role of government – Page 3

A potpourri of political events

In times past I used to do a weekly election calendar. This won’t rise to that level but there are some upcoming items I think the local peeps ought to know about, with many courtesy of the Worcester County TEA Party. I love the smell of activism in the morning…or any time of day for that matter.

That same TEA Party group meets this coming Friday, March 9 at 6:15 p.m. at the Ocean Pines Community Hall. Their speaker will be Worcester County Commissioner Virgil Shockley, who will talk about the possible impact this bill will have on our county and on school funding in general.

The Ocean Pines venue will be used for Election Integrity Maryland’s poll watcher training on Tuesday, March 20 from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. The same class will be held once again in Salisbury on Saturday, March 24 from 10 a.m. to noon. In both cases, the cost is $25 and you can register at the EIM website. Questions? Contact Cathy Keim at 443-880-5912 or e-mail her: cathy.keim (at) electionintegritymaryland.com – she’ll certainly steer you in the right direction.

Another interesting event held by the Worcester TEA Party will be on Friday, March 23 when they hold a mock GOP Presidential debate. Of course, we won’t have Mitt, Rick, Newt, or Ron there but their proxies will certainly give a good accounting for the candidates just in time for the April 3 Maryland primary (as well as Delaware’s on April 24.) This will be at the Ocean Pines Community Church beginning at 6 p.m.

And of course they’re going to have a bus departing for the Hands Off My Health Care Rally in Washington D.C. on Tuesday, March 27.

Continue reading “A potpourri of political events”

Bait and switch

That Governor of ours, he is a slick one.

After hearing from Martin O’Malley for several months before the General Assembly session that we should have a increase in the gasoline tax, the flush tax, or a host of other tax and fee increases, Governor O’Malley instead chimed in his support for the second sales tax increase of his tenure. Certainly we’re no stranger to sales tax increases as the tax on alcohol went up 50 percent last summer, from 6 cents per dollar to 9 cents. It’s almost like he floated the other ideas as trial balloons in order to make the “added flexibility” of a sales tax more palatable.

“I think we should remember that no one in our state lost their house, lost their job, or lost a business because of an additional penny on the sales tax,” O’Malley whined in speaking with reporters. Maybe he should come to Salisbury and ask local business owners about the effects of the sales tax when compared to tax-free Delaware. His assertion may be technically correct, but certainly we’ve seen many lost opportunities with the differential between what we can charge and what can be charged in Delaware.

Continue reading “Bait and switch”

Newt’s third way

For several years I’ve received Newt Gingrich’s weekly letter from Human Events, and it’s usually a pretty decent read from a pretty smart guy. But now that he’s in the running for President and moved up onto the list of leading contenders, one needs to scrutinize his words more carefully and some of what I don’t like about Newt came out in his latest edition.

The Washington establishment’s reaction to the runaway spending is a policy of austerity and pain.

Democrats would cause austerity and pain on the individual by raising taxes, thereby shrinking family and business purchasing power.

Republicans would cause austerity and pain to government by cutting spending and thereby shrinking the services and income transfers government provides.

Clearly, shrinking government is preferable to overtaxing the American people but we must remember that there is a third alternative to pain. It is the path of innovation and growth.

So the question is whether Newt is really serious about cutting spending – after all, he is running for the Republican nomination, isn’t he? Newt would rather target his cuts around the edges, like this:

The key to today’s budget problems is to recognize that there is a world that works (largely but not entirely in the private sector) and there is a world that fails (bureaucracies in both the public and private sectors). With even a little creativity, we should be able to maximize the world that works and eliminate the world that fails.

For instance, if we applied modern private-sector management systems to government they would save up to $500 billion a year. That is three times the goal of the Super Committee.

Newt points to a website called Strong America Now, which claims that a quarter of all federal spending is wasted and advocates the Lean Six Sigma model in order to shrink spending down to size. (I’d say that number is quite low, but then again it all depends on your definition of waste.) While it’s a good idea to point this sort of thing out time and again, the trouble is that we’re working within the same parameter – if the system is irreparably broken, nothing can save it. Moreover, this working within the system will likely suffer the fate of most government estimates – the actual amount saved will likely fall short of expectations. And certainly the cuts will be just fine and no one will dispute the need for them until someone’s ox is gored, and there are a lot of sacred cows running around Washington.

My contention is that we need to shrink the services and income transfers government provides in order to bring the federal government to heel, so if Newt doesn’t want to do that I can’t get behind him very well. (I will admit in this case, though, that Newt is right about the idea of block-granting Medicaid to the states.) Being an advocate of a smaller, less powerful federal government I believe the idea of austerity there would bring some pain, but it would only be along the lines of a “you might feel this stick” pain when you’re giving blood or getting a flu shot. In the long term, the patient is much better.

