2010 elections – Page 11

Stealing a post

My original intention was to write a very short post highlighting an excellent, well-documented piece on Human Events by Newt Gingrich regarding the specter of reconciliation – after all, he’s been in Congress so I would have to defer to his expertise on the subject. I don’t always agree with Newt but I’m a fan and the man has a pretty good understanding of history.

But in looking for the actual website for the above link (I get the Newt Gingrich Letter in my e-mail so I don’t necessarily go to Human Events all the time) I found an op-ed by Maryland U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Eric Wargotz detailing his trip to Massachusetts during the exciting final days of Scott Brown’s campaign.

What I found most interesting was that Eric didn’t pull any rank during the visit, going out and slogging in the trenches like hundreds of other political volunteers. Having done petition drives in the cold and snow of January in Ohio for a candidate who wasn’t even in my district, lit drops and door knocking in October’s chill, and working the polls on a number of raw and rainy Election Days both here and in my native area I could relate.

And while Eric didn’t have the chance to hang around to savor Scott Brown’s eventual victory, there is a thrill for those of us who are political junkies as the elections draw closer.

Yet it’s both political junkies and agnostics who can make a difference in the battle over health care. Newt’s article is important because he describes the process which either health care bill needs to go through in order to be passed. Aside from a few small cracks here and there, the GOP wall of opposition has held fairly firm over the last many months these Obamacare proposals have been debated (remember, the original goal was to have health care done by last August’s recess.) With Frank Kratovil being considered as one of the possible key votes on the current reform packages being considered, it’s very important to let him know his original opposition should stand.

Unfortunately, none of the phone calls and e-mails beseeching them to “just say no” to Obamacare are likely to dissuade our two United States Senators from toeing the liberal Democrat line and voting in its favor. Since Barbara Mikulski has put aside those rumors she was calling it a career, the national GOP will likely not invest much time or effort into the Maryland Senate race. (Too bad, because the money they wasted on Dede Scozzafava may have come in handy here.)

It just so happens that Wargotz is hosting an online “Mikulski Retirement Party” (it’s really a ‘money bomb’ fundraiser) tomorrow. That’s an idea borrowed from the Brown campaign too, and if it works half as well as Scott’s he’ll gain an even larger financial advantage over his two main contenders. (He had a huge cash-on-hand advantage on Jim Rutledge at the end of 2009, but Wargotz’s pot was less than 1/10 the size of Mikulski’s. Carmen Amedori has just entered the race so she has no FEC reporting data yet.)

Right now we have to play the hand we were dealt in 2008, though, so it’s up to us to convince the jokers we have to vote in our country’s best interest and scrap this health care debacle once and for all.

Bunning’s last stand

A tired old man whose time is almost through decided to chuck popular sentiment and make a stand for principle. It sounds like the storyline for a hundred Hollywood movies, but this played out in real life earlier this week as Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning was castigated for cruelly holding up unemployment benefits and highway projects because he simply wanted to follow the rules he didn’t vote for, but was determined to hold the Senate to.

Obviously the gesture was a futile one – perhaps not as futile as managing my old hometown baseball team (yes, Jim Bunning managed the Toledo Mud Hens in 1974 and 1975 before going into politics and is the lone Baseball Hall of Famer to also serve in Congress) but the $10 billion fiscal measure to extend unemployment benefits another 30 days passed handily, 78-19. That vote added another $10 billion to the deficit.

Originally, Bunning simply wanted the $10 billion to come out of stimulus funds already allocated rather than creating new debt. Later, an amendment he sponsored would have taken away a tax credit for paper companies as a tradeoff to maintain the idea of PAYGO legislation (that lost 53-43 on a fairly party-line vote.)

The PAYGO legislation came about as an effort to sweeten the deal when Democrats wanted to raise the national debt ceiling to nearly $15 trillion. Republicans voted en masse against the amendment to add PAYGO but they lost and PAYGO became the rule along with the increased debt limit.

Yet Democrats rammed through two pieces of legislation by declaring them as “emergencies” exempt from the PAYGO rules and were well on their way to making this another case when Bunning made his stand. “If we cannot pay for a bill that all 100 Senators support, how can we tell the American people with a straight face that we will ever pay for anything?” asked Bunning.

For Congress to pay anymore than lip service to cutting the size of government, some hard decisions need to be made. Certainly there’s a humanitarian case for extending benefits, but that $10 billion comes out of the private sector or becomes debt for our ancestors (descendants, thanks Tim – d’oh!) to pay off. It’s simply an unsustainable system.

Unfortunately, not every Republican backed Bunning’s stance because Democrats are outstanding at playing the victim card and attempted to tar the entire GOP with the broad brush of being uncaring and unfeeling. Since Bunning isn’t running for re-election he had nothing to lose by taking a stand.

And I have nothing to lose by branding Democrats as hypocrites. They had yet another opportunity to stand by the rules THEY enacted yet to them the rules only apply to everyone else. At least the Republicans didn’t have that pretense of PAYGO legislation yet managed to balance the budget during the early years when they were in charge of Congress.

So I applaud Senator Bunning for his stand and would love to see him and fellow Republicans continue obstructing when they see the double standard for which Democrats are famous. They may have won this round but come November Democrats may regret what they’ve done.

Ehrlich slowly closing the gap

A Rasmussen poll taken late last month shows former Governor Bob Ehrlich within striking distance of Martin O’Malley. The likely Republican nominee now trails by 6 points, 49 percent to 43 percent.

Neither candidate is disliked by voters, though, as both candidates’ personal favorability ratings lie in the mid-50’s (O’Malley 54, Ehrlich 55.)

On job approval, though, Governor O’Malley is at 53 percent. While that’s an improvement over his September numbers in a Gonzales Research survey, looking deeper into the poll suggests his support is relatively tepid – strong disapproves lead strong approves 23-18. However, previous Gonzales data had saddled O’Malley with a sub-50 approval rating since March 2007 so the spin machine must finally be working in his favor.

It’s also worthy of note, though, that O’Malley’s numbers were at the lowest immediately after the tax increases of the 2007 Special Session he called took effect in 2008. At that point he was 10 to 11 points underwater on approval/disapproval. That’s also why I believe any tax increase comes immediately after he’s safely re-elected.

