A couple weeks ago, Governor O’Malley declared that wind turbines could not be constructed on state-owned land. While the Governor’s desire to protect forest land in Western Maryland is understandable, the simple truth is that his ambitious goals on limiting greenhouse gas emissions cannot be met without wind power.
The end of the last general session saw the defeat of a bill backed by the Governor that would have mandated a 25% emission reduction by 2020. At the same time, the Governor worked hard to secure a deal with Constellation Energy to recover rebates for customers and protect them from liabilities associated with shutting down the Calvert Cliffs nuclear reactor. And the Governor has a long-standing goal of limiting electricity rate increases for consumers. The only way to reduce emissions, restrain the cost of electric power for Maryland ratepayers and retire Calvert Cliffs simultaneously is to combine conservation with lots of new green power sources. That means windmills.
Longtime readers will recall the love affair some of my union members have for nuclear plants. My account may be true, but it is sometimes more complicated than that. The major problem with nuclear energy is the storage and disposal of radioactive waste. The national building trades unions have long favored construction of a waste storage site at Yucca Mountain, an hour’s drive outside of Las Vegas, but the issue strained the Southern Nevada Building Trades. Over ten years ago, at a chair-throwing, fist-brandishing meeting, the local trades voted to support the storage plan after much anguished debate. Balancing millions of man-hours against creating a nearby radioactive dump in the desert was a tough call for them.
The building trades have no ambivalence about wind power. My union pursues it with unrestrained eagerness and assigns international representatives to hunt it down. We have worked for most of the biggest wind generators in the country, including Florida Power & Light and Invenergy. Windmill construction involves laying power cables, pouring concrete pads, erecting and installing turbines and performing endless maintenance work. In Maryland, our total package is over $30 per hour, including payments for training, health and welfare and pension benefits. These jobs are as good as gold for the state.
Unfortunately, Maryland is not moving fast enough to realize this promise. In 1991, the state generated 39.9 million megawatt-hours (MWH) of electric power, of which 57% came from coal, 23% came from nuclear, 10% came from petroleum and 4% came from natural gas. Only 1.2% came from non-hydro renewables. In 2006, the state generated 49.0 million MWH of electric power, of which 60% came from coal, 28% came from nuclear, 1% came from petroleum and 4% came from natural gas. Only 1.3% came from non-hydro renewables. We are as dependent on fossil fuels and nuclear energy as we have ever been. What will happen when Calvert Cliffs, the state’s sole nuclear plant, is retired?
Wind power is becoming a more versatile source of energy with each passing year. Offshore developments are gaining traction, including this huge one planned for the British coast. Farmers are using them to supplement agricultural incomes. Some firms are even proposing roof-top windmills. But for the most part, windmills still have an important drawback: they require lots of land to produce modest amounts of power. A typical industrial wind turbine can put out anywhere from one-half to two megawatts (MW) of power, with a megawatt representing enough capacity to power 600-1,000 homes. So a development of 25 windmills on 100 acres could produce 12-50 MW. A fossil facility on a site of similar size could produce hundreds, even thousands, of megawatts. We do need land to build windmills and the Governor’s blanket prohibition does not help.
The United Steelworkers Union played a significant role in defeating the emissions bill. Their concern was that emissions restrictions would kill employment in their industries. The key to winning labor support for green energy is to tie it to the creation of lots of high-paying jobs. One way to do that would be to offer tax breaks to windmill owners (including small owners like farmers) that would only apply to windmills constructed by contractors with benefit plans and registered apprenticeship programs. The industrial facilities that employ the Steelworkers could use a cap-and-trade system to buy clean power credits from windmill owners. The state would get clean energy, residential and business consumers would have abundant electricity and less upward pressure on rates, power companies could avoid blackout risks and hundreds, maybe even thousands of Marylanders would have access to middle class jobs with training and benefits. Yes, it is possible for environmentalists and building trades guys to sit down at the same table, eating tofu and slamming cold ones, together.
So come on, Governor, stop shooting the breeze! Let’s get to work.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Put Your Finger in the Wind
Monday, April 28, 2008
Doing as Well as Teaching
Blogging on my part has been light lately because I've decided to throw my hat into the ring for the Chevy Chase Town Council. It's quite a competitive race with all three incumbents running for reelection and two other newcomers also in the race. Here is the letter I sent to Town residents:
Dear Neighbors:
I am a candidate for the Town Council and wanted to introduce myself to you. Growing up in Montgomery County, I was very pleased to move back to the area in 1998, when I joined the faculty at American University where I am currently a professor of Government in the School of Public Affairs. In 2005, my partner, Eric (who also grew up in the area), and I purchased a home on Thornapple Street.
Since returning to the area, I have been very involved in community affairs: I have worked hard on campaigns for Rich Madaleno and our friend Jane Lawton, and have maintained a blog on Maryland political issues. I have volunteered many hours to the Town’s Long-Range Planning Committee tracking Bethesda development projects, meeting with developers, preparing testimony, and working to build local coalitions; and I have been an active member of the Greater Bethesda-Chevy Chase Coalition fighting to protect the Capital Crescent Trail. I consider public service an honor and a serious responsibility.
Why am I running for Town Council?
To protect the Town borders from intrusive Bethesda development. As the point person on Bethesda development for the Long-Range Planning Committee, I have been amazed by the pace and scale of projects having an impact on the Town—Lots 31/31a, Woodmont East, and now Pier One. Our community needs to be vigilant in putting pressure on developers and the Planning Board to stay true to the Bethesda Sector Plan and to respect the needs of our suburban neighborhood abutting this growing urban area. I am not afraid to confront those issues which pose a threat to our community.
To protect the Capital Crescent Trail. Currently, I am on the executive board of the Greater Bethesda-Chevy Chase Coalition and have been following issues of concern to the Capital Crescent Trail for years. Earlier this year, I was involved in the successful efforts to keep open the tunnel between Elm Street Park and Bethesda during the construction of the Woodmont East project. While I may be a relatively new face in Town, I am a familiar voice in the County in championing the protection of this unique resource.
To protect the special character of the Town. Tall trees, winding streets, and pocket parks are all part of what make our neighborhood so wonderful. I support the tree ordinance which was enacted several years ago as well as the simplified land-use ordinance currently before the Council.
To improve playgrounds within the Town. Both the Leland Community Center playground and the Chevy Chase Elementary School playgrounds should be renovated and made accessible for all to enjoy. On the Council, I would push County and school officials to provide the necessary funds to make these improvements happen.
To maintain the high quality of Town services without increasing property taxes. I feel lucky to live in a Town with such excellent services. I will work to maintain, and when needed to improve, these services.
To those of you who attend Town Council meetings on a regular basis, my face should be familiar as a regular attendee. To those that don’t know me, I hope to knock on your door soon so that I can have the pleasure of meeting you.
I would be honored to receive your vote and to serve as your representative on the Town Council. I’d be happy to meet and to talk with you at any time.
Most sincerely,
David Lublin
MoCo: Who Cares About Hospitals? We Want an Arena!
Washington Adventist Hospital’s impending move out of Takoma Park is the biggest development in Montgomery County’s health care system in decades. So why is the Montgomery County government’s reaction one of complete silence?
Currently located in Takoma Park, Adventist is the second-biggest hospital in Montgomery County with 294 beds. After a four-year battle with its neighbors over an expansion plan, Adventist announced it was leaving Takoma Park in 2005. While the hospital’s CEO denied that the conflict with neighbors motivated the move, he did say that its current 14-acre site was not big enough to accommodate the hospital’s long-term needs. Two years later, Adventist purchased 48 acres near US-29 and Cherry Hill Road for a new campus. Montgomery County’s Planning Board unanimously recommended a special exception for the hospital’s land use last week. The final decision on Adventist’s move will be made by the Maryland Health Care Commission and many expect Adventist to file its Certificate of Need (a required application from hospitals for major capital projects) this August.
Holy Cross Hospital is 3.6 miles up Sligo Creek Parkway from Adventist and is the county’s largest hospital (404 beds). When Adventist announced its land purchase, Holy Cross reacted with alarm. Holy Cross told the Gazette and its neighbors that it would be “overwhelmed” by former Adventist patients from Down-county, Prince George’s County and the District if Adventist were allowed to flee up US-29.
This matter is not simply a battle between hospitals. The neighborhoods around Holy Cross have been moved to militancy in recent years by the treacherous conditions at the Intersection of Death, a failed development proposal at the Forest Glen Metro station and a giant expansion planned for the Sligo Creek Golf Course. These same neighborhoods are negotiating with Holy Cross Hospital over its own 100-room expansion after going through a previous one completed in 2005. If Holy Cross is correct, Adventist’s move will plug up Georgia Avenue (including the IOD) and Sligo Creek Parkway, flood Holy Cross’s emergency room and produce enormous health care access problems for Down-county patients.
But Holy Cross may not be correct. Since it is hardly an impartial observer of Adventist’s move, its arguments should be evaluated by an independent entity. Last year, both Holy Cross and my civic association wrote to the Montgomery County Council asking them to fund a health impact study on the effect of Adventist’s move. While the Maryland Health Care Commission is a state agency, it does take into account the views of county governments in deciding on Certificates of Need. Surely, we thought, such a significant event in the county’s health care system could not pass without comment by the county government.
Council Member George Leventhal agreed with us. A year ago, the Gazette reported: HHS [Health and Human Services Committee] Chairman George L. Leventhal (D-At large) of Takoma Park proposed assessing the financial stability of the county’s hospitals, how moving one hospital would affect the others and how the changes would affect access to health care.
Despite Leventhal’s dogged advocacy, disagreements over the study’s scope delayed it and the county’s current budget problems ultimately killed it. And so the hospitals and their neighbors prepared for a grim showdown before the Maryland Health Care Commission, with both hospitals submitting their own Certificates of Need for their dueling capital plans and the Montgomery County government standing aside, arms folded, uninterested. Well, we thought, in bad budget times, few get what they want from the county.
“We need to make decisions based on fact, not on the [back and forth] between hospitals. We don’t really know the effects of the move and we need to find out,” he said.
And then this Gazette article crackled through the neighborhood like a midnight thunderbolt. While the county has dickered, bickered, delayed and ultimately abdicated any say on its hospitals, it has spent $150,000 (plus $50,000 of state money) on a planning study for a new indoor arena in Germantown. And the county’s Department of Economic Development is requesting $125,000 more! Put aside the merits of the arena (which my union members would no doubt love to build); does planning for an entertainment facility really take precedence over evaluating the impact of a giant hospital relocation? Apparently some believe it does!
So enjoy watching the Maryland Nighthawks play minor league basketball in the new arena! Just don’t choke on that hot dog. The ambulance may not know where to take you.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Millionaires Offered Discount to Move to Virginia
Dear readers, I promise that this is not one of my much-ridiculed spoof posts. Everything that you are about to read is 100% true.
MPW friend and occasional spoof victim Dana Beyer forwarded us an online ad posted by a Virginia real estate agent enticing MoCo millionaires to move. The ad says:April 09, 2008
So I emailed this agent the following inquiry:
Virginia Welcomes Migration of Maryland Millionaires
New Millionaire Tax in Maryland May Cause some to Migrate to Virginia
It's mid-April. Are taxes on your mind?
If you're wealthy and live in Maryland, say hello to the first in the nation, Millionaire's Tax. Signed into law yesterday by Governor Martin O'Malley, the legislation created a new tax bracket for those who earn over $1 million per year. Approximately 6,000 Maryland households fall into this new tax bracket and are subject to a 6.25% tax rate.
According to The Baltimore Sun newspaper, more than 40 percent of these wealthy households are in Montgomery County. While Montgomery County is a great place to live and Maryland is a great state, many of those being hit with this new tax may decide to vote with their feet.
Let me be the first to WELCOME YOU TO VIRGINIA.
As you know, Virginia is just across the Potomac River from Maryland. Northern Virginia offers wonderful amenities, parks, schools, history, culture, and an easy commute to D.C. Homes in the upper brackets are plentiful throughout the area, especially in popular communities like McLean, Great Falls, Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax Station, and more. Another bonus of moving to Virginia -- how about in-state tuition at some of the best public colleges and universities in the country, including University of Virginia, James Madison University, and George Mason University.
Virginia has consistently ranked as the Best State for Business by Forbes Magazine year after year.
Best of all -- Virginia does not have a Millionaire's Tax. (Virginia's highest income tax bracket is 5.75%).
Maybe it's time to contact your Maryland Realtor (I can offer some great suggestions) about selling your Maryland home and moving to Virginia.
I'd be happy to help you find a Northern Virginia home and welcome you to our side of the river.Brian, I am disturbed about Maryland's new millionaire tax and am considering moving to Virginia. I have a few friends who are thinking along the same lines. If we all decided to move together, could we work out a discount? - Adam Pagnucco, Silver Spring, Maryland.
The agent replied:Thanks for your e-mail. I certainly understand being disturbed by the Millionaire Tax in Maryland. We can certainly talk about a discount if you and several others decided to work with me to purchase homes in Virginia.
So what are you waiting for, country club members? I actually got a discount for you to move out. Does this mean we get to build the Purple Line now?
Unmasked: the MCDCC Member Who Voted for Jennings Over Edwards
Relying on our extensive spy network inside the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee (MCDCC), we have uncovered the identity of the MCDCC member who voted to send Jason Jennings and not Donna Edwards to Congress. But first some background.
Back in February, Donna Edwards defeated incumbent 4th District Congressman Al Wynn in the Democratic primary. Shortly afterwards, Wynn announced he was resigning early to accept a lobbying job. The Governor declared that there would be a special general election held on June 17th to determine who would fill the rest of Wynn’s term. There would be no special primary; instead, the party central committees in both Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties would nominate a candidate to stand in the special general election. If the two central committees failed to agree, the state central committee would make the choice.
Donna Edwards, who steamrolled the eight-term incumbent, was widely expected to be MCDCC’s choice. But Jason Jennings, another Democratic challenger who lost badly to Edwards in the primary, submitted his resume to the committee as an alternative. MCDCC voted to nominate Edwards by a margin of 22 to 1. But it’s the one vote in favor of Jennings that has really made tongues wag. “Who was it?” cried out the county’s political junkies.
We gave the top-secret mission to our hardened spy corps inside MCDCC. These are the people who scale the castle walls, pick the locks, steal the bon bons and penetrate the hidden vaults of the Baroness. After numerous brushes with guards, attack dogs and angry peasants from Georgia Avenue, our spies brought back the name of the Jennings voter: Vilma P. White.
Ms. White is a Silver Spring resident who lives in Congressional District 8. She was elected as part of MCDCC’s at-large slate in 2006. The slate had no opposition apart from eternal school board candidate and MPW favorite Tommy Le. We emailed Ms. White asking for comment and she has not responded.
Let’s keep in mind the scope of Edwards’ election victory over Jennings. In the Congressional District 4 primary, Edwards finished first in the district with 78,008 votes. Jennings tied for fourth of seven candidates with 1,429 votes. In Montgomery County, the jurisdiction represented by Ms. White, Edwards received 28,781 votes compared to Jennings’ total of 609. And yet Ms. White, who does not live in Congressional District 4, was convinced that Jennings deserved to be the Democratic nominee despite the overwhelming disagreement of her constituents.
[Sigh…] I guess this is our fault. We have been overly harsh with MCDCC over the last few months. Perhaps the pressure of fending off our constant troublemaking is getting to some of them. I had dismissed the rumor that MCDCC Vice Chairman Alan Banov was seen walking down the center of Connecticut Avenue in full scuba gear, but maybe that was true after all.
So perhaps MCDCC should be given a break. We at MPW are going to start a holiday fund for them so that they can take a well-deserved vacation at Wheaton’s beautiful Brookside Gardens. In the meantime, we will recruit Kevin Gillogly, Robin Ficker, Itchy and Scratchy and Muffitt to hold down the fort.
We can only hope that none of them would vote for Jason Jennings!
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Governor to MoCo: Build Your Own Schools! (Updated)
The Post is reporting that the O’Malley administration plans to allocate $46.3 million in school construction aid to Montgomery County, less than the $55 million he promised in last year’s special session. The amount of money in dispute is small. But the symbolic value of the Governor’s action is huge.
Simply put, the Governor needs Montgomery County. He needs our tax revenues. He needs our 32 votes in the legislature. He needs our votes and campaign contributions at election time. Without any of the above, his administration will fail.
But the county is not in terrible need of the Governor. No one remembers the last time the state had a governor from Montgomery County. (If you know, report it in the comments!) In administration after administration, Montgomery has received far, far less in tax dollars from the state than it has contributed. That has remained the case under Governors Ehrlich (who came from the Baltimore suburbs), Glendening (from Prince George’s), Schaefer (Baltimore City), Hughes (Eastern Shore), Mandel (Baltimore City) and possibly every other governor in the 20th Century. We would fare just as badly under another non-MoCo Democratic governor as we are under O’Malley – in truth, it would make little difference.
Our state legislators delivered tough, agonizing votes on taxes and slots in the special session for the good of the state, the good of the party and the good of Governor O’Malley. Many of them were pilloried for the tax hikes and the slots votes. Many of them are still getting hammered, one way or the other, about the millionaire tax. And as payment we are left to haggle over pennies.
For those who do not know us, we are a diverse lot in Montgomery County. Our ranks include entrepreneurs, tree huggers, union members, government employees, immigrants, the working poor and many, many more. But every single one of us agrees on one thing: WE DEMAND TO BE TREATED FAIRLY BY OUR STATE.
Governor, if you want an all-out torch-burning, pitchfork-waving revolt in this county, you are well on your way to getting one.
Update:
The Gazette is now carrying the story as well. When reading the two articles, it's important to keep in mind the sources of quotes from Montgomery County officials. County Executive Ike Leggett, County Council President Mike Knapp, Senators Rona Kramer, Rich Madaleno and Nancy King, Delegate Brian Feldman and MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast's Chief of Staff do not universally agree on many things, but they are all frustrated with the Governor. While few would dare say it in the way I did, I will bet that the vast majority of Montgomery County's politicians are saying privately what I said publicly.
MoCo State Legislators on the Millionaire Tax
Preserved for eternity, here are the published comments and the votes by state legislators from Montgomery County (as well as remarks by the County Executive and County Council President) on whether a surcharge for millionaires should replace the computer services tax. Whether you agree with David Lublin or with me, the millionaire tax emerged as a major philosophical dividing line in the county delegation.
Delegate Charles Barkley (D-39), who voted against the millionaire tax, from the Post: "You can only hit a cash cow so many times before they say, 'We're going to take our milk somewhere else,'" said Del. Charles E. Barkley (D-Montgomery).
Delegate Kumar Barve, the House Majority Leader (D-17), who voted for the millionaire tax, from the Post:House Majority Leader Kumar P. Barve (D-Montgomery) defended the repeal bill, modeled on an O'Malley plan, as "a balanced compromise" that would eliminate the computer services tax before it is scheduled to take effect July 1.
Delegate Brian Feldman (D-15), who voted against the millionaire tax, from the Sun:
"You will be preserving the place of Maryland in the high-tech sweepstakes," Barve said. "I urge you to kill this thing, right here, right now.""A majority of the Montgomery County delegation have a lot of concerns," said Feldman, who said he hopes lawmakers will consider making deeper cuts in O'Malley's spending programs before raising taxes.
Senator Jennie Forehand (D-17), who voted for the millionaire tax, from the Gazette:
"Maybe this isn't the time for new initiatives," he said.But repealing the tax is a no-brainer to prevent computer firms from leaving the state, said Sen. Jennie M. Forehand (D-Dist. 17) of Rockville.
