Harris hosts Lower Shore townhall

The locale was a familiar one, but there were still nearly 100 people in attendance this afternoon as Congressman Andy Harris took time to meet with his Lower Shore constituents. Originally slated as an hour-long event, Harris spoke for about 20 minutes on a couple topics and spent the last hour fielding questions.

Initially, Andy showed this chart, one which illustrates the upward climb of gasoline prices over the last few years. The “pain at the pump” we were feeling was a sign that America needed to change its energy policies.

Another point Andy made in his gasoline presentation was that 80 percent of the cost of a gallon of gas came from the crude oil, 10 percent from distribution and marketing, and 12 percent from taxes. Refining was being done at a 2 percent loss currently. Yet Martin O’Malley was advocating a 6 percent sales tax on gasoline, which would add perhaps 20 cents per gallon, phased in over three years. It compares to the state’s “Blue Ribbon Commission” recommendation of a straight 15 cent per gallon increase (also phased in over three years) along with the Simpson-Bowles federal recommendation of a 15 cent per gallon increase.

The next chart he showed illustrated where the federal gasoline taxes were now going.

Perhaps it would make more sense if I showed the slide Andy had beforehand, which was a full pie showing all the highway money went to roads. That’s how it was in 1980, but thirty years later only 47% goes to roads, while 17% goes to mass transit, and the rest is either in earmarks, beautification, or other flexible projects. Andy believed there should be no increase in the federal gasoline tax until we get back to the pre-1980 condition of spending it all on highways.

However, Andy also discussed the new highway bill, H.R. 7. It would replace a bill which had run its course three years ago; a bill which had been extended three times. Andy claimed that it would streamline the process of getting new highways completed and that potentially 100% of funds could go to highways, if the state opted to spend the funding that way. The gasoline tax wouldn’t be raised to cover the spending; instead a new fee would be applied to domestic oil and gas exploration. (The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, as this is known, is still pending in the House.)

If anything about the bill bothers me, it’s that we can’t cover all it wants to spend with the existing gasoline tax. Why should energy companies – an industry we’re desperately trying to keep in the country to pursue our own abundant natural resources – have to help pay for highways?

Meanwhile, Andy pointed out that the state of Maryland has also raided its Transportation Trust Fund a number of times since 2003, to the tune of nearly $1 billion. Almost $680 million has been taken since 2010.

In essence, that was the extent of Andy’s message. He then opened the floor to questions, and ended up taking about a dozen. One of the most interesting ones came in regard to the tax holiday which Andy voted against last week. It was the “wrong way to do business,” said Andy, who then asked “will we ever stop the payroll tax holiday?”

Instead, something Andy suggested was giving people a choice – take the 2% reduction now and retire a month or two later, or maintain retirement age and pay the 2 percent. That seems like a valid suggestion to me, but Andy “didn’t think Congress is ready to be honest with the people.”

Another tax question Andy took was regarding a House bill which mandated a 1% fee on financial transactions sponsored by several Democrats. Andy said that bill was “not going anywhere in this House.” He pointed out that whenever taxes were increased, each dollar of new revenue was spent, along with 30% more.

Yet Harris also noted that all that saves us from being Greece was the fact we have the world’s reserve currency. Because of the strength of our dollar, interest on $15 trillion in debt is only $221 billion. But if we paid the same interest rates Greece is forced to pay, we would spend more on debt interest than we do on Social Security.

Naturally as part of the fiscal questions, someone asked Andy about the bonuses he gave to his staff. Andy defended the bonuses, saying that he paid his staff less than the average amount and once it became clear they would return money to the Treasury, he helped to bring them closer to the average pay scale through the bonus. To him, though, it was a good incentive to work more efficiently.

A couple questioners mentioned the defense cuts proposed by President Obama, particularly in our nuclear arsenal. Andy believed in “peace through strength” because “I don’t really trust the Russians or Chinese” but also made it clear that “I wish there was world peace…but we have real enemies.” A large and bipartisan group in Congress believed the drastic proposed cuts by Obama were “unacceptable” so they likely won’t happen.

Several people took it upon themselves to ask Andy about his environmental stance, in particular cleaning up Chesapeake Bay.

They asked about the Bay Restoration Fund, which was supposed to be bankrolled by the 1-cent sales tax increase of 2008. But that funding was stripped away the next year to balance the budget. (Never mind that this sales tax increase netted the state around $600 million.)

Yet the questioners pressed Andy on what he would do, one whining that he’s heard the same rhetoric for thirty years. Harris couched it in the terms of improving the economy, because the money wasn’t there to clean up the Bay. “We have to restore prosperity,” he said. Yet we’ve done a lot to help the environment, Andy continued, giving the example of removing 90% of the airborne mercury. Yet to get it to 99% removal, we would have to endure a 28% increase in our electric bills. The EPA didn’t do a good job in studying the benefits of what’s already been done, added Andy.

