracking them from there. American Express, VISA, and Mastercard can validate you’re charging something in real time while Medicare and Medicaid are being “run by paper-based bureaucrats from 9 to 5 who are trying to keep up with crooks who use iPads 24 hours a day.” The point was fraud and waste could be eliminated, but the problem was administrations of both parties being “impervious to new ideas.”

The presidential candidate makes a point.

Newt also defended his idea that we should go back into space, despite ridicule by his opponents and the media. Using the Wright Brothers and their 500 crashed test flights over five years as an example of private incentive, Gingrich said “I want to go back into space.” He believed that we use “a fairly large amount of NASA’s money” to create prizes as rewards for innovation. “Quit studying things and start doing them,” said Newt.

Energy was another key theme of Newt’s speech, as he spoke about the trucking industry’s conversion to natural gas, drilling for more of our own energy needs, and weaning our dependence off Middle Eastern oil. The bounty of natural gas “blows apart an idea some of you heard in class called ‘peak oil’,” continued the former Speaker. President Obama was being “plain factual false” when he said we had just 2 percent of the world’s oil supply, stated Gingrich. “Under my plan it might be harder to get to $2.50,” Gingrich said later when asked about the prospect of Iranian trouble, “but under Obama you’d get to $10.”

With the energy independence “revolution,” Newt went on, “(Other countries have) to worry about the Straits of Hormuz – we don’t.” We could even pay off our debt simply based on oil and natural gas royalties, which Gingrich claimed could run $16 to $18 trillion.

Other ideas Gingrich bounced off the audience were replacing the civil service system with a Lean Six Sigma approach, which would “accelerate the capability of government dramatically,” and privatizing the Social Security system, perhaps on a Chilean model. “Nobody dictates when you retire” under such a model, Gingrich added.

But another focus we need to create is one on “brain science,” combating diseases like Alzheimer’s, autism, Parkinson’s, and other mental illnesses. “Trillions” could be saved if we improve the research to “fix it rather than just take care of it.”

“If you take the most modern things available,” concluded Newt, “we would pull away from the Chinese just as decisively as 40 to 50 years ago, we pulled away from the Russians.” We have to “fundamentally overhaul” the government, but both parties are failing in this.

Like any good lecturer, Newt was kind enough to take questions from the audience, and I sensed many of those asking were across the political spectrum from the GOP hopeful. For example, the first questioner asked whether Gingrich backed a nuclear-free zone for the Middle East. “No,” he curtly said, because it would be a threat toward Israel.

Another questioner asked about cap-and-trade which he claimed Newt backed in 2007. But Gingrich cited a much smaller program limited to sulfuric acid and certain utilities that Congress approved under the Clean Air Act, and said that to jump from such a program to controlling all the carbon in the United States “is an absurdity.”

“I testified against cap and trade the same day Al Gore testified in favor it,” said Newt.

On his previous opposition to women in combat and ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ Gingrich believed we should defer to the command officers. But they would be disinclined to speak in public over their objection, added Gingrich, for fear of being “retired summarily.”

“If I become the nominee (and Obama doesn’t agree to seven three-hour debates) I will let the White House be my scheduler and wherever he speaks I would rebut his speech four hours later.” This was in reference to a question about debating President Obama. I liked that concept.

Regarding the “decaying dollar”, Newt vowed if elected to ask Congress to fire Ben Bernanke if he didn’t resign before Newt was sworn in. Gingrich also pledged to audit the Federal Reserve, which drew a smattering of applause. “We deserve to know who got the money and why,” Newt said.

Of course someone asked about student loans. Newt wasn’t going to change what students owe, but instead help to create jobs. “My goal is to get you to have the ability to have a good job,” he commented, but continued on, “I would urge all of you to rethink this whole student loan game.” By only borrowing the minimum required for schooling and not thinking of it as “free money” they could help themselves down the road. He used the College of the Ozarks as an example, where work pays for books, room, and board. “92 percent of those students graduate owing zero,” claimed Newt.

Was Obama “weak on terrorism” if he killed Osama bin Laden? he was asked. “You cannot explain (terrorism) unless you confront the problem of radical Islam,” Gingrich answered. Even when another student countered with the requisite Timothy McVeigh example, it was still “99 point something percent” of the problem.