Delegate Bill Frick (D-16), who voted against the millionaire tax, from Maryland Moment:
"Some of the things we passed in November has a negative impact in the counties and put them in a negative situation," she said. "Unlike the millionaires who are well-grounded and are making their money in the state, they won’t leave. But tech companies who would have been affected by this tax could easily have uprooted their businesses and moved."Del. C. William Frick (D-Montgomery), a member of the Ways and Means Committee, said he is "disinclined to change the income tax brackets."
Senator Brian Frosh (D-16), who voted for the millionaire tax, from the Post:
"We worked hard on them and reached what we think is an appropriate compromise in the special session," Frick said.Sen. Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery) said he thinks lawmakers should step back and consider whether raising the tax rate is good public policy, irrespective of the consequences for his county.
Delegate Hank Heller (D-19), who voted for the millionaire tax, from the Gazette:
"I understand that people say it would hit Montgomery County harder than some other jurisdictions, but we don't get taxed by jurisdiction," Frosh said. "I don't perceive it as a geographic issue.""I don’t think we have to apologize" for fighting higher taxes, said Del. Henry B. Heller (D-Dist. 19) of Leisure World. "Montgomery County, instead of [being] a major decision-maker ... will end up either being the obstructionists or having to go along with it."
Delegate Tom Hucker (D-20), who voted for the millionaire tax, from the Post:
The so-called "millionaires tax" will cause Montgomery residents to move across the Potomac River to Northern Virginia, weakening the economy, Heller said."I have to represent all my constituents, not just the millionaires," said Del. Tom Hucker (D-Montgomery). "I think those folks can afford to pay more state income taxes, especially in the wake of enormous federal income tax cuts that they have benefited from for the last six years."
Senator Nancy King (D-39), who voted for the millionaire tax, from the Sun: …Montgomery County Democratic Sen. Nancy J. King, said she would reluctantly opt for an income tax increase, "If I had to."
Montgomery County Council President Mike Knapp from the Gazette:The tech tax repeal will burden Montgomery County residents unfairly, said County Council President Michael J. Knapp (D-Dist. 2) of Germantown.
Senator Rona Kramer (D-14), who voted against the millionaire tax, from Maryland Moment:
Of the state’s 6,150 millionaires, 41 percent live in Montgomery County; Baltimore County has the next highest number.
"Montgomery County is solving a statewide problem — again," Knapp told reporters in Rockville on Monday.Sen. Rona E. Kramer (D-Montgomery), who chairs the county's Senate delegation, said she wants the computer services tax repealed, but would prefer cuts in transportation spending than changes in the income tax structure.
And from the Sun:
"Montgomery County already does the yeoman's share of supporting the state budget," she said. "It's absolutely inappropriate for one jurisdiction, Montgomery County, to pick up the tab for 50 percent of one tax.""I would not support it," Sen. Rona Kramer, a Montgomery County Democrat on the budget committee, said yesterday.
Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett from the Post:
O'Malley's proposal is a political mistake, she said.
"He's coming to the one jurisdiction where he's still popular and saying: 'We're going to make you compromise again,'" Kramer said. "It's going to make him look terrible."Leggett said he favors a repeal, partly because the planned tax significantly affects the thriving technology industry in the Washington suburbs. Leggett said, however, that he opposes raising the top personal income tax rate because a large number of wealthy Marylanders live in Montgomery and that he is wary of cuts to transportation funding.
Senator Richard Madaleno (D-18), who voted against the millionaire tax, from the Post:
"I want to be supportive of resolving this, certainly as it relates to this computer tax, but Montgomery County cannot be the sole source of solving a statewide problem," he said.Sen. Richard S. Madaleno Jr. (D-Montgomery) acknowledged that the number of those who would be affected by the millionaires’ tax is small. "But this is a class of people who generate a lot of tax revenue for Maryland and Montgomery County," Madaleno said. "To create a disincentive for them to stay would be damaging to the rest of us."
And again from the Post:"Opponents of this tax are not going to characterize it as a millionaires tax," said Sen. Richard S. Madaleno Jr. (D-Montgomery), a member of the budget committee. "It's going to be just another tax increase. . . . This is just more fodder for conservative talk radio."
Madaleno posted an essay on this topic and others on Free State Politics.
Madaleno echoed arguments by other Montgomery officials, who have suggested that a higher income tax rate could prompt people who are creating jobs in the county to move. He suggested making cuts in transportation funding to repeal the tech tax.
Madaleno also questioned the political consequences in his county of the governor's support for the millionaires tax.
"I think it could be damaging to O'Malley in the part of the state where he probably remains the strongest," Madaleno said.
Delegate Craig Rice (D-15), who voted against the millionaire tax, from the Sun: "This is another ill-fated Senate move," said Rice of the Senate bill, which he criticized for not replacing the computer tax with a long-term revenue source. "We need to move forward with taxing other services."
And from the Gazette:
By an 8-12 vote, [House Ways and Means] committee members also rejected a proposal from Rice that would have cut $150 million from transportation projects but eliminated the tax on millionaires."I think Montgomery County has work to do," said Rice (D-Dist. 15) of Germantown. "I think as a delegation, we have got to do a better job at standing together on these things. We should not be balancing tax policy on one class of people."
Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17), who voted against the millionaire tax, from Maryland Moment: Del. Luiz R.S. Simmons (D-Montgomery) said he is frustrated to see his county become the "last refuge of unimaginative people" during budget crises.
Delegate Herman Taylor (D-14), who voted for the millionaire tax, from the Gazette:
"The tax is always imposed on us," Simmons said, adding that he thinks state leaders perceive Montgomery as a land of wealthy suburbs that is immune to the social ills that require government spending. But he said much of the county is middle-class and struggling during the economic downturn.
"I'm not trying to give you gobbledygook, but if you take a cumulative effect of these tax increases, what you will get is a migration of people out of the county," Simmons said.
"It has nothing to do with defending the millionaires," he added. "I'm not a millionaire. I'm just concerned about us taking hits on many different fronts and the confluence of those is going to hobble our economy.""You’re exchanging one for the other," Del. Herman L. Taylor Jr. (D-Dist. 14) of Ashton said of the new income tax bracket. "I don’t know if that’s a good compromise. Just like the computer tax, we’re going to have to wait and see. Instead of hitting millionaires’ businesses, we hit millionaires directly."
Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18), who voted against the millionaire tax, from the Gazette: "The question is how do we replace those revenues in a way that is true to our progressive values and fair to Montgomery County," said Del. Jeffrey D. Waldstreicher (D-Dist. 18) of Kensington.
And here is Senate President Mike Miller’s assessment from the Sun:Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller said lawmakers from Montgomery County held the key to breaking the deadlock, noting that they were the most adamant opponents of both the "tech tax" and the proposed levy on those earning more than $1 million annually. He said the county also receives the most in state transportation funding, leaving its representatives reluctant to redirect that money.
That it is, Mr. Miller. That it is.
The county "is in the eye of the storm," he said.
The final vote tally among Montgomery County’s state legislators is:
For replacing the computer tax with a surcharge on people making $1 million a year or more:
Senator Brian Frosh (D-16)
Senator Rob Garagiola (D-15)
Senator Nancy King (D-39)
Senator Mike Lenett (D-19)
Senator Jamie Raskin (D-20)
Delegate Saqib Ali (D-39)
Delegate Kumar Barve (D-17)
Delegate Bill Bronrott (D-16)
Delegate James Gilchrist (D-17)
Delegate Hank Heller (D-19)
Delegate Sheila Hixson (D-20)
Delegate Tom Hucker (D-20)
Delegate Anne Kaiser (D-14)
Delegate Susan Lee (D-16)
Delegate Roger Manno (D-19)
Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20)
Delegate Karen Montgomery (D-14)
Delegate Kirill Reznik (D-39)
Delegate Herman Taylor (D-14)
Against replacing the computer tax with a surcharge on people making $1 million a year or more:
Senator Rona Kramer (D-14)
Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18)
Delegate Charles Barkley (D-39)
Delegate Al Carr (D-18)
Delegate Kathleen Dumais (D-15)
Delegate Brian Feldman (D-15)
Delegate Bill Frick (D-16)
Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-18)
Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19)
Delegate Craig Rice (D-15)
Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17)
Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18)
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Valerie Ervin Issues "Call to Action" on Economic Justice
Montgomery County Council Member Valerie Ervin, who represents Silver Spring, Takoma Park, Wheaton and Kensington, wrote the following op-ed in the Gazette today. We reproduce it here for our readers.
The Gazette
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Economic justice: A call to action
by Valerie Ervin
This month marks the 40th anniversary of the death of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He was assassinated while in Memphis supporting sanitation workers who were on strike to improve working conditions and low wages. For Dr. King economic inequality was an important tenet of the civil rights movement. This new focus was the convergence of racial and economic concerns and had the potential to change the course of the movement.
Forty years later many things have changed in Montgomery County, but much remains the same. In 1975, the county’s minority population was 8 percent. In 2005, census data shows the minority population had grown to 41 percent countywide and was 79 percent in some areas. However, a comprehensive discourse about race and poverty is absent.
In Montgomery County, one of the most affluent counties in Maryland, policy makers often ignore the plight of those who are struggling to make ends meet. I believe that a new conversation about poverty and race must take place.
County government officials explain that growth in the county was less than 1 percent last year. However, what does this mean for an average working family? Without a growing tax base, our roads will continue to experience gridlock and our schools will remain overcrowded. More than 5,000 public school employees must travel from as far away as West Virginia each day to teach our children.
Police officers and firefighters go to great lengths to serve our communities, yet many call other jurisdictions home. Commute times are getting longer because, for so many, the cost of living in Montgomery County is a dream that is out of reach. Montgomery County has the second highest foreclosure rate in Maryland, and we have yet to see the worst of this trend.
Each year our public school system must teach more children who arrive at our doors unable to speak English. Poverty is also an issue for our county’s children with nearly 25 percent of school children eligible for free and reduced meals.
So where do we go from here? I have traveled throughout the county and visited the homes of people who dream of simple achievements that many of us take for granted. Their voices are silent in our most critical public policy debates. What I have found is that there is a disconnect between what preoccupies policy makers and what truly troubles the majority of working people who are struggling to care for children, pay for housing and cover the ever increasing costs of utilities, fuel and groceries. The current economic downturn impacts working families disproportionately, but they are too busy trying to make a living to spend time lobbying lawmakers.
As a call to action, I propose a summit for state and local policymakers to begin a new debate — a conversation about how to achieve economic justice for all of our residents. We must focus on opportunities for the future, not artificial limitations imposed by the past.
Valerie Ervin, a Democrat from Silver Spring, represents District 5 on the Montgomery County Council.
A note from Adam Pagnucco.
Council Member Ervin is touching on a theme that was explored in the recent County Council District 4 special election. In the candidate debates in that short campaign, Nancy Navarro repeatedly mentioned the plight of the people "not in the room." In contrast, my blog-brother Kevin Gillogly offered this characterization of the election in a blog post comment: "That is this race in a nutshell: Growth and Land Use Policy. Everything else is smoke screen." The debate on growth policy, poverty, jobs and pay is heating up as this county teeters on the edge of a recession and Valerie Ervin is calling that question.
If another elected leader has a different view, we will carry it for our readers in the interest of encouraging open debate.
Budget Cutbacks at MPW
Recently, we have offered frequent coverage of budget problems at both the state and county levels to our readers. This week, the Gazette reported that MCGEO – the county government employees union – submitted a list of budget savings to the county including limits on toilet paper provided to inmates. In that spirit, we at MPW are announcing a package of budget cutbacks at this blog to deal with our own financial difficulties.
1. MPW owner David Lublin has called his union contract with myself, Kevin Gillogly and Paul Gordon “unsustainable.” Apparently our provisions on catch-up pay to the bloggers on Free State Politics are excessive. So David is cutting our cost-of-living increase to zero, which should save him a lot of money. In return, he is terminating his union-avoidance consultant.
2. We will be introducing a new comment fee for our readers. Anyone posting comments of praise for our opinions, writing skills or superior good looks will be exempted from the fee. Extra charges will be assessed on anyone making more than a million dollars per year, any developers, any members of MCDCC or PGCDCC and any politicians who voted to pass the much-hated blogger tax.
3. We will no longer be employing Itchy and Scratchy as security service providers to this blog. Our readers are aware that we have occasionally criticized certain officials inside the county government. So a couple months ago, we decided to hire a security service for fear of encountering active intimidation by county government employees. But now Itchy and Scratchy will have to return to the state fundraising circuit.
4. Our much-anticipated $65,000 bathroom project with a private shower is indefinitely postponed. The reason is simple: our readers access our content from remote locations. If you are not in our physical presence, what need do we have for hygiene?
5. The saddest casualty of our budget cuts may be David’s hairless chihuahua, Muffitt. He can no longer afford to feed caviar to Muffitt on a daily basis so her fine dining needs will now be covered by donations from the Columbia Country Club.
But fear not for Muffitt! We are sending her to work on Senate President Mike Miller’s staff and, in a couple years, she will leave to pursue her fortunes as a high-priced, Miller-connected lobbyist! Muffitt’s burgeoning career in Annapolis will no doubt pay the bills for MPW (as well as David’s mortgage)!
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
MPW Banned by Federal Agency
One of our long-time readers has reported that a federal agency, the reader's employer, has blocked Maryland Politics Watch blog. The reader has asked us not to publicly name the agency for fear of potential waterboarding.
When the reader attempted to access our site, the following message came up:SITE BLOCKED
Hmmm... pornography, sexual content, gambling, hate propaganda, violence... Now Mr. Gillogly, have you been posting and deleting things in the middle of the night for your degenerate friends?
This site has been blocked by the security team because it is listed by the vendor of our Web-blocking software as having one or more of the following among its content:
Web Chat Service
Web-Based E-mail Service
Pornography / Sexual Content
Gambling or Games
Illegal Activity / Drugs / Hate Propaganda / Violence
RealAudio or RealVideo Services
Which post got MPW banned? Was it our account of Itchy and Scratchy's appearance at a recent fundraiser? Those two are definitely violent enough to get banned. Was it our lampoon of Mike Miller's blogger tax? The Senate President is certainly powerful, but maybe not powerful enough to control a federal agency's Internet security team. The same goes for County Executive Ike Leggett, who probably can't wait for people to stop discussing his new bathroom. Or perhaps the feds saw Dana Beyer's hell-raising escapades outside the Bethesda Giant and judged us to be a national security threat.
I can't shake the feeling that MCDCC had something to do with this. Any comment from Alan Banov or Marc Korman?
Marriage Equality is Inevitable
Marriage equality is inevitable. It is going to happen in Maryland and it will eventually happen across the country. The reason for that is not politics, nor religion, nor even the daily tactical decisions of civil rights organizations like Equality Maryland. It is because of two forces that are infinitely more primordial: personal relationships and mathematics.
Are you a straight person? If so, do you remember your first gay friend? If you met your first openly gay friend more than fifteen years ago, as I did, there was probably a bit of novelty to it. After all, no one else you knew was gay. But after awhile, you stopped thinking about that friend in that context. You treated him or her the same as you treated other friends. But there was always one difference: that gay friend could never have a relationship that was formally sanctioned by society. It did not matter how satisfying or constructive that relationship was – it could never be recognized as marriage.
And so if you have a gay friend that you really care about, gay marriage is not a gay issue. It’s about you, your friend and your relationship with that friend. Because if you oppose gay marriage, you would have to look that friend in the eye and tell him or her that their romances and dreams were inherently inferior to yours. And if you’re like me, you could never, ever do that. It’s just not possible to do it and retain your own humanity. So it was with me as I became pro-gay marriage soon after I met my first gay friend.
Now here’s where mathematics comes in. Suppose that 5% of the population in Maryland is gay. No one knows for sure, but let’s use that number for now. That would mean roughly 275,000 gay people now live in Maryland. More than fifteen years ago, gay relationships were still taboo for the most part. So at that time, perhaps 30,000-50,000 gay people were out. They had straight friends and family members who cared about them. Many of them accepted those gay people for what they were, and they accepted their relationships. Many of them adopted my view that marriage was their fundamental right. Suppose, again, that each of those gay people had ten friends and family members who came to believe in their right to marriage. That would add up to perhaps a sixth to a fifth of the state’s population.
Over the years, more and more gay people came out. And they made more and more friends. And many of them formed families. So the numbers grew and grew. Suppose 250,000 gay people are now living as openly gay in the state today. And suppose each of them has ten friends and family members that believe in their right to marry. That would equal 2.75 million believers in marriage equality in Maryland, close to half the population. But the process does not stop there. Friends of gay people talk to their friends, some of whom do not have close relationships with gays. And so they too become converted.
What we have been witnessing is a magical virus of humanity passing from person to person. This is happening right now, in our cafeterias, our offices, our sidewalks, our living rooms and even our churches. It cannot be stopped. It cannot be controlled. It cannot be defied or suppressed. And it is taking over our culture. Conservatives are fond of emphasizing the importance of our national culture. For once, I agree with them. Person by person, our culture is producing a groundswell for marriage equality.
In the short term, Maryland’s politicians have a choice. Like Attorney General Doug Gansler, they can embrace gay marriage. Or they can squirm uncomfortably in the murky netherworld of civil unions. Or they can spit into the wind as the gusts mount. But over the long term, marriage equality is coming. And there’s not a damn thing they can do about it.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Transportation in a Crunch
By Marc Korman.
A recent Gazette comic, reproduced below, sums up the recent action by the General Assembly when it comes to transportation. A big loser in this year’s session, and a potential loser in future years, is the state’s transportation funding.
Coverage of the General Assembly’s repeal of the 6% computer services sales tax mostly ignored the negative effect on transportation and instead focused on the new millionaire’s surcharge, really just a new tax bracket, that taxes earnings over $1 million at 6.25%. Far less attention was paid to the $50 million cut from the state’s Transportation Trust Fund for each of the next five years. Just a few months ago, the General Assembly and the Governor received much earned praise for adding $420 million in new annual revenue for transportation.
The opponents of the computer services tax repeal proposed even deeper cuts to transportation, with Senator Madaleno proposing a $150 million annual cut to the Transportation Trust Fund. In a posting to Free State Politics and republished here at MPW, Senator Madaleno justified his proposal by noting that it would still leave in place a $300 million increase from prior to the Special Session. Senator Madaleno also stated that the projects slated to be funded were not good uses of the state’s money. Given the state’s transportation needs, I find the argument a bit curious because the idea that the local transportation projects have no validity because they will only improve “traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of these intersections” begs the question of why they are being funded at all. If Senator Madaleno’s claims are true, and these projects are of such low priority and value, then perhaps our legislators need to convince the Department of Transportation to pick better projects instead of deciding to cut funds.
But the real point for all of those proposing transportation funding cuts of any size is that the needs are real and we need more funds, not less. Even if individual legislators do not support all of the projects on the list of needs, surely each individual Senator supports a majority of these and numerous others. Some of the needs are:
1. The Inter County Connector-$2.4 billion
2. The Purple Line-$105 million to $1.685 billion (depending on the method selected)
3. Corridor Cities Transitway-$850 million estimate
4. BRAC Enhancements in Bethesda-$70 million estimate
5. Georgia Avenue and Forest Glen Road Crossing - Cost unknown, but I put it in to avoid the wrath of MPW’s writers.
Instead of searching for ways to meet these needs, everyone is proposing cuts. If we are not going to raise the gas tax, the least we can do is stop raiding the Transportation Trust Fund. As I said, it was only a few months ago that we were praising the $420 million increase. It was just a year before that we were criticizing Bob Ehrlich for raiding the Transportation Trust Fund. In 2010, I do not want the Democrats to be accused of the same transportation policy failures.