To be perfectly frank, I would have less of an issue paying higher taxes in the state if I had the assurance that the federal government would shrink accordingly. The problem we have now is that all three levels of government seem to want to take more and more, and none of them will look into their proverbial mirror and ask themselves if what they are providing can’t be done better at a lower level or through the private sector. Placing a private sector model on government may be some improvement, but in terms of political philosophy it’s no different than lipstick on a pig. Unfortunately, my fear is that any money “saved” by the ideas espoused by Strong America Now would just be transferred to some other department, agency, or bureau in an ever-expanding statist paradise.

Perhaps I can borrow a phrase Newt made famous to describe the approach we should take. In my view, it’s time for government to “wither on the vine” but I just don’t think Newt is the guy to make it happen.

Protesting Jim

Unfortunately I could not be there to see this with my own eyes, but both published and eyewitness reports indicate that Salisbury Mayor Jim Ireton attended a small protest today at the local office for Congressman Andy Harris.

The reason for the protest was to show support for a document called “A Contract for the American Dream,” with the title obviously a play on the Republicans’ “Contract With America” from 1994 and 2010.

So let’s assume Jim Ireton is foursquare behind the document – what is he backing?

It begins with a call to rebuild America’s infrastructure. That’s commendable, but they go beyond roads, bridges, and utilities in calling for “national and state infrastructure banks.” To me, that’s code for more federally- and state-controlled land, whether through outright acquisition or regulating usage. Money should be allocated for these tasks, but preferably at the local and state levels and for meaningful, development-friendly projects like expanded highways or new utility lines – not wasted on items like public transit or bike paths few use.

The second point: creating “21st Century energy jobs” – in other words, continue to subsidize expensive and inefficient “renewable” sources at the expense of proven fossil fuel technology that we have in plentiful supply. When the market is ready, someone will tap into those renewable sources. Jim, it’s not time for that yet.

Thirdly, we’re asked to “invest” (read: throw money at) public education. So much for educational choice, right? And the idea of “universal preschool” fits right in with a plan for indoctrination. It makes me wonder what their definition of a “high-quality” teacher is. Mine would be one who teaches critical thinking instead of regurgitating the latest propaganda.

The fourth point is “Medicare for all,” which equates to a single-payer health care system. Lefties have been pining for this for years, always saying we’re not in step with the rest of the industrialized world. So where do those who can afford it come to get medical care again? (Hint: it’s not Cuba.)

Idea number five is to “make work pay;” in other words enact a so-called “living wage.” We have a “right to fair minimum and living wages,” they say. What part of the Constitution was that again? It’s not in my copy. We’d be better off abolishing the minimum wage, since those who own businesses know all about working long hours for little pay. If a worker is only producing a net three dollars an hour for the company, that’s what they should be paid.

Sixth, they want to “secure Social Security” by – guess what? – raising taxes on the rich. They would eliminate the tax cap on earnings so every penny of what one earns would be taxed. How about giving us all a break and beginning to sunset the program instead?

The “soak the rich” philosophy continues with item number seven, which would be to not just eliminate the 2001/2003 Bush tax cuts but enact a “millionaire’s tax.” We see how well that works for Maryland, don’t we?

Number 8 continues the class warfare by calling for a .05% tax on each Wall Street trade, which supposedly would raise $100 billion a year. Besides the fact that we’re talking chump change in this era of trillions, the effect of such a tax would be to destroy billions in wealth as the stock market plummets in reaction to the toll. Of course, when the desired amount is not raised they’ll simply increase the tax, continuing the vicious cycle.

Ninth in the order is bringing the troops home. I can agree with that in part – there are a lot of countries we don’t necessarily need to be in. But we also need to give those troops we leave in the field the tools and strategy for victory. If we want to rout the Taliban, well, let’s stop playing around and throw out the silly rules of engagement which bind our hands. The enemy has no rules of engagement, why should we?

And finally, they call for restricting free speech in the most “catch-all” of bullet points:

We need clean, fair elections – where no one’s right to vote can be taken away, and where money doesn’t buy you your own member of Congress. We must ban anonymous political influence, slam shut the lobbyists’ revolving door in D.C. and publicly finance elections. Immigrants who want to join in our democracy deserve a clear path to citizenship. And we must stop giving corporations the rights of people when it comes to our elections and ensure our Judiciary’s respect for the Constitution. Together, we will reclaim our democracy to get our country back on track.