And energy independence meant we wouldn’t tolerate Saudi threats. But Obama “lost the chance” to do something about the Iranian dictatorship and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and he blasted the President for apologizing to Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan. “If I were the Commander-in-Chief I would never apologize to people who are killing young Americans,” Gingrich railed, “but that is exactly what we did three weeks ago, and the apology wasn’t warranted.”

Once Gingrich finished his 50-minute presentation, he met with a very fortunate group of Salisbury University College Republicans; meanwhile I stepped outside to see if the media presence looked like it did on the inside.

There was quite the media presence inside Holloway Hall.

It was pretty busy outside too. Here’s one young lady being interviewed by Channel 47.

Being interviewed by a local television station.

When I took that picture there was a print reporter on the other side of me; suffice to say we were getting plenty of reaction. It’s interesting to note that reportedly Gingrich lost his print reporter following but there was a solid sampling of media present.

So what did I think of the speech?

There was a lot to like in what Gingrich said, particularly in terms of the War on Terror, but there is a fundamental difference in the way I see his approach and my impression of straight-line conservatism and limited government. Look at all the things Gingrich would like to do involving the federal government – yes, he speaks about streamlining it but in the end the government is still there, still too powerful for our own good.

I was struck by the fact Newt talked about the fact one imposes discipline on Washington because they can’t do it themselves, but I don’t think he gets it that discipline isn’t just about spending but about curtailing federal power as well. Yes, having a prize for space-related activities is nice but we see what happened when the Department of Energy decided a $50 LED light bulb was “affordable.” There’s no guarantee that a Department of Environmental Solutions won’t eventually devolve to the same behemoth we have with the EPA.

But it’s interesting that, at this late stage in a campaign reduced to cheering upon staying out of the fourth-place basement, Newt is returning to his roots in a way. And when he spoke about never seeing four wolves howling at the same time as he did during his trip to the Salisbury Zoo today, that incident seemed to me a metaphor for how the GOP race should have been run – this pack should be howling about Obama instead of snapping at each other’s heels. In this stop Gingrich went back to his original theme of being solution-oriented and positive, barely mentioning his GOP opponents save on a couple occasions.

Of course, what put his campaign on the map for the brief time he was considered the top threat to the “invincible” Mitt Romney was his performance in the South Carolina debates, where he savaged the media and seized his own narrative for a few days – only to be destroyed by a barrage of negative ads from PACs affiliated with Mitt Romney in Florida. (Those same entities have set their sights on destroying Rick Santorum now, as Newt is barely a memory in the race.) It’s unfortunate that Newt couldn’t maintain his campaign on the comfort level he seemed to have today, holding 200 students and observers in the palm of his hand while he made his points.

In this moment it seems like Newt has practically abandoned his 2012 Presidential plans and now wants to return to being a teacher. While a younger generation of voters may or may not push the X next to Newt’s name this coming Tuesday, I’m hoping they learned the lesson of critical thinking the Salisbury University official stressed prior to the event. Isn’t that what college is for?

It will be interesting to see how Gingrich expands his topics tomorrow, but today may have been the start of the post-Presidential Newt Gingrich. Just by invoking the memory of his political salad days two decades ago, we were reminded that Newt was great at getting to the top. His problem was staying there.

Update: Robert Stacy McCain calls this period the “campaign death watch” for Newt. But Gingrich said in the remarks he was going to Tampa.

New sponsor and new milestone

It’s an exciting day at monoblogue, made even moreso by the fact the presidential race came to Salisbury and I was there to cover the event. Yesterday I finalized a long-term sponsor to the site, so I encourage you to check out TEA Party Posters at rightposters.com. Welcome aboard John!

And late last night I found out that my site had finally broken through the 300,000 barrier in Alexa rank – when you figure this is somewhat of a regional website that’s pretty rarefied air. I’m just a little outside cracking the 50,000 rank for the first time insofar as U.S. rank goes as well. (Update: made it today!)

My rankings have been going down (like golf, lower is better) because people have been coming to my site of late. Readership has been surging with a number of well-read posts on Trayvon Martin, the Maryland presidential primary, and my U.S. Senate endorsement being just a few.

And look for more exciting stuff in the days to come!

Gingrich to make SU appearance

Well, the Presidential campaign comes to the Eastern Shore – but you need to be a member of the SU campus community to see him.