As for cleaning up Chesapeake Bay, Harris reminded those who questioned him that other states need to be involved as well. Yet a state like Pennsylvania has no real incentive because they’re not bordering the Chesapeake. We also need to partner with affected industries.

Just in my humble opinion, these environmentalists are representative of a group which won’t be satisfied until we’ve returned to the conditions found in pre-Colonial days. After all, if the Chesapeake Bay Foundation ever gives the Bay an A+ grade, what reason do they have to exist anymore? There’s no sense of balance given, nor credit for what’s been done thus far at great expense to our farmers and industry. Instead, the EPA is “confrontational” with the states.

There was one thing about which I didn’t care for when Andy said it. The question was raised that, okay, let’s say the economy is better. Then what will you do about the Bay? (These people were insistent.)

As part of that response, Andy said, “if you don’t want the federal government to have a say, then don’t take federal money.” That’s a little disingenuous because there are a number of areas where the federal government is supposed to perform tasks within states. I’d be very happy if Maryland didn’t take federal education money, for example, but would the federal government get off our back with various requirements? I doubt it.

And then there was the budget deficit. A questioner asked where the controls were, and Andy basically said there are none – “both parties are absolutely to blame…they can’t control themselves in Washington.”

“It’s too easy to come up with an excuse in Washington to spend money.” But Andy was fully supportive of the Ryan budget proposal last year, and likely would be again this year. “Stop attacking those who want to start the conversation,” he pleaded. If politicians don’t have ideas on how to address this, they should be thrown out of office, Harris added. After all, this was a group which approved a budget item of $1 million to Chinese factories to help them improve their energy efficiency. (That’s going to create jobs here.)

Speaking of being thrown out of office, one of the final questions dealt with term limits. Andy is a co-sponsor of a term limits bill already in the hopper, but promised to serve no more than 12 years himself. We should have a citizen legislature, Harris said, and he believed that most of us in the room would be just as qualified to be a Congressman as the ones who are there as long as we have some common sense.

Well, I have no plans to run for Congress – perhaps that’s evidence of the common sense he speaks of – but the hour and 20 minute session was quite informative. I doubt everyone went away happy, but the dialogue was quite compelling.

Media coverage was pretty good. Insofar as I know I was the lone blogger there, but WMDT-TV (Channel 47) was there as was a print reporter and photographer, presumably from the Daily Times.

Rage against the machine

Nope, sorry, I’m not going to bust out any “Killing in the Name” or “Guerrilla Radio.” Instead, I’m going to focus on dueling releases from the two leading candidates to take on Ben Cardin this fall. Instead of taking swipes at one another, they instead focus on a broken system and a Senator whose lack of leadership is a disgrace to our state.

Dan Bongino isn’t going to be known as the earmark king:

Dan Bongino has called for an end to “legalized bribery” through targeted earmarks.

“Insider dealings amongst elected officials, and local special interests are evolving into a system of legalized bribery. Access to Washington DC elected insiders through a network of lobbyists, and special interest groups is suffocating our economy and drowning out the voices of middle-class Americans. The dangerous and growing feedback loop between campaign finance, access to elected officials and the distribution of hard earned taxpayer dollars to connected insiders, is destroying the integrity of our Constitutional system of government. I pledge to restore leadership and integrity back to the system and, when elected, refuse to take part in any allocation of taxpayer funds without full disclosure to the citizens of Maryland.”

A February 21st investigative report by the Heritage Foundation’s Lachlan Markay provides compelling evidence showing a disturbing correlation between the allocation of earmarks and the timing of sensitive votes in vulnerable electoral districts. America’s growing frustration with government is largely due to the tacit pacts and elicit agreements which are all too common in status quo politics. If President Obama and the Congress are genuinely interested in reform they would stop talking about “change” and start initiating reforms that implement it.

We’ve already seen a push to implement this sort of reform in the House – last year a Republican Study Committee budget proposal wiped out earmarks, vowing that it “prohibits earmarks and eliminates pork-barrel spending.”

Yet when earmarks are discussed, the conversation is over a fairly small problem in comparison to the overall budget. Where the real game needs to be stopped is in the writing of regulations favorable to special interests, and Congress can do a lot more to rein those regulators in. That’s where the tax dollars are being wasted! While the study Bongino cites showed over $500 million spent on various earmarks – including two locally – it’s still much less than we’ve thrown away on just one failed ‘green’ project (Solyndra), not to mention the cost of regulations overall.