So let’s follow this to a logical conclusion – everyone here gets a vote whether they’re here legally or not (and will be rewarded for breaking the law to get here), elections will be publicly funded (except when a candidate chooses not to follow those rules – *cough*Barack Obama*cough*), lobbyists won’t be allowed but “czars” will, and corporations will lose their right to free speech but unions won’t.

But the last sentence of the document provides the fatal flaw, and one needs to ask Jim Ireton whether he really believes this.

Our nation is NOT a democracy – it is a republic. If we were a democracy, we would soon be defunct under the tyranny of the majority. As the old parable goes, a democracy is where two wolves and a sheep vote on what’s for dinner.

While Jim Ireton had the majority of those who could be bothered to vote in the 2009 Salisbury city election, that was by no means a clear mandate. And having a so-called “contract” signed by 125,000 Americans is invalid in the face of millions of voters who desired the more conservative direction Harris and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives have attempted to push government toward. I’ll see the backers of the “Contract for the American Dream” and their puny 125,000 total nationwide and raise them the 30,000 additional citizens here in the First Congressional District who gave Harris his mandate by voting for him. If Frank Kratovil had 125,000 votes he would have only lost by 30,000 instead of 35,000.

Shoot, the 9-12 rally back in 2009 did better than that.

But if this is what Jim Ireton truly stands for – a group of items which would effectively federalize much of government and make princes paupers by taxing the producers of society – then we really need to find a conservative challenger for him in 2013. He’s leading Salisbury in the wrong direction, and real help needs to be sent on the way.

Perhaps the analogy I’ve been looking for

Yes, Washington has an addiction.

The sad thing is that we’ve been feeding the addiction by voting in a lot of the same people to Congress. But there’s also the bureaucracy which hasn’t met a problem they couldn’t milk into additional appropriations down the line – if they actually solved the problem there wouldn’t be a need for continuing the agency. Instead, it’s a rare day that we see any government agency go by the wayside.

But we need to place a LOT of government agencies into the dustbin of history to solve our overarching problem, which in a nutshell is we have too much of a centralized, federalized government. I didn’t allocate the term ‘Fedzilla’ from Ted Nugent for nothing.

It’s more likely that we’ll continue to feed the addiction, though. Conventional wisdom is that the usual Washington horsetrade will occur – give Obama and Democrats the higher debt limit they desire in return for promised spending cuts which never occur. I keep seeing Lucy pull that football away from Charlie Brown for some reason.

Believe it or not, regardless of what Washington does about the debt ceiling, the sun will come up on Wednesday and millions of Americans will do their daily work. Don’t let anyone tell you the sky is falling.

Entrepreneur vs. Big Government

My Missouri blogging friend Bob McCarty has uncovered quite the story: a couple who ran afoul of the law unwittingly by selling a few hundred rabbits now faces a settlement offer of a $90,000 fine but could incur a $4 million toll from an unrelenting USDA.

It sounds ridiculous on the face, doesn’t it? Maybe the federal government didn’t get their initial cut so they’re looking to make an example out of the intrepid Dollarhite family.

But it also sends a message to anyone who wishes to provide a service or sell a product – you can’t participate in getting ahead until the people in charge get some scratch. Let me give you an example closer to home.

A friend of mine is a fairly avid photographer and wished to sell her wares at a local art show. It was fine for her to sell the pictures, they said, as long as she made sure to collect the sales tax due. They even suggested she price her items in such a manner that the included tax would make the items an even dollar amount – in other words, a photo would actually sell for 94 cents but $1 would be charged.

Granted, the state needs some taxation in order to survive but burdening a person who just wants to make a little bit of gas money off some of the photographs she’s most proud of and wanted to share? Perhaps there should be a sales threshold one has to achieve before collecting taxes in this situation – obviously a permanent brick-and-mortar business would be expected to collect this increasing burden, but why should the person who may be lucky to gross a few hundred dollars a year?

As you’ll see tomorrow, a couple of the musical artists at Third Friday were selling CDs of their work. Were they collecting sales tax? Maybe, maybe not.

Returning to the Missouri case, McCarty’s account of the story told the tale of a family which wasn’t mistreating their rabbits, which were sold in good condition to pet stores and other end users. Even the USDA inspector found little aside from picayune violations, but that was enough to send up the red flags and alert the authorities. Seemingly they found the most obscure regulation to nail this otherwise law-abiding family.