Taking a page from fellow competitor Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich will be appearing at Holloway Hall tomorrow afternoon from 3 to 4 p.m. However, the event is closed to the general public as it’s only open to those with campus ID.

More as the story develops…

Update: I managed to talk my way into the event through a friend, so a full report tonight.

WCRC meeting – March 2012

It was a last-ditch effort to garner votes, and we’ll see how much it helps next Tuesday night. But U.S. Senate candidate Richard Douglas was introduced to the Wicomico County Republican Club and was rather well-received.

Of course we did our usual bit of club business, reciting the Lord’s Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance before I read a rather lengthy accounting of the February meeting. We even had a hiccup in the treasurer’s report that I pointed out. But none of it dissuaded the Republican who boldly proclaimed for his opening, “I’m here because I want to beat Ben Cardin.”

To illustrate his point, Douglas took us back about three decades. When he left the Navy in 1979, he took his GI Bill benefits and enrolled at the University of South Florida where a professor told him the Soviet Union would be eternal and America would have to learn to live with it. Well, we saw how that turned out, and while there are those in Annapolis who would have us believe that one-party rule in Maryland is eternal as well, that’s not necessarily so.

Rich compared Ben Cardin to a brick in a wall – as the mortar is wearing away, soon the brick would drop from the wall and the remainder of the house would follow. And Douglas wasn’t going to be timid in his role, either, warning “Martin O’Malley is going to be one unhappy fella” when Rich wins. “(He’ll) wish he’d never heard my name,” continued Douglas, because he has a “duty to speak” as a Senator. Douglas promised to be our voice and vote in the Senate.

Continue reading “WCRC meeting – March 2012”

Trayvon Martin is dead. Did a colorblind society die with him?

Considering the incident in question occurred several weeks ago on February 26, the fact this story has anymore legs than the dozens of other shootings which occur each day makes me ponder why.

I will grant that there are a number of interpretations about what happened, but the end result is that a 17-year-old is dead and there is a bounty reportedly placed on the head of the shooter. But what makes it any different than another case where a teenager is gunned down? In my mind there are two key reasons, and both have significant political import.

Continue reading “Trayvon Martin is dead. Did a colorblind society die with him?”

The key nine days

Well, as Mitt Romney says on his website, “it’s your turn, Maryland.” But will the turn be expressed in simple media buys or are we going to be graced with the presence of the four major candidates? That’s the question which doesn’t seem to have an answer, but unfortunately the signs presently point to a heavier emphasis on Wisconsin (which also votes April 3 and has a slightly larger delegate package) than on Maryland and Washington, D.C.

Most would consider Mitt Romney the favorite in this state, which is relatively similar in makeup to a number of other Northeast states where he’s done well. Mitt was the first to visit this state last week by holding a townhall meeting in Arbutus, but he’s also cultivated a long list of endorsements from state elected officials and party insiders in the months leading up to the primary. Add in the fact he has plenty of money to saturate the state’s two key media markets (one of which he also used leading up to the Virginia primary) and he may not even feel the need to visit the state again.

Newt Gingrich hasn’t been a stranger to Maryland, being the keynote speaker at the state party’s Red White and Blue Dinner twice in the last three years (the other speaker was Mitt Romney in 2010.) But while he has a Delaware appearance on his upcoming schedule tomorrow evening at Hockessin (near Wilmington), there are no Maryland events on his docket yet. However, Newt does not have a Wisconsin event slated for himself until Thursday evening, meaning he could spend the midweek in the Free State.

Moreover, Gingrich has an incentive to campaign in this area, as First District Congressman Andy Harris is one of his state co-chairs. The Baltimore Sun is reporting that Gingrich will be in Annapolis Tuesday, which fits with the Delaware event.

Ron Paul has already slated a Maryland event, appearing at a rally at the University of Maryland on Wednesday evening. But he has slowed down his appearances since keeping up a frenetic pace in caucus states earlier this month, sticking mainly to rallies at large colleges (such as the University of Maryland) in other states.

So far Rick Santorum has a limited number of events on his calendar, all in Wisconsin. It’s likely he would be in the Badger State until at least Tuesday, when he has two rallies there. In theory he could be in Maryland tomorrow but that’s very short notice. Given that his rallies seem to be somewhat lengthy affairs, there would likely need to be some advance notice so if he’s indeed coming to Maryland it’s likely Rick would make a final push here closer to the end of the week.

