Election Guide 2006

This is going to be all the information I can muster on the election, based on the many posts I’ve done this election season. Don’t forget, I also link to most of these campaigns on my right-hand sidebar.

First of all, here are my overall summaries on various races:

Governor
U.S. Senate
County Executive
House of Delegates/Senate District 37
House of Delegates/Senate District 38

I also attended several candidate forums over the course of the campaign, summarized here (with attendees):

Pittsville (October 12)

Both candidates for Wicomico County Sheriff.
County Council candidates Caldwell (at-large), Holloway (District 5), McCain (at-large), Werkheiser (District 5), Sample-Hughes (District 1, unopposed), Pretl (District 3). Cannon (at-large) was a latecomer.
County Executive candidates Pollitt and Jannace. Rick Pollitt comments on one of my statements here.

The other forums were pre-primary so more participants were invited.

NAACP forum (August 3)

All three State Senate candidates from District 37, along with the five candidates vying for the District 37 Delegate seats.
Delegate Elmore from District 38A, along with all four District 38B contestants.

NAACP forum (July 27)

State’s Attorney (Davis Ruark is unopposed).
All five candidates for Orphan’s Court Judge.
Both candidates for Sheriff.

NAACP forum (July 13)

Register of Wills (Karen Lemon is unopposed).
Both candidates for Clerk of the Court.
County Council candidates Sample-Hughes (District 1, unopposed), Prettyman (District 2, unopposed), both District 3 candidates, David MacLeod (District 4), both District 5 candidates, and at-large candidates McCain, Caldwell, Cannon, and Graf (who is a write-in for the general election after losing the GOP primary.)
County Executive candidates Alessi and Pollitt.

FOP Sheriff’s Forum (July 6)

Both candidates for Sheriff.

Another item that proved to be interesting was the Ten Questions. I actually reuse them on the summaries of the U.S. Senate and General Assembly races, but here’s the link to each individual candidate’s answers.

Kevin Zeese (U.S. Senate)
Lih Young (U.S. Senate). She lost in the Democratic primary but re-entered the Senate race as a write-in. I didn’t know this when I did the summary.
Rich Colburn (Senate District 37)
James Adkins (House of Delegates District 37B)
Addie Eckardt (House of Delegates District 37B)
Patrick Armstrong (House of Delegates District 38A)
Michael James (House of Delegates District 38B)

Additionally, as some of the GOP candidates have been the featured speaker at the Wicomico County Republican Club meetings, here are summaries of what they had to say there. Note that pre-primary, other candidates who lost in September are also featured speakers.

September (John Cannon, M.J. Caldwell, both County Council at-large)
August (Bonnie Luna, District 38B Delegate candidate)
July (Rich Colburn, District 37 Senator, and Mike Lewis, Sheriff)
May (Michael James, District 38B candidate)
March (Ron Alessi, County Executive)

As far as candidates go, I have covered the most of the five recognized write-in candidates someplace in here. Most in Wicomico County are familiar with Charles Jannace’s bid for County Executive, and as alluded to earlier, Lucy Graf is running for County Council at-large again. I also have listed in my Governor’s summary the John Simmins write-in campaign, but was not aware that Charles Ulysses Smith, an also-ran for the Democratic Senate nomination (along with Lih Young, who I discussed earlier as rerunning for U.S. Senate) has also filed as a write-in for Governor.

Finally, I wanted to touch on the various issues that are on the ballot. I’ll start with state issues, and rather than type the whole text out, an explanation prepared by the state is here. (This is an 8 page .pdf file, the final two pages are irrelevant to Wicomico County.) In Wicomico County, we also have Question A, which deals with allowing the Sheriff’s Department collective bargaining power with binding arbitration.

State Question 1 deals with state parklands. In my not-so-humble opinion, this is yet another attempt by the Democrats to both usurp power from and embarrass the Ehrlich Administration. The Question stems from an attempt to sell over 800 acres of surplus state land in St. Mary’s County to a private developer.

I wrote a letter to the Daily Times on this subject back in March of 2005 (pre-blogging days). In part, I argued that:

To me, the word “surplus” implies not needed for any purpose. In an era where the trend is for government to overuse its power of eminent domain, I find returning state land to the private sector (and to tax collection) a refreshing trend…I would like to see a lot more state land turned over for private use. The extra taxes collected could help lower that burden on the rest of us.

As is the case with much of our state government, the Democrats were fine with executive authority when they had the executive. But once Governor Ehrlich came into office, it was no fun anymore. Join me in voting NO on Question 1.

Questions 2 and 3 are a matter of cleaning up judiciary laws. At the risk of allowing frivolous appeals to continue up the court ladder, I’ll vote YES on Question 2 and allow the $10,000 limit by voting YES on Question 3 (with some reservations there too.)

Several election law changes are involved with Question 4. Among them:

E-poll books at each polling place
Separate precincts at college campuses. (I believe SU would be exempt from this as the Asbury UMC is right by campus.)
Supermajority (4 of 5) decisions by the Board of Elections, which is currently 3-2 Republican
Voter registration and absentee voting assistance at nursing homes, assisted living facilities, etc.
Provisions affecting only Baltimore City (and Somerset County)
A study of Election Day voter registration

Because of last four provisions, we don’t need to pass this. This Question came about from the petition drive done this spring to stop early voting (which succeeded in court without needing the petition) so rather than get the half a loaf we would’ve gotten by passing this, we can get the whole enchilada now by dumping this question. Vote NO on Question 4.

Now I turn to Question A. I asked a friend of mine in the Sheriff’s Department who would be the collective bargaining agent for the deputies and was told FOP Lodge 111. This friend gave me a hypothetical:

“…let’s assume that LEOPS is achieved and that may well happen, even if Question A fails. What happens if Question A is voted into law is that the FOP can then demand arbitration on schedules, uniforms, cars, management, etc., which as you are keenly aware of relinqueshes (sic) management issues to the union.”

Here’s the way I look at this. The even better solution would be to elect a Sheriff, County Executive, and County Council who are willing to work in harmony and hammer out the improvements in pay and benefits our law enforcement officers deserve, rather than place all in an acrimonious position from the start by passing Question A. So vote NO on A.

Wow. I believe that’s about it. We do have to reconfirm one judge to the Court of Special Appeals, Ellen L. Hollander. I see no reason not to.

There will be six pages on my particular ballot, and that’s a lot to vote on. Hopefully you’ve been paying attention, and no matter what choices you make I hope they are careful and learned as I advocated in the Daily Times.

Eastern Shore Ehrlich rally

A welcome sight in any parking lot.

Once I saw this lineup of cars, I knew I was in the right place. Today I attended an “Eastern Shore Ehrlich Rally” in Ocean City.

Full house in the Carousel's poolside dining area.

When we got there (I drove up trailing Ellen Andrews and her husband Darryl, with the big Ehrlich sign in my back window) it was a pretty full house. There were 50-60 people there at the peak, pretty good for a Saturday noontime event.

District 38 State Senator J. Lowell Stoltzfus.

After being introduced by Worcester County Ehrlich coordinator Ann Granados, our Senator, Lowell Stoltzfus, spoke briefly about working with Governor Ehrlich for the last four years and looking forward to four more as momentum is shifting toward the GOP in Maryland (and I daresay nationwide.) He also praised the campaign efforts of the next two pictured:

Both District 38 GOP hopefuls were there.

Michael James and Bonnie Luna also addressed the people. James is a quiet man who’s determined to bring Eastern Shore values to Annapolis, while Luna, the more talkative of the two, spoke on her campaign theme of placing people before politics, particularly when it comes to prioritizing spending.

Everyone was sort of clipped in their speeches because there was also to be a scheduled call-in from the Governor himself, which did occur after Luna finished. Ehrlich opened by saying he had good news and bad news…the bad news was that Drew’s ballteam was losing, but the good news was the momentum for his re-election that was building in the polls.

Honestly, the Governor doesn’t really have to give us the time of day – the Eastern Shore is solid Ehrlich/Cox country. In the last election our four-county area voted anywhere from 64.2% to 68.3% for Ehrlich and there’s no reason to expect anything less this time. But every vote counts and it’s nice to know that our hard work is appreciated. Also, the key for Ehrlich is to flip the two District 38B Delegates from two Democrats to two Republicans, helping enable the GOP to have enough members in the House of Delegates to sustain Ehrlich’s vetoes (they need 14 more.) This was another item noted by Stoltzus in his remarks – after almost 15 years without a single veto override in the General Assembly prior to his term, Governor Ehrlich has suffered 40.

After I returned and took a short break at home, I did my part to offset fellow MBA blogger Stephanie Dray as I worked a phone bank for Governor Ehrlich and Michael Steele’s campaigns. By happenstance I drew my newly adopted home precinct so if you live on the east side and close environs of Salisbury, there’s a chance you heard me today (or may tomorrow as I finish the precinct’s list. Waiting on answering machines can take a LONG time.)

We have just over 72 hours until the polls close as I write this. As I wrote to the Daily Times, this is the biennial opportunity for us to determine our country’s direction. Tuesday will determine whether we “cut and run” from the principles of limited government and freedom or embrace them.

On District 38 races

Gee, that was quicker than I thought. This post is very simple because:

Our incumbent Senator is unopposed.

The incumbent Delegate from District 38A, Page Elmore, really doesn’t go in-depth on any issues on his website, and opponent Patrick Armstrong was kind enough to answer my Ten Questions. Because District 38A is first on my list, Armstrong gets the catbird seat.

Michael James in District 38B has a similar advantage. I did find a little bit on his GOP counterpart Bonnie Luna but not a whole lot besides generalities from the incumbents Norm Conway and Jim Mathias.

So this will be relatively brief, and like I did for District 37, I’ll put in something at the end about the NAACP forum and what was said there. And once again, I skip Question #9 on early voting since the point’s now moot.

Question #1:

Some of you participated in the recent special session to modify the large rate hikes that were to be enacted by Baltimore Gas & Electric. However, our electrical rates from the local Eastern Shore suppliers went unchanged. With that in mind, would you be more in favor of a total repeal of the 1999 deregulation laws, or do you believe the concept is sound and only needs a few guardrails and rate safeguards?

Armstrong: We have seen the effects of deregulation of energy across the country over the past several years and those who pay the bills have felt the pain in their wallet. I believe that deregulation was a mistake made several years ago by the General Assembly and I favor repealing that decision. I believe that energy is such a vital service that we must not allow shifting markets and unforeseeable problems to stand in the way of access to electricity. As it stands today I support efforts to reduce the strain of increased electricity costs to families on the shore. I do not believe re-regulation is likely to occur but I would support it and encourage it if elected. I also would have worked with the General Assembly and the Governor to address the rate hikes taking effect from Delmarva Power. We need a new leader who will stand up and give the lower shore a voice in the legislature.

James: I am in favor of deregulation as long as there is an adequate climate for competition. Obviously the utilities are essential to our society, so if there was a catastrophe or an accumulation of issues that forced costs to rise to the levels that harm the economy or create an unusual burden on our citizens, the Government would need to intervene until the market stabilized. The 1999 deregulation was odd in that it was accompanied by 1993 level price caps. The General Assembly should have known there would be unusually high increases once the caps expired. Instead, they ignored the issue until it could be called a “crisis”. They then used the PSE and its chairman Eastern Shoreman Ken Schisler as a scapegoat to divert attention away from their own mistakes.

Luna: According to Bonnie, “In 1999, the majority of the legislature voted to cap electric rates for seven years. While energy costs for everyone else continued to rise, our electric bills were kept artificially low. When it finally came time to lift the cap, that same majority denounced the Governor and the Public Service Commission for allowing reality to intrude on their fantasy world. They even passed legislation to fire the Commission members, and overrode the Governor’s veto of it. That measure is now in the courts. Any guess as to whether it will survive judicial review? If the majority had spent as much effort dealing with energy cost issues as it did finding ways to blame others, we would surely have found better ways to manage the change to market-based electric rates.”

Question #2:

In the last two sessions of the General Assembly, the issue of health insurance and who pays for it has taken center stage. (Examples: the Fair Share Health Care Act and its proposed expansion with last year’s HB1510, which was sponsored by Delegate Hubbard and defeated in committee.) Recently the state of Massachusetts adopted legislation effective in 2007 mandating all residents secure coverage under some public or private health insurance plan or face a financial penalty. Do you see this concept as an idea Maryland should adopt?

Armstrong: I think this idea should be given serious consideration by the General Assembly. While the infrastructure is not yet in place to a point where we can force individuals to purchase health care it is possible to however to work towards this goal. The high cost to Maryland taxpayers paying for emergency room visits by those who have no insurance must be addressed. This is an issue I feel should be taken up the legislature and I would support it with the proper safeguards in place to protect working families and the working poor.

James: NO. That would be too close to a nanny state.

Luna: Rather than focus on the insurance issue, Bonnie chooses a different approach: “Health care costs continue to rise. You’d think there was plenty of money to be made in it. So why are doctors retiring early, cutting services or just quitting altogether? One big reason is the cost of liability insurance. Doctors who commit malpractice should be held accountable. Patients who are hurt by negligence or incompetence should be compensated. But frivolous lawsuits and sky-high jury awards have taken their toll on the health care industry. Insurers have raised premiums, and doctors who are merely accused of malpractice find their rates going through the roof…A solution to this is tort reform. While making sure those who are harmed are made whole, it would limit the wasteful lawsuits that drive up the costs for all of us. We pay for ridiculous legal judgments through higher fees and less available health care. It’s time to reform our tort laws.”

Mathias: Jim briefly states he wants to have a health care summit and work on “practical and financial solutions to the concerns facing us all.”

Conway: Norm claims on his site that, “Affordable health care should be available to all Marylanders. Norm Conway led the fight to boost funding for Medicare and children’s health programs by $220 million so more seniors and families can get the coverage they need. He supported a bill to recruit and retain doctors; so that when you get sick you will not have to wait as long to see your doctor.”

Question #3:

Within our area, Somerset County traditionally has among the highest unemployment rates in the state of Maryland. In every election, well-paying jobs and how to secure them is an issue. If you are elected to the General Assembly, what policies would you favor commencing or retaining in an attempt to create or lure good-paying jobs for the Eastern Shore?

Armstrong: I believe the eastern shore can thrive with the growth we are already seeing and that we can manage that growth to fit within our communities. I support business incentives to draw companies to the shore. I support easier access to community colleges and universities for our residents who wish to study a trade. I support an increase in job fairs and mobile job recruitment vans. I would support legislation to encourage businesses to invest in the shore and create infrastructure capable of allowing businesses to expand onto the shore. I believe growth and expansion must be managed keeping in mind the way of life of the communities involved and ensuring proper environmental protections as we try to bring new jobs and smart growth to the lower eastern shore.

Mathias: Jim favors “Solidly supporting 21st century technology, continuing education programs, and (a) pro-business platform to create and encourage good paying jobs for the citizens of our district.”

James: We need to work independently on the shore as well as work with The Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development to attract businesses to our area. I support tax incentives, tax credits for training and state grants for the county economic development efforts. I believe all three counties in District 38 have a lot to offer potential employers. I believe by working jointly the three counties have a story to tell and resources to market to future employers. The reason so many people want to relocate here are the same reasons this region would be attractive to growing companies.