On the other hand, even a boilerplate announcement of new staff gives Rich Douglas a chance to take a swipe at the Democrat:

“Having these professionals on board will supercharge my campaign to unseat incumbent Sen. Ben Cardin,” said Douglas. “These battle-tested individuals have the experience and skills that are absolutely essential to end one-party rule in Maryland. Even more essential is that Republicans field a substantive candidate who can go round-for-round with the ultimate political insider and career politician Ben Cardin.”

Formerly a senior lawyer in the U.S. Senate and Iraq war veteran, Douglas knows the fundamentals of complex Senate legislative procedures to help reverse the ineffectiveness of the U.S. Senate.

“I will make Maryland a leader in the Senate, not a blind follower of party orthodoxy, special interests and business-as-usual in Washington,” said Douglas.

By the way, the new staff are campaign manager Rachel Audi and press secretary Jim Pettit. And bear in mind that one of Douglas’s goals was to make Ben Cardin spend his money, so he needs a supercharged campaign.

But it’s great that Rich also reinforces the message: Ben Cardin was first elected to public office in 1966, right after this observer celebrated his second birthday. I have a brother who’s 3 1/2 years younger than I am, so the sad reality is that Cardin has been sucking off the public teat for the entire time he’s been alive, winning election after election based more on the name recognition originally created by his uncle – who retired so that Ben could win his House of Delegates seat – and not necessarily achievement. 46 years in politics? That’s 2/3 of your lifespan – time to retire, bud. (Of course, Democrats have an opportunity to do that before the rest of us.)

Now if I can be assured that the “party orthodoxy” Rich won’t blindly follow is the path of moderation and not that of being a DeMint-style conservative, Douglas may be on to something here.

Aggressor sets the rules

I don’t know where this will be placed, or when, but this is just another case where an activist group of Republicans takes the bull by the horns and tells the truth.

This is made more interesting when it’s considered that the Kent County Republican Party was usually a no-show at our conventions and, by the number of registered voters, has been playing tag with Somerset County as the smallest Republican county in the state. (Overall, they have about 1,000 fewer registered voters than Somerset.)

But Kent’s jumped back into the state party by re-establishing themselves at our conventions, they apparently had a very successful Lincoln Day dinner last year, and the county party seems re-energized by new appointees (only four members of the seven ran in 2010.) So they’ve obviously made it their priority to establish the message in this campaign, and it’s at a scale which works for their county.

Some may think that the message will be a little bit “in the face” of people, but I disagree. (Otherwise I wouldn’t bring attention to it.) There’s no question the idea of a good Republican Central Committee is to elect Republicans, but in years where local parties aren’t going to have as much impact (because this year is a federal election cycle) it doesn’t hurt to establish a message to fire up the troops. So kudos to Kent County on this one.

I’ve also been made aware that Worcester County will have a message billboard, but I don’t have a good picture of it to show.

At the risk of making this sort of an odds and ends post, I have other items to add. I got this as part of a legislative update from Delegate Tony McConkey:

This week there are two hearings on my bills.  The first will be heard in Ways and Means on February 23rd.  HB 580 is to change the current method of appointing Anne Arundel County School Board members to a partially elected school board.  This bill still allows for some members to be appointed.

Naturally that drove me to see what progress we’ve had on SB99/HB966. While the Senate version has had a hearing cancelled twice, I’m pleased to report the House version has a hearing slated for Thursday, March 15. While I would have preferred an earlier hearing, it’s about a week before last year’s version was heard so there’s an improvement. And note this is the simple up-or-down vote bill we as a Central Committee and County Council wanted. Now it’s time to hold our legislature’s feet to the fire if you care about accountability.

Also, G.A. Harrison alerted me to this about the Maryland Senate:

The Maryland Senate will be debating SB 241 HB438, probably tomorrow.  To have a final vote on the bill, which would pass, they need to invoke cloture.  Sen. E. J. Pipkin is trying to organize a filibuster to stop the bill.  Last year (District 38 Senator) Jim Mathias voted against the bill (the Dems don’t need his vote to pass the bill), but voted for cloture.

We need to get as many people as possible to call Mathias’ office [(410) 841-3645] and tell him that a vote for cloture is the same thing as a vote for the same-sex marriage bill.  If five (5) Democrats vote against cloture, then the bill cannot come to a final vote.

Besides, we shouldn’t allow Jim Mathias to claim that he’s opposed to the bill while enabling its passage.

It’s likely the Maryland General Assembly will pass a LOT of wretched legislation this year, but perhaps we can secure a  victory or two for common sense.

My role as a ‘journalist’

From time to time, there is a discussion about the role people like me play and a post from last Friday by Melissa Clouthier talks about a recent court case in Oregon where a blogger was sued for libel and lost in part because she was denied the media shield protection a “regular” journalist receives. As Clouthier writes:

This case disturbs me as a blogger. I’ve had sources feed me stories – nearly every blogger has sources. There should be shield law protection. Period.