And while early voting has commenced, the vast majority of votes will still be cast on Election Day April 3. So if presidential candidates want to do some retail politicking here in Maryland, their opportunity to do so is waning quickly.

For U.S. Senate

I was actually going to wait until the Sunday before the primary to do this, but realized with early voting I probably should put this out at a time when I can maximize the effect.

When the filing deadline came and went in January, we ended up with ten people on the ballot seeking to challenge incumbent Senator Ben Cardin on the Republican side. (There are also eight Democratic challengers who, with the exception of State Senator C. Anthony Muse, will be lucky to see 20 percent of the vote as a collection.)

But if you look at the ten on our side as a group, you can start to pick out those who have a legitimate chance pretty early. Some have been on the ballot before, but have never come close to grabbing the brass ring. You know, one would think guys like Corrogan Vaughn or John Kimble might get the hint at some point but they soldier on nonetheless, appearing on ballot after ballot every two years for some office. This is Vaughn’s fourth Senate try (counting an abortive 2010 run) and Kimble’s third, although he’s been on a ballot every two years for some federal office since 1996. Another 2012 candidate, Joseph Alexander, ran in the 2010 Senate primary and finished a distant third with 5.9% of the vote.

Others have been in local races and lost. Rick Hoover ran twice for the Third District Congressional nod in 2004 and 2006 and didn’t distinguish himself enough to not be an also-ran. William Capps took on an incumbent State Senator and lost in 2010, while Robert Broadus had the unenviable task of attempting to win as a Republican in the Fourth Congressional District. While Broadus only gathered 16% of the vote, it was a better showing than the Republican winner had in 2008 against Edwards. But even Broadus lost in the 2008 primary – he was unopposed in 2010.

There are four others who are making their first run for statewide office, with Brian Vaeth and David Jones the lesser-known duo of the group. I haven’t heard anything from Vaeth, but David Jones is a candidate who, with some polish and a more appropriate race for a single dad to get into (on the scale of a countywide or House of Delegates district contest) could have a future in the political arena. He had a message which was trying to come out, but a statewide campaign presents an awfully steep learning curve.

Out of the eight I have cited so far, the battle for third place shapes up between Broadus, based on his performance in a difficult district and the ready-made issue he has with his position as head of Protect Marriage Maryland, Alexander (simply based on 2010 results), and Jones (as a hard worker who’s quite likable.) One of the others might surprise me, but these are the guys who seem to me as the aspirants for Miss Congeniality.

Yet the race is really coming down to two men. Each brings something unique to the table.

Continue reading “For U.S. Senate”

Controversy erupts in U.S. Senate race

There is a key update (and additional commentary) at the end of the story.

At the eleventh hour before early voting begins, we have a war of words between conservative activist Andrew Langer and U.S. Senate candidate Richard Douglas, and something I reported is helping to stir the pot.

Yesterday, Andrew wrote the following on his Facebook profile:

Seriously, to my friends who are Richard J. Douglas supporters… are you aware that your candidate:

– believes the individual mandate in Obamacare to be constitutional; (he believes that Congress shouldn’t have enacted it, but that they have the power to do so)

– has not signed the Americans for Tax Reform “no new taxes” pledge;

– does not support the Balanced Budget Amendment.

I think Rich is a nice guy. I like him just fine. But a former congressional staffer who believes in expansive legislative powers at the expense of individual rights, who doesn’t think Congress needs to be reigned in with new rules to control spending, who won’t put his signature on paper that he won’t raise your taxes?

That’s not “new blood.” Not by a long shot.

Sorry.

Prior to that he had gone on and cited my reporting of the Wicomico County Lincoln Day Dinner as evidence Douglas “says that Congress HAS power to implement the individual mandate.”

Well, Richard Douglas didn’t take that lying down.

A social media activist posted false information about my record. Our campaign has provided this individual with a point of contact (a real live person to talk to) and we look forward to hearing from him in a timely manner so he can retract his comments.

This individual did not check his facts. I signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge.

Moreover, more than any other candidate, I have been calling attention to taxation at both the federal and state level.