Question #4:

This year a state takeover of several failing Baltimore City Schools was thwarted by the General Assembly overriding an earlier veto of a bill Governor Ehrlich rejected. A few states, though, are attempting to remove themselves from the federal “No Child Left Behind” regulations for various reasons, even at the risk of losing federal dollars. Do you support the federal NCLB mandates or do you feel the state could and should go without the additional restrictions (and funding)?

Armstrong: Today I believe that Maryland should stick with NCLB and the federal funding it brings. As for he legislation passed by Congress, NCLB is a lousy legal mess. The problems it creates for teachers and the roadblocks it puts into place for students are numerous. While many provisions are important for the future of our schools the majority of NCLB has failed our children and our schools, as many states and school boards across the country and in Maryland have discovered. This in mind, Maryland is currently in compliance with NCLB and I believe that we should continue to accept the federal assistance for our schools at this time. As for Baltimore, if a failing school cannot be remedied by the local jurisdiction than it should be taken over by the State until a solution can be found. No school in Maryland should be allowed to fall below our highest expectations for performance and quality education.

James: I support NCLB.

Question #5:

In the 2006 General Assembly, the Blackwater development in Cambridge became a contentious issue which led to legislation that was eventually defeated. However, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has continued to apply pressure to legislators and encourage voters to speak out on what they perceive as a threat to bay water quality. On the other hand, the city of Cambridge sees Blackwater as a needed shot in the arm for its economy and tax base. Where do you see yourself on this issue and related development matters?

Armstrong: I believe that development can occur without serious damage to the bay and surrounding waters. Unfortunately, at this time we do not have in place the proper laws requiring strict environmental protections from runoff and waste disposal. I believe that Blackwater is a dangerous development plan and should be held to much stricter environmental protections than those that are currently in place. As for the lower shore, we understand the importance of the Bay’s health and we understand the need for growth. I propose we hold developers accountable for protecting the bay as they build and ensure that every possible safeguard is in place to prevent further devastation to the waters around the eastern shore.

Conway: Norm states that, “Farming is a way of life on the Eastern Shore yet farms are under pressure by development and the changing economy. Norm Conway brought farmers and environmentalists together to tackle this issue. He turned their ideas into a landmark bill to help farmers stay in business and promote agricultural practices that will help clean up the Chesapeake Bay.”

James: From my view, the Blackwater Developers played by the rules, followed the permit process, and communicated with state and local officials from the beginning. It may have helped their cause to do more in the beginning to reach out early to their future opponents, but that is just speculation.

I feel the state government plays a needed role in protecting our environment and should monitor development to ensure that the benefits are not outweighed by problems, current or future. The state should stay active in development matters, however I feel it is unfair to legislate retroactively.

Luna: In her campaign announcement, Bonnie remarked, “we need to be wise about
how we develop our land. Should we stop development? No! Should we restrict economic growth? Of course not. We just need to do it in a way that makes sense. We need to do it in balance. We don’t need to deprive land owners of the value of their property, we can simply manage growth in ways that minimize the impact on the land. We can have new businesses that don’t pollute and we can protect our natural resources which are what make this the ‘Land of Pleasant Living.’ As Christine Todd Whitman, former Administrator of EPA, said, ‘It’s not about having a clean environment or a healthy economy. It must be about having both.’…We can do it, not by stopping change, but by managing the process by which we change.”

Mathias: In brief, his goal is, “Responsibly protecting our environment to preserve our legacy and enable future generations to enjoy the bounty of our area.”

Question #6:

The last two sessions of the General Assembly have seen an inordinate amount of time spent dealing with personnel matters and political appointments. Some have claimed this as a usurpation of power properly belonging to the executive branch (governor’s office) but others see this as a proper extension of the duties of the General Assembly. In your opinion, has the General Assembly gone too far or does the Governor still wield too much power when it comes to personnel decisions?

Armstrong: Members of both political parties can agree that political establishments in Maryland have too much power. I believe that removing some of the more basic appointment decisions from the governor is a reasonable step to take. Our executive branch has more power than any other in the country and by reducing that power we can be sure that appointments are keep in check now and in future administrations of either political party.

James: The General Assembly has gone too far. They have now spent over $1,000,000.00 on their politically motivated hearings.

Question #7:

For the Eastern Shore, transportation can sometimes be tricky because of Bay Bridge traffic and traveling to and from the beach on a summer weekend can be a real headache. Solutions advocated range from another Bay Bridge to a ferry service to a light rail system, and as always people want the existing highways improved. What transportation improvements do you feel are a priority for the Eastern Shore, and how would you pay for them?

Armstrong: I believe that we must focus on improving the highways we have and in looking into the addition of a new Bay Bridge. If it were to be deemed economically feasible for a ferry or light rail crossing to succeed than I would strongly support both measures in an attempt to lessen the stress of traffic on our highways and the Bay Bridge. Were a light rail system to be in place to bring residents from Baltimore and neighboring counties all the way to Ocean City than I would see that as a major step toward reducing highway traffic, environmental impacts, and reducing the strain on our oil supply. If this would be used by residents I would strongly support such a project as would I support a ferry crossing.

Mathias: According to his website, he’ll focus on improving Maryland Route 589, as well as U.S. Routes 13 and 113.

James: With the growth we have seen in recent years, there are several needed road projects. Dualization of 113 and 589 are very important, as are many other projects. As a state delegate from 38B, I will fight for our fair share of transportation funding. This will be important due to the large sums of money the metropolitan counties will be looking for to fund the ICC and mass transit.

Question #8:

Drugs and gangs are a growing problem on the Eastern Shore. The local authorities do their best but we’re a long way from fighting the problem successfully. In what ways do you think the General Assembly can best address this crime issue, and what tools do you see working best?

Armstrong: Gang violence starts small and spreads. We need a strong crack down on gang violence in Maryland. The General Assembly needs to consider increasing state funding for police in areas where a limited tax base cannot afford the necessary improvements to police forces. The lower shore needs such support to curb gangs and violence. The General Assembly must also stand strong in supporting after school programs on the lower shore. Nothing has proven more effective in stopping gang proliferation than healthy after school programs for kids in danger of falling through the cracks.

James: Working to stop the flow of drugs is the most important part of reducing gang related crime. The drugs are the financial lifeline that keeps the most violent criminals in business. I am in favor of increasing funding for undercover agents and officers as well as increasing money for training to ensure our law enforcement agencies stay current and have the most capable personnel as possible, and technology that is superior to that of the criminals.

Question #10:

It is almost a certainty at this early date that either Governor Ehrlich will be reelected or Baltimore mayor Martin O’Malley will take over the governor’s chair early next year. If you are elected to the General Assembly and the representative of the opposite party (i.e. a Democrat would be working with Governor Ehrlich, a Republican would be working with Mayor O’Malley) wins election, with what issues do you see being able to find common ground with the governor?

Armstrong: I have supported Governor Ehrlich’s budget plans and his fiscal responsibility. I support his dedication to stem cell research. I also support limited slot machine usage at certain Maryland racetracks under strict containment conditions. I believe working with either Bob Ehrlich or Martin O’Malley will involve great cooperation and a healthy spirit of ideas. I would like to be elected to represent the lower shore in the General Assembly regardless of an individual’s vote for Governor. Crossing party lines is a great show of just how much choice we have in America when we go to vote. I hope that members of both political parties will choose me when voting for the House of Delegates.

James: I believe regardless of who is Governor, I will find common ground on issues related to economic development. This would include making sure farming is profitable, job creation is important and tourism is promoted. I have said from the beginning, to have a strong community for our families, we need to have a healthy business community. That is just common sense. For the record, I believe Governor Ehrlich will be re-elected by a margin of at least 4 points.

NAACP forum (8-3):

Incumbent Page Elmore is using his retirement to serve his constituents. After 35 years in business he ran for and won the Delegate post. He sought a “level playing field” for those in his district, and bragged that he had the most bills passed of any first-time delegate. With his background, it was obvious that most of his answers centered around using resources available to citizens of Maryland to encourage small business startups, thus creating jobs and opportunity for people of all races. Minority set-asides, he continued, were difficult to fill on the Eastern Shore because of a lack of qualifying contractors and companies.

Former Ocean City mayor Jim Mathias told the gathered that his “number one priority was to work for you.” Speaking in the third person, he said that “Jim Mathias was accessible as mayor of Ocean City.” As a delegate he would be “accessible to small business people”, and that working together we can make a difference. He didn’t carry a lot of specifics with what he said, and I think a part of this is being an appointed delegate with no real record of accomplishment but on the other hand being targeted as part of the Democrat machine in Annapolis. He did deliver his remarks with the polish one would expect from a veteran politician, though.

Bonnie Luna can be best described as one who has her priorities straight. In her time at the podium, she noted during the “accessibility” question that her priorities, in order, were “God, family, and her job” but she would give her time and talent to her constituents as part of her task. The other part I liked about her words was when she said she would treat all of her district residents equally, as long as they claimed the equality granted to them under the Constitution. The equality theme was also apparent in her answer regarding minority businesses, where she noted that obstacles are the same for everyone, and that there were already plenty of resources available through the government. And Bonnie’s quite quotable, as her goals are to “bring common sense to Annapolis”, place “people before politics”, and “do the right thing.” She pledged to work on bringing civility back to Annapolis and to get past partisan politics. It takes two to tango in that realm, though.

The sole elected incumbent of the two who already occupy the 38B seats, Norm Conway…touted his experience and leadership as well and informed those who were running for delegate posts that if they weren’t accessible now, they would become so the moment they won the job. But the money quote to me from Delegate Conway was that he “firmly believes in the One Maryland concept.” I just have to put on my editorial hat here and disagree, because to me what’s good for Garrett County may or may not be the best thing for the Eastern Shore and certainly the needs of Baltimore City are different than either. Now if he’s referring to his philosophy of giving all an opportunity to be successful I won’t argue with that but I’m not certain about whether he’s coming at the issue through a philosophy of government or through mandates and legislation. I tend to think the latter, which to me becomes a disagreement on the means to achieve the goal.

Finally, we come to Michael James. He portrayed himself as an outsider who wanted to give a “different type” of representation, as he was a political neophyte but, more importantly, was a businessman who had created jobs. He also took a swipe at the perception of Maryland as anti-business when he spoke of minority-owned businesses, saying that the state needs to market its programs better and “(not) drive jobs away.” As he said, having no jobs is equal to having no tax base. And James was the person I adapted the opening from, as he closed by saying that most of them agreed on the problems but the position was about much more than who was effective at winning elections. Obviously you do have to win two elections in order to get to the General Assembly, at least in most cases.

(District 38A candidate Patrick Armstrong didn’t attend this forum.)

******************************

Because of the nature of remaining races, this will be the last upclose look at the local election contests. For example, I can’t find anything issue-related on Congressman Gilchrest’s website nor did either he or Jim Corwin answer my Ten Questions I presented to them. On a more local level, I’ve attended and written on at least two forums involving the Sheriff’s race, plus one for the Clerk of the Courts and Orphans’ Court races. The same goes for County Council posts. Generally, the number of issues involved and the fact that information becomes harder to come by as the stakes get smaller has led me to decide that my time is better spent on other issues. Besides, over the next few days I’ll be helping some candidates with their final push and working at party headquarters so this seems like a good point to end these articles at.

But I have more commentary on the election to come, I promise!

On District 37 races

Now I’m moving to the races for the State House of Delegates and Senate. I decided to do District 37 first because I have less interest in that side of Wicomico County, but many in Salisbury and the western half of the county do because it’s their district.

Here is a case where doing the Ten Questions earlier this summer comes in handy, and one thing I recall about the questions I wrote for the state races was that they lent themselves to good, short answers. So this post may not be so long – even more so because there’s only 2 contested races of the three (Delegate Rudy Cane of District 37A faced his sole opposition in the primary.)

Of the candidates in the district, I got answers from Senator Rich Colburn, Delegate Addie Eckardt, and Delegate candidate James Adkins. Also in the race for the Senate are Hilary Spence and write-in candidate Moonyene Jackson-Amis; other Delegate contenders are appointed incumbent Jeannie Haddaway and challenger Tim Quinn. For those folks, I’ll search through the information I have and attempt to answer these questions for them as I did for Michael Steele and Ben Cardin (no complaints yet from either campaign so I guess I represented both well.) However, if I find no information I’ll have to leave the question blank for that particular candidate.

I also have a forum that I attended which featured many of these candidates so I’ll place those thoughts at the end. This will be the sole portion where I can feature Jackson-Amis because she has no website nor have I gotten anything in the way of information on her campaign.

Here are the Ten Questions I used. The Senate candidates will be listed first, followed by House of Delegates hopefuls. I’ve left out Question #9 on early voting because it was ruled unconstitutional by the Maryland Court of Appeals so that made it irrelevant.

Question #1:

Some of you participated in the recent special session to modify the large rate hikes that were to be enacted by Baltimore Gas & Electric. However, our electrical rates from the local Eastern Shore suppliers went unchanged. With that in mind, would you be more in favor of a total repeal of the 1999 deregulation laws, or do you believe the concept is sound and only needs a few guardrails and rate safeguards?

Colburn: The Special Session did not address the interests of Eastern Shore residents. Experience has taught us that deregulation has not benefited the consumer in the State of Maryland. However, with that in mind, we should move carefully in regards to totally repealing the 1999 deregulation laws.

Adkins: I, like many other Maryland consumers, have yet to see the benefit of deregulation. The restructuring that took place in the late 90’s has failed to provide the consumer with the desired results. Unfortunately, the Public Service Commission may have also failed to represent the consumer as well as it could have. This is a very complicated matter and will have to reviewed and addressed in 2007 and beyond to ensure that whatever is done protects the consumer and strikes a balance between what is fair for the consumer and what is fair for the providers of electricity.

Eckardt: I did participate in the special session and did not vote for the bill that was presented and ultimately passed. During my tenure as Delegate I have closely followed the deregulation process. My understanding of the issue is that since the market in which Maryland is a player is mostly deregulated and the cost of power was increasing, deregulation in Maryland would bring the cost to consumers down and offer choices in the market place. Some legislators were not in favor of deregulation from the beginning and put many roadblocks to the plan. One was to put caps in place so that constituents would be guaranteed a stable low rate and the caps would come off in a defined period of time in a phased-in process according to the geographic areas of the state. In the meantime, costs across the county continued to rise due to increased usage. Other influencing factors contributing to the consumption of global resources were 9/11, the War, Katrina, Rita, and China. Maryland’s rates have remained artificially low because of the cap and I do believe lawmakers never anticipated the situation to turn out the way it did given the multiple catastrophes in play. I did not support the caps because I was concerned that the longer we delayed implementation of deregulation, the greater the possibility of interference would delay competition in the market place. In other words, the Maryland legislature in 1999 gave the marketplace a double message- come to Maryland and do business but wait 6 years to do it. At the time companies were ready to do business but when legislators began to intervene, the interest waned. The new legislation has increased the cost of doing business in Maryland. The Governor and the industry were developing a phase-in of the rates which I believe could have worked. Since then I am very concerned because citizens have again a fixed rate which may help for now but the cost over time will be greater than if completion had been encouraged and choices given.