By comparison, President Obama has a 59% approval rating in Maryland with strong approves leading 38-32 over strong disapproves. Obviously Obama is quite the polarizing figure, even here.

In September, the Gonzales poll showed O’Malley leading 49-38 over Ehrlich, but O’Malley’s approval rating was only 48 percent. Oddly, that poll had both candidates’ personal approval numbers much lower (O’Malley 47, Ehrlich 42) so it appears time has burnished the perception of both gentlemen.

Obviously the poll which counts will be the one taken November 2nd, but pocketbook issues might have a way of changing the snapshots in time we see between now and then. Truly there is no other issue of importance in this race.

Robbing Peter (and John, David, Mary, etc.) to pay Paul

One criticism I’ve had about Maryland’s budget system is its lack of flexibility. There are a lot of money pots out there besides the General Fund, and Martin O’Malley seems to want to take money out of every one of them to balance his FY2011 budget. This from Americans for Prosperity:

As you know, the Senate Budget & Taxation Committee will be holding a public hearing this Wednesday on SB141. This bill, the Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act, will transfer nearly $1 BILLION from the state’s 382 special funds to cover Gov. O’Malley’s budget deficit.

(snip)

One of the funds Gov. O’Malley is proposing to raid is the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF). Started in 1971, the TTF is the account used to pay for road, bridge and infrastructure repairs. It is primarily funded by the gas tax – each time you fill up at the pump, you are contributing to road repair…or so you thought. This year, O’Malley has decided to take $125 million of those taxes and use it to paper over his $2 billion deficit.

Stealing from the Transportation Trust Fund becomes even more problematic next year, because the TTF is already under-funded. When the fund runs dry you can bet that the liberal politicians will want to raise taxes. Senate President Mike Miller has been pushing the idea of a gas tax hike for the last few years.

Another fund that O’Malley has decided to attack is the Injured Workers Insurance Fund (IWIF). IWIF is a low-premium insurer for many businesses who provide workers compensation to employees. It is financed by the premiums each policy holder pays on a quarterly basis.

Not only is the legality of the state confiscating $26 million from a private insurance company in question, but this move will hurt small businesses. Again, when the fund is drained, the premium rates will rise to replace the stolen revenue.

Small businesses are the engine of our state economy – they employ nearly two-thirds of the workforce in Maryland. If we expect an economic recovery with job growth, the government cannot continue to put undue burdens on businesses. The last thing small businesses need right now is to be paying higher insurance premiums or gas taxes.

382 special funds in the Maryland budget? WTF? Anyway, the Maryland Senate Republican Caucus also weighed in:

Entering the 2010 legislative session, there were few remaining reserve funds left to tap. They have all been depleted. O’Malley has exhausted all available reserves except for the Rainy Day Fund. Tapping the Rainy Day could jeopardize the coveted Triple A bond rating which would cause great embarrassment to the administration.

So O’Malley turned to the Injured Workers Insurance Fund to tap a reserve of $20 million. Problem is – the IWIF reserve is not state money. It is not taxpayer dollars. Instead it is overpayments of insurance premiums from small businesses throughout the state.

Then is it legal? A 1968 opinion of the Attorney General’s Office states that reserve funds of the State Accident Fund (IWIF’s predecessor) are not state funds accessible for general purposes. Established as a nonprofit insurance company, IWIF is a quasi-public agency and state use of insurance overpayments as a fund swap would be unconstitutional.

To cover their tracks, the O’Malley Administration has now introduced bills (Senate Bill 507 and House Bill 1008) that would give the Governor authority to transfer the $20 million this year just as long as it’s never done again. Go figure!

So, not only do we have the BRFA bill but now another bill in order to fix things for this year. Sheesh.

The larger question is what we’ll need to do next year to fill in all of these pots. With the federal portion of the state budget now eclipsing 60 percent, one would think that Barack Obama may bail out his cohort if he’s reelected this November. But with these funds come strings and that lack of flexibility will probably preclude O’Malley being able to make up the shortfalls with federal money next year.

Three years ago, Governor O’Malley called a Special Session to address this issue and its result was a number of tax increases which were supposed to correct the state’s structural deficit. However, the increase in the sales tax, cigarette tax, and a (since-repealed) “tech tax” on computer services were counterbalanced by a huge increase on spending which attempted to bring health insurance to thousands more Marylanders.

To the surprise of everyone – except those with a little bit of economic common sense – these new levies didn’t bring in as much money as the so-called experts predicted. In all that’s not so bad, but other previous taxes like property and real estate transfer taxes also declined. Making matters worse (but certainly not unexpected) is the outflow of capital due to the “millionaire’s tax” – again, from the Senate GOP Caucus:

According to an Associated Press article posted at Examiner.com, Montgomery County has experienced a 27% decline in tax returns from high income earners. This decline has contributed to a loss of $4.6 billion in taxable income: “County Executive Isiah Leggett says some wealthy residents who own homes in other states are establishing residency elsewhere. Officials believe the state’s millionaire tax is a factor.”

You think?

Unlike the perception progressives attempt to create about TEA Partiers as people who want to get government services without paying for them (a description more apt for Democrat voters,) most don’t mind paying a fair share in taxes. But what we want in return are efficient services which perform necessary functions, and too often we find that government at all levels fails to deliver on one or both sides of the equation.

If Martin O’Malley truly decided to live within his means, he would gain the intestinal fortitude to make cuts such as the insurance program he started. Obviously it’s a decision which affects a large number of people, but so would increasing taxes and fees. Raising the gas tax, for example, would disproportionately affect poor and middle-class Free Staters and rural residents like those on the Eastern Shore would pay more of a toll than city residents along the I-95 corridor.

One issue sure to come up in this year’s campaign will be fiscal accountability, and while Bob Ehrlich wasn’t the poster child for frugality the state was in much better financial shape when he left office than the potential mess he inherits should he be re-elected for a second, non-consecutive term.

Perhaps a solution would be to bring in some solid fiscal conservatives for the General Assembly in with Ehrlich, hopefully to keep his free-spending tendencies in check. Mark my words, if Martin O’Malley is reelected 2011 will be a rerun of 2007 – a session devoted to raising taxes and killing off whatever recovery the state is scratching out by then.