Political attacks and distortions of records are nothing new in campaigns. Outright falsehoods are another matter.

We will keep you posted.

And in my e-mail box this morning was an e-mail copy of an efax.com receipt, with the recipient number matching the number on the Pledge, dated last November 11.

On the surface, one can say what Langer did about Douglas and as a sound byte he would be correct. But there are reasons Douglas believes as he does, and in particular his defense of opposing a balanced budget amendment, or BBA, because it would remand the creation of the budget to whatever a judge says makes a lot of sense. Personally, I would still support a BBA but Douglas makes perhaps the best argument against the adoption of one I’ve heard. Besides, we shouldn’t need a BBA to have the gumption to spend no more than we take in. There truly is no such thing as a free lunch.

But one thing I’ve noticed about the Douglas campaign is the increased strain of populism, with a message more closely matching his main opponent Dan Bongino. And while Bongino has been closely cultivating the national profile he likely believes will assist him in knocking out an incumbent who’s politically long in the tooth – one example of that being his appearance on Sean Hannity’s show last night – Douglas is making his final push on a more local level with a series of radio appearances on the Shore yesterday and today. It’s likely he’s hammering incumbent Ben Cardin on his lack of support for the DeMint amendment to lower the federal gasoline tax and begin devolving the federal program to states, or Cardin’s reluctance to decry the “Annapolis tax-a-thon,” as Rich called it in a recent statement.

I’ve contacted Douglas for an update on this story today; since he was traveling and couldn’t follow the story he referred me to his press contact Jim Pettit. I contacted Pettit about 40 minutes before I put this post to bed and haven’t received a response; if events warrant I will update.

Douglas will also be a featured speaker at Monday night’s Wicomico County Republican Club meeting. Maybe Andrew Langer can come down here and get answers in person.

Update: I spoke to Pettit, who pondered whether Langer was working on behalf of Dan Bongino or on his own. But just now it was confirmed by Norquist’s chief of staff Chris Butler that ATR indeed has the pledge.

ATR’s Tweet at 4:42 p.m.:

Contrary to ATR’s first response to Andrew Langer, US Senate candidate Richard Douglas (R-MD) did sign the Pledge in Nov. 2011.

So now we can get back to our regularly scheduled debate on who best to oust Ben Cardin from our Senate seat via the issues and verifiable facts.

Update 2: Something I actually spoke with Pettit about, and an interesting thought topic: why now?

Let’s look at the timeline here. Richard Douglas started his campaign early last fall because one of his first campaign appearances was our Wicomico County Central Committee meeting on October 3, 2011. Apparently he signed this pledge sometime on or about November 11, with two witnesses from Montgomery County. Yet we went over four months without anyone noticing the ATR site had never added Douglas? Come to think of it, I couldn’t find anything on any Maryland candidate in my (admittedly cursory) search – one would think ATR would make a bigger deal of these.

Could this be a dirty trick? Perhaps, but I really don’t think so. There’s no question that Bongino and Douglas have ran their campaigns with contrasting styles, but I think the comparison is good. And say what you will about Andrew Langer, Rich Douglas has his overzealous supporters as well. Perhaps Rich could have verified this a little earlier, but when you get a fax receipt and don’t hear from the recipient that the fax didn’t arrive you generally assume there’s no issue.

Developing the Shore

There were a couple items I wanted to pass along because, as one who would prefer the area grow rather than shrivel up and die, we could use the help.

I’ll begin with Andy Harris:

(On Tuesday), Rep. Andy Harris (MD-01) joined Rep. Scott Rigell (VA-02) to pass legislation through the House that could create hundreds of jobs at an expanded Wallops Research Park, which is located near NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility. The bill removes restrictive federal government deed provisions that hinder job creation on the Delmarva. The legislation creates these jobs at no cost to hard-working taxpayers. Additionally, up to half of the potential high-paying jobs could be filled by Maryland’s Eastern Shore residents.

“We need to work to reduce undue burdens that the Federal Government is placing on the ability of local communities to create jobs,” said Rep. Andy Harris. “I will support any bill like this that helps foster an environment for job creation while costing hard-working taxpayers nothing.”

And then there’s former Harris opponent Senator E.J. Pipkin, working on the state side:

Senator E.J. Pipkin…announced that the Senate Finance Committee has approved his bill – SB 818 – to begin the process required to consider building a third span of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.