But if one can be harassed over a few hundred rabbits, what about someone saying things critical of the government or participating in a protest over policy? Since Bob has a merchandising business on the side and is working on the latter stages of a book which details the story of a soldier wrongly convicted of rape and other charges, perhaps he’s not on the government-approved list these days. You never know who may be looking into those financial dealings.

The safest way anymore may be to shut up and take that government check, as more and more people seem to be doing these days – but some refuse to play that game. Let’s hope more decide to break the chains.

The tax calculation

It’s a handy-dandy way to figure out just how much more the county will take out of your pocket.

On Thursday Wicomico County Executive Rick Pollitt announced through his spokesman Jim Fineran that county property owners now have a calculator to figure out how much more they’ll pay in property taxes next year.

In presenting the proposed Fiscal Year 2012 Budget to the Wicomico County Council on April 19th, County Executive Richard M. Pollitt, Jr., promised that a “tax calculator” to measure the suggested nickel tax increase would be on the county website “as soon as possible.” Mr. Pollitt announced today that, “It is up and running.”

The Wicomico County website is http://www.wicomicocounty.org/. On the homepage, there is a column on the right called “What’s New?” At the top of that column is a link titled “Proposed Tax Rate Comparison Calculator.” Users are advised to click on that link to go to the calculator.

There are two steps. If you do not know your most recent assessment value, the first is a link to the State of Maryland Real Property Database where users can access that information. County officials urge users to follow the directions carefully when they reach the link. The second is the calculator. Users may simply enter their assessment value, click on “calculate” and the device will provide specific numbers of the impact of the proposed nickel increase on the user.

In announcing the calculator, Mr. Pollitt said that, “I want to take the guess work out of this for our tax payers. I have proposed a nickel tax increase to maintain vital county services. I want the property owner to know exactly how much this is going to cost.”

The calculator does not take into effect changes in assessment from year-to-year or effects of the Homestead Credit. It is intended merely to define the effect of a nickel tax increase.

Actually, I can do the math pretty easily – for every $10,000 your property is worth, it’s going to cost you an extra $5. Someone with a modest $100,000 house will be on the hook for an extra $50, while a residence in Nithsdale or Tony Tank might see a $200 per year jump.

But, more importantly, the key question is where the extra money would be going. Pollitt claims that we’re just staying in place because assessed value in the county dropped by $300 million from last year to this year. Obviously those who were reassessed this year saw a decline of up to 1/3 in their rates, so a nickel increase may not necessarily hurt them but instead just cut into their savings.

(For example, a house assessed at $150,000 under the old rate would pay $1,138.50 in taxes, but dropping the assessment to $100,000 at the new rate makes the taxation $809.00. That’s over $300 in the homeowner’s pocket despite the increase.)

But those who didn’t get the benefit of the changes yet will have to bear the increase described above. And the increase stayed ahead of what would be considered constant yield, which is a departure from Pollitt’s previous practices. Of the five-cent increase, about 3.8 cents is constant yield while the other 1.2 cents is allowed under the revenue cap – and thank goodness for that, because otherwise we could have seen rates go up a full dime or 15 cents per hundred dollars of valuation.

Pollitt also promises to change the homestead exemption from 10 percent to zero, beginning next fiscal year. Of course, I’m not sure if that enables the tax paid to go down if an assessment is lower. Since those who were last assessed in 2009, just before the bottom really dropped out of the local housing maket, have their turn next year, will that affect them adversely? And how much more will Pollitt raise rates next year to make up for the change in homestead exemption? These questions won’t be addressed in this year’s budget – unlike the federal government, we don’t make long-term projections.

Yet if you look at the new operating budget, the largest increases seem to be in the personnel benefits, along with $200,000 devoted to a ‘time and motion study’ in the ‘Administration/Executive Function’ budget. Even without that, the executive branch didn’t suffer the cuts much of the remaining budget was forced to endure.

According to Pollitt’s budget guide, each penny in property tax brings in roughly $750,000. So in order to simply maintain the constant yield rate increase of 3.8 cents per $100 of assessed value, the County Council would have to shave about $1 million from the budget. It’s probably doable, but look for everyone potentially affected to scream bloody murder when the public hearing is held. Out of a budget of a little over $110 million, we’re actually talking about less than 1 percent cuts.

But, as I mentioned, cuts are just fine when they come out of someone else’s hide. Look for the victim card to be played early and often over the next couple months. In the end, the victims may be those homeowners who haven’t seen their assessments retreat downward to reflect the market just yet.

Maybe that will make you choke on your Easter ham, but it’s an upcoming fight we need to gird for.

Update: I wrote this last night, before Greg Latshaw at the Daily Times had his take.