Question #2:

In the last two sessions of the General Assembly, the issue of health insurance and who pays for it has taken center stage. (Examples: the Fair Share Health Care Act and its proposed expansion with last year’s HB1510, which was sponsored by Delegate Hubbard and defeated in committee.) Recently the state of Massachusetts adopted legislation effective in 2007 mandating all residents secure coverage under some public or private health insurance plan or face a financial penalty. Do you see this concept as an idea Maryland should adopt?

Spence: Calling the passage of the Fair Share Health Care Act “a positive step” (obviously this was written prior to its overturn), Hilary also proposes a three-prong approach to the health insurance problem, with encouraging competition in the insurance industry, more auditing of claims, and developing high risk pools for the uninsured. She summarizes her position by saying “health care is a necessity, not a luxury available only to those who can afford it…We must craft a way to make health insurance available and affordable for all Marylanders, regardless of their economic status.”

Colburn: My major concern with the Massachusetts law is that I do not think government should mandate health care for everyone. However, despite the fact that I have not had the opportunity to thoroughly study the Mass law, I do see positive aspects. In regards to Massachusetts, the state acts as a conduit, or a large clearinghouse. As a result, there is a large clearinghouse with the insurance companies, so there are more people buying into the plans, it makes insurance more available, and keeps insurance costs down. In other words, the individual basically owns his/her insurance plan, and they pay a portion while the employer pays the rest. That in turn makes it easier for the employer to buy the employee’s health insurance. For instance, a cheap insurance policy would be more likely covered by the employer. Having said all of this, I want to emphasize that Maryland still needs meaningful, real tort reform to help keep insurance costs down, and the matter was not addressed during the 2004 Christmas Special Session as it should have been.

Eckardt: Health Care for all citizens has always been an important issue and one that I have worked on while a legislator. Having been a participant in the discussion of health care reform for the last 20 years, I find ourselves in a similar situation to the utility one – that in spite of all the effort to make health insurance available, affordable and accessible, more citizens find it increasingly harder to get access and the costs increase. Last year I put in a bill that was a modification of the Massachusetts plan but it didn’t get much attention because the Health care Commission didn’t think smart cards would work and did not want to provide incentives to small businesses to offer the coverage to employees. The Massachusetts plan has some excellent possibilities, for example, a central clearinghouse for the plan, but I do not think mandatory insurance with penalties is the way to go. Most citizens could afford a catastrophic plan, coupled with a health savings account in the consumer driven model. Make the premiums tax deductible. There is another proposal on the table from last session (HB1412) and I will be working on the introduction of it for the 07 session. Yes we will have this discussion and I am sure bills will be introduced (HB1412) that model the Massachusetts plan.

Adkins: There is a lot more to the bill than just mandating residents secure coverage. I believe businesses will have to pay $295/year for each individual that they employ but do not provide coverage for, if they have 11 or more employees. The program will also require Massachusetts to subsidize the coverage of many of its residents who cannot afford to pay for insurance. Others, who can afford health insurance but do not obtain it, could face significant fines. The devil is in the details on this one, but we will have to continue to watch for lessons learned from this intiative.

Question #3:

Within our area, Somerset County traditionally has among the highest unemployment rates in the state of Maryland. In every election, well-paying jobs and how to secure them is an issue. If you are elected to the General Assembly, what policies would you favor commencing or retaining in an attempt to create or lure good-paying jobs for the Eastern Shore?

Colburn: First off, I would sight my experience in helping to create a good economic development program for the town of Federalsburg. Economic development flourishes when elected and community leaders work in harmony toward a pro-business atmosphere. In addition, we need to lessen, not increase, mandated costs to businesses on the Eastern Shore. There is a program called One Maryland, which covers counties like Somerset, Dorchester, and Caroline Counties. I helped sponsor and push this legislation through the General Assembly and I believe it is a good program and should be retained. The program is designed to provide incentives for large industries in these counties in order to also bring more jobs to the area.

Spence: While Hilary doesn’t say a lot about jobs on her site, she does have an interest in eco-tourism as a revenue source for the Shore.

Haddaway: Jeannie points to two major accomplishments she achieved while in the House of Delegates. One is House Bill 1156, “which provided funding to get broadband started in rural areas of Maryland and resulted in a groundbreaking ceremony in August 2006.” (The groundbreaking was in Pocomoke City, near the Virginia border. Broadband is expected to work its way northward from a node at Wallops Island, VA.) Also, “she has successfully advocated for more funding for Small Business Development Centers, was an active participant in reforming the State’s Minority Business Enterprise program and helped create a linked deposit program to provide capital to minority-owned businesses.”

Quinn: On his website, Tim claims that “(i)n District 37B the average annual income for a family of four ranges from $37,000 to $48,000. The State of Maryland’s average annual income for a family of four is $58,000. These statistics are alarming because we have no legislators in our district addressing this problem in any meaningful way. To increase income levels and fill this gap we must create a positive economic environment which will benefit both potential employers who can provide good jobs and those who want to work here, where they live. Most people in district 37B say this is their number one priority.”

“Also, I hear our fellow citizens throughout our district saying, over and over again, that it is difficult to get affordable, professional and responsive every day services, such as heating, air-conditioning, plumbing, environmentally safe lawn care, cleaning companies, etc. There is a technical service provider gap that could be filled by providing top level training programs — and this would in turn be another source of good jobs, with good salaries. I propose that we bridge this gap through an increase in and commitment to technical education while simultaneously attending to our other needs in the academic world. According to business and economic experts I interviewed, we are not attracting new and environmentally clean and safe businesses because we do not have a local work force that can handle the technical needs of the twenty-first century. Increased technical education yields an attractive work force for today’s businesses, and better paying jobs to close the income gap that we on the Eastern Shore have been experiencing for years. The income gap is the problem; technical and entrepreneurial educations are strong vehicles for a solution.”

Adkins: This is a multifaceted issue. We must ensure the workforce is educated and trained to fill good-paying jobs. This means that we must ensure our schools are preparing their students for life after school. Good-paying jobs also means higher technology in some cases and we must ensure the Eastern Shore is “wired” so that new businesses, which require higher connectivity, can plug into the global market. More public-private partnerships will have to be established while taking advantage of our higher education resources here on the Shore to entice business to locate here.

Eckardt: Economic Development and good paying jobs have been and are an important of my platform since my election in 1994. I have been pleased with the progress but it is slow because retention of jobs is also important. When businesses are not domiciled in Maryland or on the Shore it is easy for them to pull out and move to where the cost of doing business is less. At least 85% of business in Maryland is small business and working with citizens to build small businesses is in a continual focus of the Department of Business and Economic Development – Small Business Administration, the regional economic councils, local economic development offices, and Minority business offices. The recruitment of business also means that our educational system is responsive to the need of the community and workforce preparedness is in place. Right now the Eastern Shore faces a severe shortage of health care professionals – nurses, dental hygienists, pharmacists, radiology technicians and others. I have been working with the Administration to provide resources for nursing education as well as clinical sites and experiences for the health care providers. In addition, there are many projects for agricultural based/resource based job opportunities and many high-tech business proposals being discussed. For example, I serve on a board that is recruiting some very exciting potential business that uses feathers for product. Venture capital is necessary and a greater focus on research and development through our local universities will facilitate the business development.

Question #4:

This year a state takeover of several failing Baltimore City Schools was thwarted by the General Assembly overriding an earlier veto of a bill Governor Ehrlich rejected. A few states, though, are attempting to remove themselves from the federal “No Child Left Behind” regulations for various reasons, even at the risk of losing federal dollars. Do you support the federal NCLB mandates or do you feel the state could and should go without the additional restrictions (and funding)?

Colburn: Maryland can ill afford to forego federal dollars by removing schools from the “No Child Left Behind” regulations. I continue to urge my constituents to do as we have done which is to urge federal representatives to address federal “No Child Left Behind” regulations making them more reasonable. The current regulations cause the teachers to spend an inordinate amount of time and resources preparing the children to pass tests in order to graduate instead of getting back to the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Adkins: I would have to look at the numbers and whether or not Maryland could stand to lose the funding. Right now, NCLB is placing an ever increasing burden on our school systems. The real question is whether or not our students are graduating with more knowledge and are better prepared to enter the workplace and adulthood due to NCLB. Only time will tell, but “bright ideas” from Washington and even from Annapolis may not be as effective as the appropriate resourcing of good ideas by those who have to implement policies.

Eckardt: With regard to” No Child Left Behind” there are some very good aspects, especially the focus on every child receiving a quality education and meeting reading and math standards. Yes, there are some parts that need modification and there has been much discussion with the federal government about this. I would not reject the opportunity to continue with the program. What is more important to me is that we have put over 1 billion dollars into education over the past five years and we put a plan in place to assist schools in the event that students and schools were not making progress. What will happen to those students in the Baltimore city schools who are not reading and doing math? Will they graduate? I think not. Will they be able to get jobs and find meaningful work without the skills necessary to succeed? Or will they not graduate and wind up unemployed, on the streets, or in jail? I have visited an elementary school (an Edison School) that is doing well – students are achieving. I favored the intervention from the State Board to help those failing schools.

Quinn: Tim asks, “How do we provide the best possible educational environment for our students? There is a long list of priorities, but all of them require a solid financial commitment to education.”

“To give our kids the necessary competitive edge for today’s world we must deal with how we fund our facilities, and how we retain and attract the best teachers.”

“Our students will learn best in buildings which meet all their physical and technology needs. In the 2005 legislative session everybody on both sides of the aisle agreed that we will need $250 million each year for the next ten years for school renovations and construction…”

“…Second, one only need to look at the Federal “No Child Left Behind” standards and the testing relationship to teachers salaries. Teachers explain that they are actually encouraged by the structure of that system to help students when taking the tests. Test scores go up; teachers salaries go up. Under this “alternative pay system”, our children often are learning how to take tests rather than getting a broad and comprehensive education. This is wrong. To retain and attract the best educators should be our goal and increased pay packages should be our competitive edge…Our teachers pay incentives need to be more than financially competitive with other states in our region.”

Question #5:

In the 2006 General Assembly, the Blackwater development in Cambridge became a contentious issue which led to legislation that was eventually defeated. However, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has continued to apply pressure to legislators and encourage voters to speak out on what they perceive as a threat to bay water quality. On the other hand, the city of Cambridge sees Blackwater as a needed shot in the arm for its economy and tax base. Where do you see yourself on this issue and related development matters?

Colburn: Regarding Blackwater, I am a strong believer in private property rights. Also, a project that is 3 years old and $10 million dollars into the process should not be thwarted. When it comes to related development matters, I favor managed growth. Growth should be limited to regions already set aside for it in the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan should not be easily amended simply to accommodate a large development.

Spence: Hilary claims to have “worked hard and successfully to maintain (a rural character) in Talbot County. During her seven years on the Talbot County Council, she has made significant progress crafting land use policies that protect our environmentally sensitive areas. Hilary and the Council have strengthened local critical area laws, required developers to pay their share of the cost of development and kept ‘big box’ retailers out of Talbot’s rural landscape.” She feels that “(a)ction is required in Annapolis to refine the state annexation law so our small towns remain small and don’t succumb to overdevelopment under the guise of Smart Growth. Developers are more frequently partnering with municipalities to annex large tracts for intense development. Annexations should be subject to all statutory Smart Growth standards now applicable to counties. Hilary is working with the Maryland Association of Counties to craft reforms to the current annexation law that would create a vehicle for towns and counties to collaborate in planning for growth…Another way Hilary proposes to preserve our open spaces is to support agriculture and the economic viability of farming. This can be accomplished by making sure the State uses all of the state transfer tax dollars raised for ag preservation for that purpose and doesn’t divert them to the general fund to balance the budget (which has happened for the past three years). The millions of dollars available through this revenue source should be “locked up” to purchase agricultural easements which will preserve the land for farmers to farm and prevent development of our working landscapes.”

Adkins: I don’t think we should use housing construction alone as the answer to strengthening the Eastern Shore’s economy. We need a full spectrum of employment here on the Shore and must look over the horizon to see what the Shore will look like in the next 50 years. It is a difficult balancing act to recruit the businesses and then make sure that we can provide the employees to run the businesses. The Eastern Shore needs to be able to plug into the high technology located in places like Montgomery County. Unless we can provide this type of opportunity here on the Shore, we will continue to build houses here and people will continue to drive across the Bay Bridge for work there just adding to the congestion on our roadways. Just think what our roads will be like in the future, if we don’t solve this problem. Finally, we have only one chance to get this right. We have to get a handle on growth here on the Shore or we will lose our way of life.

Eckardt: There was a bill in Annapolis that would interrupt the local planning process regarding land development. In regards to the Blackwater legislation, the bill was introduced by western shore legislators without any conversation with the local delegation, which is the customary way of bill introduction. I did not support the bill as it did not come through the local delegation and would usurp the local process prematurely. Dorchester County is often the last frontier for development and since the development of Sailwinds Park, the subsequent focus on the Hyatt, and downtown redevelopment, I believe the process put in place through smart growth and the critical areas needed to be honored. The entire community needed the conversation about growth and the impact on the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. As I have traveled across the country, I have been impressed with development that has been managed with sensitivity to the local culture as well as the environmental assets. I have always believed that growth will come to Dorchester and it is important that it be managed carefully with as many citizens involved in the discussion and subsequently the decisions. Cambridge cannot expand services for citizens without some growth. Most of the county is not available for development due to the tidal and nontidal wetlands and the amount of farmland necessary to maintain farming as one of the major businesses. I co-sponsored HB114, which makes several changes regarding local planning and requires local jurisdictions to plan for potential annexation and include in planning documents. It also requires cities and counties to work together. I believe this legislation will address the concerns raised by the Blackwater situation.

Haddaway: While Jeannie doesn’t go at length into specifics, she notes that “(s)he believes that land preservation is a key issue facing the Eastern Shore today. She co-sponsored the Critical Farms legislation and the Maryland Growth Management Act of 2006, (and she) supports full funding of Program Open Space.”

Quinn: According to Tim, “Preserving farmland and open spaces is important to our communities because it lets our farms continue to produce commodities and sell them profitably, provides locally grown feed for our livestock businesses, keeps our tourism and heritage attractions vibrant, our hunting Industry intact, insures the future option of renewable fuel programs as job improvement opportunities for our children and environmentally friendly profit centers for our farmers. Also, forests and farms naturally clean our air; and with our state-funded nutrient reduction programs, farmers are helping keep our treasured Chesapeake Bay cleaner. In addition, critical areas are critical for a reason. A healthy Chesapeake Bay is not only vital to our citizens’ well being, but is essential for good business. To help insure a healthy Chesapeake Bay we need to expand our critical areas programs and keep them pristine. Are these reasons enough for us to find ways to preserve our farmland, open spaces and critical areas? Yes!”

“Insuring farmer profitability should be a high priority as we preserve farmland and open space. Research and development of renewable fuels (soy bean, barley, corn, refined manure, etc…) can and probably will act as an economic base that farmers can count on when marketing their products. Maryland farms are poised for renewable fuel production. Also, our land preservation programs that purchase open space need increased funding because they preserve our forests and lands for our future use and recreation.”

“Second, the ability of farmers to participate in TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) programs provides necessary funds for farmers to keep farming and for developers to build in a directed and controlled manner. With strong communication lines between our towns and counties, TDR’s can and should be used as tools for redevelopment in our residential and commercial centers.”