Electoral toast

Update 9:30 a.m. – A new AP story by Erica Werner quotes Kratovil spokesman Kevin Lawlor, who says that Frank won’t vote for the Obamacare bill if it’s similar to the first one. Apparently there’s not enough carrots dangling out there for him yet.

Perhaps this is wishful thinking from the Associated Press and writer Charles Babbington, but Frank Kratovil is listed as one of ten House Democrats who may be open to switching his vote on the health care bill in order to pass it. Technically the article says he’s not stated a position or is undecided, and it may well be he’s not stating.

But his vote may be the one which makes the bill sink or swim because, of the 220 votes Nancy Pelosi got to pass the bill the first time through she’s likely to be missing four due to death, resignation, and the slim chance Republican Joesph Cao would make the mistake of voting ‘yes’ again without language restricting abortion.

So Kratovil is between a rock and a hard place for sure. With it out in the open that he may be amenable to changing his vote, the White House may dangle all sorts of bribes for his support – think help for his re-election campaign or even a cushy Administration job if he loses come November. On the other hand, First District voters might see to it the latter happens if he doesn’t maintain his stance against it and he would truly earn the moniker ‘flip-flop Frank.’

Perhaps this is why Kratovil has been attempting to burnish those conservative credentials he does have like talking up fiscal conservatism and getting tough on illegal immigrants.

But that may be too little too late as First District voters may decide why have conservative-lite when they can have the real thing?

The case for an elected school board

Tomorrow the Wicomico County Council discusses the FY2011 county budget (as part of legislative session 2010-05.) Obviously a significant chunk of that budget will go to the county’s education funding and County Executive Richard Pollitt conceded “there’s no way” that Wicomico County will meet the state Maintenance of Effort requirements next year. It’s beyond questioning that money is going to be a contentious issue for those who were elected to take care of the budget.

However, the Wicomico County Board of Education (WCBOE) has come under some withering fire lately regarding the travel budget allotted to school personnel. Spearheaded by County Councilman Joe Holloway, this effort found the taxpayers were occasionally footing the bill for everything from meals at Hooters and Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse to the morning coffee at Wawa. While most of the expenditures were on the up-and-up, the attitude reflected by those who abused the process (and paid for the previously-charged expenditures out of their own pocket once it was learned Holloway was on the case) was that of an entitlement mentality.

As mentioned before on my website, the present FY2010 budget has been revised, but in essence only 54% of the budget was at stake – the 46% belonging to the WCBOE was practically untouchable due to state mandates.

It is my belief – a belief shared by a growing number of people – that Wicomico County is not well served by having an appointed school board in charge of holding the schools accountable to the taxpayers. All but a handful of Maryland counties have gone to an elected school board, and I think its long past time to adopt the same here.

As the system stands now, the seven appointed members of the WCBOE come into office via a process rife with the prospect of patronage. Until a change is made, there will always be at least three Republicans and three Democrats on the board, with the pivotal seventh vote awarded to the party whose candidate won the last race for governor. Thus, the first Democratic vacancy which occurred after Bob Ehrlich was sworn in back in 2003 was filled by a Republican and the first GOP vacancy after Martin O’Malley came into office in 2007 was filled by a Democrat. To be more proper, vacancies were filled from a list provided by the local Central Committee of the respective party (so as a member of the Central Committee I had influence on any board member replacing Republicans, except the first GOP vacancy became a Democrat seat.)

If you look at things on that level, it’s clear that Wicomico County may have preferred a 4-3 GOP split based on who they selected as governor since Bob Ehrlich carried Wicomico handily. But the decision was taken out of their hands based on the statewide vote.

While I take my job seriously as a member of the Central Committee, it seems to me that the input of selecting those who are responsible for running our schools should be at a much higher level than a seven- or nine-member body. And looking at things from a strictly partisan basis I understand there’s a risk the voters could select an even more partisan mix of 5-2 or 6-1 Democrats based on voter registration numbers. (While it’s likely the BOE would be a “non-partisan” race, certainly the Democrats will be recommending a slate of candidates as would the GOP.) Yet this also provides an opportunity for those who are politically unaffiliated to have a greater say in affairs as well.

People who are passionate about education tend to be the ones who want to see more local control of their schools. They join the PTA or volunteer in the classroom in order to do their part for the school community.

But the process as it stands now doesn’t necessarily reward these attributes. The folks in Annapolis don’t have much of a body of work to judge would-be BOE members on – usually it’s just a curriculum vitae and application. An electoral system could be set up to allow district representation, giving a person who’s known to the parents of a particular school a better opportunity to serve at a higher level.

In the end, though, it comes down to accountability. The system we have now doesn’t provide for enough, and moving to an elected school board would give the people of Wicomico County the final say on just how a board member is doing.

We can get the process started with leadership on County Council. They can pass a measure to put a referendum on the ballot this fall showing the amount of support there is for an elected school board. Once that passes (as I’m confident it would) then the General Assembly could act accordingly and pass the law allowing BOE elections to occur beginning with the next general election in 2012.

That’s the easy road. If County Council refuses to act, the ballot measure would have to be achieved via petition and getting signatures is a time-consuming process. We could also be at the mercy of outside events, as a 2001 petition drive was shelved in the wake of 9-11.

Joe Holloway is already on record as supporting an elected school board, so I call on his fellow Republicans to lead the way and allow thoughtful Democrats to follow behind if a veto override is needed. Once we get this on the ballot, at that point we can work on just how the transition would be achieved, the question of staggering board members’ terms, and the like. That’s actually fairly easy since we have a number of counties to view as models.

The hard part is getting there, so I encourage the County Council to start the process soon.

Wicomico Lincoln Day Dinner rescheduled

After lengthy negotiations with the former Governor’s staff, Governor Ehrlich will be speaking at our rescheduled Wicomico County Lincoln Day Dinner on Saturday, April 3rd at Salisbury University. I’d presume the time remains the same.

With the rumor brewing that the state’s former chief executive will finally announce his candidacy on Maryland Day (March 25th) this may be part of an extended initial campaign swing by Ehrlich. Other local and state GOP candidates will also get a chance to briefly introduce themselves to the GOP partisans.

Those who made reservations for the snowed-out February 6th event are encouraged to attend the rescheduled event. Details will follow for those who cannot make the new date.