Harris: ‘We shouldn’t need a government shutdown’

In part, because the job was supposed to be done well beforehand. Here’s his statement on the matter:

“We shouldn’t need a government shutdown. At the same time, Marylanders sent me to Congress this year to end Washington’s spending spree in order to get the economy moving and build an environment for positive job growth.

Nearly 50 days ago, the House of Representatives passed a reasonable budget that would reduce the federal spending this year by a mere two percent. I believe those in charge, the Senate and the President, must work with the House of Representatives to control spending. The American people expect us to solve this problem, and we must deliver.”

If you listen to Senator Harry Reid – not that I really do – he pits the blame on Republicans who don’t want to fund Planned Parenthood. But why should we fund Planned Parenthood anyway? Of course, one could logically ask that about a lot of federal spending: we subsidize everyone from farmers to radio personalities to so-called starving artists. We get involved in a Libyan civil war, backed by the same people complained we were involved in an Iraqi civil war. (So why not Sudan or Iran? They have unrest as well.) The spending cuts proposed by the GOP weren’t all that large in the vast scheme of things, and the government employees affected by the slowdown will most likely be made whole when it’s all over.

But compare Harris’s statement to the declarations by District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton that the District should “(tell) the Congress to go straight to hell” and called the slowdown “the functional equivalent to bombing civilians” on local television station WTTG. As you can see below, yeah, that’s toning down the rhetoric.

Again, this problem should have been addressed this time last year, and there was no reason the Democrats couldn’t have passed the budget back then – they had ample majorities in both the House and Senate. Perhaps they were afraid of creating more potential Election Day losses but, then again, they pretty much had their collective asses handed to them anyway.

So Eleanor Holmes Norton is complaining about a problem she helped to create – let me repeat myself, the Democrats could have rammed through pretty much whatever they wanted, even with 59 votes in the Senate. They didn’t do their job, and now their favored constituency group will pay the consequences.

Me, I probably won’t miss them.

Conservatives in Maryland CAN

In three weeks, we may be seeing the beginnings of the TEA Party moving into its rightful place at the head of the Maryland political table. Yes, we have to wait until 2014 for the next statewide election but the process is moving in the right direction with a meeting of the minds coming up on Saturday, January 8th. Instead of being outside looking in (as they were at the recent GOP convention, where the picture is from) they are the organizers of the event – ironically set in the same locale of the Doubletree Hotel in Annapolis.

Organizers believe it will be the catalyst for future gains.

“To our knowledge, nothing like this has been done before in Maryland,” said Ann Corcoran, Washington County blogger and one of the organizers. “We expect like-minded activists to share ideas and talents, forge alliances, sound the call for action, and give rise to conservative voices so that political competition can thrive in Maryland.”

Added Howard County activist Tonya Tiffany, “We’ll be talking about 2010 campaign lessons, precinct organization, voter fraud, media outreach, running for office as a citizen legislator, and federal pressures bearing down on the state of Maryland. We’re not forming another political ‘group’ (but) trying to network people.”

With a roster of speakers well-known to conservative activists statewide, this daylong event was set up to give TEA Party faithful and their allies around the state the opportunity to converse and plan a strategy for future political gains. The speakers include:

Marta Mossburg, Maryland Public Policy Institute
Claver Kamau-Imani, Raging Elephants
Anita MonCrief, ACORN whistleblower and creator, Emerging Corruption.com
Delegate Ron George
Congressman Andy Harris
Frederick County Sheriff Chuck Jenkins
Delegate-elect Kathy Afzali
Charles Lollar (2010 Congressional candidate)
Robert Broadus (2010 Congressional candidate)
Brian Murphy (2010 gubernatorial candidate)

All this (and more) packed into eight hours for a cost of $40, which includes a box lunch. A registration form can be found here, or by contacting Tonya Tiffany at marylandcan@yahoo.com.

Being the press

For those of you on the western portions of Wicomico County you may or may not be familiar with Chris Jakubiak; he’s one of three Democrats trying to unseat longtime State Senator Richard Colburn in District 37. That unfamiliarity may well extend to a lack of interest from the press in his candidacy – his press conference in Salisbury last Friday apparently merited the presence of exactly one member of the media, and that was me.

But leave it to Jakubiak to somewhat mess up my exclusive by sending out a press release entitled, “Jakubiak Holds Press Conference on Fiscal Responsibility.” After going through the fact that he held the press conference, Jakubiak noted in the release that:

“Our State budget should reflect the values that we share in Maryland, and especially here in District 37,” said Jakubiak. The candidate outlined the budget’s everyday impacts on infrastructure, education, healthcare, and economic development/recovery.