“Finally, counties and towns must communicate well in order to develop controlled, directed and contained growth plans that pay for themselves. We must give them the opportunity for input into each other’s plans. I propose that counties and towns be required to cooperatively plan when each governmental entity is making a growth decision that affects their common borders. It would provide each entity the opportunity to help the other when they determine rights and agreements with developers, understand mutual and exclusive impact needs both financially and physically, and generally create a more cohesive and financially sound community.”

Question #6:

The last two sessions of the General Assembly have seen an inordinate amount of time spent dealing with personnel matters and political appointments. Some have claimed this as a usurpation of power properly belonging to the executive branch (governor’s office) but others see this as a proper extension of the duties of the General Assembly. In your opinion, has the General Assembly gone too far or does the Governor still wield too much power when it comes to personnel decisions?

Colburn: The General Assembly has gone too far. Thousands and thousands of dollars have been spent already regarding this issue. This is a waste of time and a waste of taxpayers’ dollars. The Governor is the Chief Executive of the State and consequently should be able to work with individuals with like-minded philosophies. My question is what exactly do my Democratic counterparts not understand about the definition of an at-will employee?

Eckardt: I believe the General Assembly has gone too far to block the Governor’s prerogative that has been the practice for the past 40 or more years. In the previous administration the changes were frequent but I don’t remember anyone questioning the Governor at that time. Government can get pretty entrenched over the years and if agencies are not functioning well, the Governor is held responsible whether he was responsible for the problems or not. The Governor answers to the citizens and if there was one message that rang true during the 2004 campaign it was that government was growing too fast and was not as efficient as it could be. The current Governor put together a transition team to review state government and to recommend changes, which they did. Outcome performance measures were established and managing for results became the expected practice. I did learn this past session that the Legislature does wield a lot of power as well and action became overreaching as bills were introduced and passed that exceeded Constitutional authority.

Adkins: Maybe the answer is yes and no to both questions. The Governor was operating under expanded “at will” authority provided during the previous administration and authorized by the General Assembly. We can’t keep changing the rules depending on which party is in power. A governor needs the flexibility to have key positions filled by those who support and will implement his or her vision for operations of the executive branch. However, the chief executive and his staff must use good judgment and fairness when implementing policy.

Question #7:

For the Eastern Shore, transportation can sometimes be tricky because of Bay Bridge traffic and traveling to and from the beach on a summer weekend can be a real headache. Solutions advocated range from another Bay Bridge to a ferry service to a light rail system, and as always people want the existing highways improved. What transportation improvements do you feel are a priority for the Eastern Shore, and how would you pay for them?

Colburn: One of the transportation improvements that are a priority for the Eastern Shore is the complete dualization of MD Route 404. According to AAA, this highway is one of the most dangerous stretches of highway in America. Therefore, dualization would make it safer for everyone, including local traffic and Western Shore traffic. Also dualization of Route 404 would increase utilization of that highway, thus, lessening traffic through Easton, Cambridge, and Salisbury. A new Dover Bridge is also desperately needed since it links Southern Caroline and the northern portion of Dorchester County to Easton Memorial Hospital. These improvements would be paid for through the gas tax. I would support an increase in funds for transportation by implementing a dedicated sales tax in those areas that have the full benefits of a mass transit system. We cannot afford to continue funding mass transit transportation costs through the gas tax, which should strictly be used for construction and maintenance of highways and bridges. Mass transit needs a dedicated funding source.

Adkins: The immediate priority is to leverage state and federal funding to correct transportation problems that directly impact on driver safety. No doubt someone in the State Highway Administration already knows where these areas are. Long term we have to visualize what type of transportation network will be needed in our future. How are we going to deal with commuters? How are we going to deal with the ever increasing traffic to Ocean City and other weekend destinations? These are questions that need to be addressed. We probably should start planning now for mass transportation entities that will be essential to preserving our quality of life in the over the next fifty years.

Eckardt: Transportation is always an area of concern for the Shore as the numbers of cars on the roads increase each year. There was an opportunity to address the issue of traffic and the Bay Bridge this year and the results was simply “Yes we need a bridge but not in my back yard”, so actually not much happened. Now is the time to plan if in fact a bridge is necessary and it probably will be. A monorail has been suggested but determined to be cost prohibitive. I think one reasonable option that I have worked on is to expand small business from homes as an option and this is occurring. With the expansion of broadband and other technology, the possibilities are tremendous. If we are serious on the Shore about diversifying our economic bases we can offer more opportunity to stay on the Shore to work. The counties will have these decisions so that the Shore does not become just a bedroom community. In the meantime, I think that toll roads with certain access for local users are a possibility – at least we could cover the increasing cost of our roads and bridges. If we adopt a policy of all who use contribute and initiate a conversation on how to improve and maintain our highway system I think we can establish a plan.

Question #8:

Drugs and gangs are a growing problem on the Eastern Shore. The local authorities do their best but we’re a long way from fighting the problem successfully. In what ways do you think the General Assembly can best address this crime issue, and what tools do you see working best?

Colburn: The most significant tools that will help fight drugs and gangs are sufficient funding and community cooperation. First, funding will help train officers and provide programs for education and public outreach. Cooperation is needed from schools, social services agencies, and community residents to identify problems and to report them to police. Crime prevention methods should be employed and police presence should increase in areas that are known for drug dealing and gang activity.

Adkins: As the Eastern Shore grows and changes, we will have to deal more and more with the problems that jurisdictions on the Western Shore have been dealing with for years. The General Assembly needs to listen to local law enforcement agencies as well as the Maryland State Police to see what legislative tools are needed to help them deal with the problem. And like everything else, the state will have to apply resources/funding to help deal with these issues as the local level.

Eckardt: Much crime is driven by substance use, and that has been an ongoing concern of mine. About 80-85 % of the jail population is fatherless and has substance abuse issues. Treatment is necessary and can work. Maryland has some of the finest diagnostic tools available in the country for determining who can benefit from treatment and who cannot. The issue has been how to implement the programs and how to pay for them. I have been an advocate of employment in recovery models so that individual cannot only benefit from treatment but also from job training. Many who get out of jail have no aftercare and no ongoing support to continue the behavior change over time. The Governor initiated two programs: one for those in jail and who are returning to the community and another for those as an alternate to incarceration. I also have been an advocate of drug courts and while I have been in office we have gone from one or two to almost one in every jurisdiction. What has been necessary is the research to support what interventions work and what doesn’t and we now have that information.

Question #10:

It is almost a certainty at this early date that either Governor Ehrlich will be reelected or Baltimore mayor Martin O’Malley will take over the governor’s chair early next year. If you are elected to the General Assembly and the representative of the opposite party (i.e. a Democrat would be working with Governor Ehrlich, a Republican would be working with Mayor O’Malley) wins election, with what issues do you see being able to find common ground with the governor?

Colburn: The issues that will be common ground for all parties are growth, education, and the general welfare of all of Maryland citizens. We must always try to not let partisan views interfere with the general welfare of Marylanders. Governor Ehrlich is the fourth Governor I have had the opportunity to work with. If Martin O’Malley is elected, and I am re-elected, he will be the fifth Governor I will have worked with. I have always tried to have a good working relationship with every Governor since it benefits my constituents on the Eastern Shore. However, I always draw a line when a Governor decides to implement policies, pushes legislation, etc. that would be detrimental to the Eastern Shore and its residents (i.e. Governor Glendenning).

Adkins: We have to talk about Maryland’s future. Where do we want Maryland to be in twenty or thirty years and beyond? Our focus needs to be on accomplishing things that are important to Marylanders and the future of this great state. No matter who gets elected, both parties will have to reach across the aisle with the intent to work for a better and brighter future for Maryland. We have to get beyond party politics.

Eckardt: I have had the opportunity to work with Governors from both parties and have been able to work on issues of common ground. For example, Initiatives involving economic development- the Hyatt development and Eastern Shore Hospital Center relocation; the One Maryland program and tax incentives that resulted in the regional councils; Historic tax credits; Cultural Heritage Tourism Areas; Arts and Entertainment Districts; the Children’s Health care program; Senior prescription programs; Small group health insurance reform; Education investments; child care and children coming to school ready to learn; environmental issues- clean air, water and lead paint remediation to name a few.

NAACP forum (8-3):

I’m going to start with the Senators, who fielded questions that dealt with issues of illegal immigration, affirmative action, slot machines in Maryland, and health insurance. As always, this goes in the order of opening statement.

Hilary Spence told the assembled that she was focusing her campaign on just a few issues that she had heard the most from her door-to-door visits about the district: health insurance (claiming it was the number one priority for voters she spoke with), fully funding K-12 education and making college affordable, and growth affecting the Eastern Shore. She even wanted to fully fund education for children of illegal immigrants, also favoring a path for them to get citizenship. On the slots question, Spence chided the supporters, claiming that there was “no place for government to raise revenue on the backs of gamblers.” But on the other hand she did favor another regressive tax of sorts, advocating the “Health Care for All” measure that would add $1.00 to the cigarette tax to help insure 50,000 of the estimated 800,000 (her numbers) Free Staters without health coverage, as well as looking at adopting a Massachusetts-style plan for Maryland.

Citing his 12 years of experience in Annapolis representing Maryland’s largest district geographically, Rich Colburn spoke about measures adopted and rejected during his time in the General Assembly. This was particular evident on the slots question, as he supported placing the item on the ballot as a referendum and co-sponsored one bill addressing problem gamblers. His view of health insurance for the uninsured was intriguing, as he tied in the issue of tort reform with streamlining coverage, and cited his opposition of 2005’s 2 percent HMO tax, which he said was simply passed on to the consumers. Colburn also showed an interest in the health insurance bill Massachusetts adopted.

Claiming that hers was a “tough race” because of the petition drive she’s doing to get on the ballot, Moonyene Jackson-Amis got herself into the debate by perseverance – she wasn’t on the original list but found out about the event in time to participate, albeit a few minutes late. A onetime Republican in New Jersey, Jackson-Amis is running this race as an independent. It’s apparent that she’s spent time as an advocate for the underprivileged because that theme ran through many of her answers. One example is not penalizing the children brought along by illegal immigrants, but establishing a “queue” for services. (However, she was in favor of penalizing employers who were “complicit” in the illegal immigration problem.) Another is calling any legislation that would roll back affirmative action a “travesty.” She wanted “livable wages” so people could afford health insurance and claimed to have helped some constituents who were illegally denied medical care. But I thought her best moment was, despite working with a church group that opposed the slots in Maryland, calling them “hypocritical” because some of them derived a portion of their revenue from wagering. Like Colburn, she favored a statewide referendum on the issue.

Turning to District 37B, first up was James Adkins. Besides having his Ten Questions answers on tap, when he spoke of his prior experience I realized where I knew him from – he was a speaker at the Wicomico County Memorial Day observance. Adkins stated up front that the Eastern Shore faced “tremendous challenges”, particularly education, affordable housing, and health care. He wanted voters to look beyond his term and begin to think about things 20 to 30 years in the future, which showed in his answer to the question on high school dropouts and drivers licenses. On that occasion, he said that taking the licenses away from dropouts doesn’t solve the problem because these kids are “disadvantaged from birth” and the answers really start, among other reasons, with better health care. Maybe a bit short on specifics, he was willing be an advocate and informer for his district, “starting now.” Above all, he urged the General Assembly to “stop treating symptoms” and ask the people how to start solving problems.

Playing up his “20 month listening tour” on occasion, Tim Quinn advocated most strongly that job growth would come from enhancing technical education. But by spending so much time talking to people (Quinn was the first Democrat to file for the seat) he concluded he was the best candidate to be an advocate because he’s taken time to “listen to what the people want” and ask them what he could do to help. Quinn cited a statistic that showed the poverty rate in the district ranged from 8-11% overall but among African-Americans it was 23-29%. The root of that, Quinn claimed, is racism – whereas he wanted to “engage all cultures” when it came to business startup.

Incumbent Jeannie Haddaway spoke of a desire to empower young people, where education would be the basis. Moreover, her overall objective was to maintain the quality of life for those in her district. She pointed to her efforts in getting laptops in schools for her district as a method of getting kids engaged in learning and lessening the dropout rate. Another accomplishment of hers was serving on a task force for minority businesses and working to start a linked deposit program. However, Haddaway also asked to continue her service, saying “how can I help you?” and vowing to remain committed to the community.

The other incumbent, Addie Eckardt, was a late arrival so she only answered the questions on being accessible and how her reelection would help the minority community. She spoke of her pet issues – day care, housing, cultural heritage, and being an advocate for the mentally ill. Most important to her in terms of accessibility was to “keep her ear to the ground.”

******************************

Once again, I’m only scratching the surface on a host of issues and I’d love more input from the candidates themselves. But those who answered the Ten Questions certainly get the advantage in this format. I’ll do District 38 shortly. There I have no Senate race (Senator Stoltzfus is unopposed for another term) and only two of a possible six candidates filled out the Ten Questions. So that post will require me to muddle through a lot more information on several websites.

On the County Executive race

Probably the most important race in Wicomico County is the three-way battle for the County Executive seat. On September 12, Rick Pollitt overwhelmed his opponent Tom Taylor to win the Democratic nomination, while it took almost two weeks to finally figure out the Republican nominee was Ron Alessi, who bested runner-up B.J. Corbin by less than 100 votes. With the victory by Alessi, a new hat was thrown into the ring as fellow Republican Charles Jannace entered the fray as a write-in candidate – basically saying the local GOP had made a mistake by selecting Alessi over Corbin.

One thing that I particularly like about the Jannace campaign is that he has set the agenda. He has six easy to understand platform planks that make up the basis of his campaign. With that, I’m going to use a few of these planks to compare and contrast the three candidates as best I can, focusing as Jannace does on growth, education, public safety, and jobs. (He also writes about hiring Corbin as his Director of Administration and not doing interviews with the Daily Times.) Also, at the tail end of this I’ll repost some of my observations that I’ve made from forums I’ve attended.

Growth

Alessi: A lot of Ron’s focus for growth is simply getting Wicomico County to follow its own comprehensive plan. By doing this, growth moves into its proper places and farmland is preserved. Alessi also seeks better long-term planning for roads and other infrastructure. Paying for this would be the task of “developers and owners of new dwellings to pay for their fair share of the cost of any expansion of County infrastructure and schools.”

Jannace: Until the infrastructure has an opportunity to catch up to what is here now, Jannace proposes a complete moratorium on residential growth. As he states, “Once the infrastructure is upgraded so that we can drive safely, be safe in our homes, offices, and babysitting service centers, and flush the toilet with confidence even when it rains hard, then we can start talking about building more homes. Yes, this will take years because the County Council will not have a blank check.” Coinciding with this would be a focus on preserving farmland and wildlife conservation.

Pollitt: Rick points to his experience as Somerset County’s department of planning and zoning and his work in Fruitland, saying in part, “We (in Fruitland) have shown that it is possible to achieve good growth that provides for the infrastructure to support it, requiring those who profit most from the growth to pay their way. Where the street system is not adequate to support new volumes of traffic, we require the developers to build new streets. We imposed water and sewer impact fees to offset the cost of expensive expansion of our water and wastewater services. We direct specific uses of land to those areas of the City best able to accommodate it. Yes, Fruitland’s growth has been responsible and it has been good for our community. Most importantly, our success can be the county’s success. The principles that have proven effective in our City can be applied county-wide.”