A Note of Concurrence from Adam Pagnucco
Marc Korman's argument is even more powerful than he originally stated. The fact is that Maryland's Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) is already under assault.
First, the revenues devoted to the fund are endangered by the poor economy. The major sources for the TTF are gas taxes, motor vehicle titling taxes and fees (like registrations and licenses), operating revenues (like tolls) and a portion of corporate income tax receipts. All of these revenues will probably record shortfalls in the coming year.
Second, construction material prices are soaring. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, national wholesale prices have skyrocketed by 31% for ready-mixed concrete, 73% for gasoline and 78% for asphalt between 2004 and 2007. The situation is exacerbated by an ever-weakening U.S. dollar and rising commodity demand from India, China and other developing countries. These price increases threaten the financial solvency of some construction contractors and will stretch already scarce dollars at MDOT.
Of the $400+ million transportation increase approved by the General Assembly’s special session, $150 million was planned for new projects such as the ones listed above by Marc. The loss of $50 million from the computer tax repeal, the slowdown of TTF revenue sources and rising commodity prices will greatly reduce the amount of money left for new projects. As a matter of fact, if the state protects tens of millions of dollars in planning money for mass transit projects (like Baltimore’s Red Line and MoCo’s Purple Line and CCT), it is entirely possible that all other new work aside from the ICC will be deferred. That means that if the legislature attempts to raid the TTF – as Governor Ehrlich did repeatedly – there may be little left to plunder.
There is another possibility. The legislature could choose to defer system maintenance, which was supposed to receive an extra $250 million per year. The state prioritized system maintenance in the wake of the I-35 bridge collapse in Minnesota. If the state does cut maintenance and a major infrastructure failure occurs, the political consequences will be cataclysmic.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Council District 4 Special Election by the Numbers
Many political observers inside Montgomery County are discussing the meaning of Donald Praisner’s victory in the Council District 4 special election. Our contribution to that debate focuses on mathematics. From that perspective, Mr. Praisner won because of turnout and demographics.
In the district’s total polling place results, Mr. Praisner received 3,288 votes, 348 more than Nancy Navarro (2,940). Steve Kanstoroom finished third with 804 votes and Pat Ryan trailed with 402. Overall turnout was 11.2%. But real insight requires an educated read of the precinct counts.
Council District 4 has 45 precincts. Of that number, Mr. Praisner won 22, Navarro won 21, Praisner and Navarro tied in 1 and Steve Kanstoroom won 1. (We predicted Kanstoroom’s win in Precinct 13-11 a week ago. Keep reading this blog, people!)
The precincts won by Mr. Praisner reported a combined turnout of 12.9%. Navarro’s precincts reported a combined turnout of 9.1%. That difference of 3.8 points contributed to Mr. Praisner’s margin of 348 votes.
But there’s more. Mr. Praisner won all five precincts reporting the highest turnouts, including Precincts 13-54 and 13-69 in Leisure World. Of the eight precincts reporting the lowest turnouts, Navarro won seven and tied with Praisner in the eighth.
The two Leisure World precincts had combined turnout of 20.5%, 9.3 points ahead of the district total. They reported 476 votes for Mr. Praisner (47% of their total), 323 votes for Navarro (32%), 166 votes for Kanstoroom (16%) and 45 votes for Ryan (4%). Leisure World by itself gave Mr. Praisner 44% of his victory margin.
Turnout was correlated with demographics. District 4 has seven precincts in which the Hispanic population topped 20% in the 2000 Census. Navarro won all seven. These precincts cast 267 votes for Navarro (50% of their Democratic total) and 179 for Mr. Praisner (34%). However, their turnout was only 7.6% - a full 3.6 points below the district’s total turnout.
District 4 has eleven precincts in which the black population topped 30% in the 2000 Census. Navarro won seven of these and Mr. Praisner won four. These precincts cast 583 votes for Navarro (47% of their total) and 509 for Mr. Praisner (41%). Navarro’s victory here is notable since Mr. Praisner’s biggest endorsement came from County Executive Ike Leggett, Montgomery County’s most prominent African American resident. These precincts reported a turnout of 8.4% - 2.8 points below the district’s total turnout.
District 4 has fifteen precincts outside of Leisure World in which the white population was at least 60% in 2000. Mr. Praisner won eight of these, Navarro won six and they tied in one. These precincts cast 1,016 votes for Mr. Praisner (44% of their total) and 936 votes for Navarro (40%). Turnout was 10.9%, almost equal to the district’s total turnout (11.2%). In the end, these precincts plus Leisure World accounted for 233 votes of Mr. Praisner’s 348 vote lead, or two-thirds of his margin.
Mr. Praisner’s supporters are understandably pleased at his victory, but they have cause to worry about 2010. As Mr. Praisner has said many times, he will not be on the ballot again. His supporters and potential successors should consider the following relevant facts:
1. School board member Marilyn Praisner (in 1990) and American University professor Jamie Raskin (in 2006) both required year-long campaigns to knock off long-time incumbents. Nancy Navarro came close to defeating the 17-year-incumbent Praisner family in just six weeks. As someone who saw her operation up close, I was impressed by the discipline and tactical intelligence of her campaign. Now that Navarro has survived the fire of an occasionally acrimonious and difficult election, she should be an even more formidable candidate if she runs again.
2. Most voters knew who their candidate was when they arrived at the polls on Tuesday. This reduced the importance of MCEA’s Apple Ballot. This will not be the case in 2010.
3. District 4 is a majority non-white jurisdiction and is trending even further in that direction. Navarro’s strong performance in black and Latino precincts – even against the choice of a black County Executive – swims with the demographic tide of history. And if she chooses to run again in 2010, she will have much more time to get out the vote in those precincts.
Ironically, the best hope for Navarro’s opponents among non-white voters could be Pat Ryan. His work with Action in Montgomery has brought him into contact with many black, Latino and immigrant communities in the county. His hands-on advocacy for affordable housing is a good issue with these constituencies. But Ryan was discouraged from running by the establishment officials who backed Mr. Praisner. Starved for money and deprived of endorsements, Ryan garnered just 5% of the vote and finished last in 33 of the district’s 45 precincts. If Ryan or Steve Kanstoroom, who spent $24,000 of his own money only to draw 11% of the vote, is anointed to be Mr. Praisner’s successor, will either be able to overcome such a low finish?
We can again breathe…
Written by Sharon Dooley
Sharon Dooley is the Legislative Director of Upcounty Action.
Many of us who live in the Olney area and others across the upper Montgomery County regions who could not vote in the District 4 Council race are now breathing freely again. With the Democratic primary won by Don Praisner, we are confident that the prudent fiscal and moderate growth policies voiced by Marilyn Praisner will continue to be heard in the council chambers, if he defeats the challenger, as expected in May.
Mike Knapp’s comments that the last election was not about growth were echoed by Nancy Navarro as she made the point that growth is contained here. I differ with this opinion significantly and consider it misguided, perhaps even naïve. Growth policy and land-use decisions are an important part of county governance whether it is for in-fill development or in redevelopment of an older neighborhood. Bad decisions made in zoning or in Master Plans can change the character of a community, so these selections must be made carefully. Growth is cyclical as well, since economies have cycles, just as communities do and we need to plan for both good times and downturns.
Our county’s future growth is most likely not going to be in areas that mimic the plans for new towns such as Clarksburg, but rather in areas where we have settled communities that are becoming more urban. As a county we are growing and will continue to grow – the concern is in which ways will we change? Important questions will have to be asked and answered. Sometimes the knowledge is held in which questions are asked. I submit that the following are some that will need clear answers soon:
• How many stories do we wish to see built for our urban apartments and/or high-rise city office buildings?
• How much development can be supported in our Metro centers?
• How does the BRAC affect our down county roads and transit?
• Will there be affordable housing for these new workers should they choose to move here?
• Where will we get the necessary infrastructure funding as the modest growth continues and tax revenues decline?
• Will we be able to hold the line on class sizes as the county changes?
• Will the transit plans for the CCT and Purple lines be a real part of the transportation futures here?
• How long will we be able to hold the preservation of the Ag reserve as we see attempts at encroachment continue?
There are 93,000 acres approximately in protection in the Agricultural Reserve at
this time; farmers want to be able to have the equity they hold in their land pay
off; several proposals regarding development rights and land trade-offs are
suggested and being studied. These decisions need to be carefully considered
by our elected officials who are tasked with maintaining a viable county into the
future. It is hoped that now we can be confident that the air will remain
breathable, that forests will grow, and agriculture will continue to be a vibrant
part of Montgomery County’s tomorrows.
The Problem with Peter Franchot
The war of words between Governor Martin O’Malley and Comptroller Peter Franchot escalated yesterday. The Governor branded the Comptroller as a hypocrite for crusading against slots after voting for them in 2001. The Comptroller’s spokesman then referred to the Governor’s “attack” as “unusual” and “regrettable.” But what is truly regrettable is the nature of the Comptroller’s engagement in the state’s political debates.
From the start, Peter Franchot said he was not going to be your grandfather’s sort of Comptroller. He was going to be an activist, independent spokesman for Maryland taxpayers. Boy, I thought, this was going to be great. After all, activist independent spokespeople provide great fodder for bloggers!
Soon enough, the Comptroller proved good on his word. He questioned the need to hold a special session last year. He opposed the computer tax as soon as it was suggested. Senate President Mike Miller criticized Franchot and his staff for being “missing in action this entire year in terms of helping the state solve the budget crisis. ... Certainly, during the entire [22] days of the special session he was gone.” Soon after, Franchot became embroiled in an ugly battle with the Senate over his staffing practices and conduct in office. And that’s to say nothing about his opinions on slots!
Now we try to follow a tradition of constructive criticism on this blog. After our rip-roaring romps against MCDCC last year over its legislative appointment process, Paul Gordon suggested holding mid-term special elections and using a variety of ways to incorporate district resident input into MCDCC votes. When I found the Governor’s original special session package to be regressive, I laid out how to seize tax revenues from cheating employers who were costing the state millions. And when I opposed the computer tax, I suggested a package containing the Governor’s original upper-income tax rates, combined reporting and a corporate tax hike as a replacement.
It is very, very easy to criticize someone else’s ideas. It can be very, very challenging to craft a viable alternative. Franchot’s problem is not that he is an anti-slots liberal or that he butts heads with the Senate President. (After all, someone has to fight with Miller!) It’s that he does not supply us with a better way to deal with our problems. What does a progressive alternative to the things he criticizes look like? I’d really like to know, but he never tells us.
And the slots issue is becoming an excruciatingly difficult one. The latest state budget information holds that if the slots referendum is not passed, the state will face $600 million annual budget deficits forever. Regular readers know that I’m not a fan of slots. But after the legislature’s regressive special session tax package, the most likely alternative to slots money will be more sales tax increases or horrendous budget cuts, possibly to education, health care and transportation. These are really tough choices and any honest person who cares about both preventing slots and pursuing progressive economic policy is going to wrestle with them.
So what is the Comptroller’s recommendation? According to the Post:Asked by a reporter how he would replace the revenue if the referendum is defeated, Franchot offered no specifics. He said the state should be nurturing the life sciences sector, industries that would presumably contribute more to the tax base upon its growth.
I’m sorry, Mr. Franchot. If you are going to earn my loyalty, you have to do better than that.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
State Budget Crisis Will Get Worse Before it Gets Better
Courtesy of State Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18), we present a grim reality to MPW readers: the state budget situation is getting even worse.
Over the last two years, Maryland politics has been dominated by a debate over how to deal with the state’s “structural deficit.” This deficit is a long-term imbalance between revenues and spending created by income tax cuts in the 1990s and an expansion of education spending in 2002. The Ehrlich administration was able to defer the consequences of these decisions because of a strong economy and repeated diversions of transportation funds. But Governor O’Malley decided to deal with the problem head-on early in his term, leading to the deficit reduction package of last year’s special session.
The problem is the weak economy. Every time the legislature takes action to correct the deficit, the Maryland Board of Revenue Estimates reports revenue shortfalls. And so the legislature must redo its work. If the shortfalls are serious enough between General Assembly sessions, the Governor will probably have to make unilateral cuts until they return to Annapolis.
Senator Madaleno brought the latest 90 Day Report, a review prepared by the State Department of Legislative Services, to our attention. The report had this to say about future state budgets:As shown in Exhibit A-1.6, although there is a cash balance of about $226.4 million in fiscal 2009, there is a gap of about $350 million when comparing ongoing revenue to ongoing spending. As noted, action at the 2007 special session reduced the projected $1.7 billion structural deficit by about $1.4 billion through a combination of new revenues and spending reductions. Reductions adopted at the 2008 session largely offset downward revenue revisions that were received in March 2008 but did not make additional progress in reducing the structural deficit. There is a potential cash shortfall of about $243 million between revenues and current services spending projected for fiscal 2010. The shortfall is expected to widen to nearly $600 million in fiscal 2011, which mirrors the structural deficit. This is due mainly to the downward revision of revenue by BRE [Board of Revenue Estimates] in March, to an actuarial error in retirement contributions which adds nearly $70 million per year in additional spending for teachers’ retirement costs, and in the financing of health care expansion, enacted by Chapter 7 of the 2007 special session, which adds $70 million in general fund spending in fiscal 2011.
Exhibit A-1.6 is reproduced below.
Based on the assumption that the constitutional amendment to implement video lottery terminals is approved by voters in the fall of 2008, the projected cash and structural shortfall narrows significantly by fiscal 2013. It is estimated that revenue from video lottery terminals will add nearly $500 million in revenue in fiscal 2012, increasing to an estimated $660 million in fiscal 2013. If the constitutional amendment is not successful, the structural deficit is projected to remain at the roughly -$600 million level.
These numbers are by no means necessarily the ones that will be used by the General Assembly in next year’s budget decisions. The revenue numbers in particular may be adjusted more than once by then. But in general, here’s how this might play out:
1. More tax hikes are very unlikely. The bulk of the problem will be dealt with on the spending side.
2. The spending increases passed in the special session, such as the establishment of a fund to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and a health care expansion, will be especially vulnerable. Legislators will say, “We thought we had the money for those things but it turns out we don’t. So we will have to wait until the money comes in before funding them.” College tuition freezes and transportation spending will also be endangered.
3. Both the special session and the 2008 general session largely spared the counties from cuts to state aid. That may not be the case next time. The counties are especially wary of any attempt by the state to pass on obligations for teachers’ pensions. Education aid may also be at risk. If aid cuts happen, they would greatly complicate county budget problems, especially in Montgomery County.
4. Slots proponents will be sure to exploit the new data, especially the 90 Day Report’s statement that “if the constitutional amendment is not successful, the structural deficit is projected to remain at the roughly -$600 million level.” Even anti-slots legislators will shudder at the prospect of replacing that amount of money, especially as election year approaches.
5. A $243 million deficit is projected for FY 2010, which will be decided next year. But a $596 million deficit is projected for FY 2011, which will be decided in 2010 – an election year. The General Assembly is surely tired of dealing with budget crises every year and will be tempted to take a break in 2009. But if they do that, the 2010 elections will be kicked off by a truly painful debate over even more tax hikes and/or spending cuts – a teeth-chattering prospect for every politician in Annapolis.
On Political Pulse
Marvin Weinman, the President of the Montgomery County Taxpayer's League, will be on the 'Political Pulse' talk show on:
--Thursday, April 17th at 9 p.m. and
--Tuesday, April 22nd at 9:30 p.m.
to talk about the large budget deficit that Montgomery County Council is now debating. Mr. Weinman is quoted often in the Washington Post on County budget matters and recently wrote a Commentary in the Gazette. Political Pulse is on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
MCDCC: Apply for the Ballot Questions Committee
While I am not the ideal message boy for MCDCC, we are happy to help out MPW friend Marc Korman. He forwarded this notice for our readers.
Apply for the Ballot Questions Committee
The November election is not just about the presidency. A number of important initiatives will be on the ballot on major policy issues. The Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee (on which I represent District 16) is currently assembling a Ballot Questions Committee to consider these issues and recommend a Democratic Party position on them for the fall. Some of the issues are well known to readers of MPW.
If the challenge to the petition signatures fails, the County will have ballot referendum on the transgender non-discrimination law. The County Council approved law prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in housing, employment, taxi, and cable service.
In 2006, a state court ruled early voting unconstitutional because the state constitution limits voting to one day a year in a voter’s home district. As a result, the legislature passed a constitutional amendment in 2007 to allow early voting. The electorate now must ratify or reject the amendment. If accepted, the amendment would allow the legislature to establish early voting locations around the state to improve voter access in the weeks leading up to Election Day.
Another hot button issue to be decided is the fate of slots in Maryland. During the Special Session, the General Assembly punted to the voters the question of whether slots will be allowed in five locations around the state. Technically, Maryland voters will be ratifying or rejecting a constitutional amendment authorizing legislation to implement gambling.
In addition, the Montgomery County Charter Review Commission is currently considering proposed Charter amendments that may also go on the ballot. The Commission is a bipartisan panel of eleven that recommends charter amendments to the County Council during each election year. Given recent history, it is possible that the Charter Review Commission will forward a Ficker Amendment involving County tax policy.
To get involved in the Ballot Questions Committee, take a look at the requirements set out by the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee and consider applying:
Volunteers Needed for Ballot Questions Committee
Volunteers are needed for the Ballot Questions Committee. In order to apply, please send a resume and cover letter to the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee at MontgomeryDems@msn.com or fax it to the Central Committee at 301/946-1002.
Please state that you would like to serve on the Ballot Questions Committee. The deadline to receive the resume is Monday, May 1, 2008 at 5:00 pm.
All candidates will be interviewed before the Central Committee appoints he members of the Ballot Questions Committee. It is one of the goals of the Central Committee to have a Ballot Questions Advisory Committee that is geographically and ideologically balanced.
The County Democratic Party rules require that at least half of the Committee members must be precinct chairs, vice chairs, or area coordinators. The role of the Committee is to review the Ballot Questions and to review certain judicial candidates for the General Election. Please respond as soon as possible.
The estimated time commitment is 40 hours. It is anticipated that the committee will meet once a month from May to September. Additionally, the committee is expected to hold a public hearing in late August.
Once the committee has been appointed, each member of the Committee will be expected to take at least one of the ballot questions, research it thoroughly, and then prepare a one-page write-up setting out the arguments as to why the Party should support a vote "yes", why the Party should support a vote "no", and why the Party should not take a position. After the August public hearing, the committee will make a recommendation on each ballot question.
The Advisory Committee's recommendations (along with the one-page write-up on each of the three possible positions) will be sent out to all of the chartered Democratic Clubs; all of the precinct chairs, vice chairs, and area coordinators; all the members of the County Central Committee; and all of the elected Democratic officials in the county. About 2 weeks after the report is sent out, the Precinct Organization will meet and take its position on each of the questions. Following that meeting, the Central Committee will meet and take its position on each question. Where the Precinct Organization and the Central Committee are in agreement, that will be the position of the County Democratic Party. On any question that the Precinct Organization and the Central Committee are not in agreement, the County Party will be neutral on that ballot question. Since this system was put in place about 10 years ago, the Precinct Organization and the Central Committee have always agreed on the Party's positions on each ballot question.
Montgomery College Agrees to Neutrality - Or Does It?
Regular readers will recall how Montgomery College told its adjunct professors that they were "not public employees" in order to avoid allowing them a union election. Now the college is claiming to be "neutral." But is it?
Two days ago, the President of Montgomery College sent out the following memo to adjunct professors:MONTGOMERY COLLEGE
It is encouraging to hear the college proclaim its "neutrality" though I have heard such statements from anti-union employers many times over the years. The true test of neutrality is not what the college says, but what the college does.