Republicans united?

As the Church Lady would say, isn’t this conveeeeeeenient? I talk about Republicans divided in an op-ed then talk about uniting hours later. But Daniel Vovak makes a good point at a time when unity would be necessary.

The Republican Primary on September 14, 2010 has produced a spirited contest for the office of U.S. Senator, facing the probable Democratic primary winner, Barbara Mikulski. According to official reports and announcements, on the Republican ballot will be seven candidates, including: Carmen Amedori, John F. Curran, John B. Kimble, Daniel W. McAndrew, Jim Rutledge, Corrogan R. Vaughn, and Eric Wargotz.

Daniel “The Whig Man” Vovak has proposed a “Statement of Unity” for the Republican candidates to sign, and has pledged $250 to the primary winner, should that person sign his form. Vovak says, “Although I will not be a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010, I was a candidate in 2006 and I remember perfectly well how Michael Steele treated the primary as a mere formality, never reaching out to any of his nine primary opponents, which hurt our Party in November 2006. In 2010, it’s a different situation because the Republican primary is a wide-open contest. It’s not that Maryland Democrats have been successful, it’s Maryland Republicans who lose statewide seats through internal division. Once these candidates unify behind the primary winner, any Democrat can be defeated.”

Vovak says that following last week’s U.S. Senate candidates’ debate in Montgomery County, every Republican candidate sought his support.

(snip)

In spite of losing statewide (among Central Committee members who selected a new party chairman in the wake of Jim Pelura’s resignation last year), Vovak sincerely congratulated (current MDGOP Chair Audrey) Scott following her decisive win and offered his help. Vovak says this “Statement of Unity” is something he practices and believes. He says, “If I had won the chairman vote, I would have proposed this same Statement to position Republicans for winning, long before Election Day. I have no doubt Audrey Scott shares the same goal.”

Currently, three of the seven candidates have indicated they will sign the Statement. Because Vovak has not been able to speak directly with all of them, he said he will wait until all have been given ample time to respond before releasing their names, though those candidates can speak freely at any time with their supporters and the media, should they desire to do so.

Within the Maryland Republican Party Constitution, under Article 11, Section 2, d(2), Maryland’s Republican Chairman must show no “partiality or prejudice” towards any Republican candidate before a primary. Article 2, Section 2 states that the Party “works towards the election of Republican nominees.”

It’s an admirable goal, and perhaps we will see all of the contenders sign this agreement before all is said and done September 14.

But this election is somewhat different than Steele’s 2006 campaign as there is no de facto favorite. A couple have run previous bids for the Senate that drew little support (Kimble and Vaughn, both also-rans in the ’06 race with Vovak) and a couple others are perhaps dark horses due to lack of name recognition or fundraising prowess – I’d put Curran and McAndrew in that category. The other three (Amedori, Rutledge, and Wargotz) to me are the leading contenders, with Amedori perhaps being the “establishment” candidate based on her tenure in the House of Delegates.

I happen to agree that the Maryland GOP shouldn’t take a stand to support any candidate pre-primary. I know some disagree with me because they fear the voters may select some David Duke-esque radical as the party’s representative but I place a lot more faith in the party electorate than apparently these officials do. I already lived in one state which tried to bribe and cajole good Republican candidates like Ken Blackwell out of the race to avoid primary fights and I don’t want a repeat in Maryland.

Since the reports of Barbara Mikulski retiring were apparently premature, it looks like whoever survives the primary has the uphill fight of knocking out the entrenched, reliably liberal incumbent who may be keeping the seat warm for Martin O’Malley once he’s through being governor.

I believe there is a scenario possible where, if Mikulski wins and O’Malley loses in November, Barbara could retire in early January and Martin O’Malley could name himself successor (or a placeholder to keep the seat warm) just before his term were to expire – leaving the possibility of two new Senators from the state in 2013 as Ben Cardin also runs for re-election in 2012 and the seat held by Mikulski is opened up for a special election by current state law. I think Martin O’Malley has aspirations beyond being Governor and this would be an opportunity for him to go national.

All that has yet to be seen but in any case it’s good for Republicans to put up a united front as they campaign to upend the Democrats’ apple cart this November.

Rutledge gives his report

I’ve given quite a bit of attention to U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Eric Wargotz of late, but there’s others in the race – I’m particularly interested in finding out more about former Delegate Carmen Amedori.

But the other day I received my first “Rutledge Report” in my mailbox and one passage jumped out at me:

In (the) 1920s President Harding faced unemployment numbers doubling from 2.1 million to 4.9 million, excessive governmental interference in the market creating a 24% plunging gross national product, and $25B national debt. By taking a hard stance, he reduced government spending in half, cut taxes, and watched unemployment numbers drop to a low of 1.8% in 1926. (Not-So-Great Depression by Jim Powell.)

Today we face similar problems the country faced at the beginning of Harding’s administration. Unfortunately Congress continues to pass legislation creating more government jobs, increasing the national debt and the burden on tax payers. Businesses have frozen plans for growth because the uncertainty of future costs of hiring an individual.

We need to follow Harding’s example. To create jobs and reduce unemployment we must take two simultaneous steps NOW: cut taxes and cut government spending! We can kick-start the economy by abolishing the capital gains tax and the inheritance tax. This will keep the money in the hands of the consumers and businesses giving them the freedom to choose their own path forward. A simultaneous cut in government spending, and not just a freeze, will free-up revenue to pay off the ever growing national debt.

The road ahead is tough and Americans do not back down from challenges! Now is the time for action – cut taxes and cut spending. Place into office candidates willing to lead Americans down the tough road. We can and will get through this together.

While I admire the Senatorial candidate giving a little love to one of my home state’s native sons, perhaps he needs a little bit better research. President Harding died in 1923, so Calvin Coolidge became President. Coolidge served out the remainder of Harding’s term and won election in his own right in 1924, pounding Democrat John Davis and Progressive Party candidate Robert LaFollette by securing over 54% of the vote. (This was back when the colors were proper too as this electoral map shows.)

Anyway, those policies began by Harding were continued by “Silent Cal” and some of this prescription could be enacted today. The biggest difference, though, is that the federal government of Harding’s era didn’t have nearly the entitlements our modern day government has – these Republicans has no Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid to deal with (let alone legions of regulators in a number of agencies.) The Washington of the 1920’s was still a sleepy Southern town.