Education

Jannace: Charles finds a lot of fault with what he terms the “Wicomico County Babysitting Service.” While he admits that the County Executive can’t do a whole lot about the problems, he’s got a few simple steps to start. One would be to require school uniforms because “(w)ay too much time is spent by students being concerned that they are wearing clothing that is acceptable to their peers. Uniforms bring discipline.” The second is expulsion of unruly kids as “(t)eachers shouldn’t have to be exposed to students who aren’t interested in what they have to say and other students should be able to find that the classroom is conducive to learning, not cutting up.” And finally is a housecleaning of administrative posts. I found an interesting statistic from a book called “Maryland: A Guide to the Issues”. (This was part of the forum I attended last Wednesday, I’ll write more in depth about it after the election.) In Wicomico County, while funding increased for pupil instuction by 21.6% between the 1996-97 school year and the 2003-2004 school session, administrative spending jumped 53% in the same period (the third highest rate in the state.) So I think Jannace has a point there.

Pollitt: As a member of the Wicomico County Board of Education, Rick Pollitt claims to have a “unique perspective” on the education issue. He also states that, because of state and federal mandates, some of the budget and curriculum is dictated to the county and not subject to change. Pollitt’s main contribution would be to get the Board of Education involved earlier in the budget process. Other goals of his are to recruit better teachers and engaging the community into the educational system more.

Alessi: Ron speaks of a “goal…to transform our public school system into a model, within Maryland, that excels at preparing its students to compete in the world’s job market.” He also calls on the community to get more involved in the schools.

Public Safety

Pollitt: A goal of Rick’s is to reestablish trust between local law enforcement and citizens. Says Pollitt, “I have found that community policing, bicycle patrols and strong Neighborhood Watch programs achieve tremendous success when implemented and promoted by Law Enforcement in partnership with community.” Pollitt has a dual-point plan if elected that involves increasing the resources to local law enforcement (including better salaries and benefits), and more efforts to identify and work with “at-risk” youth, including expanding the D.A.R.E. program currently in Fruitland countywide.

Alessi: Ron would initiate meetings of all law enforcement agencies and have them create an annual strategic plan. This way jurisdictions could share personnel and resources where needs arise.

Jannace: Charles states this plainly: “Criminals have the advantage when the average police officer comes to work worrying about paying the bills, whether or not he or she should buy that house, not knowing how to provide for retirement, and speculating about who is going to take care of their children if they are incapaciated or killed in the performance of the job.” So improving the pay and pension of local law enforcement is a high priority to Jannace. He also has the vision of a countywide police force which would absorb the three municpal police departments. With these two goals in hand, Jannace feels that better community policing would be achieved, particularly if we “(l)et them do their jobs and if they can’t do their jobs, if you don’t have enough confidence that they will do their jobs, get rid of them.”

Jobs

Alessi: Despite a “diverse” local economy, Ron wants to seek ways to accommodate growth and advancement in those industries we have while at the same time attracting the key industries of tomorrow. Parts of that programming vision include upgrading infrastructure; working with our colleges, local economic development agencies, and the nearby aerospace industry to create new jobs, diversify the agricultural industry insofar as possible, lobby the state of Maryland to relocate research to Salisbury University, and realign the courses at Wor-Wic Community College to meet local employment demands.

Jannace: At one time, claims Charles, the Wicomico County area was a bountiful agricultural and logging region – but the logging industry is gone, peaches aren’t a cash crop here anymore, and whatever agricultural land is left is being permanently plowed under for development’s sake. Now most jobs are service industry jobs and those are buffeted by the twin winds of the economy and the out-of-state employers who have no issue with eating the rent on a money-losing store and pull the plug (think of the North Pointe Giant as an example.) His first order of business would be to set into motion “whatever mechanism would be necessary to create a tax free enterprise zone.” Charles points to a successful industrial park in Talbot County as an example of what he’d like to bring. He also sees this issue tied to crime and education, those planks are above.

Pollitt: Rick cites his experience with “help(ing to) shape our town’s transformation from a bedroom community to Salisbury to a well-balanced economy based on homes, businesses and industry. We organized a Chamber of Commerce and an Economic Development Commission, established an Enterprise Zone with tax incentives for new industry and we established a Revolving Loan Fund to support expansion of existing businesses and attraction of new.” He feels that he can carry out the success his city has had on a countywide basis, and feels a bit of a need to boast, “I’ve made it work in Fruitland and that’s why the street into Wal*Mart carries my name and my image joins others on the wall of the Texas Roadhouse.”

Forums

NAACP Forum (July 13)

Ron Alessi actually was the first of the CE candidates to speak. He stumbled a bit in my eyes by conceding that “the county (employees) will represent the diversity of the community”. Alessi did say, though, that his “first priority” (accompanied by his finger thumping the podium for emphasis) would be to solve problems with the educational structure that he claimed hadn’t been addressed in the eight years since he previously ran for a County Council seat. Overall, he wanted not to clean house, which would be “foolish”, but to present a vision and set a course for the county to follow.

Rick Pollitt asserted that he’s already got relevant experience for the County Executive’s post because of his longtime position as Fruitland’s city manager. “Government exists to serve people” he claimed, but it also “needs to reflect the face of the county.” He also noted that Fruitland currently has the county’s only DARE program, as schools are helping to raise kids. To further outreach to county children, Pollitt advocated youth alternative programs, like a recreation program, and saw community policing as a tool to influence youngsters. One idea I liked was an employee incentive program for county employees. But I thought Pollitt’s overall theme of “Building Bridges, Building Communities” seemed a bit trite.

(Note: This was prior to Jannace entering the race.)

Pittsville Forum (October 12)

(T)he questions…dealt with what each candidate knew about the local fire services (similar to County Council’s question), funding EMS personnel, employee retention, sprinkler systems in new homes, growth, reducing property taxes for fixed income folks, and what each would do in their first 100 days.

Drawing first blood was Rick Pollitt, who touted his family’s 300 year history in the area but sought to make the county the home of “stay-heres.” In a bow to the hosts, he also used part of his opening statement to note that the fire department in Fruitland has a seat on their planning and zoning board, which gave them input on egress issues, among others. He continued by saying that he “would do better by fire companies” in the budget but the budget had to be prioritized. In fact, Pollitt claimed that each year he started the Fruitland city budget from scratch and built it as a whole (rather than the federal style of baseline budgeting.) Pollitt advocated a “climate of thrift and economy” with incentives for department heads to save money.

I saw Rick’s answer on the sprinkler question as telling – it was “unfortunately” up to the individuals whether or not to install sprinklers in new single-family dwellings. (Rick later commented on this statement I made.) Where growth was concerned, Pollitt claimed to be running on his record of making “growth pay for growth” with impact fees and other measures like making developers build out the “paper streets” found in most developments (these are stub streets that would connect to future subdivisions.) Rick also claimed that the trouble with reducing property taxes for seasoned citizens lay in the assessments.

In his first 100 days in office, Pollitt vowed to start by “building bridges and establishing relationships” and would immediately begin working on the education portion of the budget instead of waiting until the spring as has been the usual case.

Pollitt closed by pleading guilty to the charge brought by his opponents of being a bureaucrat and said he did so “with a lot of pride.” He “knows the limits of government” and agreed with the residents cited by Jannace in his remarks that water and sewer bills in Fruitland were too high – Rick promised to establish a “blue-ribbon panel” to study putting together a countywide water and sewer authority. If you control the water and sewer, Pollitt claimed, you can control growth. He finished by stating that he was “motivated by his children” and hoped there would be another 300 years of Pollitts in the area.

The newcomer in the field, Charles Jannace introduced himself as a “refugee” from New York City and a “true conservative.” No matter how much you take out, Jannace continued, you can always find waste in government. He had just enough time to state his number one priority was public safety.

But Charles did sneak into the fire service question a mention of establishing a countywide police department, which he stated was endorsed by Sheriff hopeful Mike Lewis. Jannace also complemented the way the county fire department is run – “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” He particularly admired the spirit inherent in the fire service and wished it was present in other areas of county government.

Jannace correctly stated on the sprinkler question that the cost would be passed on to the buyer unless the developer was made to be held responsible for it. But more controversial was his call for a moratorium on growth in Wicomico County, with APFO’s as needed until the infrastructure caught up. His highest priority, he claimed, was the agricultural industry and land preservation and he’d give farmers “a seat at the table” come budget time.

CJ also stated that he as County Executive couldn’t reduce property taxes under the county charter. But when he started to talk about how Fruitland’s taxes and fees were “higher than they should be” Jannace ran out of time, which drew an audible “thank you!” from Pollitt and a laugh from the audience.

In his first 100 days, Charles said that his first task would be to hire “the Republican who should be sitting up here”, B.J. Corbin, as Director of Administration. He continued by saying that if you wanted a bureaucrat, you should vote for Rick Pollitt. But people were tired of high taxes and fees. (This is what led Pollitt to say in his response that “I’m a people” but that he was proud to be a bureaucrat.)

(In his closing remarks) Charles continued and used (them) to talk about the county’s school system.

First of all, he showed the audience a copy of the Board of Education budget, which is a thick volume as downloaded. Jannace told the group that the budget needed to be scrutinized. He also had what I thought was an interesting concept, citing a 2004 federal law which allowed honorably retired law enforcement officers to carry a concealed weapon. Why not use these retired officers to supplement the deputies in the schools? This way the county could be proactive when it comes to situations like those encountered recently in Pennsylvania and Colorado.

Jannace then blasted the “obsolete” school (the new Bennett HS) that was planned and noted measures used in other places that could be integrated into the design to make kids safer, such as isolation zones and smart cards that can track a child’s whereabouts.

(Note: Ron Alessi did not attend the Pittsville forum.)

******************************

Now I know that two of the three candidates are at least semi-regular readers of monoblogue, and people who work closely with the third also read it. (I’ve been told I’m not one of the “cancerous” blogs – perhaps I’m not trying hard enough?)

Regardless, I’m encouraging those who are connected with the campaigns to comment. I’ve touched on just a few issues, and one issue in particular I didn’t cover much is the revenue cap. Ron Alessi has made a statement out of his position:

I think he's got a million of these.

I do believe that Alessi and Jannace would keep the cap, while Pollitt begrudingly will live with it for now. But as I said, campaign folks feel free to comment. This is an important vote we’ll have in six days, and for all the talk about absentee ballots I think there were only about 150,000 applied for statewide – so most of the votes will come on Election Day.

Election Calendar update 11-1

Tomorrow, candidate for U.S. Congress Jim Corwin has a bus tour of our part of the Eastern Shore lined up. From his calendar:

8:35 – 9:00 AM OCEAN CITY RETAIL/COFFEE SHOP
Location: Layton’s Family Restaurant
Address: 1601 Philadelphia Ave, Ocean City, MD

9:30 – 10:30 AM OCEAN PINES GOTV BREAKFAST Location: Ocean Pines Yacht Club
Address: 239 Ocean Parkway, Ocean Pines, MD 21811

11:30 – 12:30 KITCHEN TABLE WITH COLLEGE STUDENTS
Location: Salisbury University, Gulls Nest
Address: Guerrieri University Center, off Dogwood Drive

1:30 – 3:00 PM VOTER EDUCATION RALLY
Location: Bethel AME
Address: 623 Pine St, Cambridge, MD

It sounds like there may be other candidates from the Democrats on board as well (Martin O’Malley’s blog alludes to being on the Eastern Shore tomorrow), so if you’re still undecided and want to hear their message (hopefully without “jokes” like John Kerry’s was) this is an opportunity.

In print no. 5

Today my letter to the editor was posted in the Daily Times. However this is a letter I had to truncate from the original. So I’m going to do is replicate the DT letter and anything I had to edit out is in italics.

To the editor:

On November 7th, Wicomico County voters will join with their brethren all across America in a national debate about our future. Because of the way the Founding Fathers set up our political system, once every two years the entire nation unites to dictate its direction for the next biennium.

Something I’d like to stress is that, regardless of party, it’s the one opportunity all of us citizens possess to have our representatives truly be representative of our own personal views, or as least mirror them as closely as it’s possible for two different individuals to share those views. For example, the choices I have in our Congressional election come down to two gentlemen who I disagree with to at least some extent, but on balance I find that the incumbent agrees with me on more issues; thus I’ll give him my vote and attempt to enlighten him further on those things I feel strongly about during his next term.

On the more local level, something I’ve found that many on the Eastern Shore possess is a disdain of the political system, particularly the one in Annapolis. There’s those Delegates who come back to our neck of the woods touting their record of accomplishments, but when you pull back the curtain on their voting record you find that they voted just like the boys who we detest in Annapolis did. In fact, one Delegate I’m thinking of who brags about heading the House Appropriations Committee managed to vote right down the line with the Baltimore/PG/MoCo cabal on all but two of 25 key issues selected by the Maryland Accountability Project for the 2005 session, and the two exceptions were times he didn’t vote at all. In three years (2003-2005), he deviated his votes from this party line only three times and I bet when 2006 stats come out early next year we’ll see he had a similar record for the last session. If you don’t believe me, look it up yourself at www.marylandaccountabilityproject.org. I suppose in order to maintain his plum role as Chairman he has to vote with the machine and scavenge whatever crumbs the Annapolis special interests allow us on the Shore to have.

But in the days after the election, once all of the counting and recounting is done and the yard signs slowly disappear from the landscape, I know I’m going to continue with what I’ve been doing and try to ignore the dictates of onerous government as much as the law allows me to. Obviously I feel that task is easier if one party maintains its hold on Congress, keeps its seat in the Maryland governor’s chair, and gains enough seats in the General Assembly to maintain this governor’s vetoes, but I’ll deal with whoever the voters decide to put there, as we all must do.will have to.

With this in mind I call on local citizens to make your decisions in a learned and careful fashion in order to participate in the process come November 7th (or earlier if you choose to use the absentee ballot.) Perhaps it’s appropriate that Election Day comes shortly after Halloween, since come January we’ll either have to deal with tricks or treats depending on who is placed in the seats of our government.

Then there was this comment on the delmarvanow.com website:

Delegate Conway has done an excellent job for the Shore. Our writer contends that he is quite aware of politics in Annapolis. I find this hard to believe, because if he was aware he would have seen Delegate Conway working harder then most. I’ve met with Delegate Conway on several occassions and eveytime it was between session and appropriation meetings when he was trying to eat, he gave himself about 15 mins. and then he was right back at it. I doubt Mr.Schwartz works this hard. Please remember Mr. Schwarz that it is a house of representatives, not one person, and Norm fought hard for the shore. I may not agree with Delegate Conway on all matters but I do know he has work hard, given both sides a listen, and then made his vote. What more could anyone else have done!!!

Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 10:16 am

Aside from the fact this person spelled my name wrong (twice!) I had my reply ready.

My commentary had nothing to do with how hard-working Delegate Conway was. I’ve spoken and dealt with him on a few occasions and found he’s quite pleasant – we can agree to disagree in a civil manner.

Rather, I’m looking at his voting record. If those on the Shore think that he should vote in a nearly identical manner as Mike Busch, Peter Franchot, and other liberal Democrats in Annapolis then they’re free to vote for him. Further, at one time Conway voted for the interests of small business about 80% of the time, but since becoming the chair of his committee, that number has dwindled to about 25%.