Office of the President
April 14, 2008
MEMORANDUM
To: Part-Time Faculty
From: Brian K. Johnson, President
Subject: Service Employees International Union for Part-Time Faculty
Many of you are aware of the petition filed by SEIU Local 500, seeking to represent adjunct faculty for purposes of collective bargaining. I wanted to clarify the College's position in this matter. We are not anti union, we are neutral, and will respect the right of adjunct faculty to decide through a secret ballot vote on whether you wish to be represented by the union. Throughout this process we must perform our organizational and legal duties. This includes making sure that the unit proposed is authorized by Maryland law to do so and to make sure that the definition of the unit to be organized is sufficiently clear and appropriate so that elections can be conducted in accordance with the requirements of law. These steps followed in accordance with the requirements of Maryland law result in benefits to all concerned and eliminate tremendous legal and logistical problems in the future.
We are working with the Maryland State Commissioner of Labor and SEIU Local 500 to seek an expedited election process that will allow you to vote on this question as soon as possible. Information regarding the election procedures will be forthcoming from the Commissioner's office in the very near future.
Montgomery College has a rich history of harmonious labor relations with our employee unions. We are committed to that tradition continuing with SEIU or any other union, should they become your collective bargaining representative.
The adjuncts are seeking an election prior to the end of the semester, which occurs in mid-May. The college states that it "must perform our organizational and legal duties," which include "making sure that the unit proposed is authorized by Maryland law to do so and to make sure that the definition of the unit to be organized is sufficiently clear and appropriate so that elections can be conducted in accordance with the requirements of law." If the college contests the definition of the bargaining unit - a common tactic used against workers who want a union - it can easily run out the clock on the semester. That would give the college all summer to plan a more aggressive campaign against the adjuncts in the fall.
If the college is genuinely neutral, it must agree to an election in the next couple weeks. Otherwise, its declaration of neutrality will be proven as baseless as its claim that the adjuncts are not public employees.
Lasting Impressions from the Special Election
Don Praisner, with Councilmembers Marc Elrich, Duchy Trachtenberg, and Phil Andrews just after the final precinct votes were released.
Here are the final photos from yesterday's election.
Thanks to Mike Benefiel, Campaign Manager for Pat Ryan, for the pictures from Leisure World.
Signs outside of 13-54, Clubhouse I.
Don Praisner and Lillis Caulton, precinct chair, 13-54.
A mid-day walk of the "gauntlet" by a voter at 13-54.
From left: Praisner voters Al Shanefelter and Claire Rupert surround precinct chair, Elaine Crutchfield, neutral, outside of Tyler Page ES (5-8).
Candy Shimming, for Praisner, outside of Kennedy HS (13-02) in the early morning cold.
Kathy Ryan, wife of candidate Pat Ryan, just after voting at Fairland Center (5-17).
Vicky Meyers, precinct vice chair and Betty Petrides, for Kanstoroom, outside of Fairland Center (5-17).
Kevin Gillogly, for Praisner, and Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez, for Navarro, outside of Shriver ES (13-36).
Dr. "Z" (aka Gilberto Zelaya, Ph.D), Community Outreach Liaison Director for MoCo Board of Elections, working his Blackberry outside of Shriver ES (13-36).
Have a photo you want to share? Then post a comment and I will contact you privately.
Rich Madaleno on Taxes
In a thoughtful diary on Free State Politics, Sen. Rich Madaleno outlined changes in tax rates and the State's fiscal outlook since the special session, and why he opposed the surcharge on people with annual incomes over $1 million which passed the General Assembly. As it turns out, my past posts on this topic woefully underestimated the gap in tax rates between Maryland and Virginia for these very high-income taxpayers:
Our actual work this year began last October when Governor Martin O'Malley called the General Assembly back to Annapolis for an extraordinary special session to address the state's fiscal problems. In just four weeks of work, the General Assembly and Governor O'Malley worked out a comprehensive fiscal solution that included $600 million in spending reductions and $1.3 billion in tax increases to fund the state's general operating and transportation budgets.
The tax increases included raising the sales tax rate from 5% to 6%, raising the corporate income tax rate from 7% to 8.25%, and reconfiguring the personal income tax rates. Maryland's previous top rate was 4.75% for all income over $3,000. The new, more progressive rates result in a .25% rate increase (to 5%) for income over $150,000 and a .75% rate increase (to 5.5%) for income over $500,000. As a result of increases to the personal exemption and the new rates, people earning less than $100,000 will pay less in income taxes while people making more than $150,000 will pay more.
As you know, the General Assembly also authorized a referendum on the issue of slot machine gambling. If passed this November, the slots plan will authorize a maximum of 15,000 machines in five predetermined locations around the state. By the end of the special session, we were able to finally eliminate the state's ongoing structural deficit.
The regular session had the odd feel of a hangover after our frenetic fall session and opened with a real sense of melancholy following the unexpected deaths of three colleagues. Additionally, our new-found structural balance was not to last long as the nation's worsening economic condition began to take its toll on our projected revenues. In fact, much of the regular session's work seemed to revise, rewrite, or repeal our work from the special session.
While the governor's initial budget proposal in January was balanced to our original revenue estimates, state revenues from the income tax and sales tax both fell significantly below projections in the first quarter. These two revenue sources account for more than 80% of the state's tax revenues. When they fall, the budget quickly falls back into the red.
January's year-over-year growth in sales tax revenue alone saw the deepest decline in 15 years. This situation is not isolated as similar steep drops were seen by Virginia and the District of Columbia. As a result, the state's official revenue estimate was decreased by $330 million.
At the same time, fierce opposition to one of the new taxes passed in November began to push the legislature to repeal the expansion of the sales tax to computer services. The technology industry made a strong case that this tax would make Maryland tech firms uncompetitive especially with Virginia-based companies. However, this new tax was slated to produce $200 million in new revenue. When the decision was finally made to repeal this "tech tax," the General Assembly was faced with a $530 million shortfall.
To address this problem, I strongly advocated for a reduction in spending including a scaling back of the new spending initiatives we had enacted during the special session. These new initiatives included funding for transportation enhancements, health care expansion, Chesapeake Bay clean up, and higher education access. The General Assembly went along with the cuts to health care, bay clean up, and higher education but balked at reductions in the funding increase for transportation, which I proposed scaling back. Instead, the governor proposed another personal income tax bracket for income over $1 million. This new bracket will be 6.25% and will last for three years. When combined with the local income tax rate of 3.2% in Montgomery and Howard Counties, our new top bracket of 9.45% will be the third highest tax rate in the country and will be 75% higher than the top rate in Virginia.
It may be hard to pity the just more than 6,000 taxpayers who will be impacted by this tax. However, these few people, most of whom derive income from business ownership, account for nearly 20% of the income taxes paid to the state. In Montgomery County, where 40 percent of these taxpayers live, they account for almost 25% of the county's income tax revenue. I fear this new tax rate, which is a 30% increase over the old top rate, will seriously diminish our ability to retain or attract new businesses. Should even 500 of these taxpayers leave or simply declare residency in another state, by wintering longer in Florida for example, our state and county could see a significant reduction in tax revenues.
As a result of the deteriorating economy and last minute revisions to our tax code, I leave Annapolis this year, frankly, with a great deal of concern about our state's long-term fiscal outlook. Even with all of the difficult decisions of the past six months, we are still facing a serious fiscal situation. The economic news seems to get worse by the week. Energy prices continue to rise while home values fall. Job growth has stopped, and the stock markets are volatile. Should the slots referendum fail in November and the economy perform as anticipated; the state will once again be facing a nearly billion dollar structural deficit.
I sincerely hope this does not occur, but I believe we need to plan for the worst. That is why I proposed additional spending reductions to close our short-term deficit. During the committee debate on the tech tax repeal and income tax swap bill, I proposed an amendment to reduce General Fund support of the Transportation Trust Fund by $150 million annually. This was a cut in one-half of the sales tax revenue diversion we implemented during the special session.
My amendment would still have provided $4 billion next year for transportation operations and construction and $6 billion for construction projects over the next six years. It would also have left transportation with at least a $300 million annual enhancement. I was only proposing a reduction in the increase not a reduction in current services or projects - a modest one-third reduction in the increase.
Some of my colleagues have said they voted against my amendment due to our region's traffic problems. A review of the new projects proposed by the department to be funded with this new revenue reveals, in my opinion, few which will impact traffic in any meaningful way. For example, the only new Montgomery County road projects that will be funded by the new money allocated during the special session are intersection improvements around the Bethesda Naval Hospital to prepare for the relocation of Walter Reed, a new grade-separated interchange at Georgia Avenue and Randolph Road, planning for a new interchange on I-270 at Watkins Mill Road, and planning for improvements along Georgia Avenue from Forest Glen Road to 16th Street. I would argue that none of these projects will result in any improvement to congestion except for traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of these intersections.
Two Laws Honoring Jane Lawton
Sen. Rich Madaleno reports on two laws passed in memory of Del. Jane Lawton:
This session was also the first without my friend and colleague Jane Lawton, whose untimely death in November was a shock to us all. Working with Ana, Jeff and Al, we were able to pass two bills to carry on Jane's work at protecting our environment. In fact two new programs will be named in her honor. The Jane E. Lawton Loan Program will provide eligible homeowners with access to low interest loans to improve the energy efficiency of their homes through the installation of new windows, insulation, and heating equipment. The Jane Lawton Farm-to-School Program will provide public schools with the ability to buy local produce for school meals. Jane had been working on this program when she passed away. These two programs will be a fitting memorial to her and help ensure that her efforts to improve our community continue.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Don Praisner Leads
According to the Montgomery County Board of Elections website, the unofficial results indicate that Don Praisner leads in the race for the Democratic nomination for District 4. Praisner received 1471 votes to 1360 votes for Nancy Navarro, 362 for Steve Kanstoroom, and 180 for Pat Ryan.
Update: I hadn't realized all the votes weren't in when I first posted results. (Thanks to the commenters who informed me of the error.) The current results are: Praisner 2064, Navarro 1864, Kanstoroom 487, and Pat Ryan 266. 33 of 46 precincts in the district have reported as of 9:49pm.
Update II: 39 of 46 precincts are reporting. Praisner 2589, Navarro 2346, Kanstoroom 626, Ryan 313.
Update III: 42 of 46 precincts reporting. Praisner 2874, Navarro 2593, Kanstoroom 687, Ryan 353.
Photos From Don's Party
Looking at election returns on the WWW -- just like you. From left: Campaign Manager, Eric Hensel, Mary Ann Bowens (partially blocked), Rocky Lopes, and Claire Iseli. Oh and some guy named Don Praisner in the back right.
Don Praisner with his grandkids from left to right: Camden, Madison (in Don's arms), Rachel (in front), and Kaitlin.
Council District 4 Special Election -- Latest News
The 3 o'clock count was just over 2500 Dems. That means the turnout is just under 5% of the 58,000 Registered Dems. We have thirty minutes to close of polls. The turnout out here (13-36) and from calls across the district in the post 3:00 PM tally is also very very low. Look at the above picture. It was taken around 4:15PM. It looks like high noon in an old Western. No one was in the parking lot, on the streets, or in the voting booth. The low turnout should favor Don but we have only a few hours to find out the actual answer.
Update from Delegate Roger Manno
Just got off the phone with Delegate Manno. He told me that the combined Leisure World precincts is 1442 for both parties,. approx. 20% was GOPers. Meaning that 1,100 Democratic voters came from these two precincts. And if turnout is around 4,000 Democrats that this key group will supply over 25% of the total Democratic vote.
Council District 4 Special Election -- Mid Day Report
Above: Wayne Goldstein for Steve Kanstoroom outside of Kennedy HS.
Dear Readers, Adam Pagnucco and I are out for our respective candidates (he is for Navarro and I am for Praisner). I am writing from just outside of Shriver ES in Wheaton (13-36). If there are typos in this report it is because the laptop I am on does not have an anti-glare and it is too sunny outside.
We here are MPW are going to try and give you updates of the special election in District 4, not to be confused with the special election Congressional District 4 that will select the temporary replacement for Al Wynn. We will cover that later.
Anyway the total number of Democratic voters at 10:00 AM, which is the first time all 46 precincts will post how many people have voted, is 992. I don't have the Republican numbers.
The next report will be out at 3:00 PM and it will take awhile for the figures to come in.
But the 10:00 AM is number is extremely low. If the total number of voters is around 60,000 then you are looking at turnout that will not cross 10% for the Dems and probably is closer to 7%. (Most voters will come out after work.) But this race could be won with 2,500 voters.
A low turnout favors Don (Adam and I both agree on that point.) But any group that is able to motivate its base and get them to the polls will win. So expect the Navarro camp to get the teachers (MCEA) and support staff (SEIU) to man the phones and the polls as soon as the schools close.
Here are the Leisure World precinct numbers for 10:00 AM.
The Leisure World I (13-54) had 128 Dems and 30 GOPers.
Leisure World II (13-69) had 65 Dems and 23 GOPers.
Thanks to Mike Benefiel, campaign manager for Pat Ryan, for those numbers.
All of the candidates have been to Leisure World. Sid Kramer, the former County Executive, is also out at Leisure World for Nancy Navarro.
At my precinct, 13-36 (Shriver ES), which is one of the most heavily Hispanic preincts in the county. The turnout at 10:00 AM was 11 Dems and 10 GOPers. This is a strong Dem preinct so having more Republicans than Democrats is amazing. It is 65 total voters (regardless of party) at 2:35PM.
Above: Ana Maria Delgado for Nancy Navarro and Delegate Al Carr, neutral, outside of Wheaton HS (13-28).
Update:
Most of the stories you get now are more the personal rather than hard news. Here's one that I think is telling. A friend of mine, Genie Moreno, voted at Good Hope Rec Center (5-1) at 7:05 AM this morning and the chief election judge clapped and cheered because she was the first voter.
Monday, April 14, 2008
The Apple Has Worms
The most important endorsement to have in the Democratic primary in liberal MoCo comes not from the party bosses over in Kensington or left activists in Takoma Park and beyond. Rather it is in getting the Apple Ballot endorsement.
Having worked the polls the past six years for a series of candidates time and again I have seen voters not take the Democratic materials or even liberal materials in democratic stronghold. But they will almost always take the Apple Ballot.The results are evident at the ballot box. In the last election cycle all but three of the Apple Ballot nominees won.
As part of full disclosure here at Maryland Politics Watch (MPW), I am a District 4 Resident and I support Don Praisner. I came to that conclusion after sitting down with 2 of the candidates personally (Navarro and Ryan) and having brief conversations with the other two (Praisner and Kanstoroom).
Why The Apple Ballot is the Biggie
One of the reasons people select the Apple Ballot over other material is the perception that being for the schools is good AND that the MCEA endorsement is above board and beyond party politics. Our citizens, who are in favor of good schools, also see hope in providing a bright future for its children with a solid education. But there is also an element of good government in the using the Apple Ballot as the metric for selecting one's candidate.
The Apple Ballot is really a union endorsement put out by the MCEA. It is not a good schools endorsement though it can be. Nor is it a good government endorsement though it has in been the de facto one in recent times. But the people who use it consider both a good school and good government endorsement as much as it is a union one. Teacher's Union (MCEA) does this endorsement under a hugely successful PR blitz with a bright red apple on everything. I mean who is against apples for teachers. It hearkens back to the days when giving an apple was considered a nice gift, whereas now that might be an ipod.
Fellow Blogger Adam Pagnuccio wrote about the MCEA calling them the 800 lb gorilla of MoCo politics. The strength of the Apple Ballot causes politicians to bow before the owner of it, the teachers union. The problem lay not in the Apple Ballot itself. I tip my hat to MCEA for creating an effective PR tool. I have used the ballot to help my candidates when I thought it would make the pitch better than me.
The real strength of the Apple Ballot lays in the voters who use it as their voting guide, much like previous generations of MoCo-ers may have used the Gazette or the League of Women Voters. The strength is not in the teachers' union itself. There are not enough teachers in the county to make that type of impact. Also the number of teachers who are politically active are on par with the rest of the county. So it is not that teachers are more active than the rest of us.
That strength comes when voters from non-union households and non-teacher households who think this endorsement embodies the ideals of both good education and good government as much as it is a pro-union selection.
It is that second value -- being is viewed as above party politics -- that is the real strength of the Apple Ballot. MoCo residents, much more so than other parts of the country, do not take kindly to backroom deals when exposed to the light of day. It is the reason other endorsements be it from party bosses or insiders have limited impact compared to other parts of the US. In MoCo, those type of endorsements lost their impact because voters saw through it and what remained exposed was a blatant political agenda.
If the voter who use the Apple Ballot thought that the MCEA was using the Apple Ballot solely to advance a political agenda then its strength in non-union households would diminish greatly and getting the Apple Ballot would become another endorsement right up there with who Amway Reps endorse.
Is the MCEA really above politics?
First the unions, MCEA along with their ally SEIU, had private meetings on the "budget" at King Jerry's Castle, where only one elected member of the School Board, President and candidate Nancy Navarro, was invited. They did not invite the rest of the duly elected School Board. Also the School Budget chief was not invited. Humm... there is a meeting on the school budget and only one person from the School Board is there and the key staff budget person is also missing. And to make sure everyone can come over let's have it in a private home away from the school resources that could help in making good budget decisions.
The MCEA sends out emails to its teachers in District 4 on the school system list. And the teachers are saying that this is ok. Really? Most of us tend to think that electioneering using public resources is not kosher.
Was the MCEA fair and open in its endorsement process?
The MCEA also went to great lengths to tell us how open and transparent their endorsement process would be. They even posted ads in the Gazette, saying the deadline for endorsements would Monday March 3, when they had already had private meetings at King Jerry on March 2 and February 29 to select a candidate who would give them what they wanted -- more money for union contracts, regardless of whether or not the county had the money for it.
The unions can and should endorse but then don't tell everyone how fair you are going to be and then select your candidate before you get a chance to interview all of the candidates. But to have your endorsement set while you tell the public it is still being decided that is just plain wrong. Unless of course you only care about #1, money. But if you do then the impact of the Apple Ballot diminishes to being one of the many endorsements candidates seek rather than the most important endorsement to have.
Why is the MCEA doing this? Simple. As blog father David wrote it is about money. And more money. The MCEA is practicing the original sin of politics. They want COLAs in excess of what others Moco residents are getting in a down market. And they will support anyone who will get them their money. There are other candidates in the race who are just as supportive of teachers and good schools. Some of them even have family members as teachers. But having family members as teachers is not the trump card. It is who will provide the union with the most money. And that is what the Apple Ballot really is -- a union endorsement for more money. It is not for better schools though it can be and it not for good government, at least this time.
So tomorrow when you go to the polls and someone hands you an Apple Ballot remember this time the Apple Ballot has worms.
More Wobbling on the Property Tax
While the great debate between David Lublin and myself over the property tax is now over, the great tumult over the issue on the County Council is just getting started.
The Gazette reveals that Council President Mike Knapp is now uncertain about his vote on the County Executive's property tax proposal. This follows votes against the tax in the Management and Fiscal Policy Committee by Council Members Duchy Trachtenberg and Phil Andrews and an abstention by Valerie Ervin. Council Member Nancy Floreen has also expressed doubts about the tax.
Because the District 4 council seat will not be filled until after the budget is decided, seven of the remaining eight Council Members must vote to break the charter limit to pass the property tax hike. So far, we count two votes against, two votes not committed and four votes with no expressed position. That's a bad sign for passage of the tax hike.