But we can and should cut spending and taxes. The Americans of the roaring ’20’s enjoyed great economic prosperity, at least until the stock market crash in 1929 (essentially, a price bubble similar to that in real estate or dot-com stocks.) What turned a simple market correction into a depression, though, was enacting the steep Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930.

The current set of economic doldrums can be traced in part to a different sort of government intervention and lack of oversight as Democrats prevented a probe of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac several years ago. Once the housing bubble burst, our financial house of cards tumbled down and government overspending has been of little help in resolving the problem.

So why not harken back to Harding for solutions? Just stay away from influence-peddling (as in the Teapot Dome scandal) and things could be all right.

AFP has ‘action packed’ meeting

Tonight, Julie Brewington was speaking to “my favorite people in the world.” I presume that comes after her family, but that was how she opened up the February meeting of Wicomico County’s Americans for Propsperity chapter.

Now that the group had a regular meeting date and location, over 60 attendees had the opportunity to hear a number of speakers in a briskly moving program. One thing the group wasn’t going to do, though, was send a bus to tomorrow’s Blair House meeting even though the national AFP was protesting at the site.

Yet, noted Julie, “if it weren’t for us, health care would’ve passed in June.” Our focus, though, was going to shift a bit to more local issues since “the only votes that matter are at the city, county, and state level” in 2010. “We have power in local issues,” added Julie later.

The two most immediate concerns were finding volunteers to attend city and county council meetings and helping to organize the Salisbury TEA Party April 15 – we need people with “organizational skills.”

The meeting was then turned over to a number of speakers, first up being Ed Urban representing the Wicomico Youth and Civic Center. He started right out by saying he approached the county years ago with the suggestion that these operations be run like a business and they put him in charge of doing so.

Deftly keeping the conversation away from the recent purchase of five acres to expand the Civic Center’s parking lot (better known to my readers as Pollitt’s Folly) Urban instead spoke about the economic impact the WYCC creates along with other aspects of the county’s tourism, parks, and recreation programs.

The tourism department combined with the Civic Center creates $20 million in “rollover” economic impact. The county’s tourism bureau is supported by a room tax of 6 percent, with 2/3 going to pay for tourism programs and 1/6 to help the WYCC. Parks and recreation essentially support themselves through user fees, with the only county fiscal input being that of paying for the administrators.

But Wicomico County still has to subsidize the Civic Center to the tune of around $227,000 a year (averaged over the last three years.) The Civic Center “can be profitable,” Urban stated, but in order to be so the prohibition on alcohol sales there would have to be lifted. He noted that the site was originally slated to be a ballpark for local children, but that was built elsewhere – yet the no-alcohol clause remained.

Urban concluded his remarks by finally addressing the parking issue, saying that the County Council saw the need for additional parking; the only question was cost. There are only 900 spaces on the Civic Center lot, and any event where more than 2,250 attend would require more space. The developers who owned the land the county bought were threatening to charge $10,000 per month rent. (I’d have called their bluff, figuring that $1.5 million is 150 months’ rent.)

I asked Urban about the lifespan of the arena, given that many similar facilities only last 40 to 50 years. Urban thought that with proper maintenance the design was such that it could last several more decades – he “doesn’t see a 40 to 50 year lifespan.”

Speaking for the opposition, County Councilman Joe Holloway then briefly recounted his reasoning for voting against the purchase. It was “not a wise choice” for a number of reasons; in particular he again criticized the county’s method of land acquisition. Joe also noted the real cost to taxpayers would be $2.6 million when improvements are figured in.

Holloway also warned us that “we’re in trouble” financially because of what’s brewing in Annapolis.

John Palmer, president of the local group VOICE, spoke next. After vowing that “we will be going down to the Civic Center” and analyzing their finances, he got to the root of his presentation. In polling the audience and soliciting what we thought key problems were, the consensus was that Wicomico County didn’t spend money wisely – “unnecessary personnel” and an out-of-control Board of Education seemed to get much of the blame.

We could vote the people in charge out, but that would involve getting good people elected and those are tough to find. Instead, the approach VOICE is taking is that of petitioning for redress – “if you take control of the checkbook I guarantee things will straighten out in the county,” Palmer asserted.

The group has two ideas it would like to bring to voters: one is a prohibition on land acquisition and capital projects without the approval of county voters, and the other is reducing the number on County Council from seven to five by eliminating the two at-large posts.

Personally I don’t care for either idea.

In considering the capital improvements proposal, it seems to me that we have a representative government for a reason. While the idea of a referendum for capital improvements seems excellent in the wake of Pollitt’s Folly, the truth is that this would cripple county government’s ability to act in a timely manner. In addition, there would be the expense of frequent elections to consider as the county buys land and improves property on a regular basis.

As far as the changeover from seven County Council members to five, I don’t see where we save all that much in that the duplicity of services we already have would still exist. Obviously there’s a small savings in salaries, but I prefer the idea of having three Council members at my beck and call (my district plus two at-large) rather than one. The chances of having someone who agrees with my point politically are exponentially better this way, although I admit that since Joe Holloway happens to be my district councilman I have a pretty good advocate of my point of view already.

Palmer’s second-in-command, Johnnie Miller, spoke next – but on a completely different subject. He updated us on legislation he and Palmer have authored called the “Green Watt Program.” Based on a program in Tuscon, Arizona, this voluntary program would create a fund to promote energy efficiency. Miller noted Delaware pays a much larger share of costs for renewable energy projects; up to $31,500 for residential and $250,000 for commercial.

But one commentor made the point about government subsidy, and I think it’s a valid point. While it’s Miller’s business to promote solar panels and the like, it’s obvious that people would likely go another route for energy usage if this subsidy in Delaware (where Miller does most of his business) didn’t exist. Obviously Johnnie means well with his proposal, but if this were done by General Electric or some other large corporation we’d call it rentseeking.

Nick Loffer, representing the state AFP, began his remarks by quoting Governor O’Malley from late 2007 – “we passed a fair, long term solution to our budget problems.” Uuuuhhh, no.