Our area doesn’t have the luxury of outsourced federal jobs from DC and state government posts to fall back on – the Eastern Shore needs to be a place that’s perceived as business-friendly and good for entrepreneurship. I think that the Shore would be better represented by Delegates who would vote for values that are more common here, a sensible conservatism. Talking one way and voting another can’t fool the electorate this time.

******************************

And that’s where we stand at the moment. Now, the reason I had to edit the original was to get it down to a 400 word limit. However, I will give the DT credit for not chopping up my letter into fourteen one-sentence paragraphs like I’ve seen done before. They kept the thoughts together reasonably well this time.

One other quibble I have is that the online version messes up the link by splitting marylandaccountabilityproject.org up. But I think astute readers will figure that out.

But now I’m pretty much stuck with this blog as far as communications go since they had a long backup of letters that I’m aware of. Endorsements I’ll just have to pick on later I suppose.

On the U.S. Senate race

This post is going to be quite the interesting one. Back in July I had U.S. Senate candidate Kevin Zeese answer what I called the Ten Questions. However, his counterparts in the Senate race did not.

So what I’m going to do here is use the same questions, distill Mr. Zeese’s answers to some extent (the original ones are here), and use what I can find on Messrs. Cardin and Steele to complete the post. With some editorial license to make the answers “flow” better, I’ve used quotations and platform planks culled from the Cardin and Steele websites as their responses.

I decided to omit Question #10 which dealt with who they’d like to see run for President, but otherwise here’s the questions I used. Where I couldn’t find info from a candidate on the particular question I left no response.

Question #1:

There are several schools of thought regarding the problem of illegal immigrants, or as some would call them, “undocumented workers.” Some solutions offered range from complete amnesty to sealing the border with a wall to penalizing employers who hire these workers. Currently there are competing House and Senate measures – in particular the House bill has spawned massive protests around the country. While I have listed some of the possible solutions, it’s no exhaustive list. What solutions do you favor for the issue?

Cardin: America is a nation of immigrants. The growth and strength of our nation is in part attributable to the hard work and contribution of immigrants from around the world that made the United States their home. America continues to benefit from its rich diversity of immigrants.

Congress should bear two principles in mind when considering immigration reform and border security legislation. First, we must restore the rule of law and enhance security at our borders. The government should require the use of a biometric entry-exit screening system for all land borders, so that we have an accurate record of who is entering and leaving the United States. The government should create a “smart” enforcement regime which will produce more efficient inspections and screenings, and will allow us to target and tailor our limited resources to combat illegal smuggling of persons and contraband. Congress must also insist that America’s employers follow the law and play by the rules when hiring and paying any immigrant workers.

Second, addressing the issue of undocumented workers that are already living in the United States, I believe that immigration reform must be fair. No one should be allowed to skip ahead in line if they are undocumented. However, we should put in place a policy so that long-term undocumented workers can come forward, and if they satisfy certain requirements can remain in this country legally as workers. They should acknowledge their status; demonstrate compliance with the other laws of our nation; and be subject to the requirements of documented workers. Congress will also need to review and adjust the annual number of permitted legal immigrants to reflect the needs of the American workforce and to promote family reunification.

Congress should improve the work visa program to insure timely review and disposition of applications for those immigrant workers seeking a legal way to work in the United States temporarily.

I was disappointed that the House passed a bill focused solely on border security, but I am pleased that the Senate has passed a comprehensive immigration reform measure. The House should follow the Senate’s lead.

Steele: Congress’s unique inability to multi-task highlights our nation’s need for common- sense immigration reform. Until we see Congress take some real and immediate steps to secure our borders, we can hardly expect Americans to seriously consider proposals for dealing with those illegal immigrants already in our county and those employers who fail to adequately report them.

Nearly 1.2 million people were arrested trying to illegally enter the U.S. through the Mexican border last year alone, and an estimated 500,000 evaded capture. This is unacceptable. When a patient has a serious laceration, the doctor’s first priority is to stop the bleeding, and then they can decide if simple stitches or surgery is needed to fix the problem for the long term. First thing’s first: secure our borders and then we can deal with meaningful immigration reform.

Zeese: I favor legal borders, legal workers, legal immigration. But to achieve that we need to face up to the real underlying issue and that is economic. I find the House and Senate as posturing rather than facing up to the real economic problems — because they have both helped cause the economic problems that spur immigration. We have tripled to quadrupled the border patrol in recent years, arrest a million people trying to cross but still have a larger problem with undocumented immigrants. Why? Because enforcement cannot trump economics and our trade and other policies have made the economic problem worse. For example, NAFTA (supported by both Democrats and Republicans) has pushed one million Mexican farmers off their farms — they get pushed into the cities where there is already economic stress and as a result millions are desperate. So, desperate they risk coming across the border. We need to renegotiate NAFTA. These and other treaties like the WTO are not really free trade agreements, they are agreements that empower big business multi-national corporations and they do so at the cost of working families in the US and south of the border. In the US workers are growing more desperate — deeper into debt than ever before, more and more without health insurance, unable to afford the rising costs — especially of energy and homes, with median family income dropping and poverty rising for five years in a row. Thus, when working families see immigrants it is easy for the big business and big government interests to divide and conquer — the immigration issue is being used by those in power to keep power. This is a phony debate, nothing was ever going to be done on it, it is pure election year grandstanding not a real attempt to solve the problem. Solving the problem of illegal immigration would require facing up to the special interests — the big business interests — that control both old political parties.

Question #2:

Another top-burner concern is the current spike in the price of gasoline. Again, this is a broad issue with many scenarios that can be played out. Possible solutions that have been bandied about in recent days are a temporary suspension of the federal 18.4 cent a gallon tax on gasoline and easing environmental restrictions on gasoline blends (as happened after Hurricane Katrina). Further down the road but possibly affecting prices on the futures market would be the approval of additional oil drilling in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico. If you were elected, what solutions to this issue would you pursue and why?

Steele: All one has to do is look at the price of a gallon of gas to know that our energy policy is not adequate. While current energy costs are a strain on middle-class families, they are a real crisis to many of Maryland’s working families. This is unacceptable and has had a negative impact on families all across Maryland.

To provide immediate relief for Marylanders, I have called on President Bush and Congress to enact an immediate moratorium on the federal gas tax – more than 18 cents per gallon – and an immediate moratorium on the 24 cents per gallon diesel tax. Moreover, Congress should approve legislation to suspend the tariff on ethanol imports.

But those actions are designed to deal with our immediate crisis. Congress must roll up its sleeves and work to solve the underlying problem – our dependence on foreign sources of energy. To do that, I’ve called on Congress to double President Bush’s budget request for biomass and bio-refinery research, and create market and tax incentives for E85 fuels, hybrid technologies and alternative energy sources. Tax credits for hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles need to be renewed and expanded. Additionally, we must increase fuel efficiency standards for automobiles – not just this year, but over the next several years.

Our dependence on foreign sources of energy has been an important issue for generations. Repeatedly, Washington has failed to act – and failed us – on this issue. Marylanders deserve leadership on creating and sustaining real energy independence.

Zeese: We need to recognize that the 21st Century economy will have to no longer be based on fossil fuels. We have the technology to break our addiction to fossil fuels, including oil and gas but it is not being applied. Once again this is about big business and big government working together for their interests. Every penny increase in the price of oil is $1.5 billion annually for the oil companies. The most recent energy bill had $7 to $12 billion in corporate welfare for the richest companies in the world — big oil. The government is taking money from working Americans and giving it to the wealthiest Americans. We need to restructure our economy for the 21st Century, part of that is shifting from a fossil fuel economy — that is causing terrible environmental damage to our water (including the Chesapeake) and air, but most significantly to the climate change that will cause chaotic weather. We need to move quickly on a variety of fronts to increase efficiency and use technology that minimizes fossil fuels. This includes transportation, home, business and government buildings. For all of these areas we have solutions and applying them will actually grow the economy and create new businesses. If we do not act to manage this transition it will be forced upon us by crisis. We need urgent action in this area.

Cardin: We need a comprehensive energy policy that will make America energy independent and a leader on energy policy that protects our environment. To accomplish this goal we need an Apollo-type commitment to develop more cost-efficient alternate and renewable energy sources. We should encourage conservation by raising Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency standards and providing incentives for energy efficiency and conservation, while developing alternative fuel sources. I have cosponsored legislation that provides incentives for alternative-fuel vehicles, energy-efficient improvements to homes and businesses, and that would establish a renewable portfolio standard, to help create a long-term commitment to renewable energy. I also support efforts to make the federal government more efficient, and to increase funding for mass transit to provide Americans with greater options. A balanced approach is essential to a successful long-term energy plan, and that balance is missing from America’s energy policy today.

Question #3:

Recently the news has featured ethics scandals involving GOP donor Jack Abramoff and former House member Duke Cunningham of California as well as Democrat House members William Jefferson of Louisiana and Allan Mollohan of West Virginia. If elected, what steps would you take to help eliminate ethical improprieties among our elected representatives?

Zeese: Money in politics is at the root cause of most of the problems we face. I don’t agree with Sen. John McCain on everything but he is right when he says that our “electoral system is nothing less than a massive influence peddling scheme where both parties conspire to sell the country to the highest bidder.” If you doubt the accuracy of the statement visit opensecrets.org and see who is funding the two old parties. If you know it is true, as most Americans know, then you have to decide whether you are going to be part of this corrupt system or challenge it. I’ve decided to challenge it and that is why I am running outside of the two old parties…We need a paradigm shift in the way we approach issues and need to make this a country that is truly of, by and for the people. That cannot be done by either of the old parties because they are in too deep with the wealth special interests that fund their campaigns.

I oppose earmarks, oppose travel paid for by lobbyists, oppose sweetheart book deals and want to see money having less influence on politics. I favor televsion and radio stations — who are licensed to use the public airwaves — to be required to provide enough time for candidates to let voters know what they stand for. I also support inclusion of all ballot approved candidates in all debates and candidate forums. And, we need to end partisan administration of elections — elections should be administered in a non-partisan way by civil servants rather than political appointees. Our democracy is in serious trouble and major changes are needed.

Cardin: Ben Cardin believes that Congress must strengthen ethics rules and improve transparency in order to clean up Congress and restore the trust of American people in their government. He believes that we need to make the following changes in law to hold Members of Congress, their staffs and lobbyists accountable for their actions. One, require lobbyists to file their lobbying disclosure reports once a quarter. Second, upgrade the current online disclosure system in order to make it easier to oversee lobbyist spending. Third, there needs to be a longer separation – at least two years – to help ensure that current Members of Congress are not compensated for work done while still in Congress. And finally, members of Congress and their staffs should not be given travel packages or gifts from lobbyists.

Steele: There are several items on Steele’s ethics agenda, some of which have been previously mentioned – quarterly electronic lobbyist disclosure, a four-year (as opposed to two) separation between Congressman and lobbyist, and the elimination of gifts, travel, etc. He would also eliminate the floor privileges of former members of Congress or any members-elect who are registered lobbyists. Further, establish and require mandatory annual ethics training for members of Congress and Congressional staff, to educate them on the rules and laws that govern Congressional ethics and require the biennial publication of an up-to-date ethics manual for Members and Congressional staff, containing any new requirements and laws that govern Congressional ethics.

Question #4:

Along that same line, many people have seen the vast sums of money that seemingly are required to run for public office and were under the impression that campaign finance reforms such as those enacted with the McCain-Feingold bill were supposed to relieve this inequity. On the whole, however, the money trail has not ceased even with these laws. How do you favor strengthening these laws to make them more effective, or do you agree with some First Amendment advocates who think these laws should be eliminated?

Zeese: The FEC is an agency that does not work (sadly like many government bureaucracies). The Federal Election Commission should be changed so that it is not a deadlocked Commission with three Democrats and three Republicans. We should add three non-Dem/Repubs so that things can get done and people are represented. According to Gallup 38% of Americans see themselves as independent of the two old parties, 31% are Dems, 29% are Republicans. The FEC should represent that breakdown rather than be an agency that protects the two parties. I favor a voluntary check off system that is well advertised so that people can contribute to a fund for political campaigns. That is how public campaigns should be financed. Re private speech, the same limits that apply to campaigns should apply to so-called 527 organizations and the reporting of who is funding these efforts should be immediately transparent so people know who is paying for the message and what their interests are.

Campaign finance is another example of many issues — where the public wants reform and where the two parties do not provide it — because reform will threaten their hold on power and weaken the special interests that fund their campaigns. According to a brand new bipartisan poll released by the watchdog group Public Campaign, 75% of voters support a voluntary system of publicly financed election campaigns – that includes 80% of Democrats, 78% of Independents, and 65% of Republicans. The poll shows this support is being fueled by the explosive corruption scandals that have rocked Capitol Hill. And even more interestingly, the poll shows that candidates who pledge to support a public financing system get a significant political boost over candidates who do not.

Question #5:

While the above issues have captured the headlines, our War on Terror (particularly in Iraq) is never far from our minds. It goes without saying that the vast majority of us support our troops; but the question is whether you favor our current approach or something different in terms of sending additional troops, seeking more multinational support, or a complete pullout. Maybe your thoughts are someplace in between these listed or would be considered “out of the box” thinking. What approach would you favor?

Steele: There is no doubt that war requires sacrifice and fiscal constraint. We have a responsibility to ensure that our armed forces have the supplies, the equipment, and the technologies they need to get the job done.

It is imperative we improve conditions on the ground so we can bring our troops home as quickly as possible and have the Iraqi people take control of their own destiny. At the same time, we should not publicly state a timetable for implementation. I do not support a “cut and run strategy.” Any politician out there talking about timetables and timelines is playing into the hands of our enemies who have an enormous capacity to wait. It would be a disaster for us to cut and run, as it would destroy our credibility in the region for at least a generation. At the same time, it is the Iraqi’s themselves that will ultimately have to make democracy work in their country. We should stay there only long enough to give the Iraqi people the tools they need to secure the very democracy they voted for three times. After that, it’s up to them.

Zeese: The United States cannot bring stability to Iraq as we have made too many mistakes, e.g. invading based on inaccurate or false information, Abu Gharib, Fallujah, Haditha, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, searches of homes in the middle of the night, checkpoint searches and killings at checkpoints. We need to announce that we are leaving and do so promptly. Actually getting out in an orderly and safe way will take approximately six months, at the longest. During that time we should go through a reconciliation process where we recognize the damage we have done and pay for it. That is the real pottery barn rule — you break it you pay for it. If the Iraqi government wants a peace keeping force we should help to organize one through the Arab League or other regional power, if that fails then through the UN. But we need to get our toops out. They are not able to resolve this matter and are just sitting ducks. I agree with many in retired military, foreign service, intelligence and national security experts who say the Iraq war was a mistake of historic purposes and the longer we stay the bigger the mistake gets. We are making the US less secure by staying, stoking the potential of a civil war in Iraq, helping a theocratic state come into existence. As General William Odom says — all we fear is made more likely by staying in Iraq. The sooner we exit — in an orderly and responsible way — the better.