Pipkin said, “I am elated that the Committee has taken the first step in the long journey toward what must happen – construction of another Bay Bridge span. No one who uses the Bay Bridge on a daily commute or on a weekend to visit Ocean City will debate the necessity for a third span.”

Senator Pipkin pointed out that the bridge carries an average of 68,000 vehicles each day. Five mile backups are not unusual at any time, but are common in the summer when an average of 100,000 vehicles cross the bay each day. “The bridge has the dubious distinction of having the worst traffic delays on the northeast coast,” he said. The Bay Bridge Transportation Needs Report revealed that 402 accidents occurred during its 3-year study period; a significantly higher volume than for similar highways.

(snip)

Before any large project can commence, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an Environmental Impact Statement. The process includes a public scoping process, data collection, analysis of policy alternatives and preparation of draft and final documents, all of which takes 6.1 years, as estimated in 2003. “Putting Maryland into the NEPA process would finally address the issue of a third span and enable us to make policy decisions to move forward,” declared Senator Pipkin.

Using the cost of NEPA studies for the ICC as a base and adjusting for inflation, the Department of Legislative Services projects a cost of $35 million between 2013-2017 for the NEPA study. The MdTA would pay for the cost of the study out of its operating expenses. “Last summer, the MdTA approved the largest toll increase in the State’s history, so it comes as a surprise that it now claims that this process would be too expensive.”

Pipkin stressed that SB 818 does not require that a third Bay Bridge be built, but enables us to move forward to the next step in considering our transportation needs. It will take 15 to 20 years to build a new Bay Bridge.

The role of government is not to provide a vehicle for crony capitalism, but work on those areas which benefit the public at large. It seems like the Harris/Rigell measure does just that. Knowing Wallops Island is a federal installation which is vital for the national defense (a legitimate Constitutional function) I see no problem with private enterprise having a share in that success. To be quite honest, I never knew there was a Wallops Research Park, but that’s in part because it’s a little off the beaten path. Maybe that was part of their problem as well.

Of course, the local infrastructure may need improvement as the main highway to Wallops Island is the same two-lane artery which takes tourist traffic beyond Wallops Island to Chincoteague. At some point if the new venture is successful we may have to see Virginia Route 175 dualized – but that’s probably at least a decade off.

Transportation woes are hopefully being addressed with Pipkin’s proposal as well. But I believe a third span would be much more practical several miles south of the existing Bay Bridge. Geographically it makes a lot of sense to have a span from Dorchester County to Calvert County at a point where the Bay is relatively narrow, but I could already imagine the hue and cry from environmentalists and NIMBY types, particularly on the Eastern Shore. This would also require Maryland Route 16 to be seriously upgraded, at least to Cambridge.

But there would be advantages as well, particularly on the tourism and accessibility front. Opening a southern route may encourage more commerce between the fast-growing counties of Southern Maryland and the Eastern Shore. Why should the mid-Shore reap all the benefits from a Bay crossing?

As Pipkin says, though, we are probably a couple decades away from a third span and by then there may not be anything left of the Lower Shore to connect with except for Ocean City. A state which is doing its best to strangle rural development in the War on Rural Maryland isn’t going to care whether we receive help or not, just as long as the tax dollars arrive.

Anti-tax rally in Annapolis March 22

Looks like the TEA Party is going to rear up: while the House of Delegates is debating the State budget the tax revolt will be heard and seen all around Annapolis.

Thursday’s event is a last minute call to action. Tomorrow at noon there will be a group of cars circling the State House starting at noon honking their horn to show their opposition to increased spending. Others will be standing with posters opposing the elimination of the tax cap, stopping tax increases, and asking the government to hold the line on spending. There is also an opportunity to witness the debate first hand. Visitors are invited into the House Chamber in the gallery.

Delegate Susan Aumann (R – Baltimore County) said, “We are facing historic tax and fee increases, and it is government spending that is inhibiting the growth of Maryland’s economy.”

“Enough is enough!” Delegate Kathy Szeliga (R – Baltimore and Harford County) added, “From the beginning of session we had polling that proves 96% of Marylander’s say they pay enough in taxes.”