His time at the podium was spent alerting us to the fact that the hearing on the Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act (BRFA for short – SB141 to the General Assembly) occurs Wednesday, March 3rd at noon and there would be a bus for those interested in attending the hearing or even testifying. (The bus would leave Salisbury around 9:30 a.m.)

“This is our chance to stop the budget,” opined Nick, otherwise, “a vote for this budget is a vote to raise taxes in 2011.”

Salisbury News blogger Joe Albero was next, and although I found his remarks may have been a bit self-serving he made some valid points. (Perhaps he underestimates the impact other blogs have on the conversation.)

One thing I found interesting – albeit anecdotal, of course – was his claim that Rick Pollitt said, “Joe, that will never happen” when asked if taxpayers would be paying for additional Civic Center parking at the Old Mall site. At the time, a land swap was discussed.

Having gone to Annapolis to watch testimony on sex offender legislation, Albero observed, “things are no different in Annapolis” than they are here. “I could do this (be a Delegate or local legislator),” Joe continued, but “I’m only one voice (out of many).” As commenters on his site, “we have an incredible impact on local government.”

“Things are turning around for the better,” said Joe, but we need to stay united. He relayed the fact that General Assembly Republicans had put up a budget alternative saving almost $830 million, including over $2 million just by putting a salary cap on state officials so none made more than the governor’s $150,000 salary.

The last of the slated speakers was Salisbury City Councilman Debbie Campbell, who told us “really important things were going on” in Salisbury. Mainly she decried a lack of accountability on the part of the city, and spoke of two egregious examples.

The city of Salisbury has accepted a dump truck and is using it – unfortunately they haven’t officially allocated the money to pay for it yet. And if that’s not bad enough, the Council president contracted for and signed two change orders for a $1.8 million housing project called “The Bricks” by claiming City Council approval when she had none, charged Campbell.

In all, said Debbie, the Council was “running roughshod” over taxpaying citizens, and she begged those attending, “please show up and support us.” Joe Collins later intoned that, “we’re lucky to have Debbie Campbell” on Salisbury’s City Council and as an AFP supporter.

Returning to the podium, Julie Brewington talked briefly about the issue of infiltration – the TEA Party movement was so successful that the opposition isn’t ignoring it anymore but trying to destroy it from within. She mentioned the ersatz Tea Party in Nevada, which gave me the opportunity to enlighten the group on the particulars of the situation.

Another observer, S.J. Disharoon, spoke about the lack of dialogue at Salisbury City Council meetings and thought we as a group should press for a rules change to allow more opportunity for the public to interact in a timely manner, not just after all is said and done.

G.A. Harrison related his recent experience with the GOP Central Committee regarding something he found offensive and told those gathered a Republican “has to earn your vote…Conservatives need to take back the GOP.” I agree!

Finally, Bob Harris brought up the two ways a referendum can get on the ballot – either by petition or by vote of the County Council. He encouraged the County Council (since Joe Holloway was still present) to put two items on the ballot – one for disclosure of members of a LLC which does business with the county and the other to start the process of getting an elected school board, to which Joe Holloway replied he “fully supports” an elected board of education too.

These meetings generally turn out to be rather long and a lot is said. But they’re really worth the time to cover because I feel that most of my readership has been crying for leadership on these and other issues and the AFP is attempting to provide it on a nonpartisan basis.

WCRC meeting – February 2010

We had very good turnout for our meeting this month as nearly three dozen members came to see our featured speaker, District 5 County Councilman (and definite fiscal conservative) Joe Holloway.

But as always we put God before country by reciting the Lord’s Prayer prior to the Pledge of Allegiance, and once the minutes were approved and treasurer’s report uttered – including the fact we’ve already paid for reserving Schumaker Park for our Crab Feast August 28th – we heard from our guest speaker.

Since Joe also spoke at last month’s Americans for Prosperity meeting I had already heard many of the points he had made. But some were worth repeating and we now knew how the vote on the Pollitt’s Folly parking lot had turned out. Joe said that he thought the county needed more land for parking, just not at $300,000 per acre – closer to a half-million per acre once construction costs were included. (Works out to about $5,000 per space by my own estimation.) Yet no one had thought to study the existing parking and grounds to see if things could be done more efficiently, said Holloway.

And then there was the prospect of the county buying more land nearby – not just 10 acres for an 8,000 seat stadium which Rick Pollitt apparently wants but possibly for a new main library. Holloway opined that this Old Mall land purchase may affect the price we pay for those pieces of property should the other projects come to pass. He was in the process of asking County Council about drafting a letter to local legislators to find out whether Open Space money could be diverted to take care of the roads.

Turning to another sore subject of his, Joe recounted the lengthy process of getting the school administration to comply with his request for travel expense records – the process took about four months from start to finish. What it revealed was a pattern of expenses which weren’t generally extravagant (for example, none of the money was spent on alcohol and Joe was pleased to find that) but perhaps not necessary – should the morning coffee at Wawa be charged to the taxpayer?

While “a lot” of the expenses were justified, noted Holloway, it was time to adopt a line-item budget for the county board of education. Since they couldn’t truly cut the funding for education because of state maintenance of effort restrictions, the education dollars needed to stretch farther. One observer noted he couldn’t get advanced reading materials for his classroom and another pointed out the situations where teachers needed to go out-of-pocket for supplies while others used the taxpayers’ dime for their dinner at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse. The problem, one observer said later, was that county employees “feel entitled” to do these things.

One other observation about the board of education fiasco was that it got little coverage in the local media because “the newspaper will not step on the toes” of Wicomico’s BOE. Yet the BOE was “out of control” according to Joe.

Another financial misstep was much smaller but it was one which still upset Joe because of the reaction. In bringing up the perhaps excessive cost of refurnishing some of the county courthouse, Holloway found he got “one of the most disappointing reactions” from County Executive Rick Pollitt. To Joe, his job was oversight and “tell it to the judge” was not what he wanted to hear.

One thing Joe was “proud of” was ending the prospect of those county employees convicted of stealing county property getting their full pension as legislation he helped push through allowed the county to withhold their share of pensions for future scofflaws.

Regarding those he’d worked with over the last three years, Holloway thought “we’ve been a good council” because they work well together even when they disagree.

At this point, the session turned to more of a question-and-answer one, with one club member asking simply, “what can we do?”