The real issue in Iraq is the desire of the leadership of both parties to control their economy and the economy of the Middle East — for as long as it has oil. It is evident that the United States is not planning on leaving. We are building the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad — ten times larger than the typical embassy, the size of 80 football fields. We are building 14 long-term military bases. We are putting down long and deep roots and plan on staying. The challenge is to change our economy so we are no longer dependent on foreign oil – indeed on fossil fuels at all. That is where we should put our resources and focus — not on militarily and economically dominating the Middle East.

Cardin: I am convinced that we must change course in Iraq.

The President came to Congress in October 2002 and asked Congress to authorize force against Iraq. I voted against giving the President this authority.

I have remained an outspoken critic of President Bush’s policies in Iraq. There was no connection between the events of 9/11 and the Saddam Hussein regime. The Bush Administration distorted and misused intelligence information about Saddam Hussein’s actual WMD capacity. Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons and did not pose an imminent threat to the United States.

The President prematurely disbanded the Iraqi security forces. After overthrowing Saddam the President protected the oil ministries, but not the weapons and ammunitions depots, which were looted by insurgents and are now being used to attack American forces. The President did not provide the heavy armor needed for our troops and equipment. The President did not plan for an insurgency. Finally, the President invaded Iraq and then attempted to reconstruct Iraq without seeking any significant assistance from the international community.

We have paid a heavy price. More than 2,500 American soldiers are dead. More than 18,000 American soldiers have been injured. We have spent over $300 billion to date on the Iraq war and reconstruction. Our troops have performed with honor and distinction and have done everything that we have asked of them. Yet the violence among the ethnic communities continues.

We need to immediately change course in Iraq, which should include the drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq. We currently have approximately 130,000 troops in Iraq, roughly 20 percent of which are Guard and Reserve troops. Military experts have recommended a drawdown of approximately 10,000 troops a month. It is not necessary for us to announce a specific timeline for the withdrawal of our troops. It is reasonable to expect, however, that one-half of our combat troops should come home by the end of 2006, and that all of our combat troops should come home by the end of 2007. We should make sure that our National Guard are the first to come home, as they were never intended to be used as the primary military force for overseas conflicts. Our Guard units should be available for local needs.

The United States should convene an international conference on Iraq which would include the government of Iraq. As the sole remaining superpower, the United States needs to mend diplomatic fences. Such a conference should achieve three primary goals. First, it should produce a verifiable cease-fire. Second, it would establish a mechanism for the completion of the training of Iraqi security forces. Finally, it would coordinate all international humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to the new Iraqi government.

Question #6:

Related to the above question is the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program. The oil-rich nation claims that this program is for the peaceful use of generating electrical power for its citizens, yet on the other hand its leadership has threatened the nation of Israel with annihilation hinted as being from a nuclear bomb. While the President has the final decision, what course would you advocate he take (a pre-emptive military strike, diplomacy either through the UN or some other way, or leaving them alone as a sovereign nation) and why?

Zeese: The President does not have the final decision to go to war (and a military attack on Iran would be an act of war). Under the U.S. Constitution the President cannot declare war only the Congress can. James Madison said this was the most important clause of the Constitution because they had seen Kings and Queens send countries into unnecessary and costly wars. Yet since World War II it has been the most ignored clause of the Constitution because the Congress lacks the spine to take responsibility and do its duty. If the United States bombed Iran without the Congress declaring war it would be illegal under U.S. law. Further, under international law it would be a war of aggression — the most serious offense any country can make against another. Iran is not threatening the U.S. — they are also not threatening Israel — and their religious leaders have issued an edict against nuclear weapons, indeed against weapons of mass destruction. Iran has been offering, for over a year, to negotiate with us over all issues, including Israel. We should take them up on that negotiation. Right now everything that Iran is doing is legal under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Agreement. Israel, which has 250 nuclear bombs, has not even signed the agreement. The United States is developing new nuclear weapons as well – tactical nuclear weapons — and has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iran. This is hypocritical and undermines our moral standing to challenge Iran. Further, we are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy — President Bush lists Iran as a member of the axis of evil, then we surround them militarily with bases in Afghanistan on their eastern border, in Iraq on their western border and in the Persian Gulf to their south with our Navy. Then the Bush administration engages in the same exaggeration and manipulation that it did in the build up to Iraq. Hopefully, people will not fall for it again as Iran is a bigger challenge than Iraq. Iran is four times as large as Iraq. It we were to attack it will create further unrest in Iraq and further destabilize the region. The US will be further isolated in the world and our military force, which is already stretched to the breaking point, will be unable to handle another military quagmire. We need to change our approach. Out goal with Iran should be to make Iran our ally in the region — not our enemy. We have a lot more in common that is being discussed. If we turn them into allies we can bring stability to the region, keep our access to oil and actually resolve conflicts (including Israel-Palestine) instead of expand conflicts.

Steele: The international community, including the United States, has been clear: an Iran with nuclear capability would be a severe threat to the safety, security and stability of the world. Unfortunately, President Ahmadinejad continues to defy the United States, the United Nations and a host of nations seeking to find a workable solution that would prevent Iran from having nuclear capability. As recent interviews have shown, President Ahmadinejad is a dangerous man who cares more about power than working diplomatically to achieve peace.

Therefore, the United States and the United Nations must take the next step and demonstrate the world means what it says by following through with the toughest economic sanctions. The United States should work with the U. N. Security Council to impose greater economic, political, and diplomatic costs on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. We must also forge an international coalition of world allies to impose targeted economic sanctions on Iran’s government and assets. If and when these measures fail we must be prepared to take the next step in confronting Iran’s nuclear threat.

Question #7:

Back to domestic issues. One pillar or goal of the Bush administration was to enact Social Security reform in the second term, but it has stalled because of claims there’s no problems with the program and privatization reforms are simply a way to enable Wall Street to profit. Do you think the Social Security program is fine as it is, or what changes would you advocate happening with the program?

Cardin: There is no Social Security crisis. According to the Social Security Trustees’ March 2005 report, the program can continue to pay current benefits until 2041 without any changes. Therefore, this program is fully funded for at least the next 36 years – a longer period than virtually every other government program. After 2041, if no changes are made, the Trust Fund would be able to pay about 73% of promised annuity benefits. Privatization would result in drastic cuts in Social Security benefits and it does nothing to extend the program’s solvency. Ben has authored legislation that makes it easier for Americans to put money into retirement savings accounts, such as 401(k) plans and IRAs, that are designed to supplement Social Security rather than divert money away from it.

Steele: Most of us know we have a problem with the solvency of our Social Security program. Currently, our nation is faced with four choices: raise taxes, reduce spending, borrow money from the public, or comprehensively reform the system in order to pay for it. Sadly, Washington continues to fail our seniors by continuing to politicize this issue instead of securing and modernizing the program. It’s time to stop the noise about this issue and make some real reforms.

Our first priority must be ensuring that the system remain solvent and that the funds are in place for our seniors who are currently retired or nearing retirement. However, I would also support reforming the system to build in the flexibility necessary to allow the next generation of beneficiaries to have some ownership over their retirement choices.

Zeese: The problem is bigger than Social Security, it is retirement security. As part of re-making the U.S. economy for the 21st Century we need to develop a retirement system that works. Social Security was designed as a supplement to savings and pensions — neither exist anymore. Thus, we get starvation retirement if all people have is Social Security. I have a lot of plans for remaking the economy, democratizing our economy, so that wealth is shared more equitably.

Question #8:

Some in Congress have raised the question of “pork” or excessive earmarks because our federal budget always runs in deficit and eliminating these earmarks would be a simple way to help balance the budget. But no Congressman or Senator wants to cut their district’s or state’s project. To balance the budget, would you consider sacrificing some of your district or state’s federally-funded projects or would you prefer measures to enhance federal revenues to meet the gap?

Steele: We should start by requiring that all bills, amendments and conference reports – whether for appropriations bills, tax bills, or authorizations – identify the lawmaker responsible for each “earmark” (specific allotment of funding) and its purpose. Require this information to be posted on the Internet and publicly accessible at least 48 hours before a vote on a bill. Also, prohibit a Member from advocating for the inclusion of an earmark in any bill or joint resolution if the Member has a financial interest in the earmark and prohibit members from exchanging votes on any pieces of legislation for the inclusion of earmarks in appropriation bills.

Zeese: No question — wasteful earmarks are one of the root causes of corruption of politics and waste of taxpayer dollars. But, we need to do much more than that to balance the budget and reduce our debt… (W)e also have to end corporate welfare — over $300 billion annually — as it takes money from workers and gives to the wealthy and creates an unfair playing field for small and medium sized businesses as they do not receive the welfare that big business receives. We also cannot afford to be the world’s policeman — with military bases in 120 nations, half of our discretionary spending being on the military and spending as much as the whole world combined on military. I would look to the former military leaders at the Center for Defense Information for cuts in military programs that are wasteful, duplicative and no longer needed. Tens of billions, maybe hundreds of billions could be cut with no adverse effect on our security.

Question #9:

Now to the question of trade. When I go to a store, many’s the time that I see a product is made in China – hence we run a large trade deficit with that nation. President Bush has advocated a hemisphere-wide free trade zone that would add Central and South American countries to the umbrella originally created by the NAFTA agreement a decade ago. Given these items, and knowing also that the number of manufacturing jobs in this country remains flat to slightly lower even in this era of steadily expanding employment, where do you stand – do you see free trading eventually shifting our economy to one mostly comprised of service and technology jobs, or do you feel we should take more steps to preserve our core manufacturing positions?

Zeese: These so-called “free” trade agreements are not “free” at all — what they really do is empower multi-national and national corporations. We need trade agreements that pull up labor, consumer, environmental and human rights standards, not agreements that pull them down (as these do). Under current law, a corporation can challenge a democratically passed law by going to the World Trade Organization in Europe and complaining that the law is a “restraint on trade” that allows them to overthrow the law. Democratically enacted laws should have greater power than corporations — who should be subject to the law. The U.S. is hemorrhaging jobs and is losing money on international trade. We have a record trade deficit, record federal deficit, rapidly rising federal debt limit (more than doubled in the last five years) and record high personal debt. If we continue on this course we will see a failed economy and the catastrophe’s that go with it. We must re-make our economy for the 21st Century. We need to invest heavily in education to stay competitive in the world. We need to rebuild out nation’s infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers warns that our infrastructure is failing and there is a “looming economic crisis” because of our failure to address it. We need to shift from a fossil fuel economy to an environmentally sustainable economy that relies on abundant clean energy.

Cardin: As the Ranking Democrat on the Trade Subcommittee, I led the fight to oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement and other trade pacts that did not respect international workers’ rights standards. We need to enforce our trade laws and level the playing field so we can keep American jobs right here in America.

Steele: America’s trade with China accounted for $285 billion in 2005 alone; however, only $42 billion of that total came from products our country exported to China, creating a $200 billion trade deficit (which makes up nearly one third of our entire national trade deficit). We must work to close this trade gap which is only exasperated by China’s manipulation of it’s currency. The U.S. must take put strong, decisive diplomatic pressure on China to prevent this currency manipulation from happening and work to shrink our national trade deficit.

In the Senate, I will work to enact common-sense trade policies that encourage free trade while also encouraging China to adopt policies that allow U.S. companies to compete in China with the same freedom that Chinese companies have here in the U.S.

******************************
Hopefully, readers have found this enlightening. All three candidates have websites where these and other issues are discussed in depth for further reading. Unfortunately, the Cardin website covers far fewer issues than the Steele one does so I could only get material for 6 of the 9 questions.

Credit where credit is due: Cardin’s answers to questions 1, 2, and 5 are from a similar questionnaire by the Baltimore Sun. This was the questionnaire Michael Steele didn’t answer but posted his responses on his website.

Election Calendar – October 30 thru November 7

Note: updated information below.

The serpent is crawling inside of your ear
He says you must vote for what you want to hear
Don’t matter what’s wrong as long as you’re alright
So pull yourself stupid and rob yourself blind

Iron Maiden, “Be Quick Or Be Dead” (1992)

I thought that was a good way to start the final scheduled edition of the Election Calendar. Quite honestly there’s not much to add to what I had last week. It’s doubtful that there’s going to be any statewide candidates making an appearance here at this late date – after all, between the four counties that I consider the Lower Shore (Dorchester, Somerset, Wicomico, Worcester) there are 113,151 registered voters. That sounds impressive until you realize that Maryland boasts a total of 3,105,236. So our 3.6% which is pretty much figured as solidly Republican (based on past results) won’t attract a lot of attention from the statewide folks.

But I’ll carry on, and as always if I see something that comes up I’ll post on it as quickly as possible.

Monday, October 30: County Executive challenger Charles Jannace will be among those at the NWA/BEACON Candidate Forum on Growth and Development. It’s in the Guerrieri University Center at SU (Nanticoke Room) and goes from 7-9 p.m. (If I recall correctly this room is actually in the part of the building called The Commons, but you can get there from the south entrance of Guerrieri Center.) As far as I know, this is the final candidate forum.

On that same night, the NAACP in Worcester County has a Candidate Forum beginning at 6 p.m. at the Snow Hill Fire Hall.

Tuesday, October 31: This is the last day to turn in an absentee ballot application.

Wednesday, November 1: One final go-round at Break Time (1009 S. Salisbury Blvd.) for Charles Jannace.

Thursday, November 2: No events scheduled.

Friday, November 3: Once again, I’ve volunteered to work at the local GOP headquarters that afternoon. So stop by and say hello.

Saturday, November 4: There will be an Eastern Shore Ehrlich Rally that begins in two places but ends up in Ocean City. One leg will start at Graff Plaza in Ocean Pines at 9:30 a.m. while the other leg from Wicomico County meets at GOP headquarters (1600 N. Salisbury Blvd.) at 11 a.m. They both end up at the Carousel Hotel in Ocean City (118th Street and Coastal Highway) about noon where food and drink will be made available for $8 per person. (Ellen Andrews, if you’re reading this, let me know how close I am on the details!)

Sunday, November 5: No events scheduled.

Monday, November 6: Congressman Wayne Gilchrest is hosting an Election Eve Victory Rally from 6:30 to 8:00 at the Ramada Inn and Conference Center, 300 S. Salisbury Boulevard in Salisbury (that’s Business Route 13 for those out-of-towners reading this.) As it says on my flyer, All Republican Candidates, Friends, and Supporters Invited! (It’s a free event too, so I’ll stop in before the Central Committee meeting that night – luckily they’re close together.)

Tuesday, November 7: Polls open at 7 a.m. and close at 8 p.m. (assuming no court orders). For most of the day I’ll be at my new polling place, which is the Delmarva Evangelical Church.

Unfortunately, I didn’t get my normal update for Bill Reddish’s show so I don’t know who’s on tap for the last seven broadcast days before the election (counting Election Day). I imagine that will be rectified at some point this week and I’ll update then.

And here it is, I heard the interview this morning with David MacLeod.

Tuesday, October 31: House of Delegates District 37B incumbent Jeannie Haddaway.
Wednesday, November 1: U.S. Senate candidate Ben Cardin. This is a reschedule from a couple weeks ago.
Thursday, November 2: Governor Bob Ehrlich.

On the Governor’s race

Today I’m going to start on hammering out my own guide to the issues that are driving each race. First and foremost among the citizens of Maryland is the quest for the governor’s chair. There are five sets of candidates that I’m aware of, four on the ballot and one write-in.