Do any of our readers know if it's possible for the County Council to turn down the property tax hike and not re-open the public employee contracts?
Foolio Demands a Union
A Navarro campaign worker who refers to himself only as “Foolio” is demanding union representation. Following is our exclusive interview.
Adam: Are you the same Foolio who has been posting comments on our blog?
Foolio: Yup, that’s me.
Adam: Why don’t you tell the readers your real name?
Foolio: I’d rather not, but Kevin Gillogly knows who I am. He’s still upset with me for not supporting him when he wanted to run for Council.
Adam: Foolio, why do you want a union?
Foolio: The working conditions here are awful. David Moon, Nancy’s campaign manager, is a tyrant. He keeps us chained up in Nancy’s basement. All we have to eat are little Hershey’s bars and Diet Cokes. He eats all the cheeseburgers himself. I want a cheeseburger!
Adam: Diet Cokes and Hershey’s? That’s all you get?
Foolio: There’s also a giant box of caffeine pills. It says, “Compliments of the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce.”
Adam: What else is going on?
Foolio: The only time we get to leave the basement is when we canvass. Moon attaches ankle bracelets with GPS chips to all of us. If we wander off our canvass map, a pickup truck full of Carpenters Union members grabs us and brings us back to Nancy’s.
I think I’m getting carpal tunnel syndrome from all the door knocking. On top of that they now have me clicking away on this stupid Internet poll. But they won’t let me file for workers’ compensation because they’ve misclassified me as an independent contractor!
Adam: IPoCS (Internet Poll Clicking Syndrome) is a serious problem. Al Carr and Hugh Bailey are still recovering from it.
Foolio: Why is Moon so obsessed with these blogs? Everyone knows that no one reads them!
Adam: That’s true. I get emails from readers who say they don’t read our blog all the time.
Foolio: So we finally started calling unions to come organize us. But MCEA, SEIU Local 500 and MCGEO all said they weren’t interested.
Adam: Hmmm, that’s a mystery. I wonder why that is?
Foolio: Well, we’re forming our own union. Moon finally broke down and agreed to let us have a union election. It’s going to be on April 16th.
Adam: But Foolio, that’s the day after the primary. You’ll all be out of work by then.
Foolio: Dammit! I knew something was up with that. And I had to give Moon the last campaign cheeseburger to get him to give in!
Last Pre-Election County D4 Round-Up
By tomorrow night, this race will be over. Here’s the state of play one day out.
On press, coverage has picked up in the last week. The Post has written its last wrap-up article. Maryland Moment discusses a spat over an email sent by MCEA to its members. Dan Reed at Just Up the Pike has interviews up with almost every candidate. He will post an interview with Don Praisner tomorrow morning. Politicker Maryland has posted interviews with Praisner, Pat Ryan and Nancy Navarro’s campaign manager in the last few days.
On the ground, it appears that Navarro has sent out more literature than the other candidates combined. Some District 4 residents have reported receiving more than a half-dozen mailers from her over the last three weeks. Recently, Navarro lit has been showing up with “Endorsed by the Washington Post” stickers. The signs are more balanced among the Democrats; Praisner probably has a narrow lead with Navarro and Ryan close behind. Republican Mark Fennel may have more signs up than all the Democrats combined, with each accompanied by a “Robin Realty” sign. The three largest MoCo unions - MCEA, SEIU Local 500 and UFCW Local 1994 (MCGEO) - have several thousand members inside the district and are no doubt calling and emailing them on Navarro’s behalf. Don Praisner will be drawing on a list of everyone who has contributed to or supported Marilyn Praisner over the years and his campaign will be asking them to show up one last time for the family.
The great unknowable is who will arrive at the polls tomorrow. In the special election to fill the County Council District 5 seat in Prince George’s County, only 8% of the registered Democrats showed up. If turnout is less than that, Don Praisner will have the advantage. All sides concede that the Praisners have a devoted base inside the district who are sure to vote. But if turnout gets into the mid-teens, Navarro will close the gap.
So now the great call-out begins. Over the last several weeks, each of the candidates has been identifying their voters and earning their loyalties. Now they have to make sure that their people show up. That will determine the course of the election, the holder of the council seat and the political direction of Montgomery County for the next two years.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Reply to the Reply on Property Taxes
Adam posted a thoughtful reply to my post on property taxes. It was so good that I was initially inclined to be convinced by it. On reflection, however, Adam's response may simply reinforce my original conclusions:
Adam's Point: The senior property tax credit takes care of those on fixed incomes.
Except that not everyone on a fixed income is a senior (though my post did mention retirees). Moreover, since the credit existed before the increase, seniors on fixed incomes would still see a sizable increase in property taxes.
Adam's Point: The governor's tax package was regressive according the Maryland Budget and Policy Institute
Except that this analysis only takes into account taxation, not spending. Is the tax package really still even mildly regressive once one takes into account the variety of spending programs targeting poor and middle-income Marylanders? I doubt it. Additionally, property taxes tax property not income so the relationship of the tax to income--the very measure of progressivity--is less straightforward than with the income tax.
Adam's Point: Maryland cannot compete with Virginia on taxes so we need to compete on services. In any case, the County Exec's package raised the median assessed household by 38 cents per day and this rich county can afford it.
Let's leave the "cents per day" appeals to "Save the Children". Until recently, Maryland may have had somewhat higher taxes than Virginia but we were competitive--that is, we were in the ballpark. The state tax increases made us less so. If the millionaires tax had been adopted, we would have increased total state taxes paid by this group by roughly one-third over the past year, making us completely uncompetitive in the eyes of many.
Montgomery County is already the most expensive place in the nation (again, not in MD, not in the DC metro area, but the US of A) to buy and sell property in terms of transfer taxes. One question I'd like to have answered is how much property taxes have already risen due to incredible increases in assessed values that were not compensated for by decreases in the property tax rates. Bear in mind that many people have seen 10% increases in their property taxes for years thanks to these increases in assessed values. And the increased value is nice but one still has to buy someplace else to live after one sells.
And as much as it pains me to admit, there are probably worse places to live than Fairfax. They even have some good public schools across the Potomac. So I wouldn't be quick to assume that we win the services battle quite so handily as we might like to believe as much as prefer Maryland's overall approach.
Still, as Adam says, we may need to pony up to maintain the level of services we like here. As I said before, I think we're going to get the tax increases and the spending cuts in the near future as the Bush recession continues.
More Than You Ever Wanted to Know About Maryland's New Foreclosure Law
Calculated Risk Blog has a long post on one of Maryland's new foreclosure laws. The post examines the law's effect on actual foreclosure timelines and finds that it brings Maryland closer to national averages.
The legislature's foreclosure package is perhaps the most positive achievement from a general session that focused mostly on budget-cutting and the now-deceased-and-unmourned computer tax. But it's worth reading exactly what the new foreclosure legislation will do. If you are a real estate lawyer, you're really going to love the analysis.
Thank you to Joe Davidson for passing this along.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
On Progressive Taxation and Property Taxes
David Lublin raised a number of good points on the property tax increase that deserve a response. Let’s take them in order.
(1) Lots of people have lived in homes for a long time that have appreciated substantially. Particularly for retirees on a fixed income, an increase of over $1000 (very easy to hit in SoMoCo) can be tough even if they live in a high-value home. Even if economic theory says they can borrow against their homes, people really hate that idea for understandable reasons. In any case, this market isn't the best one for realizing the profit.
David rightly points out that some people on fixed income could potentially receive a $1,000 property tax increase under County Executive Ike Leggett’s proposal. Under the formula in my previous post, a home receiving a county property tax increase of $1,000 would have a net assessment of $891,789 (and a much higher gross assessment and market value if the homestead credit applied). But the county provides residential property owners of at least 70 years in age a “senior property tax credit” of 25% of their combined state and county homestead credits. So a senior would be allowed to own an even more valuable home than a non-senior before being subject to a $1,000 property tax increase – perhaps even a home approaching $1 million in market value.
But no one will want to pay that amount of property tax increase. So suppose we relieve the tax increase on seniors with homes approaching a million dollars in market value. If there is to be a property tax increase at all, someone will have to pay more as a result – perhaps seniors occupying homes worth $300,000. But suppose we relieve them too from the extra taxes. Then the burden will fall on young families – a group with substantially less wealth than seniors and significantly less retirement security. Where should the burden fall?
Progressive taxation, a bedrock principle of progressive economic philosophy, holds that tax burdens should advance with income levels. Recent events suggest that principle may be out of fashion in Montgomery County.
(2) Focusing just on the millionaires tax is a mistake. Don't forget all those sales and income taxes raised during the special session. Also don't forget all those fees which were jacked up under Gov. Ehrlich. The voters won't. All things being equal, Americans like having more disposable income. If this is done to maintain services, it will need to be convincingly explained--not necessarily an easy sell though it can be done.
I am not about to forget the tax package from the special session. Because it relied primarily on sales taxes, it was regressive. To quote once again the analysis by the Maryland Budget and Policy Institute: The poorest 1/5 of taxpayers will pay nearly 0.8% more of their income in taxes. The middle 1/5 will pay half that percentage: just over 0.4%. The wealthiest 1/5 will pay between 0.3% and 0.5% of their incomes in increased taxes. This overall regressive distribution occurs because the regressive nature of the sales tax increase overwhelms the progressive features of the income tax changes.
The County Executive’s property tax proposal is progressive and may, in conjunction with the new state millionaire tax, flatten the tax burden. These two progressive tax proposals, which together total $238 million, have attracted immense opposition from a substantial portion of Montgomery’s political leadership. But the $700+ million regressive state sales tax hike passed without a whimper. That is a chilling but instructive development in this county’s political environment.
In any case, I agree that any tax hike, no matter its character, must be explained to voters. The public employee unions are not in the best position to do this since most people will perceive their defense of public services as a defense of their memberships, which is of course their role. It is the responsibility of the politicians to explain why county services are worthy of a tax increase if that is what they believe. That is especially true of politicians who were eager to accept the support and aid of labor during the last election campaign. For the most part, that defense has yet to begin.
(3) The debate has been cast as an either/or debate with no middle ground. Either taxes go up a great deal or services are cut substantially. Like all money issues, this one can be negotiated to all sorts of points inbetween. Both sides know this but are posturing right now is my guess.
I suspect the County Council will have to settle somewhere in the middle. Such is the way of legislative bodies. But the decision to surpass the charter limit truly is an either/or decision. If the council rejects the County Executive’s tax proposal, they will have to cut the budget by a further $128 million.
There is another option. As Delegate Al Carr pointed out in a comment on an earlier post, the County Council is considering increasing taxes on electricity and natural gas. This is a far more regressive option than the County Executive’s property tax hike and it does not need a super-majority to pass. The shade of Annapolis may be descending on Rockville.
(4) The recession may just be starting with next year's budget looking even more grim. As at the state level, the chances of getting both budget cuts and tax increases over the course of several years are starting to look pretty good.
A recession is a distinct possibility as we recently reported. People on the lowest rung of the income ladder, not those earning one million dollars a year, are on the leading edge of the downturn. The residents at the bottom will be sure to bear the brunt of any spending cuts. They should not also bear the brunt of the tax increases. Under the County Executive’s property tax proposal, many working-class people are indeed spared further tax hikes after their setbacks in the last special session. They will not be spared the lash of a home fuel tax hike.
I completely agree with David's judgement that the tax and budgetary choices are going to get tougher at both the state and county levels, not easier, in coming years.
None of this has any bearing on some key questions other have raised: (1) does labor deserve the pay increases, (2) does MoCo need to pay them to maintain quality services, and (3) can MoCo afford the pay increases. The first is a morality, not a market, question. The second is largely market driven. The third is driven by the tax base, economic needs, and taxpayer willingness to pay. I haven't thought much about any of these questions so I won't weigh in just yet.
On point (1):
Speaking as someone who has been involved in several union organizing campaigns, the notion of what a worker “deserves” is a very explosive question. Many public employees are starting to believe that their leaders think they are paid too much. This argument has been stated, or at least hinted at, by more than one of the Democratic candidates in the District 4 County Council race. Economic arguments can be conducted rationally but the question of what a worker “deserves” is a question for the heart. Right now, hearts are pounding inside the public sector workforce.
On point (2):
In a recent survey of county employee compensation, we learned that Montgomery faces potential problems competing for labor in the region. Fair-to-middling (at best) pay levels, a lack of defined benefit pensions and high housing costs may deter top talent from coming here in the future. The existing workforce, originally recruited in times when the county’s housing stock was more affordable, is still known for its excellence. But the entry level talent will gradually erode unless the county keeps up with its neighbors.
On point (3):
In 2006, Montgomery County reported the 8th-highest median household income of all 3,077 counties in the United States. The County Executive’s proposal taxes the median assessed household an extra 38 cents per day. Readers can form their own opinions on whether we can afford that.
But there is a much larger argument here: where does the county’s economic competitiveness come from? Montgomery is perceived to be one of the higher-cost jurisdictions for residents and businesses in the region. So why are people willing to pay those costs? One reason is the excellent reputation of the schools and public services. As a former resident of the District of Columbia and a rural area in upstate New York, I have a meaningful standard of comparison for the county’s service quality.
But Montgomery’s true competitors are jurisdictions like Fairfax – counties that also have good schools and abundant resources. We are never going to compete with Virginia by matching them on tax rates. Instead, we will have to equal or surpass them in our quality of education, planning, parks, police and other public services. Those services comprise a valuable, productive asset that preserves our standard of living, maintains our property values and protects our economic edge. The money we spend on the public sector is an investment, not money thrown down a black hole. Any investment has to be evaluated not merely on its cost but also on the return it generates for its holders. Why are we hearing so much about the cost but so little about the return?
Friday, April 11, 2008
The Joy of Property Tax Increases
This started out as a comment on Adam's post but expanded into a separate post. Adam, Thanks for the useful post. It's nice that you're willing and able to pay more property taxes. Some thoughts on why others may object:
(1) Lots of people have lived in homes for a long time that have appreciated substantially. Particularly for retirees on a fixed income, an increase of over $1000 (very easy to hit in SoMoCo) can be tough even if they live in a high-value home. Even if economic theory says they can borrow against their homes, people really hate that idea for understandable reasons. In any case, this market isn't the best one for realizing the profit.
(2) Focusing just on the millionaires tax is a mistake. Don't forget all those sales and income taxes raised during the special session. Also don't forget all those fees which were jacked up under Gov. Ehrlich. The voters won't. All things being equal, Americans like having more disposable income. If this is done to maintain services, it will need to be convincingly explained--not necessarily an easy sell though it can be done.
(3) The debate has been cast as an either/or debate with no middle ground. Either taxes go up a great deal or services are cut substantially. Like all money issues, this one can be negotiated to all sorts of points inbetween. Both sides know this but are posturing right now is my guess.
(4) The recession may just be starting with next year's budget looking even more grim. As at the state level, the chances of getting both budget cuts and tax increases over the course of several years are starting to look pretty good.
None of this has any bearing on some key questions other have raised: (1) does labor deserve the pay increases, (2) does MoCo need to pay them to maintain quality services, and (3) can MoCo afford the pay increases. The first is a morality, not a market, question. The second is largely market driven. The third is driven by the tax base, economic needs, and taxpayer willingness to pay. I haven't thought much about any of these questions so I won't weigh in just yet.
How to Calculate Your Property Tax Increase (Updated)
Much is being made of County Executive Ike Leggett’s proposal for a property tax increase. Here’s how to calculate what it means for you.
Leggett’s property tax proposal has two components. First, he is increasing the property tax rate. Second, he is also increasing the property tax credit that homeowners receive for their primary residences from $613 to $1,014. The combination of the rate increase and the tax credit increase skews the resulting tax hike towards homes that are worth more money.
So here’s how to determine how much more taxes you would pay under his proposal. First, look up the gross assessed value of your property on the county’s property tax account website. (This will be the assessment listed on the county property tax line at the top of the bill.) Second, if your home is your personal residence and you have lived in it for more than a year, you will likely have a county homestead credit. This credit is designed to prevent your net, or taxable assessment from increasing by more than 10% per year. Find your county homestead credit, which will appear in the middle of your bill if you have one, and subtract it from your gross assessment. This is your net assessment. Third, multiply the net assessment by 10% to estimate its value as of 7/1/08. (This assumes that your net assessment is still “catching up” to where it would be without the restraint of the homestead credit. The homestead credit, after all, restrains but does not eliminate taxable assessment increases.) Fourth, multiply your 2008 net assessment by 0.008208 and then subtract $613. This would be your county property tax levy without Leggett’s proposal. (It does not include state taxes, solid waste or water charges.) Fifth, repeat the above exercise by multiplying your 2008 net assessed value by 0.009779 and subtracting $1,014. This would be your county property tax levy under Leggett’s proposal. The difference is your county property tax increase if Leggett’s proposal was passed by the County Council.
The County Executive states that the median assessment for a Montgomery County home is currently $343,200. Under the math above, that home’s county property tax would rise from $2,204 to $2,342, or 6.3%. That's an increase of 38 cents per day. A home assessed at $220,000 would see a tax bill cut from $1,193 to $1,137, or 4.7%. A million-dollar house would see a tax bill increase from $7,595 to $8,765, or 15.4%. (That’s a good size hit on top of the recently-passed state millionaire tax.) The break-even point is $255,331 in net assessed value (after any homestead credit). Homes worth more than this would see a tax hike while homes worth less would see a tax cut.
I performed this math on my own house in Silver Spring. If I had no homestead credit, my home’s assessed value on 7/1/08 would be $463,953. If Leggett’s proposal were passed, my county property tax bill would rise from $3,195 to $3,523 – an increase of $328. That works out to 90 cents per day. But with a homestead credit, my home’s assessed value on 7/1/08 will be $328,544. So my county property tax bill would rise from $2,084 to $2,199 – an increase of $115. Now that’s 32 cents per day.
Try the above formula for your own home. We all have different economic circumstances. Some of you will conclude that your potential property tax increase is unaffordable for your personal budget. If that’s your opinion, you should certainly contact the County Council. But I am ready to pay 32 cents per day - or even 90 cents per day - if it means maintaining quality public services in the county.
Update: In a work session of the County Council's Management and Fiscal Policy Committee yesterday, Chairwoman Duchy Trachtenberg and Council Member Phil Andrews voted against the property tax increase. Because of the District 4 vacancy, two opposing votes are sufficient to kill the property tax hike. If both council members stick to their votes, the County Council will have to locate $128 million in cuts to replace the tax.
Update 2:
In a comment on this post, District 18 Delegate Al Carr points out that the County Council is considering increasing fuel and energy taxes. In the staff memo he linked, Senior Legislative Attorney Mike Faden writes, "A resolution to increase fuel/energy tax rates, sponsored by the Council President, is scheduled to be introduced on April 15, 2008. This resolution would increase the rates currently in effect to produce $11.1 million more revenue. This resolution is introduced as a placeholder to allow the Council, if necessary, to adjust the rates of the fuel/energy tax."
This is big news and we are grateful to Delegate Carr for supplying it. Few household costs have been increasing more noticeably than electricity and natural gas. And a straight tax hike on fuel will ensnare many households at the bottom end of the income distribution that would escape the County Executive's property tax proposal. There may be at least as much resistance to increasing fuel taxes as there is to increasing property taxes. And if the property tax hike fails, then fuel taxes may be increased more as a result. Fuel tax increases are not subject to the charter limit and may be passed by a straight majority vote of the County Council. This is a very meaningful development and I hope the Gazette and Washington Post reporters who read this blog will follow up.
Thanks to Louis Wilen and Al Carr for correcting my earlier failure to account for the homestead credit. When readers correct and improve my content, I will credit them publicly.