Jakubiak once again drew attention to the startling structural deficit of the Maryland Budget. “The General Assembly finished 2010 without fixing the ongoing gap between mandated spending and revenue. They plugged the $2 billion hole in the current year’s budget with temporary fixes and federal funds. Every tax dollar borrowed or transferred to close the deficit is a dollar not invested.”

Jakubiak outlined the economic principles that he would encourage the General Assembly to follow. First, spending mandates must be tied to revenue. This is more commonly known as pay-go. Second, dedicated funds, such as those for transportation and farm conservation, must be protected. Third, the costs of pensions and health insurance must be reduced. Fourth, there must be dedicated revenues for K-12 education. For the Eastern Shore, this must also include changing the State allocation formulas to provide more funding for school districts that lack a supportive tax base. Fifth, cuts in discretionary spending, excluding veterans’ services and public safety, must be on the table. Finally, taxation and spending reforms must expand economic growth, not contract it.

“We must put this structural deficit behind us so we can look to build a better future,” stressed Jakubiak.

The Wicomico County event will be followed in next two weeks with events in the Talbot and Dorchester Counties, focusing on restoring the health of the Bay, and economic development and recovery/job creation.

Fair enough, although I personally would have slotted the economic recovery release first, followed by the fiscal responsibility one. Education and the environment are secondary issues to me, although education takes up a large share of the state’s budget. In my view, we definitely lack the bang for the buck in that department.

Having the opportunity to discuss the budget with Chris at some length, I focused in on a few areas of the statement he passed out Friday. One area was setting regional priorities, which Jakubiak saw as “critically important”; for example his statement discussed how “highway funds have been misappropriated and the Dover Bridge (between Easton and Preston) remains dangerous.” That bridge hasn’t received the attention it deserves because it’s not on a highway commonly used for tourism, Chris claimed.

Another priority item for Jakubiak would be putting money into the Rural Maryland Prosperity Investment Fund. Created in 2006 through bipartisan effort, the fund had the “objective…to help raise the overall standard of living in rural areas to a level that meets or exceeds statewide benchmark averages by 2020, while preserving the best aspects of a pastoral heritage and rural way of life.” But Governor O’Malley has chosen not to fund this effort despite near-unanimous support in the General Assembly. Rather, Jakubiak claimed the state “is pouring millions of our tax dollars into bio tech business parks in the the metro areas.”

And the fact that Chris has (and presumably supports) a governor of his own party in power wasn’t lost on me because I pointed out his priorities seemingly weren’t in line with Governor O’Malley’s. Yet Chris replied, “a legislator will have the governor’s ear if he’s doing his job” and pointed out his “track record of consensus” in working with municipalities doing urban planning.

Another difference in opinion occurred when I asked him about prioritizing dedicated funds such as the Bay Restoration Fund, the Transportation Trust Fund, and Program Open Space. Obviously these money pots become piggy banks for balancing the budget and, aside from the TTF, given this repeated usage they may not be as much of a priority as people think. I especially disagree with the premise of Program Open Space because taking land off the tax rolls affects counties adversely.

More controversial may be two planks in the Jakubiak budgetary reform plan – increasing the pension-eligible age and retiree contributions for health insurance and dedicating revenues for K-12 education – an “essential priority” in Chris’s view. The former will likely raise the ire of state workers and their unions while the latter has been tried through a number of funding sources – even a proposal for confiscating the value of unused gift cards. And adding school days, part of Jakubiak’s educational wish list, won’t be done for free.

It’s obvious that fiscal responsibility is a prime issue when even a Democrat makes it a priority. Pledging that “cuts in discretionary spending, excluding veteran services and public safety, must be on the table” while simultaneously claiming that “tax increases that contract growth are counter-productive” makes me wonder how Chris can pull the Houdini act off. But given the apparent disinterest in his campaign we may never find out anyway.

Candidate Wednesday begins this week

The other day I told you folks that I was going to become another outlet for the Right Coast interviews being done by local questioner Matt Trenka. Tomorrow I will replay three of the nine videos done so far, somewhat randomly selected to present candidates in three different races. These will appear both here at monoblogue and in a slightly different format at my Wicomico County Examiner page.

There will also be my commentary on what was said, although I will limit it to a paragraph or two. I may also lend a hand to future interviews as my schedule allows, perhaps as an off-camera guest questioner.