Tomorrow’s event is expected to draw supporters from all around the state.

The protest is spearheaded by a number of Republican Delegates from the Annapolis area, who are counting on the help of local activists to make a point. Admittedly, the thought of a line of cars circling the seat of government has its appeal because there’s no need to have a large group to make the point. It would be more of a newsworthy event than the equivalent small amount of protesters holding their antitax signs.

It’s probable that the protests won’t do any good, particularly when the Democrats run the General Assembly like their own fiefdom and Governor O’Malley needs the money for his spending initiatives and to refill the funds he looted to balance his previous budgets. And who are we kidding? Those funds will be raided yet again next year as O’Malley begins his push for the 2016 Democratic nomination.

But the success of this event will be more on the awareness front, as the Democrats have been known to overplay their hand. Let’s get as many out who can spare the time and get ourselves in the news.

The Maryland campaign begins

Now that Mitt Romney has won the Illinois primary – it was called for him barely a half-hour after the polls closed – one of the next “big” states on the docket is Maryland. (Louisiana comes first, on Saturday.) But Romney is the first major candidate to make a late push in the state, scheduling an event in Arbutus (3:30 at the American Legion Post 109, to be exact) later today. Something tells me Bob Ehrlich is going to show up at this event in his hometown.

One other piece of news worth mentioning is that Romney got another late endorsement from Harford County Executive (and 2014 candidate for something) David Craig, who said in part:

America is yearning for leadership. We are yearning for someone who can improve our course, who can inspire  ingenuity, and who can get our economy churning. That man is Mitt Romney.

As Governor, Mitt Romney inherited large deficits that he turned into record surpluses, through focusing on the economy by signing job-creating incentives into law and by slashing the red tape that hinders small business growth.

In 1999, the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics had been bogged down in a bid-rigging scandal, sponsors were fleeing, and the budget was bleeding red ink. When Mitt Romney came on board, he revamped the organization’s leadership, trimmed the budget, and restored public confidence.

He is a leader with executive experience and a proven track record of fixing what is broken, and America is broken.

I would tend to disagree with parts of that statement, but all the endorsement proves is that Craig is like a number of other politicians who seem to be banking on Romney being the “electable” Republican.

But the reason I really wanted to bring this up was to do some lobbying.

If a Republican candidate is to win in November, he is going to have to gather some crossover Democrats and conservative independents who respond to his message. And what better place is there to test drive such a message than an area where Democrats have the voter registration advantage but Republicans hold the offices? Yes, I think Salisbury would be an ideal stop for a Presidential candidate.

Most of the campaigns are spending time in Louisiana this week, which makes sense. But the only candidate who is planning on spending significant time in Maryland next week insofar as I can tell is minor candidate Fred Karger, and my gut feeling is he’d come nowhere near the Eastern Shore because, to put it charitably, he’s not exactly conservative.

I realize that presidential campaign schedules are made on the fly, but I’m sure we would be happy to welcome Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, or even Mitt Romney around these parts. Special added bonus: Delaware votes April 24.

So there is your offer. Take advantage of our hospitality while you can.

A (somewhat) false alarm

On Sunday I received an e-mail from a friend and professional associate of mine wondering aloud if a coup d’etat was being perpetrated:

It appears from my cursory review (I could be wrong, but I don’t think so) that this EO gives this administration complete and utter control, up to and including confiscation, of all farms and equipment, and many, many other items of infrastructure if they, in so many words, choose to do so.

Well, I suppose I’m happy to report that, while the mainstream media has pretty much ignored the Friday afternoon document dump (something they are quite reliable for), Ed Morrissey at HotAir took a closer look at the Executive Order’s effects. In essence, this EO is a rewrite of one (EO12919) signed by President Clinton in 1994, but updated to reflect the new cabinet positions created since.

But there is a problem here; it’s just not the one we think it is.

The law Obama’s EO traces its origin to was passed in 1950, at the start of the Cold War. While the Soviet Union is no more and we have gone through twelve Presidents in that time span (not to mention some more or less undeclared wars and incursions to various points around the globe) the question really should be why, if the update was needed, did President Obama wait until just a few months before the end of his term? Or perhaps another question: why release this on a Friday afternoon when many millions are paying rapt attention to a basketball tournament?

Continue reading “A (somewhat) false alarm”