Washington Post Endorses Navarro
Will this make a difference in a tight, fiercely-contested race that will probably have low turnout? Read the language of the endorsement below.
A Critical Primary in a Changing County
Friday, April 11, 2008; Page A20
THE DEATH this winter of Marilyn J. Praisner, a wellspring of sound judgment, fiscal prudence and deep knowledge over her 17 years on the Montgomery County Council, left an enormous gap. It also left the council divided on critical questions involving the management and budget of a dynamic jurisdiction of almost a million people.
That sets the context for an unusually important and hard-fought Democratic primary on Tuesday to fill Mrs. Praisner's empty seat in District 4, an exceptionally diverse area that includes Aspen Hill, the Route 29 corridor from White Oak to Burtonsville and a grab bag of neighborhoods between Wheaton and Olney. Since the district's 200,000-odd constituents are overwhelmingly Democratic, the victor in that party's primary is almost assured of winning the general election May 13. We believe that the best candidate is Nancy Navarro.
Ms. Navarro, current president of the county's Board of Education, is the only public officeholder among the candidates in the primary. That alone doesn't make her the best choice, but it does inform an outlook that is moderate, sensible and sensitive to an array of competing constituencies. In a slow-growing county that has nonetheless been gripped by venomous battles over growth, she possesses a vision broad enough to understand that the challenges facing the county may not replicate the debates of the past.
The Post opposed Ms. Navarro when she ran for the school board in 2006, thinking her too enamored of confrontational politics. We were mistaken. On the board, where she has twice been elected president, she has played a constructive role in guiding one of the nation's largest and best school systems, impressing colleagues with the care of her preparation and her passion for excellence. On the council, she would face a steep learning curve to master county government issues. But she has already shown a capacity for detail-oriented leadership that would serve her well.
Four members of the current council, as well as County Executive Isiah Leggett, have endorsed one of Ms. Navarro's primary opponents, Don Praisner, widower of the late council member. Their choice partly reflects a concern that Ms. Navarro, who has received much of her financial backing in this race from organized labor, would be in the unions' pocket. It's a legitimate worry, particularly during the county's current budgetary squeeze, when public employees unions, among others, will have to bear some of the burden. Ms. Navarro makes no bones about her alliance with labor, but we hope she will be sufficiently independent-minded to see that annual pay increases of 8 percent are simply not sustainable in the current budgetary environment.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Kanstoroom Reports Finances to MPW
County Council District 4 Candidate Steve Kanstoroom is the only Democrat in the race for whom the State Board of Elections is not displaying a finance report. After I mentioned this fact to him last night, he explained that he sent in his report on time but the board was not returning his calls asking that it be posted. Kanstoroom promptly emailed me his finance report and the details will surely interest our readers.
As of 3/30/08, Kanstoroom’s campaign recorded $24,520 in total receipts. All but $520 are loans from Kanstoroom himself. The campaign spent $20,553.86, mostly on printing and campaign materials ($16,462.57). Its cash balance was $3,966.14.
While Kanstoroom’s ending balance was low, his receipts surpassed Don Praisner ($22,030) and Pat Ryan ($10,825) but fell short of Nancy Navarro ($34,446). His extensive loans and former ownership of an IT business suggest that Kanstoroom is the one candidate in the race who can self-finance his campaign. In the handful of days left, volunteers are more important than money, but cash can still buy robocalls and print ads.
I saw Kanstoroom and several other candidates at a late-night forum sponsored by the Northwood-Four Corners Civic Association, which represents the neighborhood just north of the hellacious University Boulevard-US 29 intersection. The forum followed another debate in Burtonsville that ran late, and the bleary-eyed candidates staggered into the North Four Corners Recreation Center after 9:30 PM. The neighborhood is locked in a bitter battle with the County Council and the Parks Department over a plan to construct a soccer field in their current tree-filled park. The park is THE ISSUE in this part of District 4, much like the Intersection of Death is the big issue in my area.
Precinct 13-11, which conforms to the neighborhood boundaries, had 2,668 registered Democrats in the last primary. It had the 7th-highest voter turnout rate in the 2008 Democratic primary and the 5th-highest voter turnout rate in the 2006 Democratic primary among County District 4’s 45 precincts. However, Kanstoroom and Nancy Navarro were the only Democrats to show up for the civic association’s forum. Kanstoroom, a legendary foe of Park and Planning, cleaned up with this group. But the absence of Praisner and Ryan was noticed.
Back in 2006, my civic association jam-packed an apocalyptic public meeting at Holy Cross Hospital covering various issues connected to the reviled Georgia Avenue-Forest Glen intersection. We recorded the attendance by politicians on our website. We never forgot which politicians came and which ones didn’t. I imagine that the residents of Northwood-Four Corners will react the same way.
One more quick tidbit. Don Praisner has begun reporting contributions received since his last campaign filing on his website. I don’t understand why the individual contributions are reported as ranges (for example, the County Executive gave him “$1,000+”). But this is still more information than his rivals are disclosing and he deserves credit for that.
Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our local affiliate, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, endorsed Nancy Navarro.
More on King Jerry
You did not think that one blog posting would be enough on this major gaffe by our newest political kingmaker. Here's Council Member George Leventhal's take on it as well as the President of the MoCo Civic Federation, Wayne Goldstein.
This gets to the heart of the issue we have been talking about here at Maryland Politics Watch (MPW). That the unions had private meetings with the School Board President (and known candidate) were they all agreed to follow the lead of King Jerry, an appointed official. These was done because the school unions (MCEA and SEIU) wanted for pay increases totaling a $100 million per year during a recession. King Jerry did it because he is not content to run the 50% of the MoCo budget. He wants it all. I would say who died and made him King; but he appointed himself as King and we better enjoy it.
Ask yourself is that how you want to have things run in MoCo?
All of you who were so quick to comment on the School Board and the Budget posting I did yesterday, please tell us your take on this? It gets the heart of the matter.
But all of you were silent on the King Jerry posting. What gives? Where's the love?
These two issues are related.
Ok who out there defends these meetings? Foolio? Where are you?
On Political Pulse
Congressman Chris Van Hollen from Maryland's 8th District will be on the 'Political Pulse' TV Show on Thursday, April 10th at 9:00 p.m.; and Tuesday, April 15th at 9:30 p.m. Topics that will be discussed include:
-the Iraq War;
-whether the Democrats can increase their majority in the House of Representatives (Congressman Van Hollen is the Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee); and
-the Presidential Campaign.
'Political Pulse' is on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County.
Columbia Country Club Promises “Grass Roots Campaign” to Defeat Purple Line
In a letter to members of the Columbia Country Club in Chevy Chase, club President J. Paul McNamara promises to launch a “grass roots campaign” to defeat the Purple Line.
Part of the Purple Line transit project is planned to run along an abandoned CSX right-of-way that stretches from Silver Spring to Bethesda. The right-of-way is currently used as a popular pedestrian and bicycle route known as the Capital Crescent Trail but was originally intended to be used at least partially for transit. The right-of-way runs through the country club’s golf course and thus defeat of a rail line is one of the club’s top priorities. Just Up the Pike ran an epic series on the issues surrounding the Purple Line and the trail last year and Silver Spring resident Wayne Phyillaier covers the trail-rail relationship regularly on his Finish the Trail blog.
In his letter, McNamara tells the country club members:Regarding the issue of the Purple Line and the proposed light rail connecting Bethesda, Silver Spring and New Carrollton, as I indicated at our annual meeting, this is a very critical issue for our Club. As a result, we have increased our community and government relations effort at both the state and federal level and will be working on several different fronts to promote the Club’s position and protect our long term interests. Specifically, we will be helping to launch a grassroots campaign to identify and organize a broad and diverse coalition of opponents to the current proposal for the Purple Line. Once organized, we will be partnering with neighborhood associations, citizens groups including those working to save the trail, as well as businesses and elected officials who will be impacted by this issue.
As you would expect, the implementation of this effort requires a commitment of financial resources. The Board of Governors believes that it is in the best interest of the Club to fund this effort. However, we are doing so within the context of a balanced budget for the fiscal year. We do not expect that this expenditure will have a material impact on the long term finances of the Club. We will keep a tight control on the spending for this effort and all funds will be allocated from our capital budget.
The Columbia Country Club has a long history of fighting the Purple Line. Between 2001 and 2006, four of the club’s current officers – President McNamara, First Vice President Joseph J. Brigati, Second Vice President Eugene A. Carlin and Secretary Martin Wiegand II – collectively contributed $4,600 to former Governor Robert Ehrlich and $550 to Senate Budget and Taxation Committee Chairman Ulysses Currie. (One can only imagine how much more was donated by the club’s full membership.) In September 2003, Ehrlich reciprocated, declaring that the Purple Line “will not go through the Country Club.” Robert Flanagan, his Transportation Secretary, explained, “The Governor happens to love golf.”
At the same time, then-District 18 Delegate and Chevy Chase resident John Hurson struck a deal with Ehrlich to route buses along Jones Bridge Road as a substitute for the Purple Line. In return, Hurson reversed his position on slots from opposition to support, matching Ehrlich’s agenda, and was promptly rewarded with a fundraiser by racetrack owner William Rickman Sr. Hurson and Ehrlich’s arrangement infuriated many Montgomery County politicians but no doubt delighted the country club’s members. The club’s announcement promises the potential for more events like the above.
To evaluate the club’s letter fairly, MPW readers need to remember three facts.
1. There is plenty of genuine grass-roots opposition to a Purple Line alignment on the trail. Whatever the country club’s membership, it is surely less than the 10,000 signatures collected by rail opponents.
2. Non-grass-roots interests exist on both sides. Ed Asher, President of the Chevy Chase Land Company, serves openly on the board of Purple Line Now. Asher is no mere train enthusiast – his company seeks to develop the land around a proposed Purple Line station on Connecticut Avenue. Asher is a prolific contributor to politicians, giving $12,000 to state and local candidates since 2000. The Chevy Chase Land Company gave $5,950 more.
3. The truth is that while the country club and Asher participate in Purple Line campaigns, neither controls them. Organizational leaders like the heads of the Greater Bethesda-Chevy Chase Coalition and Action Committee for Transit are the true strategists and seek suitable allies when they are available. This is a reasonable approach for anyone seeking to organize a civic (or labor) coalition.
But the universal rule of coalitions is this: you are judged based on your associations with other coalition members. If Purple Line opponents publicly (or even privately) embrace funding from the Columbia Country Club, they will damage their credibility in the long run. No Democratic Party or civic activist from outside Chevy Chase will harbor any sympathy for an effort they perceive to be connected to wealthy country club members – or through them, to former Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Are MoCo Public Employees Overpaid?
Yesterday, the Post reported on growing disagreements between Montgomery County leaders over compensation paid to county employees. Labor costs account for 80% of the county’s $4.3 billion budget and the county is facing a $297 million deficit. As a result, some county officials are scrutinizing employee contracts.
Council Member Phil Andrews told the Post that the county’s collective bargaining agreements were “unsustainable, unnecessary and unrelated to real-world economic conditions,” and said they should be rejected. Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg wants to know exactly what the county’s future obligations are under the contracts so the council can figure out how to pay for them. And the Post reported this tense exchange between Council President Mike Knapp and County Executive Ike Leggett:Council President Michael Knapp (D-Upcounty) said Leggett's approval of the contracts appears to run counter to his message about the need to slow down spending.
So are Montgomery County’s public employees overpaid? Let’s examine a range of issues connected to their compensation.
“One would have thought that a more conservative approach would have been taken,” Knapp said. “It looks like we're trying to play both sides. Do we have bad economic times, or do we need to have generous increases in our contracts?”
In a prepared statement, Leggett called the contracts “consistent with agreements throughout the region” and said Knapp does not fully understand collective bargaining. Leggett said he has limited flexibility because of past decisions by the council and the school system and because of the possibility of binding arbitration in the event of an impasse. He cited the council's approval in 2006 of a $13 million enhancement to pensions for school system employees.
“I believe the Council President voted in favor of additional pension enhancements and every collective bargaining agreement that has ever been placed before him, thereby establishing less than favorable conditions in which future executives must negotiate,” he said in the statement.
Wages
The Post points out that many wage increases in the county’s contracts are actually intended to catch up to higher pay levels in other jurisdictions. As an example, the Post looks at fire fighters:John Sparks, president of the Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters Association, said the county is playing catch-up for its 1,050 firefighters and paramedics. Rookie firefighters are paid $39,997, compared with $44,301 in the District, $40,784 in Prince George's County and $47,472 in Fairfax County. Among jurisdictions such as Montgomery with more than 500,000 people, the average salary nationally is $44,275 for starting firefighters.
Consider the county’s teachers. The Washington Area Boards of Education (WABE) estimates the total compensation cost of a teacher paid $60,000 in salary in nine of the metro area’s jurisdictions. Montgomery compensates such a teacher $81,792, above only Prince George’s County ($78,720). Montgomery trails Arlington County, the leader, by 7.1%.
WABE also reports the starting salary of a step 1 teacher with a bachelors degree in Montgomery as $44,200. The average sale price of an existing townhouse in the county was $364,000 a year ago. A simple analysis with a mortgage calculator and a spreadsheet generates some interesting revelations. If this starting teacher put down 10% of the townhouse’s value, took out a 30-year mortgage at a 6% fixed rate and paid $2,500 per year in property taxes, he or she would owe 59% of pre-tax salary per month to make the payments. A step 9 teacher with a masters degree makes $64,498 and would owe 40% of his or her pretax monthly salary for the mortgage and property tax payments on the same townhouse.
How can this be considered excessive pay?
You can view a breakdown of county salary schedules here.
Pensions
Government jobs used to be known for having modest salaries but great retirement benefits. This is not the case in Montgomery County. Since 1994, the county’s Employees’ Retirement System, its defined benefit plan, has been closed to new employees other than public safety workers. Currently only 5,294 of the county’s workers have county-funded defined benefit pensions. The county’s 11,486 teachers are covered by Maryland’s State Retirement and Pension System. This means that half of the county’s total workforce of 38,000 must rely only on a defined contribution pension plan for retirement. Most of Montgomery’s neighbors continue to grant their employees defined benefits.
Health Care
The county is projecting payments of $80.7 million for group health insurance premiums for its workforce next year (and that does not include school employees). It also projects $2.6 billion in future liabilities for retiree health benefits and is phasing in annual contributions towards those liabilities which will rise to $259 million after the next five years. Montgomery is not the only county facing a large liability for retiree health care: Howard reports a $477 million liability, Anne Arundel reports a $1.3 billion liability and Prince George’s reports a $2.7 billion liability. None of them approach Los Angeles County, California, which will have to deal with a $20 billion liability. This is clearly a lot of money so why not cut health coverage for county employees?
There are two problems with that. First, county employees already pay 20% of their health costs. Raising that percentage would be effectively a wage cut. Second, cutting health benefits will not decrease illness among public employees. They will continue to seek care in local hospitals. And in Maryland, state law provides that hospitals are reimbursed for their cost of uncompensated care (which totaled $734 million in 2006). Where does this money come from? About 90% is covered by allowing hospitals to charge higher rates that are determined partially by their uncompensated care experience. The remaining 10% comes from an assessment imposed on hospitals equaling 0.75% of their net patient revenues. Virtually all of this money comes back to taxpayers because government entities (like Medicare and Medicaid), premium-charging insurance companies and patients wind up ultimately paying the higher rates charged by the hospitals. In the end, if county employees get less health coverage, we will all pay for their health costs anyway. The only difference is that, with less coverage, county employees would be less likely to seek preventative care and more likely to use emergency rooms, thus driving up health care costs for everyone.
Recruitment and Retention
Consider the view of a talented prospective job applicant pondering whether to accept employment with the Montgomery County government. Unless that applicant is seeking a public safety or teacher job, he or she will not get a defined benefit pension. Unless the person is qualified for a top management job, he or she will be unlikely to afford a home in the county without assistance. He or she will be able to make more money in the District, Arlington County, Fairfax County or perhaps even Prince George’s County. For this applicant to commit to Montgomery, he or she will have to believe that Montgomery will one day pay at least as much as its neighbors and the applicant will someday be able to afford in-county housing. Otherwise, it makes little financial sense to work for Montgomery County and the best applicants will go elsewhere.
Competitiveness
Finally, an important part of the economic bedrock of Montgomery County is its superior level of government services – especially its public schools. When the county invests in its schools, it provides a powerful reason for businesses and residents to want to live here and create jobs here. Without top-grade public services, we will increasingly be seen as merely a high-cost jurisdiction in the metropolitan Washington area – and what happens to our economic competitiveness then?
It’s in the best interest of county taxpayers to attract and retain the best public employees to work for them. We do have to figure out how to pay for them. But spreading the mythology that county employees are overpaid will not get us there.
Council District 4 Race -- The School Board and the Budget
This past Sunday the Sandy Spring Civic Association / Sherwood ES PTA held a debate at Sherwood ES. One of the first questions was on the three budget priorities for the school of the eight candidates (four Republicans and four Democrats).
This is a loaded question. Here's why: The school board takes over 50% of the entire MoCo Budget (about $2 billion annually) and we are facing a $297 million shortfall in the MoCo Budget. It is a critical question because it raises questions on how we can afford a 8% increase for school staff -- mostly union employees of MCEA (the teachers) and the SEIU (the support staff) -- during an economic downturn that was negotiated by the elected School Board, headed by Nancy Navarro. Personnel costs are 89% of the entire school budget and personnel costs are 80% of the entire MoCo Budget.
So answering this question of budget priorities for the school system gets to how we are going to fund our entire budget. Do we give the unions representing school employees an 8% increase (just under $100 million) during a recession? Or do we hold the line on increasing costs? If we agree to an 8% increase we need to find the money.
The revenue sources are limited. In MoCo we are at our tax cap on our local portion of the state income tax of 3.2% (generating $1.286 in FY08). That leaves us to find increases in property taxes (currently $12.07 million) or increases in transfer fees ($128 million) or Recordation Taxes ($72 million). The latter two (Transfer Fees and Recordation Taxes) are declining because of the downturn in the local real estate market. So if a candidate is for full funding of Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) then we have to either hack at the other 50% of the MoCo budget or increase our property taxes -- since the other revenue sources are capped (state income tax) or are declinding (Transfer Fees and Recordation Taxes). Source for all figures handout from Ike Leggett at a Town Hall Meeting on March 12, 2008.
So listen to the four Democrats and make up your own mind as how we should fully fund education in a recession.
As part of full disclosure here at Maryland Politics Watch (MPW), I am a District 4 Resident and I support Don Praisner. I came to that conclusion after sitting down with 2 of the candidates personally (Navarro and Ryan) and having brief conversations with the other two (Praisner and Kanstoroom). I come from a union household so pointing out the huge increases of the unions in MoCo: MCEA (the Apple Ballot) and the SEIU in a down market is something that I don't enjoy mentioning. But I see no other way to be fiscally responsible to all of us.
The question was what are the three budget priorities for the schools.
Three Republicans spoke first. The person immediately before Kanstoroom, John McKinnis, cited Council member Marc Elrich as saying that 45% of the incoming students to Montgomery College (MC) from the MCPS needed remedial training in reading and math. Another Republican Robert Patton claimed it cost $8,000 per year to educate a child in MoCo when the correct figure is just under $15,000 per pupil. Mr. Patton, it was $8k ten years ago.