So far the nine interviews which have been done include:

U.S. Senate candidate Jim Rutledge
House of Delegates candidates John Hayden, Mike McCready, Marty Pusey, Mike McDermott, and Dustin Mills
County Executive candidate John Wayne Baker
County Council candidates Chris Lewis and Mike Brewington

Of the group five are Republicans and four are Democrats so it is a nice bipartisan mix, although all are challengers.

At the moment doing three per week means I’ll have videos on August 11, 18, and 25. If there are more the date will be September 1 and as we approach the primary it may mean I add a day or two during that week since early voting begins September 3 and absentee ballots are out shortly.

Look for the first three videos tomorrow afternoon.

Impressions on the Mid-Shore AFP Senate forum

I’ve already done a down-and-dirty factual story (with pictures) on my Examiner page, so if you want to read there for some of the particulars feel free to do so…I’ll wait.

Here I wanted to review the statements and performance of each of the participants and make a few other general observations. I don’t have to be fair and unbiased at this site. In alphabetical order, Stephens Dempsey comes first.

Stephens Dempsey came across as a man who truly wants to restore the government to its Constitutional case, and for that some may call him harsh. In a question about illegal immigration, Dempsey noted, “First, they’re not ‘illegal immigrants,’ they’re illegal aliens…that is the definition we should use.” Indeed, that’s how the federal government actually defines them.

Regarding the jobs issue, Stephens points out that, “it’s not my job (as a Senator)…that’s the job of the state and local level (governments.) Obviously he has a clear definition of what the federal role must be.

But the problem I see with his approach is, while the message is clear, his explanations may be too clever by half. For example, his campaign literature features a three-triangle logo that baffles the average person as to its meaning. Being an “American Constitutionalist” is one thing, but making that have meaning to the average voter who will ask what that does for him is quite another.

It was nice to see his family and friends support him, but I fear that’s all the support he’ll get if he doesn’t simplify his message a little bit.

Democrat Chris Garner was perhaps the most pessimistic of the batch, gloomily noting, “what’s happening right now, we’re in a deep depression. It’s gonna get deeper.” Garner also bemoaned the lack of industrial might – “No industry, no economy.” He added, “we’re turning our country into a Third World country.”

His solutions may not be the best for free marketeers, though – among others he proposed a maximum 15% trade imbalance to keep the value of imports and exports in balance. “Right now we’re sending a half-trillion dollars overseas.” But would that work in a real world where we import a vast amount of oil, for example? Certainly we could use some fairer trade, but that cap doesn’t seem anything but arbitrary.

I also couldn’t believe he didn’t know what EFCA was. The way I look at it, passage of EFCA would do more harm to our trade imbalance because unionization would drive up the cost of business.

Samuel Graham was a curious sort of Republican. One of his platform planks was a “radical idea…let’s just give (the unemployed) a job.” And that extended to illegal immigrants as well – Graham supports a policy to stop immigrants at the border and ask them why they are seeking entry. “Give them an opportunity to register themselves,” he said. Needless to say, he was the lone Republican not to favor the Arizona SB1070 law.

But then he joined the chorus of those candidates who said, “let’s cut the taxes.” Samuel ticked off a list of possible tax cuts for groceries, department stores, and gasoline. Yes, those are good ideas but I think a better solution would be to eliminate taxes on the income side and maintain a low, one-time rate on the consumption side.

On the whole, something didn’t jibe with Graham’s presentation. I’m not sure he’s thought through the impact of simply creating make-work jobs – wasn’t that the point of the stimulus? And how would that work with the straight 25% cut in government he advocated?

Being in the middle of three consecutive Republicans, Daniel McAndrew was at something of a disdvantage. He just doesn’t seem to stick out well in a crowd as it is and always being the fourth to respond made the problem worse. In answering one question, he sighed, “well, it’s repeating time.”

And asked why he wanted to be Senator, he expressed that, “I’ve had enough, and I think you have too…quite frankly, they’re not listening to us.”

But he did make some good points in an otherwise mainstream conservative presentation, talking about the aspect of “birth tourism” when the question of anchor babies was brought up. His ideas for creating incentives for manufacturing and privatizing portions of government have plenty of merit.

Also placing him at a disadvantage was being the only hopeful to not have any literature there (at least that I noticed.) He does have a website, though.

Of all the candidates present, Jim Rutledge is probably the best known and leader of this pack. In terms of presentation, he had the smoothest and most eloquent answers which likely stems from his avocation as a “conservative” attorney. That would also come in handy if he were elected, as he could “translate those bills for you and give you the straight story on them.”

He was also unafraid to bring up the incumbent, labeling Barb Mikulski as the “chief culprit” of the largest expansion of government and attack on individual liberties this Republic had ever seen.