One of the most frustrating parts of his job, Joe noted, was the “different money aspect.” I took this to mean that the strings attached to some of the money we get from higher levels of government or county restrictions make it difficult to react when required.

Joe also was critical of how our land deals were negotiated, as someone asked that question of him. Apparently the department heads involved do the negotiation, and Joe pondered whether this shouldn’t be done through the County Executive or a designee with a background in these sorts of negotiations. “Our method of acquiring land is wrong,” said Joe. (Personally, I’d like to see a little bit of divestment rather than acquisition – but that’s just me.)

Holloway also told us the county’s budget had increased 39% despite the revenue cap, but now “every revenue source in Wicomico County is down” and “the state is cutting the devil out of the county(‘s share of revenues.)”

So things may be tough ahead, and there are many (myself included) who think Joe would be a good County Executive. Holloway was “very honored” that people were asking him to run, and if he did it would be an “unorthodox” campaign and tenure in office – “things would change.” But as far as his decision, the “jury is out” on it.

We appreciated Joe’s remarks, and it was tough to cut off the questions. But we had other business to get through, most importantly electing new officers. Since no nominations came from the floor, we had no need for elections and the officer slate remained nearly unchanged – the only substitution was at the Third Vice-President where Carl Kurten, Jr. took the place of Ryan Hohman.

Mark Biehl gave a quick update on the Young Republicans, who had finalized the date and venue for hosting the state convention (June 18 and 19 at the Wicomico Youth and Civic Center) and their canned food drive, which is slated for Saturday, March 27.

The only item of business reported by Central Committee Vice-Chair Dave Parker was that we were still in the process of rescheduling our Lincoln Day Dinner based on Bob and Kendal Ehrlichs’ availability.

Matt Teffeau gave an abbreviated College Republican report, noting that state party Chair Audrey Scott would speak at their March 24 meeting, they are working on a fundraiser to be held at Uno’s, and their membership is up to 35 people.

With that, WCRC president Marc Kilmer announced next month’s speaker would be the rescheduled U.S. Senate candidate Corrogan Vaughn and the meeting will be March 22. As always, we enjoyed the get-together and look forward to hearing from Vaughn and any other GOP hopefuls who wish to speak before us. After March we have five meetings left before the primary so secure your speaking slots now.

Observations on the Conway-Mathias townhall meeting

Even with a camera-shy person, the attendance on Saturday wasn't half-bad for this townhall meeting.

On Saturday I was joined by about two dozen others – among them seemingly half the local blogger community – who wanted to pepper local Delegates Norm Conway and Jim Mathias of District 38B with questions about the direction this state is going and just what they would do to send it in the proper direction. At times this was a very contentious meeting when the questions began to be asked.

First they were introduced by Salisbury Mayor Jim Ireton.

Fellow Democrat and Salisbury mayor Jim Ireton introduced the pair and pitched a new downtown library while he was at it.

Part of his introduction was an appeal to keep the library downtown, but as for Conway and Mathias Mayor Ireton noted that, “one of the reasons I support them is that they don’t vote no for the sake of voting no and they don’t vote yes for the sake of voting yes.”

Mathias began his presentation by stating “I’m just like you in many ways,” pointing out he had been a businessman, vetoed two budgets as mayor of Ocean City, and argued about increasing fees. Along with us, he felt that the state “should have a dependable budget” and asserted that he’d “stand up and take responsibility for the good things we’ve done and the tough things we’ve done.”

Jim seemed very defensive throughout the presentation, and speaking on the budget remarked that “we thought we’d close the (budget) gap (in 2007)…but we didn’t know the ‘great recession’ was on the way.” He made it clear that there were “a thousand sets of fingerprints to blame” so we needed “a thousand sets of hands to lift us up.”

Noting that much of the industry which had once been the backbone of the Shore – companies like Campbell Soup and Dresser – had abandoned the area, those entities which had taken their place like Salisbury University, Wor-Wic College, and Peninsula Regional Medical Center helped take up some of the slack but our number one industry remains agriculture. On that note, Mathias pled the case that they “tried very hard to get building permits for the chicken houses.”

District 38B Delegates Jim Mathias (left) and Norm Conway listen and interact with their constituents at a town hall meeting held February 20, 2010.

Unlike Mathias, who sat throughout the meeting, Norm Conway stood up to give his remarks.

One thing I didn’t know about Conway is that he’d been an elected official since 1970, beginning with the Central Committee and graduating to Salisbury City Council in 1974 before running and winning his current post in 1986. He recounted some of the mentors who had led him into his lifetime of public service as a teacher, school official, and political officeholder.

As a committee head in the General Assembly, he “tried to build alliances…build bridges” as Norm reminded those assembled that the sum total of the Eastern Shore delegation was 13 – 10 House members and three Senators. (Seems like it should be 12 because there are only three Eastern Shore districts – 36, 37, and 38. Point is we have a small delegation.)

Certainly those in attendance had known that Maryland “had some rough times over the last 2 or 3 years” as “revenues dropped off a cliff.” In the last year the Board of Public Works had chopped $1 billion out of the budget – it had been in balance at sine die of the General Assembly last April but once the fiscal year started July 1 things were already behind.

Norm observed, however, that revenues may be finally leveling off. His anecdotal basis of that claim was seeing more people shopping and in restaurants over the last few months, and to him that was “clear evidence” of a recovery.

But now the General Fund budget being debated was less than that approved for FY07 four years ago thanks to the shrinking revenues. Yet the untouchable area has been K-12 education and it was only this year the tuition freeze had been shelved, after three years of no change.

Delegate Norm Conway addresses the voters at a townhall meeting held in Salisbury on February 20, 2010.

As for the actual budget process, this year it was the Senate’s turn to begin the budget process (it alternates yearly between the Senate and House of Delegates.) Conway predicted the budget would be on the floor by the second week of March. One lament Conway had was the difficulty of maintaining funding for roads because once that area was cut it was “tough to catch up.” Yet we had to balance the budget and create jobs since Maryland’s 7.5% unemployment rate, while well below the national average because of the insulation of federal jobs, was still at a “high water mark.”

So far the meeting had gone fairly smoothly and people had listened attentively. Then the questions began.