She also notes:

Right now, bloggers are exposed. If a big corporation, a rich/important individual, the government or someone in power wants to harass a blogger, he simply has to sue them into compliance. Even if the powerful has no case, the lawsuit itself can put an independent journalist out of business.

Melissa also links to an old acquaintance of mine from my days in Toledo, Maggie Thurber. Maggie adds a little bit of context to the discussion regarding this public service that bloggers do:

We have several local examples of people doing their part, including (one woman) who attends Toledo City Council Meetings, takes notes and then shares them with us here on this blog.

It doesn’t take much, since many are already attending meetings across the county – and anyone who share their meeting notes here is welcome to do so.

As we’ve found out, much to our chagrin at times, the mainstream media can’t be everywhere and even when they are present they don’t always cover the event well. For example, I have been at probably fifty Wicomico County Republican Club meetings over the last several years, where public officials utter statements which can be newsworthy. I believe there has been one instance where print media was present, but to be honest I forget who it was for. And while Salisbury City Council and Wicomico County Council have received regular coverage, the press tends to ignore smaller communities, political forums, and the like where news can be made, too.

Unfortunately, I’ve also found that the role of self-appointed journalist doesn’t always suit some people, and perhaps that’s the reason we haven’t earned that First Amendment protection. (There are a few plaintiffs locally who may agree with that initial statement, considering their dealings with another local blogger.)

While we don’t have the rights that “mainstream” journalists have, to be good at what we do and to legitimize what’s still a maturing news resource we still have the responsibility to be accurate and honest in both our reporting and the disclosure of our point of view. There’s no question I come with a conservative slant to what I write, and I don’t deny it. But that doesn’t relieve me of the responsibility to be as accurate as possible when I put on my reporter’s hat.

Certainly, though, there is one part of the statement which Melissa brings up and I allude to a couple paragraphs above. If someone with money or power is “wronged” by a blogger, they certainly have the means to destroy that blogger even if he or she is in the right. It’s sort of the inverse to the scenario where a company settles out of court with a plaintiff to avoid the prospect of losing a much bigger settlement at trial.

The Crystal Cox case is illustrative of what can happen to a blogger. Based on one post out of several regarding the plaintiff, a federal judge ruled against her defense that she was entitled to her state’s media shield law. U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez wrote:

(T)he record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law.

In the interest of disclosure, Hernandez was slated to be a Bush appointee, but he was held out by the end of Bush’s term and renominated by President Obama last year.

Now I have written before about the difficulties some bloggers have with financial support, but this is another potential landmine we all face. Not only could we use some financial assistance from those who could find us useful to advance a political agenda, but the possibility of more rulings like Judge Hernandez spewed forth means we need to find a way to legitimize ourselves in the eyes of the public.

Unfortunately, it was one post out of hundreds Cox wrote which did her in, and there’s the possibility that anyone who says something which gravely offends someone in a position of power can be in the same boat. That possibility is one which chills the national discourse, and shield laws should expand to allow those who blog the same rights as any other freelance journalist who toils for the print media. Of course we shouldn’t be able to get away with libel, but those bloggers who can prove themselves to be responsible at their craft despite their independence shouldn’t be penalized, either.

The McDermott notes: week 6

For Delegate Mike McDermott, week 6 of the General Assembly session was a study in contrasts: exciting peaks at both ends with a more humdrum routine in the middle.

In this edition Mike returned to a day-by-day format, with one highlight of his week being chosen by Republican leadership to deliver the Lincoln Day address Monday night – an address he posted here.

It’s intriguing to me that the speech served as a prelude to a week where certain “rights” took up most of the debate in the General Assembly. But look at a piece of what McDermott said:

Lincoln knew that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were unalienable rights given by God and not granted by a government, and for the government to impose itself on that which was granted by God could only produce sorrows and shame.

Those rights given by God don’t include the freedom to make choice without consequence. Yet by passing the same-sex marriage bill we took a step toward the government imposing itself on that which was granted, by saying that certain behavior which many of us feel is counterproductive to a righteous society is now acceptable because a small minority wishes it to be so. I can’t help but feel that other, perhaps even smaller minorities who believe that children should be exploited for the pleasures of adults or that – based on their faith – we should be able to marry more than one person will now feel they’re the ones being shortchanged and whine accordingly. No, it won’t happen tomorrow, this year, or even in the next half-decade or so. But mark my words, it will happen, and we’ll have one less leg to stand on in saying no to them.

Aside from the joint committee hearing and vote on the gay marriage bill which happened Tuesday, much of the midweek was spent by McDermott in hearing twenty other bills which are fairly non-controversial and generally involve small tweaks to existing law. One I found interesting is HB420, which extends a pilot program of GPS monitoring of those on probation already used in Washington County through September, 2015. Big Brother is watching.