Yet he had a couple key issues which may have seemed a bit out there if you don’t understand the logic behind them. For example, one method of helping to sell Eastern Shore products would be to dredge the waterways in order for easier ship passage, since shipping by barge is very cost-effective. His (perhaps draconian) solution for illegal immigration involved jailing employer scofflaws and having visa holders post a bond when they entered the country – if they skipped bond, a bounty hunter could track them down. And why not a tax cut for homeschoolers? Yet these do make sense and at least represent a different manner of looking at problems not found inside the Beltway.

One observer afterward thought Rutledge had sort of an “angry” tone about him, and perhaps his passion can be taken that way. He had the largest group of supporters in the room, though.

And Jim’s ideas had some merit with Sanquetta Taylor as well. “I kinda don’t like sitting next to (Jim),” she said, “because we think alike and he’s a Republican and I’m a Democrat.” But some things are subject to bipartisan agreement and Sanquetta came across as a relatively moderate Democrat who thought “it’s time for the torch to be handed” to a new generation. She even explained that, “we have to go into government with good intentions.”

So what are those intentions? Well, Sanquetta does like lower taxes but she is protectionist, advocating “heavy fines” for companies which outsource jobs. She’s against the Arizona SB1070 law, believing “the President should step in and mandate something that should help them.” Yet she’s against anyone being here illegally. She wouldn’t come out and support Elena Kagan to be on the Supreme Court, but wouldn’t say no either.

Perhaps her and Rutledge do think alike on a number of fiscal issues, but the issues I pointed out suggest they’d have some strong differences as well. Certainly she brought an attractive presence to the forum as the most telegenic and youngest candidate.

For Lih Young, being on (and sometimes off) the ballot is a way of life.

In 2008 she ran as a Democrat in the 8th District Congressional primary and received 2.9% of the vote. Undaunted, she filed after the primary as a write-in and got 28 votes.

In 2006 Young ran for U.S. Senate as a Democrat and picked up 0.3% of the vote in a statewide race. Filing as a write-in for the general election ballot she got 120 votes.

In 2004, 8th District Congress, 2.4% of the vote in the primary, 79 votes as a write-in for the general election.

In 2002, it was Comptroller. She actually got 4% of the Democratic vote in the primary, so she figured a write-in candidacy was a lock – and got 1,375 votes.

This record, her reluctance to give a ‘yes or no’ answer on simple issues, and saying during the forum that, “law enforcement is a robbery machine” basically tells you what you need to know. If not, there is this gem from my archives.

As I mentioned, there were a number of “yes or no” questions during the forum which are helpful in assessing a candidate as well. Here’s how they went.

A ban on offshore oil drilling? Taylor and Young said yes, the others no.

Passing cap and trade? All said no, but Young wanted to study the issue.

Supporting Arizona’s SB1070? Dempsey, Garner, McAndrew and Rutledge all said yes; Graham, Taylor, and Young no.

Eliminating the death tax? All favored it, and all support the Second Amendment.

Would you sign a ‘no climate tax’ pledge? All but Young said yes and all did.

All seven favored term limits to varying degrees – all but Garner endorsed two terms for Senators (Garner just one.) Garner, Graham, Taylor, and Young said two House terms; Dempsey and Rutledge three, and McAndrew six.

All would favor not repealing the Bush tax cuts, although Garner, “didn’t like the phrasing” of the question.

Repealing or replacing Obamacare was favored by Dempsey, Graham, McAndrew, Rutledge, and Taylor. Young wanted a single-payer system while Garner would not answer.

While most cited a lack of information, only Young was certain she’d vote to appoint Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Taylor was unsure, the others gave her a thumbs-down.

Only Young was in favor of taxpayer-funded abortions.

Tax cuts for homeschoolers? Graham and Rutledge said no, the others yes.

Employee Free Choice Act (card check)? Taylor and Young favored it, Dempsey, Graham, McAndrew, and Rutledge were opposed, and Garner was unsure.

All thought NAFTA had a negative impact.

Finally, all were asked when they last read the Constitution.

For Stephens Dempsey, it was the day before.
Chris Garner said 4 or 5 years ago.
Samuel Graham said in high school.
Daniel McAndrew replied last week.
Jim Rutledge said a month ago.
Sanquetta Taylor told us two weeks.
Finally, Lih Young said two years ago.

It was a pretty long forum, taking nearly two hours to wrap up. But those in attendance are certainly more well-informed about the candidates who could be bothered to show up and face the public they aim to serve.