Local Americans for Prosperity co-chair Joe Collins got the ball rolling by pointing out the examples of Dresser leaving and the Evolution microbrewery deciding to locate just across the state line in Delaware (after considering a downtown Salisbury location) and asking what can they do for the business community?

Mathias, who reminded us he was on the Economic Matters Committee, told us that part of the issue was local regulation. But he and Conway had urged a reduction in regulations, and Mathias called the poultry industry regulations “overbearing.” Jim also called it “embarrassing” that a permit for a fishing pier desired by a local businessman had languished for two years – that owner “should have had it in his hand by now.”

The former mayor also made the complaint that “as mayor, I was closer to a one phone call fix” but the state is a “matrix.” The only group which stays long-term is the bureaucracy.

Collins interjected that it sounded like Mathias was “making the case for less government.” Jim agreed that there was a need for incentives, less regulations, and more opportunity.

Delegate Conway spoke his piece, talking about how the poultry industry could be gone in a decade if things continue on their path, but bringing up the point that he has to work with other members and “help them.” But as head of the Appropriations Committee, “I do” use that as a weapon against the Maryland Department of the Environment in an effort to help local poultry farmers.

So when it was asked what they were doing to get rid of the bureaucracy, Conway pointed out that 400 vacant positions had been eliminated this fiscal year – but that may not be permanent.

Delegate Mathias then pointed out that, “bureaucracy is not just numbers…every business needs to have trained people.” Yet the government will have to continue to shrink, added Jim. Earlier this decade, we were largely in the ‘roaring Twenties’ of the 21st century.

Local businesswoman Sally Jones then asked about unemployment insurance, noting how much it affected her business.

The problem, responded Mathias, was that businesses were moving to a higher table on the unemployment scale and that raises their premiums. One change last year was adding part-time workers to the rolls, a move the Chamber of Commerce supported but Jim opposed (as did I.) But Jim also couched it as an issue between big business (like Wal-Mart, as Jim naturally mentioned) against small business and the NFIB.

Yet I happen to know there’s also a federal impact, as the bailout being proposed comes with strings attached. With Maryland’s fund in peril, the state is looking for an infusion of federal cash but in order to get it they have to “reform” their system (after just doing so five years ago.)

At that point, a questioner asked about illegal immigrants and the fiscal impact they have on our state, but neither Delegate was aware of a financial number and Mathias “doubt(s) my committee” has ever asked for one. Remember, Maryland is well known as a sanctuary state and is adopting a two-tier driver’s license system just for them. (That was a contentious bill, and many Delegates – including Conway and Mathias – asked their name by withdrawn as co-sponsors after numerous changes were made to gut that bill.)

Shifting gears, fellow blogger Joe Albero asked about the death penalty in the wake of the Foxwell case. Conway expressed his support for the death penalty but voted to weaken it in order to make sure it stayed on the books, noting wistfully “they have it where they want it” for now. He’s working on a bill to be heard tomorrow which would add scientific evidence to the criteria where the death penalty can be sought. Delegate Mathias chimed in that there “will be improvements” to sex offender laws and echoed Conway’s support for capital punishment.

Another fellow blogger (and the other AFP local co-chair), Julie Brewington, asked about the gas tax and why so much of it goes to public transit. Mathias said that he wouldn’t support an increase but also countered that “we all know we have to make that contribution” and perhaps change the funding mechanism for fixing roads as cars get more efficient. After our economy finally recovers, this will be “a different country than we know.” (He also had a sidebar about the one staunch Republican who supported Obama’s stimulus plan – that man runs a paving company.)

But here was a case of the quid pro quo which permeates Maryland politics. Delegate Mathias recounted his first votes, which were to override vetoes by Governor Ehrlich of various Baltimore City and County issues. He was going to sit them out (since he never voted on the original legislation) but was reminded by Norm Conway that the items he liked getting as mayor of Ocean City had to have the approval of Baltimore-area legislators to be done. In this case, they support the public transit predominant on the other side of the Bay as a trade-off for things we need.

One item that Conway said has been proposed in the past and could be revisited to address transportation would be a regional sales tax.

Johnnie Miller, a proponent of energy legislation, wondered why renewable energy bills pass the House easily but die in the Senate Finance Committee. He pointed out Delaware is way ahead of us in that area. More interesting was the fact he and fellow advocate John Palmer had written the draft of legislation to be introduced this year (they were only awaiting the legal language to be set) for energy policy.

To address the question, Delegate Mathias pointed out these bills generally come with a “strong fiscal note” which seems to scare off support. (Tellingly he also said, “maybe one day I’ll be on the Senate Finance Committee.” File that under “worst-kept secret.”)

This touched off a long and sort of meandering discussion which eventually returned to jobs and development. While it was pointed out (properly) that renewable energy was only made competitive when subsidized by the government and certain interests were more focused on rent-seeking than energy policy, the philosopical question was asked “how is it that government ever thought they could create development?” To that, Delegate Conway replied that there were a number of public-private projects under discussion but when pressed couldn’t name any local examples.

Delegate Mathias attempted to bail Conway out by postulating that even with the increasing amount of real property now owned by government (such as the ever-expanding Salisbury University and even the newly-purchased Pollitt’s Folly parking lot for the Civic Center) there are still jobs and disposable income being created by them. With all due respect, Delegate Mathias, at what cost to us? (I used that term because Delegate Mathias used it often.)

This is basically how it ended, since the time allotted for the meeting room was only two hours and it was booked for another group. I didn’t get a chance to ask my question, but did say my piece to Delegate Conway about the increasing proportion of the state budget comprised from federal dollars. To him, it was just our money coming back to us but that doesn’t address the philosophical difference I have that the money belongs to us in the first place and all that having a middleman does is keep some pencil-pusher (who may or may not live in Maryland) employed.

There was also a comment made by a guy whose name I didn’t catch which, to sum up, said that we should watch the Delegates in action before being overly critical. Come to Annapolis and watch them work on a Monday night or some other time during the week, he said.

That’s all well and good for a lobbyist or perhaps CASA de Maryland, but most working people in far-flung regions of the state don’t have the time to drive up to Annapolis and watch the legislature grind its sausage. We count on them to do what’s right and what’s proper in being stewards of our taxpayer money.

Instead we get “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” politics, trading favors at the expense of the taxpayer. So much for “One Maryland.”