And then there is Friday. Mike doesn’t spend a lot of time going over the “blur of activity” on Friday, as he will eventually supplement these notes with his account of “the machinations to bring this vote about, the creation of ‘magic’ Legislative Days which allowed this to occur, and the back room dealings.”

But I wanted to address some of these with my view.

In the last few years that I’ve noticed, it seems like more and more bills are being passed with the approach that the ends justify the means. One prime example is the Obamacare bill, where we had to pass it to know what was in it, according to Nancy Pelosi. Isn’t the idea supposed to be one of understanding its impact beforehand?

In both Maryland and on a national level, there are groups which take key bills and attempts to determine the impact they will have on various elements of the private sector. (As a Maryland example, read the fiscal note on HB438, the same-sex marriage bill.) But while these brief studies adequately define the fiscal impact and certain other parameters of proposed law, they cannot take into account how society is affected. On financial and tax issues, one can predict what impact a bill will have on the state’s treasury, but it’s left to a common sense analysis to determine that if a state makes it more difficult to profit from a business or keep that which is earned through the fruits of one’s labor it will detrimentally affect economic activity; for example a job which would have been created had conditions been maintained may not be because of the new law. It’s impossible to know the intentions of all 5.7 million Marylanders but there are causes and effects for their behavior.

This is even more difficult on social issues. One can debate the sort of impact 40 or 50 million aborted babies would have had if they’d been brought to term and lived – some argue that many would have been subjected to a life of neglect because they were unwanted from the start and deepened the social problems plaguing us today, but others feel the potential of a generation was wasted because some of its great scientists, scholars, and leaders were instead butchered in an abortion clinic. Obviously we will never know the truth, but it’s my contention that we deprived these unborn of their God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness they assumed upon conception. Yet it’s ironic to me that many who would grant the unearned, behaviorally-based choice of same-sex couples to marry as a right are also in favor of denying the unborn a right to life, also in the name of “choice.”

Because we’ve lived for less than a decade with same-sex marriage, it’s not entirely clear to us what we’ve stepped into. Indeed, there’s a chance that proponents could be right and it will strengthen marriage as a whole. But as two of Mike’s fellow Delegates noted, there’s an agenda to legitimize the gay lifestyle as just another choice (there’s that word again) which is no better or no worse than others.

Yet the fact it’s our current government stepping in to address the situation gives me pause, and reminds me that “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” When the ends justify the means and we have to pass the bill to know what’s in it, my inclination is that we’ve reached a point of complete corruption.

Delegates: Gay marriage “O’Malley’s path to the White House”

As badly as he has bungled our state, Lord help us if that happens.

Delegates Susan Aumann and Kathy Szeliga released a joint statement on gay marriage shortly after Friday evening’s vote which made several valid points. Here’s what they had to say.

The Governor is pushing his same sex marriage bill he knows that by passing it here in Maryland would look great on his political resume. In fact the Washington Post stated “Perhaps no other O’Malley effort is being watched as closely nationally as same-sex marriage.” I find it extremely appalling that O’Malley is using and abusing our State to advance his own national political agenda to the detriment of our Maryland families.

For those who are ambivalent, thinking that “this won’t affect me”, the consequences of passing gay marriage will permeate many aspects of our society. The definition of marriage does not need to be redefined. I support traditional marriage, one man and one woman, and here is why:

  • Traditional marriage builds families – mom, dad, and children – and gives hope that the next generations will carry that family into the future.
  • In states where marriage has been redefined, activists have implemented a homosexual agenda in the schools to children as young as kindergarten. I am opposed to promoting gay marriage in our public schools and once it is “legal” in this state the curriculum will follow the law.
  • The people of Maryland don’t need the legislature to tell them what marriage is.  Marriage is an institution of the people, not politicians, and the legislature should know better than to try and take the definition of marriage away from them.

This legislation has taken a front seat this session and it is the biggest family issue we are facing but I know it is not the ONLY issue. I know that the taxes and fees, which the Governor is proposing, are an assault on your way of life and I am in Annapolis fighting for you.

There’s no doubt in my mind that gay marriage is strongly backed by a small minority who wants to rationalize their behavior by imposing it on the rest of us. I don’t really care who sleeps with who, but it bothers me when activists couch it as a question of civil rights when truly it’s a matter of choice.

I made the point a few days ago in a comment to this post that perhaps being gay is like coming from an alcoholic family in the sense that if you know booze is going to be a problem you can simply address it by being a teetotaler. In other words, you make the decision and there are consequences. In the case of an alcoholic family, there’s a larger possibility of health problems or accidents caused by excessive drinking, while in the case of choosing to be gay or lesbian you run afoul of most religions and can’t naturally have children – prior to a few years ago you couldn’t be “married” either. Of course, there is a tendency for alcoholism to run in families but I have a harder time seeing a genetic origin for homosexuality – thus, it must be behaviorally based. Remember, up until the middle part of the last century homosexuality was thought to be a mental disorder. Only in the last 40 years or so has political correctness removed that stigma.