The first Democrat to speak is Steve Kanstoroom. I failed to get the first minute of his speech but I have an audio recording of it. He said his first priorities were the addition at this location (Sherwood ES). Also he wanted accountability from the Superintendent of Schools, Jerry Weast. He said that there are no quarterly reviews of the school budget. He also talked about how the School Board (which was led by Nancy Navarro) went to the Attorney General to stop an Inspector General review of the school's budget during the Seven Locks ES debate of 2005-06. Now Steve speaks...
Next up is Don Praisner
Now let's hear from Pat Ryan.
And now here's Nancy Navarro.
Later in the debate a follow up question was asked to Nancy Navarro specifically, she was asked does she support going over the property tax limit to fund the budget. Her answer: "Yes". No rationale as to why. Now the question for her and the others is going over the property tax limit is this a blank check? Were is the oversight?
So we are faced with paying for an 8% increase in pay for education personnel during a recession without the funds to pay for it. Who were the people who worked on that agreement? The same people who meet at King Jerry's Castle for private meetings.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Lurching Rightward
In our state in 2006, a Democratic challenger managed to defeat a Republican incumbent governor, while Democrats enlarged their already ridiculously large legislative majorities. The partisan (im)balance in the Senate is 33-14, while in the House it is even more lopsided: 104-37.
So with a Democratic governor and huge Democratic majorities that give the party the best opportunity they will ever have to pass laws responsive to the ideals of the Democratic Party, what did they do this year?
Take a political right turn, of course!
During the 2008 session of the General Assembly, our state’s Democratic leaders repeatedly abandoned principle in a shameless attempt to woo the right wing. They left their liberal base — the party’s most fervent members and most active foot soldiers — wondering what it was we fought so hard for in 2006.
The DNA bill that David blogged about is a perfect example.
The suspension of the Fourth Amendment pushed by O’Malley and party leaders in both houses was a shameful betrayal of the United States Constitution. If the state can take DNA samples from a person simply because he was arrested, without waiting for a conviction, then where is the limit? After all, even someone who is arrested and awaiting trial is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Like David, I have to agree with Alex Mooney on this one.
Of course, the DNA collection system pushed by O’Malley and Democratic legislative leaders unquestionably makes it much easier to catch bad guys. But that’s really not the point. Our society made a fundamental decision when we ratified the Bill of Rights that we would limit the power of the state to intrude into our homes, our bodies, and our lives. Our freedom comes at a cost: some crimes won’t be prevented, and some crimes won’t get solved. On the other hand, we have privacy, and our liberties are much safer from a potentially oppressive government. Personally, I think that our nation’s founders made the right choice.
Clearly, O’Malley and other Democratic leaders disagree. For them, safety from crime trumps liberty. Or, perhaps more accurately, political pandering trumps the Constitution. Designed to appeal to the right and make people forget the tax increases of the special session, this bill was an anathema.
It’s not like this bill was a surprise. When the state’s liberal bloggers met with Senate President Mike Miller back in January, he told us outright that the Democratic Party was going to be pushing conservative bills in order to jack the governor’s sagging popularity back up. And this one was the first one he mentioned.
On the flip side of the coin, party leaders did what they could to squash much-needed progressive legislation. Marriage equality and even separate-and-unequal civil unions were met with hostility or, at best, stony indifference. Even bills granting very limited domestic partnership rights got little if any help from the governor.
In an overwhelmingly pro-choice state like Maryland, a bill to require “crisis pregnancy centers” (anti-abortion fronts that provide misinformation to vulnerable women who need help) to inform their clients that they are not medical facilities should have passed easily. But Democratic leaders kept it in committee, fearful of angering the Catholic Church.
And there are other examples. Of course, there’s always a lot to complain about when session is over. In that respect, this year is hardly unique. No one ever gets everything they want.
But what really angers me is how much of the bad stuff was planned at the top by a governor I voted for and volunteered for in 2006.
Like that DNA bill. It really takes the cake.
Speaking of which, the bill designating Smith Island cake as the official state dessert passed. We may not have our constitutional rights, but we have an official dessert.
More Union Busting at Montgomery College
I’ve seen quite a few union-busting tactics in my time but the latest one used by Montgomery College against its adjunct professors ranks as one of the most creative.
A couple weeks ago, we ran a four-part series on Montgomery College’s efforts to break a union organizing campaign by its adjunct professors. The college’s adjuncts earn maximum pay of $10,560 per semester and do not have health insurance. When they told the college they wanted to vote on representation by SEIU Local 500, the college reacted by hiring an expensive “union-avoidance” attorney and sending out misleading propaganda to the adjuncts. But as we predicted, Montgomery College’s union-busting campaign had only begun.
It’s common practice for a union-busting employer to argue about the definition of the bargaining unit – that is, the group of workers who would be covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Some employers want to shrink the unit. Others want to subtract employees that they believe to be pro-union or add employees that they think are anti-union. But Montgomery College’s definition of the bargaining unit is simple: there isn’t one.
In a letter to SEIU shown below, Montgomery College’s union-avoidance lawyer Darrell VanDeusen states, “The College has determined that the employees named in the SEIU’s petition are not considered public employees for the purposes of collective bargaining.” So since there are no eligible employees, there should be no election.
Section 16-412(a)(14) of Maryland law states, “Public employee means an employee employed by the public employer except: (i) Employees involved directly in the determination of policy; (ii) Supervisory or confidential employees; and (iii) Student assistants.” Which one of these exceptions applies to the adjunct professors? Conveniently, VanDeusen does not say. Perhaps a further exchange of letters will smoke him out.
But that would play into the college’s hands because the clock is ticking. SEIU Local 500 wants to hold an election before the semester ends and the adjuncts leave campus. And who knows if the college will allow the pro-union rank-and-file leaders among the adjuncts to return next year? After all, it’s hardly unknown for union supporters to suddenly receive unfavorable performance evaluations after many years of sterling service.
Now that its public employees are not really public employees, we should expect Montgomery College to say that it’s not a college. Or maybe that Montgomery County is not a county. Or maybe even that the institution does not actually exist on Planet Earth in contrast to the mistaken beliefs of some. Clearly, they will say anything to avoid a free and fair election for their adjunct professors.
So here’s our question for the County Executive and County Council: why are you allowing this deplorable farce to continue? And how much of our property tax increase will go to pay for all this union busting?
Monday, April 07, 2008
Hell Has Frozen Over: I Agree with Alex Mooney
Yes, that Mooney--the right-wing kook state senator who hopes to ride his way to Congress on a potpourri of demagoguery and self-righteousness. More specifically, I share his concern regarding the Governor's DNA proposal. From the Washington Post:Even O'Malley's leading public safety proposal -- an expansion of the state's DNA database to include samples taken during arrests for violent crimes and burglaries -- has a relatively small fiscal effect: about $1 million a year in state funds. Lawmakers reached a compromise on that bill yesterday afternoon and sent it to O'Malley.
Maybe it's because it is late and I think I am coming down with something but I think it is a bad idea to permanently add someone's DNA to a database when they haven't been found guilty of any crime. It is one thing to check DNA after an arrest but shouldn't one have to be found guilty of a crime of some threshold before getting added to the database?
The DNA legislation cleared both chambers by large margins but continued to draw objections from some lawmakers, who questioned why the state would move away from its policy of taking samples at the time of conviction.
"We're taking DNA from people who are innocent under law," said Sen. Alex X. Mooney (R-Frederick).
Andy Harris: Wrong Again
As the Senate headed toward the witching hour (that is, tonight's midnight end of the 2008 session), they were again debating the bill to give domestic partners the same exemption as other family members get from the taxes associated with modifying the title of their home. Sen. Andy Harris was spouting his usual nonsense to block gays and lesbians from equality, and the basic factual premise of his argument against this bill was just plain wrong.
As he did when the Senate debated the bill a couple of weeks ago, Harris expressed concern about how easy it would be to pretend to be DPs just to avoid tax payments. According to Harris, all the other family relationships protected by the existing exemption are based on a public government document: a marriage license that is a matter of public record. Because DPs have no such public document (a problem, by the way, that persists because of people like Harris), it would be easy to fake the relationship just to get the tax exemption.
But Harris is wrong on that score. Although spouses and ex-spouses have family relationships that have such a publicly available document, the other family relationships do not. The only government documents to prove generational relationships (parental or grandparental) are birth certificates, which are not open to the public. How exactly would a grandparent and grandchild go about proving their relationship with marriage documents, as Harris claims they can?
Of course, were someone to point out that Harris is wrong, he would not change his mind on the issue. He is simply grasping for excuses to hurt innocent gay and lesbian people.
Fortunately, tonight Harris failed. The Senate passed the bill, and it is headed toward the governor's office for a signature. Kudos to House sponsor Ann Kaiser and Senate sponsor Rona Kramer for getting the bill passed this year.
MoCo Property Tax Increase in Doubt
Last Friday, Montgomery County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg flatly told the Gazette, "I do not support going over the charter limit." This is a serious blow against passage of a county property tax increase.
Article 3, Section 305 of Montgomery County's charter restricts property tax increases to the change in the Consumer Price Index with exceptions for "(1) newly constructed property, (2) newly rezoned property, (3) property that, because of a change in state law, is assessed differently than it was assessed in the previous tax year, (4) property that has undergone a change in use, and (5) any development district tax used to fund capital improvement projects." Seven out of the nine County Council Members must vote to override this limit and raise the property tax by a higher amount.
To close a $297 million county budget deficit, County Executive Ike Leggett offered a budget that combined spending cuts with a $128 million property tax increase. Leggett's property tax proposal combines a 7.5% rate increase with a hike in the property tax credit for homeowners from $613 to $1,014, thereby making the tax over-weighted towards commercial properties and higher-value homes.
Council Member Trachtenberg was the first member of the council to openly oppose the property tax increase. Instead, she favors scrutinizing the county's labor costs. According to the Gazette:Montgomery County needs a "good black and white description" of how much employee salaries, health benefits and pay raises are going to cost the county as it faces a budget crisis, the chairwoman of the Management and Fiscal Policy committee said Thursday.
Council Member Nancy Floreen has also been skeptical of the tax hike, telling the Gazette, "My basic reaction is that I have to be persuaded that we need to expand the property tax rate as much as [Leggett] is proposing... Those are big dollars they are counting on to pull them through and I’m just not there yet." Last Friday, Floreen said on her blog, "Given that these [property tax] increases would be in addition to the State’s bump in income taxes and the sales tax, I’m not convinced the community can bear them. On the other hand, the alternative would be significant cuts in service, which I’m not sure folks are willing to do either."
"It’s very important that we have the bottom line and we have a sense of how we’re going to pay for the wages and the cost of living increases over the next few years," said Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At large) of North Bethesda. "The problems we’re going to face are not for one year only."
Trachtenberg said the contracts with county employees should be honored.
"But I’m suggesting we need to identify what we’re going to pay in these contracts and how we’re going to pay for them," she said.
If Council Members Trachtenberg and Floreen both oppose the property tax increase, it will fail. Because the winner of the District 4 vacancy will not be certified until May 23, after the budget has been passed, there will be only six other sitting members on the County Council when the tax's fate is decided. Seven votes are needed to break the charter limit.
Where the Sidewalk Ends
There is going to be a public hearing on the proposed sidewalks for Thornapple St. and Oakridge Ave. on Wednesday night at the during the regularly scheduled Town Council meeting of the Town of Chevy Chase beginning at 7PM at the Leland Center. I live on one of the affected streets and here are my thoughts on the proposal which I've also sent directly to the Councilmembers:
Like my neighbors, I recently received a copy of the plan for the proposed new sidewalks on Thornapple St. and Oakridge Ave. The new sidewalks would run between Curtis and Thornapple on Oakridge Ave. and between Oakridge and Maple on Thornapple.
I support the idea of installing new sidewalks. A number of our neighbors have expressed concerns through petitions and statements during the public comments period of Town Council meetings that sidewalks are needed to increase safety on both streets. Kids walk to Chevy Chase Elementary and to the bus stop to Rosemary Hills located at the intersection of Maple and Thornapple. Unfortunately, some drivers add to the problem by going too quickly around the curve on Thornapple or over the hill on Oakridge even though they can't see the other side.
The proposed sidewalks on the north side of Thornapple have been the subject of much discussion on my block of Thornapple. While some families on Thornapple would prefer not to have the sidewalks go through the right-of-way adjacent to their property, most appear willing to accommodate new sidewalks in some form in order to address safety concerns by neighbors living in other parts of our community.
At the same time, the sidewalk plan for Thornapple St. needs refinement. A number of my neighbors on my block have interesting ideas for improvements which would reduce the degree to which the new sidewalks would impinge on the enjoyment of their homes. I strongly urge you to consult closely with them and to listen to their ideas. Just as we asked the developers at Woodmont East to improve their plan, I know you'll be willing to work with the residents of my block to accommodate the sidewalks in the least painful way possible.
One universal concern on our block of Thornapple was the issue of storm drainage. It's well-known that our block is the drainage center for a large area. The County just invested large sums in improving the drainage and we're grateful for the improvements. Naturally, we're concerned that the proposed sidewalk bump out on Thornapple might undermine the operation of the new drains by diverting water away from them.
If the bump out is constructed, we could well need an additional drain at the location of the bump out to prevent the recurrence of a problem much money has just been spent to address. Alternatively, some of my neighbors have creative ideas about how to install a sidewalk without a bump out, or at least with a smaller one. Again, I urge you to speak with them since they are affected most directly by the proposal since their homes adjoin the proposed sidewalks.
Some of the ideas for improvements to the original plan may add to the cost. However, Chevy Chase is a fortunate community. It should be willing to spend more to accommodate neighbors who are working hard to take into account overall community needs even though they have serious concerns about how they will affect their property.
While I haven't yet had a chance to speak with our neighbors on Oakridge, I similarly urge you to consult with them. The proposed plan eliminates one-half of the parking on their block with potential for spillover on to our block. Nonetheless, the proposal outlined by the Town may be the least bad option due to the presence of heritage trees and hilly terrain but I hope the Town will consult with our friends around the corner to see how they feel about it before proceeding further.
On Thornapple, we think it makes sense to move the crosswalk closer to its natural position near the intersection than indicated in the plan, and we're pleased to hear from the Town Manager that this change will incorporated into the design. Again, however, we think it makes sense to consult with residents on Oakridge as to the overall scope of the plan on that block.
Thanks for your concern. We look forward to working closely with you on this question.
The Trent Lott Effect Strikes Again
From Marc Korman.
As everyone knows by now, the Trent Lott Effect struck again last week when Al Wynn announced his early retirement from Congress. As I discussed in a previous post, the Trent Lott Effect is named after the former Mississippi Senator who decided to leave the Senate less than a year into his six year term to go lobby. Other recent examples of the Trent Lott Effect are Congressman Richard Baker leaving Congress halfway through his term to lobby for the hedge fund industry.
On the one hand, Al Wynn’s move was understandable. He was handily defeated in the February Democratic primary and needs a new job. I do not think anyone is surprised anymore by a legislator choosing to lobby in their post-elected office career.
On the other hand, Wynn could have handled the situation much differently. One approach would be to resign immediately upon lining up a new job, not waiting three more months. Those three months will be filled with conflicts of interest and raise the question of what Wynn is still doing in Congress, representing his new firm or his constituents.
But even better, Wynn could have followed the example set so far by the other losing Maryland incumbent. Like Wynn, Wayne Gilchrest lost his primary yet he shows no sign of abandoning his job before it is done, in January of 2009. It is not as though job opportunities will not be available to Al Wynn then. Democrats are heavily favored to still control Congress, could control the White House, and Wynn will still be a former member of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee. The best course would have been for Wynn to hold off on the job hunt until his current job was done.
Wynn’s move has opened a new front in the legislator to lobbyist migration. First, we had legislators who went into lobbying after their terms ended, either due to electoral defeat or retirement. Two examples of that type of migration are former District 16 Delegate Gil Genn and former Louisiana Senator John Breaux. Second, we had legislators retiring during their terms for the specific purpose of lobbying, for example former District 18 Delegate John Hurson and Trent Lott. Now, Al Wynn has presented a case of a legislator who loses reelection but still has significant time remaining in his term, and resigns to lobby.
There are plenty of ethical issues presented by what Wynn has chosen to do. But there are also issues of district representation. When a vacancy requires a special election, as all House of Representatives vacancies do, a district can be without a voice for extended periods of time. When a legislator dies in office, that problem is unavoidable. In the case of Al Wynn or Richard Baker, it is easily avoidable and a disservice to their constituents to leave their district’s without a representative.
Al Wynn may have lost the 2008 Democratic primary, but he won the 2006 general election. Winning that election did not only give Wynn the privilege of representing the 4th Congressional District in Congress until January of 2009, it also gave him the obligation to do so. Legislators at all levels should be wary of following his example. If the people give you the honor of their vote, you should give them the honor of your full service.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Navarro, Praisner Campaign Contributions Provide Ammo for Both Sides
Last Friday was the deadline for the final campaign finance reports before the County Council District 4 special election primary. Both the Navarro and Praisner camps will find them useful.
Nancy Navarro reported contributions from individuals of $12,196, the Hispanic Democratic club of $250 and Maryland PACs of $22,000 for total receipts of $34,446. Her campaign reported $28,380.81 on hand. Sixty-four percent of her contributions came from labor unions, including the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters ($6,000), the Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters ($6,000), UFCW Local 1994, also known as MCGEO or the government employees ($5,000), SEIU Maryland/DC State Council ($3,000), SEIU Local 500 ($1,000) and the Metropolitan Washington AFL-CIO ($1,000). The fact that Navarro received nearly two-thirds of her contributions from labor rebuts the allegation that she is “developer-controlled.”
However, one name on her individual contributor list truly stands out: Aris Mardirossian, who gave her the maximum contribution of $4,000. Mardirossian is the developer of Crown Farm in Gaithersburg. He is notorious for once suing Montgomery County Civic Federation President Wayne Goldstein when Goldstein wrote him a letter inquiring about tree removal on his property. The lawsuit, widely viewed as a frivolous slap suit in MoCo’s civic community, still causes many anti-growth activists to make the sign of the cross whenever Mardirossian’s name is uttered in their presence. Navarro’s campaign made a mistake by accepting this contribution. Her opponents are sure to jump all over it despite the fact that Mardirossian also once gave $3,000 to Marilyn Praisner.
Donald Praisner has also filed an interesting finance report. His campaign reported contributions from individuals of $16,280, Council Member Phil Andrews’ campaign account of $750, and a loan from Mr. Praisner himself of $5,000 for total receipts of $22,030. His campaign reported $17,551.67 on hand. Mr. Praisner’s biggest contributors are Council Member Marc Elrich’s chief of staff Dale Tibbitts ($2,000), County Executive spouse Catherine Leggett ($1,000), former Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg staffer Bobbie Walton ($1,000) and Nicholas Miller of Bethesda ($1,000). (Geez, Dale, how much is Marc paying you?) Tibbitts, Leggett, Walton, Andrews, County Executive spokesman Patrick Lacefield ($200) and former Marilyn Praisner staffers Claire Iseli ($150) and Sherry Kinikin ($100), along with Mr. Praisner, comprised a core group of contributors who together accounted for 46% of his campaign’s funding.
Mr. Praisner told the Gazette last week that Navarro was the only candidate taking money from developers. His supporters have lambasted Navarro on this blog for failing to abstain from development money despite Marilyn Praisner’s ready acceptance of it. But two of Mr. Praisner’s contributors are connected to the real estate industry.
Nicholas Miller of Bethesda, who gave $1,000 to Mr. Praisner on 3/26/08, is a telecommunications lawyer with Miller and Van Eaton PLLC. According to its website, the firm’s clients include the “Building Owners and Managers Association, International, the Institute of Real Estate Management, the International Council of Shopping Centers, the National Apartment Association, the National Multi-Housing Council, the National Realty Committee, and the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts.” Now this has nothing to do with development, right?