As most of you know, the incumbent Republican is Gov. Robert Ehrlich. Ehrlich has served as the governor for the last four years; prior to that he was a Congressman in Maryland’s 2nd District for 8 years and a member of the House of Delegates for 8 years. His running mate is current head of the Maryland Department of Disabilities Kristen Cox. She succeeds the current Lieutenant Governor, Michael Steele, who is running for the United States Senate.

The Democrats elected Martin O’Malley to challenge Ehrlich for the seat. O’Malley has served as the mayor of Baltimore for the last 7 years, prior to that he was a Baltimore City Councilman for 8 years. His running mate is Anthony Brown, a Delegate in the General Assembly.

Selected by the Green Party, Ed Boyd is a recruiter for a temporary employment agency and a Navy veteran. His running mate is James Joseph Madigan, who works for the Maryland Department of Corrections.

Populist Party candidate Chris Driscoll is the party’s chairman in Maryland and has worked for various political causes over the last decade, including a stint with Ralph Nader’s 2004 Presidential campaign. His running mate is Ed Rothstein.

Finally, the write-in candidate I just became aware of is Dr. John Simmins, a PhD who works for an energy company in southern Maryland. He also serves as chairman of Charles County Right to Life. Running with Simmins is Dr. Michael Hargadon, a Baltimore dentist. Hargadon has been a regional coordinator with the Maryland Constitution Party and worked on Ellen Sauerbray’s first campaign for governor.

In looking through the vast array of issues brought up by these five candidates, there were eight that seemed to be common themes running through at least three or four of the candidate platforms. These were education, environment, health care, homeland security, jobs, public safety, tax relief, and transportation. One drawback I have is that in Ehrlich’s case, he’s running moreso on his record than a future agenda, so his items come with the caveat that past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Then again, the challengers do have the disadvantage of “pie-in-the-sky” projections which may not work in reality.

Education

Governor Ehlich claims to have given the “largest funding increase in history for K-12 education” to Maryland schools, although part of this was due to the Thornton mandate in place prior to his term. Also, under his term Maryland opened its first charter schools.

Most of Martin O’Malley’s proposals for education also involve increased funding, promising more money to fully fund the Thornton mandate, build new schools, increase teacher pensions, and increase funding to colleges and universities to lower tuition increases. Less clear is where he’ll find all of this cash.

Ed Boyd wants to “change the direction of the Maryland State Department of Education.” Some methods he’d use would be to reduce the role of the Maryland HSA tests regarding graduation, provide more equitable funding for public schools and rely less on property taxes, and advocate elected school boards. Boyd also notes that “(t)here would be plenty of money for our schools if Maryland corporations paid their fair share of taxes.”

Environment

In terms of saving Chesapeake Bay, Ehrlich points with the most pride at replenishing bay grasses and oysters as well as the Corsica River Project, an effort to remove that river from the federal impaired waters list. The Governor also enacted financial incentives for ethanol and biodiesel production, which may explain the biodiesel facility in Berlin as well as the proposed one in Princess Anne.

Among Martin O’Malley’s environmental proposals are tax credits to preserve farmland and instituting what he calls BayStat, an accountability program based on the CitiStat one he uses in Baltimore. His key initiative would be an “Environmental Bill of Rights” with five rights: breathing clean air, drinking clean water, a cleaner and healthier Chesapeake Bay, keeping children safe from lead poisoning, and the “right to enjoy parks, playgrounds, and open spaces that belong to Marylanders.”

Ed Boyd would start out by stopping the Inter-County Connector highway and diverting those funds to public transportation. He also vows to give the existing Project Open Space program “all available funds.” Also, he would rework the tax structure to discourage factory farming and preserve wilderness and open space areas.

While Chris Driscoll doesn’t directly address the environment, one of his proposals would indirectly work toward affecting its quality. His idea is to “institute a state ‘land-value tax’ (also known as ‘split-rate tax’) to encourage urban and rural renewal.” This would in theory eliminate sprawl and greenfield development.

John Simmins has a unique approach. He writes, “The top ten sources of pollution of the bay will be ranked according to their impact on the environment and the cost of clean-up. The results will be presented to the voters of the State of Maryland who will vote on three sources of pollution to remedy. Each time a source of pollution has been eliminated, the process will continue. This way the voters of Maryland get to choose what is important to them on the environment and how much they are willing to pay to fix it.”

Health Care

Among Governor Ehrlich’s record of accomplishments is adding 80,000 Marylanders to Medicare through $4.7 billion in investment and increasing the Senior Prescription Drug Program by $14.5 million. He’s also created a Stem Cell Research Fund with a $15 million initial funding. He’s also touting the first cabinet-level Department of Disabilities (which running mate Kristen Cox currently leads) and implemented a Medicaid buy-in program so those with disabilities may remain in the program yet work.

Key amongst Martin O’Malley’s ideas for health care is creating a health insurance pool for small businesses. He’s also an advocate of expanding the SCHIP program (children’s health insurance) and claims to have a solution for making prescription drugs more affordable for seniors (through reimportation). Martin also favors increased funding for minority and rural health care access, as well as assisted living programs.

In the words of Chris Driscoll, “The best single thing we could do to improve our security would be to get rid of the terribly expensive and inefficient health payment system based on private waste, private profit and immense public costs, that is, based on private insurance companies. These profiteering monopolies are the greatest threat to public safety and security in America today… We simply can’t afford to keep paying for the monopoly insurance companies’ lavish lifestyles while many hardworking Americans and Marylanders go without healthcare.”

Four of the five basic issues that write-in candidate John Simmins has on his platform deal at least peripherally with health care. Simmins advocates a complete ban on abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, and human cloning, citing various religious tenets as justification. Obviously his main focus is right-to-life issues. However, he also has a three-fold approach to “affordable” health care. First would be to expand the requirement for auto insurance to obtain a driver’s license to also having health insurance. The requirement would also extend to securing employment – a prospective employee would have to have proof of health insurance. The Simmins plan would make each party (employee and employer) equally responsible for the cost (a 50-50 split.) Part of this cost would be defrayed by a tax credit to be determined by the Comptroller. Then those remaining unemployed and unlicensed folks would be placed in a pool of participants who recieve a minimal health insurance policy from a private insurer, with costs and benefit package determined by negotiations between the insurers and the state. Part of the employee/employer premiums would pay for this service.

Homeland Security

According to his website, Ehrlich “established the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security to better prepare Maryland for emergencies and provided local governments with state-of-the-art communications technology and emergency response vehicles.”

Martin O’Malley wants most to have the federal government step up its support, citing an “across-the-board” cut in federal funding in 2005. He also holds them responsible for the lack of container inspections. O’Malley vows to route funding to first responders rather than “bureaucracy” and says he’ll secure Maryland’s bridges, ports, tunnels, and rail, blaming the feds for not doing so currently.

Ed Boyd would bring back Maryland National Guard personnel from Iraq and Afghanistan and deny any future deployment orders.

Twice citing the “illegal war” in Iraq, Chris Driscoll also proposes to bring back MNG troops, claiming that their ability to cope with a natural disaster here is “severely compromised” by having troops overseas.

Jobs

While the number of jobs has increased under Governor Ehrlich’s watch, I think the best attribute of his record there is the biotechnology and Research and Development tax credits he enacted. Much of the rest of the growth is reflective of the solid national economy. However, someone created my job during the Governor’s term so I’m glad it was here in Maryland.

Highest among Martin O’Malley’s job creation ideas is creating what he terms as “weapons of mass salvation”, a push in research and employment in those fields dealing with curing disease. O’Malley also seeks to invest in workforce development, reduce paperwork for small businesses, protect manufacturing in the state, and promote eco-tourism, among other items.

Ed Boyd advocates four main planks in his “labor” platform: a “living wage”, unionization of the service industry, collective bargaining for state employees, and promoting apprentice programs in the schools.

As an advocate for employee-owned companies, Chris Driscoll wants to “level the playing field” between large and small businesses, and increase the ranks of Maryland business owners. This would be achieved by utilizing new and existing laws regarding Employee Stock Ownership Plans, turning them into a incubator for business.

Public Safety

Governor Ehrlich has focused a lot of time and attention on the juvenile end of the criminal justice system. Probably the centerpiece of this effort was Project RESTART, which provides education and substance abuse treatment to nonviolent juvenile offenders. Additionally, he doubled penalties for juvenile drunk drivers and managed to get “Jessica’s Law” passed, a mandatory sentencing measure for sexual predators.

In a lot of ways, Martin O’Malley would continue and in his view enhance the policies begun by Ehrlich. Two items that seem to deviate from this are a pledge to double assistance to Maryland’s counties if they adopt what he terms “performance-oriented policing” and a proposal to strengthen pre-release programs for criminals about to finish their time. O’Malley also vows to “crack down” on gang violence “by defining criminal gang membership and prohibit(ing) it in the State of Maryland.” As part of that, it’ll be up to the Maryland State Police to begin a registry of gang members.

Ed Boyd sees drug addiction as a public health issue and not a crime issue, thus he would replace incarceration for drug abuse with rehabilitation. Additionally, Boyd would abolish the death penalty.

Transportation

Governor Ehrlich ended what had been a slowdown in road construction under the previous administration and under his watch several road projects were placed in motion, including the Inter-County Connector between Baltimore and DC and widening of I-95 in northern Maryland. Closer to home, work is ongoing on expanding Route 404. Ehrlich has also seen to transit line contruction in the Baltimore and DC metro areas.

Martin O’Malley would rather shift focus from roads to rail, at least in Maryland’s metropolitan areas. Also on his agenda is encouraging businesses to use telecommuting as a tool to reduce traffic.

As stated above, highest on Ed Boyd’s transportation agenda is stopping the Inter-County Connector highway. The funds freed up would be spent on enhancing public transportation.

John Simmins would not only keep the ICC construction going, he would extend it to become the “middle ring” of DC beltways, along with other highway work in the DC/Baltimore metro area. Also, high speed rail would be introduced in much of the Western Shore.

Tax Relief

Governor Ehrlich points to a claimed $7.5 billion in tax savings over his first term as revenue enhancements proposed by the Democrats died after reaching his desk. This year he was also able to reduce the property tax rates 15% as the state went from deficit to surplus during his term.

Homeowners would see a tax break under an O’Malley administration as they would be allowed to increase their housing deductions.

Ed Boyd would increase the progressivity of our tax system, as he feels that “those who take most advantage of government services and protections (the super-wealthy, and large corporations) should pay their fair share (of taxes).” Meanwhile, he would target tax relief to maintain family farms and encourage more open space.

Chris Driscoll would make several changes to the existing tax system, including abolishing property taxes on homes under $400,000 value, closing corporate taxation “loopholes”, repeal state sales taxes on all but “luxury” items, tax corporations that “take the wealth Marylanders create out of the state and the country”, and enact a wealth tax on large estates.

******************************

These are but a few of the main issues in the governor’s race. There are two things that need to be said as I finish. Number one, I link to all five websites so further exploration by interested voters is encouraged. Secondly, I’m going to send a notice to all five campaigns regarding this site and encouraging feedback from them as they can supplement the information. This is just some of the items I saw as most important and common in this race, the campaigns may want to stress other items. In other words, this is like a Wikipedia stub and I’m looking for supplemental information.

Because time is growing short, I’m going to cover other races a little differently. In many cases, over the preprimary period I sent out what I call the Ten Questions. These covered both the U.S. Senate and House races, along with a different set for General Assembly hopefuls. For the U.S. Senate and House races I’ll frame the debate in how I think these candidates would answer the questions (only Green Party candidate Kevin Zeese actually answered them). The General Assembly answers can be reposted as well, plus I have supplemental information on a number of these candidates from at least one forum which I can add to the mix. The same will go for county candidates, the information will be summarized as Election Day draws near.

Again, the input of candidates (or their representatives) will be encouraged. In most cases I have dogs in this hunt but my goal is an informed electorate who can make decisions based on facts and statements, not slick marketing.

Luna volunteer meeting

I was very impressed with the meeting I was at this morning. At 8:30 a.m. on a Saturday it’s sometimes hard to get people up for anything but District 38B candidate Bonnie Luna had a nice contingent at her volunteer meeting.

District 38B hopeful Bonnie Luna addresses her supporters.

A photo of Bonnie Luna's volunteers and supporters.

It was quite refreshing to be at this sort of meeting rather than a candidate forum. Bonnie did address the crowd for a few minutes about her campaign, but the thing I really liked about it is that she asked all of us who were there starting with her fellow candidates (Ron Alessi and James Gillespie were present), to briefly introduce themselves and state whatever thoughts they had. Since I was a candidate in the primary, I introduced myself as an incoming member of the Republican Central Committee and briefly stated my goals as such.

Doing more of the speaking was State Senator J. Lowell Stotzfus. While noting that Luna “won’t be put in a corner office and forgotten”, he spent more time discussing the legislative record of her main opponent, Delegate Norman Conway. In part Lowell stated that Conway:

* Voted to raise taxes, including the sales tax.
* At one point, Conway had a MBRG (Maryland business organization) rating in the 80’s, which meant he voted pro-business over 80% of the time. Now his rating is in the 20’s.
* Conway voted for three veto overrides of measures that eventually were overturned by the Maryland Court of Appeals.

Also, Stoltzfus reminded those present that Maryland has an “executive budget” thus the General Assembly cannot add anything to the operational budget and has little power over the capital budget. The only thing legislators can do with the capital budget is in the form of what Stoltzfus termed “bond bills”, and that piece of the pie is only about $20 million.

As an example of Conway’s handiwork, Stoltzfus stated that the $1.5 million of state funding to build the new MAC Center (our senior center) was orginally in the capital budget, removed by Democrats including Conway, and reinserted as a “bond bill.” So the money stayed the same, but this way it could be claimed that Conway got the state funding.

A wall full of volunteering opportunities.

What I liked about the setup is that the person who organized it did so in a way that was quite clear. The photo above is a series of sign-up sheets for working the polls on Election Day, and each polling place was there. (I signed up to work mine.) There were also sheets for other volunteer opportunities (placing signs at polling places, phone banks, door-to-door, etc.) so it was easily discernable what was being signed up for.

I’ll freely admit that I didn’t vote for Bonnie in the primary, not that I didn’t think she was qualified, but I liked two other candidates slightly more than her (to me any of the five were an improvement over the Conway/Mathias cabal.) However, I definitely have to tip my hat to Bonnie as far as campaigning goes as she’s been to all of the right places and obviously she’s leading a campaign staff that’s extremely well-organized and focused. Her website has had one of the best calendars I’ve come across as far as where she’ll be and when.

So I’m happy to lend her a hand as she attempts to bring back a House of Delegates she termed as “out of control.”

Election Calendar Update 10-27

One item that came to my attention yesterday and I’m getting to it tonight…set your alarms.

Tomorrow morning, District 38B hopeful Bonnie Luna is having a Campaign Rally and Volunteer Meeting at 8:30 a.m. at the Chamber of Commerce building, 144 E. Main Street in Salisbury (same place as WCRC meetings are held.) Also speaking will be District 38 Senator J. Lowell Stoltzfus. It should run about an hour and it’ll be interesting to find out how many show up.