But the push from Governor O’Malley only seemed to come once one of his chief rivals for the 2016 nomination, Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, got his state to approve gay marriage. Critics on the far left have lambasted O’Malley’s record so he had to pander to the uber-liberal crowd which runs the national Democratic establishment and use gay marriage to establish his social issue bona fides. Raising taxes, falling for the global warming nonsense, spending on environmental boondoggles, sucking up to Big Labor, and playing guitar wasn’t enough; O’Malley had to up the ante.

So unless the citizens of Maryland restore common sense and defeat the bill in referendum this November – and certainly proponents are shrewd enough to know that the larger turnout of a presidential election helps their cause because the proportion of voters who can be seduced by their “fairness” argument will be larger in a presidential election than a gubernatorial one – come January 1 there will be a run on whatever locales will be open that day for gay and lesbian couples to be “married.”

Will it make a difference in the short term? Probably not, but this was never really about here and now. As Delegates Aumann and Szeliga point out, legitimizing the homosexual agenda in schools will only be the start, particularly in an era where children are vulnerable to that sort of exploitation. There’s a reason that support for gay marriage is much stronger among youth than it is among older people, and it has nothing to do with “tolerance” because true tolerance would welcome all views, and it’s clear not all views are appreciated in schools – Christians and others who believe in traditional values need not apply.

The next two years promise more of the same because it’s no longer about what’s best for Maryland. Instead, it’s going to be about what’s perceived to be best for Martin O’Malley’s future political plans. California may have some company as the loony liberal trendsetter.

Odds and ends number 44

Now this is starting to get confusing, since two of my long-running post series are up to the same number. But the way my inbox is presently filling up, I suspect “Odds and ends” will be well ahead of “Weekend of local rock” before too long.

As is always the case, this is the potpourri of items I find interesting, but not worthy enough of a full-blown post. Today I may even simply link to the items without much further comment because I have quite a bit to get to.

For example, Baltimore County Republican Examiner Ann Miller recently penned a post with timeless advice on how conservatives should treat media encounters. While it’s sad that media sometimes seems more interested in presenting a politically correct agenda than getting the truth, these are the rules we’re saddled with for now. It’s worth reading.

Another item worth reading that’s too long for me to excerpt is “A Day in the Life of O’Malley’s Maryland,” written by Senator J.B. Jennings. We can always talk about what tax and fee (but I repeat myself, for “a fee is a tax” according to MOM) increases do in the abstract, but the Jennings piece looks at how all these add up over the course of an average day.

Continue reading “Odds and ends number 44”

Activists ram gay marriage bill through House

Today was a dark day for those who believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, as the gay rights crowd – a definite squeaky wheel in the overall process of life – elbowed aside tradition and browbeat the House into passing HB438 by a vote of 72 for and 67 against. (Initial reports had it 71-67.)

After killing off several amendments earlier in the day, one of which would have been to substitute the phrase “civil union” for marriage and another to automatically send the bill to referendum first, the House this evening moved the bill on to the Senate, which is expected to pass it.

Last year the Senate passed the bill initially only to see the House effort fail when enough votes could not be found late in the session. Strangely enough, the House composition is essentially unchanged this year but several key Delegates have changed their votes in the interim. Delegate Heather Mizeur, a key proponent of gay marriage, tweeted that opponents of gay marriage have pursued “ugly charges of deal making and shady morals” but there are indeed allegations of jobs being promised to opponents who change their vote, among them Delegate Wade Kach, a Republican, and Democrat John Donoghue.

Obviously we will see what happens in the coming weeks with these Delegates and others who had their arm twisted.  Meanwhile, it’ll be easy to spot who flipped their votes from 2011 to this year* once the tally is placed online.

The Senate should take up the bill in the next couple weeks; in the meantime the referendum process will be getting underway as opponents organize for what is expected to be a bitter and caustic fight leading up to a vote this November. It’s likely the gay marriage referendum will share the ballot with a referendum on the Maryland DREAM Act, a bill passed last year to give in-state tuition to the children of illegal aliens.

As for HB438 proponents, I have seven words: where do I sign the referendum petition?

* I stand corrected. The House last year didn’t vote on SB116 (the 2011 version of the gay marriage bill) as Delegate Vallario made a motion to recommit to committee, which when passed killed the bill.

Update: The Washington Post has an AP tally of the votes. Eastern Shore delegates were 9-0 against the bill. The two Republicans who voted “yes” made a big part of the difference – think the Democrats will give them any credit for that two years hence? Not gonna happen.

Harris doesn’t fall into trap – too bad so many others did

Today is a bad day for those fighting the American decline, on two fronts. One is the prospect of gay marriage passing in the Maryland House of Delegates – if it gets past that hurdle, the Senate is likely to quickly follow suit.

But more germane to this post is the fact the House passed a payroll tax cut extension by a 293-132 vote, with Andy Harris voting in the minority. Why would he vote against a tax cut? Because there was no compromise by the other side:

I support the tax cut element of the proposal. However, the other parts of the bill increased spending in 2012 by $45 billion, while taking 10 years to pay it back.  That’s the kind of bad fiscal policy which got us into the mess we’re in – Washington has to stop spending money we don’t have.

While I certainly support Andy in this stance – even though I know the Democrats will use this against him in the 2012 campaign – it also leads me to ask why couldn’t House leadership just have a “clean” bill? The payroll tax cut is one section out of 20. We have that little bit of power, why not use it?

On the other hand, Rep. Allen West of Florida has a more eloquent statement:

Americans are exhausted, out of work and many have simply lost hope in the political system. They have been struggling now with nearly five consecutive years of record job stagnation, increased foreclosure rates and an economy that continues to struggle.

All of these reasons are why I cannot in good faith vote for this payroll tax cut deal. It is not that I don’t believe Americans should have relief in their paychecks or be afforded a safety net of unemployment insurance, it is because, unlike some on Capitol Hill, I am looking beyond this election cycle.

I am looking at the ramifications of adding billions of American taxpayer’s dollars to a trillion dollar deficit with no answers as to how or when we will pay for this bill.

I am looking beyond immediate gratification and instead looking at an American political system willing to cave to political pressure to give Americans a temporary Band-Aid that in the long run only makes things worse for their future.

The facts are simple.  This supposed payroll tax decrease is really a backdoor tax increase on homeowners and first time homebuyers. The deal is being paid for by added fees on FHA-backed loans. Homeowners with FHA-backed mortgages represent more than one-third of mortgages in the United States. Those Middle Class Americans will be footing the bill for this political gimmick.

Homebuyers with a $200,000 standard 30- year loan will have to pay an extra $10,000 over the course of their loan. It would take roughly 250 paychecks with $40 extra from the payroll tax holiday to pay for the added increase to the life of an FHA-backed mortgage loan. That represents ten years of consecutive employment.

In addition, some may argue the payroll tax deal will not affect Social Security. This could not be further from the truth. The federal government’s general operating account will be used to compensate for the lost revenue in the Social Security Trust Fund, which will increase the deficit and add to the nation’s debt.

My position on the Payroll Tax Extension has not changed. In December of 2011, I supported a responsible one- year extension that was fully paid for, and would have put money back in the pockets of American workers while protecting homeowners, Social Security, and not adding to the deficit and our ever-increasing national debt.

This current deal is not good policy – but it is political posturing.

The payroll tax cut deal is a result of politicians telling Americans what they want to hear, while seriously harming them and our nation in the long run. Americans sent a new wave of leaders to Capitol Hill in 2010 to stand up for conservative principles and turn this country around. I will continue to be a voice for those Americans. (Emphasis in original.)

And people wonder why West is a TEA Party favorite and mentioned as a dream pick for Vice-President? He seems to be one of the few who calls out Barack Obama for what he is. (Maybe it’s because the Left can’t use the race card on him, aside from calling him an “Uncle Tom”, “Oreo”, or any other similar derogatory name.)

But I believe he and Andy Harris made the right choice today. All we are doing is “giving” (read: taking less from) people on the one hand but punishing them with the other. Unfortunately, until Washington has more bold leadership like Harris and West, it’s not going to matter how much or little we’re taxed because the spending will far outpace whatever is taken in.

It’s not about money, it’s about control. Learn that lesson well.

Maryland marriage safe for another day

In breaking news… (and updating an earlier post, in case you’re here from PJM)

After delaying the scheduled 5:30 start to tonight’s session to consider the gay marriage bill by about 45 minutes, the show got underway and lasted for about 10 minutes.

Because of a deluge of amendments being offered to the bill, Delegate Kathleen Dumais, who was leading the floor this evening, opted to allow more time for the amendments to be digested – the bill is special ordered to tomorrow afternoon. One amendment by Delegate Wade Kach was accepted by Dumais as a friendly amendment and passed by the House – the effective date of the legislation was moved back from October 1 to January 1, 2013.

Yet the fact that we had a nearly-hour delay in getting the vote started and a further night for consideration and arm-twisting may mean that opponents are carrying the day. Trust me, if the votes were there this bill would have been ramrodded through posthaste, so perhaps the numbers aren’t adding up to 71. In addition, Delegate Veronica Turner, who supports the bill, is out with a medical condition, according to Justin Snow of Maryland Reporter, who Tweeted this news earlier this evening. So they will need an extra body to switch sides.

The session is now slated to begin at 12:30 tomorrow.

Update 1: As sort of related news, the Worcester County TEA Party meeting tomorrow where Delegate Mike McDermott was slated to speak will now host Worcester County Commissioner Jim Bunting, who will be discussing the budget. McDermott may be tied up in Annapolis tomorrow, for obvious reasons.

In the same vein, Delegate Kathy Afzali had to cancel her appearance at a fundraiser on her behalf because of the prospect for a vote, according to her Facebook page.

Update 2: As evidence of the arm-twisting going on, Streiff at Red Maryland presents several alleged examples. Looks like O’Malley and Democrats are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at this – too bad they didn’t exert the same amount of effort into real job creation.

A twist in the Sixth

There are two reasons I like the Maryland Juice website: one, because I like to keep tabs on what the opposition is doing, and two, I like the way it is written. Unlike certain recent commentators on this site, the author is willing to stand up for what he believes using his real name. I rarely agree with him, but I can respect his opinion.

David Moon related an interesting development on the Democratic side in the Sixth Congressional District race yesterday: it seems that Democratic candidate John Delaney is being raked over the coals for making a $2,400 contribution in 2010 to Congressman Andy Harris. (Yes, you read that right.)

But before you begin thinking, “hey, a Democrat with a little common sense,” there are a few caveats in play here.

Continue reading “A twist in the Sixth”

Supporting the ‘insurance’ of voter photo ID (HB113)

This is testimony I penned, presented today on behalf of the Wicomico County Republican Central Committee.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the House:

We, the undersigned members of the Wicomico County Republican Central Committee, rise in support of safeguarding the electoral process by adopting this common-sense bill.

There are situations in our everyday lives where we are compelled by law or by custom to present a photo identification in order to prove our identity. Surprisingly, though, in performing one of the most important duties we have as a citizen, under current Maryland law we are simply asked to recite our date of birth and our address. No other steps are taken to prove a voter’s identity.

Opponents of photo voter ID base their argument on the assertion that photo ID depresses turnout, particularly in minority communities, because those voters are less likely to have a valid photo identification. They also claim that the fraud argument given by proponents is invalid because fraud has not been demonstrably proven to occur on a large scale in Maryland.

However, turnout figures from Georgia and Indiana, states which adopted photo identification laws before the 2008 election, disprove the contention of lower minority turnout. In fact, Indiana had the largest increase in Democratic turnout in the country from 2004 to 2008, presumably with the minority population (which tends to vote Democratic) leading the way. If people are motivated to vote, they will secure the means to comply with the law and non-driving photo identification is already available from the state for a modest cost. Moreover, this bill preserves the right to present an existing voter identification card if the voter has it in his or her possession.

We are pleased by the fact Maryland hasn’t been the home of large-scale allegations of voter fraud as have been the case elsewhere. But just as one doesn’t purchase insurance for an immediate need but rather for protection against unknown future hazards, we consider photo voter identification an inexpensive insurance policy against the potential for polling place fraud. We believe this is especially important because our state has adopted early voting, with Election Day now turned into a process which lasts several days. It’s easier to track who comes and goes to vote in a one-day period than to coordinate these efforts over several days, particularly as polling place personnel can change daily.

Finally, it’s important to consider that one who cannot present acceptable identification is not turned away at the ballot box. Instead, state law provides that they receive a provisional ballot, the counting of which is contingent upon a more thorough investigation of the situation. According to the Pew Center on the States, in Maryland about 2/3 of the provisional ballots cast in 2008 were deemed valid and counted, but the total not counted was around 17,000 out of over 2.6 million ballots cast. On a nationwide basis, the study found that about half of the uncounted provisional votes were cast by people who weren’t registered – a factor photo identification wouldn’t be able to rectify anyhow.

There’s no question that HB113 won’t make our voting system absolutely fraud-proof; unfortunately there are those who willingly break the rules in order to gain electoral office for themselves or assist someone they support in doing so. But if someone is motivated enough about their franchise to use it, which we saw in the minority community for the 2008 election, they’re not going to let the minor detail of getting photo identification stop them. Those who say presenting a photo identification is a hindrance to voting are simply misinformed, and we encourage the passage of HB113 in order to help safeguard our electoral process.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Members of the Wicomico County Republican Central Committee:

Dave Parker, Chair
Joe Collins, Vice-Chair
Bob Laun, Treasurer
Michael Swartz, Secretary
Dave Goslee, Sr.
W. Blan Harcum, Sr.
Mark McIver
John Palmer
Ann Suthowski