Gregory Eisenstadt of Brookeville gave $100 to Mr. Praisner on 3/24/08. Eisenstadt has been a steady supporter of Marilyn Praisner over the years, giving $314 to her campaigns between 2001 and 2005. Eisenstadt is the owner of Privacy World, a housing complex just north of the Glenmont Metro station due to be redeveloped by JBG Companies. The Privacy World redevelopment will be one of the bigger projects in District 4 if the County Council allows it to proceed. Eisenstadt’s relationship with the Praisners makes sense for him although his contribution runs afoul of Mr. Praisner’s pledge to avoid development money.
Let this be a lesson for all the aspiring politicians who read this blog: the worst thing about making a pledge is actually having to keep it!
Democrat Pat Ryan has raised a total of $10,825, of which $4,000 came from the Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters Association. (Yes, this is the same union that gave $6,000 to Navarro.) Ryan is his own biggest individual contributor and gave his campaign $2,000 in seed money on 3/10/08. Ryan had $9,632.52 on hand, slightly more than half Mr. Praisner’s total and over one-third of Navarro’s holdings. Republican Mark Fennel has raised $1,705 with all but $300 coming from the candidate. Republican Thomas Hardman gave himself $100, the sole contribution to his campaign. Financial reports for Democrat Steve Kanstoroom and Republican John McKinnis are not yet available.
Now that the finance reporting deadline has passed and the special primary is fast closing in, District 4 voters will be treated to their most intense week of politicking since Marilyn Praisner defeated Mike Gudis way back in 1990. Lock your doors and let the answering machine fend off those robocalls!
Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our local affiliate, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, endorsed Nancy Navarro.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Electric Schemes, Nuke Dreams
On Thursday, the Maryland Senate endangered the Governor’s settlement with Constellation Energy by voting to amend it. Here’s why the Governor’s deal is worth passing.
When the administration and Constellation, parent company of electric utility BGE, settled their lawsuits against each other, the deal had several components. First, BGE’s residential customers would receive $187 million in one-time rebates, or $170 each. Second, individual Constellation investors would be permitted to own up to 20% of the company each. Third, BGE customers would see limits on electricity distribution charges in the future. Fourth, BGE agreed to add two independent seats to its board. Fifth, the deal cut the liability faced by ratepayers for eventually decommissioning the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant from $5.2 billion (which Constellation is permitted to collect by the 1999 deregulation law) to $3.7 billion (the current estimated shutdown cost). This will save Marylanders $1.5 billion. There are additional smaller components but these are the most important parts of the deal.
The Governor’s settlement was contingent on passage by the legislature. Constellation’s position was that the deal had to pass without changes. But the Senate thought better. On a 27-18 vote, the Senate added an amendment to regulate the sale of electricity from any new plants built in the state, essentially a limited rollback of deregulation. Senate President Mike Miller and the Governor claim that this vote endangers the deal because it changes its terms. Now it’s hard to blame the Senators who voted for the amendment. Deregulation has been a disaster for Maryland ratepayers and has created shocking wealth for the power companies and their CEOs. But the best reason for sticking with the Governor’s deal is its least-mentioned and most-important provision: the $1.5 billion reduction in the Calvert Cliffs decommissioning liability.
As someone who works for a union that gets carpenters and millwrights hired onto nuke jobs, I can tell you that these jobs are really, really expensive. All trades workers that set foot into a nuke plant must pass background checks and drug tests. And those checks and tests are repeated over and over. All of the workers have completed or are enrolled in four-year apprenticeship programs and numerous journey upgrade and safety courses. (We actually own a gas turbine at our international training center that our instructors practice dismantling and assembling.) Many workers also need to get haz-mat (hazardous materials) certifications. Often, there’s not enough qualified workers in the local area so out-of-state people are flown in. Those guys get per diems and sometimes even signing, retention and head-hunting bonuses. Everybody gets top scale and massive amounts of overtime. Even the laborers are rolling in dough. And part of the decommissioning will include clean-up and storage of radioactive waste. You don’t want to know how much that costs. All of this will go on for years at a decommissioning site.
I can’t tell you how much my guys like this kind of work. These jobs are an apprentice’s fancy, a journeyman’s love and a local union business manager’s dream. The last remnant of America’s working-class aristocracy may be the tens of thousands of “boomers” – traveling super-skilled electricians, pipefitters, boilermakers and millwrights – who fan out across the country to work nuke shutdowns and turnarounds. The boomers can make six-digit annual incomes and set themselves up for fat pension checks and lakeside retirement cabins.
So Constellation says the Calvert Cliffs decommissioning will cost $3.7 billion? Horsepuckey. It will cost four billion, five billion… aw, who cares how many billions as long as my members get the work!! (If you were wondering what “bread-and-butter unionism” is, that statement is a good example.)
But enough about my nuke-worshipping hardhats. My point is that if you are a Constellation/BGE customer, you do not want to be on the hook for all of these costs. Let Constellation’s shareholders and/or its merchant generation division pay some of them. The decommissioning liability reduction is a far more valuable asset to BGE ratepayers than the rebate and it is worth protecting.
So my advice to the General Assembly is to approve the Governor’s deal as-is and come back to re-regulate the power industry next year. That way the ratepayers will get their rebates, the residents will get the protections of regulation and BGE customers won’t have to pay $1.5 billion in extra billings. And what about my boomers? We’re all going to strap on our toolbelts and head down to Calvert Cliffs for some of that overtime!
The author is the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. He wishes he was as well-paid as the boomers.
Friday, April 04, 2008
The King Jerry Treatment
There have numerous stories about getting the Johnson treatment when officials were brought to a meeting with LBJ. He would call you into the room and you would not be able to leave until he got what he wanted. The smoke usually was blown straight into your face.
Well dear readers we have a MoCo version of the Johnson Treatment. It seems we have a public official who wants to be a political kingmaker: School Superintendent Jerry Weast.
The only problem is King Jerry has been elected to nothing. He is appointed to run the School System. Not content with that running half of the MoCo Budget he is now seeking to control all of it. He wants to run the County Council as well. King Jerry wants to select the key fifth vote on the nine member County Council to protect his kingdom, not yours. Weast's candidate: Nancy Navarro. His target the two biggest unions in the MoCo: MCEA and SEIU. MCEA has the coveted "Apple Ballot". SEIU brings money and manpower almost the equal of MCEA.
As Merle Cuttita, president of Service Employees International Union Local 500 was quoted in the story said "He (Weast) let us know that she would be a good candidate for county council ... that Nancy Navarro would be a good candidate for the council."
Before I go any further I should tell you that I am a supporter of Don Praisner. I came to that conclusion after sitting down with Nancy Navarro, Pat Ryan and Cary Lamair (while he was still in the race). I also talked with Don Praisner and very briefly with Steve Kanstoroom. I live in the District 4 and I come from a union household. Now you know where I am coming from. But listen to the rest of this story and you dear reader make up your own mind.
When contacted about these two backroom meetings, King Jerry who is never shy about talking to the press about the school system, finds the perfect time to hide behind his Chief of Staff, Brian Edwards, who says on the King's behalf "of course Nancy Navarro would be good candidate for the county council".
My question is why is an appointed person even offering an opinion about an election? Why is an appointed official calling key unions to his home to make a command such as this?
Let's Go To The Video Tape
So now everyone who was there is trying to say that would have no influence on their own decision. That the meeting was only 30 minutes about the special election and mostly about the budget. Ok as Warner Wolfe used to say let's go to the video tape and see if the school budget and this election are in any way connected.
We have a $296 million shortfall. You have union contracts that make up the bulk of the School System's budget -- 89% of the entire school budget is for personnel costs. Most of whom are union members. BTW, the school system is just over 50% of the MoCo budget. And 80% of the entire MoCo budget is for personnel, union and non-union.
MoCo has maxed out on what state allows for each county to take from its residents via a local income tax surcharge of 3.2% (generating $1.29b last year). We have declining numbers of recordation taxes and transfer fees which occur when one sells or transfers property because of the downturn the real estate market. That leaves two places to get more money: higher property taxes and red light cameras. As Ike Leggett mentioned at a recent town meeting the only part of the budget that is growing is from red-light cameras. So if you want to save your fellow residents help out by collecting a few extra red light tickets. ;)
Even Kings Have Their Limits
King Jerry is not so powerful as to get more revenue. Even Kings have their earthly limits. Our School Board Superintendent may not look it but he is mortal. But he does control contracts, union contracts. So if you are an union representative of school employees and the call comes from School Superintendent Jerry Weast to meet to talk about the budget. You go obviously. So what if the meeting is after hours (Friday night and Sunday). So what that the meeting is not at MCPS HQ rather at King Jerry's North Potomac castle. You go.
So here are the folks sitting in Superintendent's living room for one or both of the meetings: Merle Cuttita, president of local SEIU, a MCEA member or two, School Board President and candidate Nancy Navarro, former School Board member and County Council member Valerie Ervin. There might have been others but since the Gazette story I doubt we will find out who else was there. Still that is an impressive lot.
King Jerry knows what MoCo is facing. So do the unions. So do Ervin and Navarro both elected officials. Now you do too. Here is what King Jerry wants if you want him to protect your union contracts. Endorse Jerry Weast's candidate. If you don't follow King Jerry you get larger classroom sizes and/or The King will be forced to re-open the contracts and the gravy train is going to be stopped. King Jerry probably did it with a large smile on his face.
So ask yourself you are in a secret meeting with the King and you are talking about the budget with a known candidate in the room, his Kingship starts to talk about the special election but only for 30 minutes. Now go back to portion of the Gazette article that says the conversation about who King Jerry wants as the next member from District 4 is not connected to the budget discussions.
Just remember the Johnson Treatment. You are at the King's house eating the King's food and he is talking about what he needs done to avoid reopening your union contracts that he controls as part of the school system. He wants someone who will protect the school system from anymore cuts. Who cares if it will mean higher taxes. That's not his problem. That's for the County Executive and the Council.
Ask yourself one question
Q: What would you do if you are a union rep when faced with the King's Treatment?
A #1: Endorse someone who will protect our contracts all the way; and
A #2: If the story of this meeting ever gets out just say "it had no influence whatsoever in our decision making."
#1 is obvious. And if faced with the story getting out don't you think #2 is the answer? If you say "no" to #2 then I got a piece of the Cabin John Bridge I can sell you.
Beware of the Non-Denial Denial
What is also interesting is the responses from those in attendance seems they can't all agree on what was said and by whom? It hearkens but to The Mother of All Political Intrigue: Watergate. Everyone was issuing non-denial denials. Have you heard anyone who got the invitation to the King's castle say the facts of the Gazette article were incorrect? I haven't. And I doubt you will.
If those that are there have only non-denial denials then you know that they have been caught trying to rig the election to protect themselves and to fatten King Jerry's turf.
All of the King's Men (and Women)
Anyone who was there should do the honorable thing tell us the exact details of these two backroom meetings. As Howard Baker would have asked "what did you know and when did you know it?"
Again I ask why is the School Superintendent sticking his nose into who should be the next candidate from District 4??? He is an appointed official. If Weast wants to become a political Kingmaker than resign from his $300k taxpayer salary and become an elected official like the rest of them.
You Can Do Something About It
Special elections are new to MoCo. We had one in 2000 and the one now, both for County Council. Seems as though our School Superintendent, Jerry Weast, felt he should have a greater say than the 185,000 residents of District 4. Did you get the notice to come to his living room. But if you are a District 4 resident then take this information along with all other resources you would use to select the next candidate for District 4.
My question for King Jerry is: did you allow your guests to smoke inside or did I have to go outside?
County Council District 4 Round-Up
OK everybody, with less than two weeks to go, here’s the latest.
1. The Prince George’s County Council District 5 special election has MoCo campaign operatives’ tongues wagging. In that seven-candidate election, Theresa Dudley defeated Adam Ortiz by 171 votes at last count with a turnout of 8.2% of registered voters. If that turnout holds in MoCo District 4, roughly 8,400 voters will show up. So a competitive D4 candidate will have 3,000 votes and a sure winner will cross the 4,000 mark. These are small, small numbers folks, and anything could happen.
2. The Post and the Gazette have churned out quite a few articles in the last week. Among them are reports of County Council staffers getting cozy with Don Praisner’s campaign manager, a recounting of last Saturday’s candidate forum and a discussion of the challenges of time and name recognition. Additionally, this blog has made MCDCC Vice-Chairman Alan Banov a multi-media star as he has been interviewed by the Gazette about the illegal robo-calls first reported here. Hopefully Mr. Banov will remember who launched his ride to fame when one of us runs for a state legislative appointment!
But the biggest story of the week is the Gazette’s report on two meetings at the home of MoCo Superintendent of Schools Jerry Weast attended by education union leaders a month ago. The Gazette reports, “At the first meeting, Weast said that the unions should endorse Navarro for the County Council, according to a person who talked about what happened on the condition of not being identified.” The Gazette quoted Merle Cuttita, President of SEIU Local 500, as saying that the meeting was primarily about budget issues but she added, “He let us know that she would be a good candidate for county council ... that Nancy Navarro would be a good candidate for the council.” Nancy Navarro and County Council Member Valerie Ervin attended the second meeting, but Navarro denied that any endorsement was discussed there.
My father was a special education teacher, an assistant principal, a principal, an Assistant Superintendent of Schools and a school system controller in upstate New York. He never endorsed politicians or asked his unions to support any of them. He had a sound reason for that policy. In my rural county, voters directly approved school budgets. If my father had ever gotten too close to a politician, it would have made the local paper and his budget would have been killed. So he never, ever went there.
It is perfectly natural for the Superintendent to meet with the President of the Board of Education (Navarro), a County Council Member on the Education Committee (Ervin) and the leaders of the unions to discuss the schools budget. But Jerry Weast is playing with fire if he indeed asked the unions to support Navarro. First, he will run afoul of the County Executive, who is supporting Don Praisner. Second, Navarro’s opponents will be sure to remember Weast’s political apostasy if one of them wins. Third, he is giving Navarro’s rivals a good issue and Steve Kanstoroom raised it at Wednesday night’s debate. (And check out my blog-brother Kevin Gillogly's searing rant about this, which is forthcoming.) Mr. Weast, take it from the son of a career public school administrator: stay out of politics.
3. District 4 resident Dan Reed of Just Up the Pike is the best interviewer in MoCo blogdom. He has a talent for picking up on the little things that tell you a lot about a person. Check out Rockville mayoral candidate Drew Powell’s relentless hunt for a security guard, Steve Kanstoroom’s making change for a homeless guy and former County Council candidate Hans Riemer’s pho-drenched denunciations of limousine liberals. Dan has posted interviews with Navarro, Kanstoroom and Republicans Mark Fennel and Thomas Hardman with more on the way. Do yourself a favor and bookmark Just Up the Pike.
4. Nancy Navarro and Don Praisner are getting most of the attention but Steve Kanstoroom and Pat Ryan deserve mention. Both are strong and attractive candidates. Kanstoroom is crazy-earnest and combines green eye-shades with a warm heart. He is a beloved figure among the Sandy Spring activists he is helping. Would he really wring greater efficiencies from MoCo government as he claims? I don’t know, but speaking as a fellow dirt-digging researcher, it would be fun to watch him try.
As for Ryan, he may be the true heir to Marilyn Praisner from a policy perspective. I have seen him at two debates and he espouses the Praisner position package: fiscal restraint and caution on growth. After picking up the Gazette’s endorsement, Ryan glowed with confidence at Wednesday night’s debate. If you are a District 4 voter who agreed with Marilyn Praisner’s agenda and would like to see an advocate carry it out for the long run, you should seriously consider Pat Ryan.
5. Don Praisner did not show up at Wednesday night’s debate. County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg told the audience that he was sick and had gone to the hospital. The Gazette is reporting that Mr. Praisner will not be attending tonight’s taped debate.
6. And if you guys really need more of this, here’s the schedule for the remaining debates:
FRI 4/4: 6:00 Montgomery Community Television/LWV Televised Forum @ MCT Studios, 7548 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855
SUN 4/6: 3:00 Sandy Spring Forum, Sherwood Elemenatary School, 1401 Olney-Sandy Spring Road (Rte 108), Sandy Spring, MD
TUE 4/8: 7:00 LWV Debate @ Sandy Spring Friends School 16923 Norwood Rd, Sandy Spring, MD 20860
WED 4/9: 7:00 Burtonsville Debate @ Paint Branch High School, 14121 Old Columbia Pike, Burtonsville, MD 20866
WED 4/9: 7:00 Northwood-Four Corners Forum @ North Four Corners Park Recreation Center, 211 Southwood Ave, Silver Spring, MD
THU 4/10: 2:00 Riderwood Debate @ Performance Hall of Lakeside Commons at Riderwood Village, 3150 Gracefield Rd, Silver Spring, MD
THU 4/10: 7:30 Leisureworld Debate @ Club House 1, 14901 Pennfield Circle, Silver Spring, MD
Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our local affiliate, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, endorsed Nancy Navarro.
Madaleno Surprises Many (Part II)
(See here for Part I). How are Senator Madaleno’s votes and statements playing in District 18? Is he in serious trouble at home?
As a constituent of Madaleno’s, I have been completely surprised by his votes and his statements on this issue. Like many others in District 18, I am a strong supporter of progressive taxation and of paying the taxes that are necessary to meet our societal needs (including transportation). I imagine that if I were in Annapolis, I would have been pushing hard for the millionaire-tax increase.
Not only that, but I am past president of the Forest Estates Community Association, whose Crossing Georgia committee has been lobbying hard for our own little transportation project at the Intersection of Death (formerly known as the intersection of Georgia Avenue and Forest Glen Road). We’ve been pushing that since 2003. The governor’s budget did not fund this project, but Madaleno got the Department of Transportation to cover it as part of another project. But a massive cut in transportation funding doesn’t exactly bode well for our project, at least in the short term.
So I’m none too pleased at this turn of events. And I’m probably not the only one in District 18 feeling this way.
Nevertheless, I seriously doubt that Madaleno is in serious political trouble at home. He certainly isn’t in trouble in my home.
In the five years that I’ve known him, I have seen that Sen. Madaleno is one of the strongest advocates Annapolis has for progressive taxation. During the months leading up to the special session, he pored over the budget numbers and tried to come up with a tax package that didn’t rely so much on raising the sales tax. He worked with a small group of other liberal Democrats in the legislature to push a far more progressive program long before the special session began. Unfortunately, the rest of Maryland isn’t like District 18, and his efforts were not successful.
But they were noticed - by me, and by other people who want a more progressive tax structure. I have no doubt as to his commitment to progressive taxes. His entire political history is one of someone who is in government not to help the wealthiest who need it the least, but to help those who need it the most.
And on the Intersection of Death, Madaleno has been an amazing advocate on this issue since 2003, when I first met him and my community association first proposed the idea. He regularly raised the issue with officials in the Ehrlich administration when no one else was paying attention to this issue. Many other pols have joined this cause in the last 18 months, but Madaleno was there at the beginning.
For this and many other reasons, I have no doubt at all to Madaleno’s commitment to the Forest Glen project specifically, and to transportation funding in general.
So when a legislator who is so clearly in agreement with me on these basic issues and who has such a sterling record of service takes a turn I don’t expect, I highly doubt that he’s doing this to protect millionaires. And he’s not doing this out of hostility to transportation (or any other) government spending. This isn’t some 60s sitcom where someone gets hit on the head and suddenly changes personality. Rich Madaleno has not gone over to the political dark side any more than he thinks he’s King Tut out to kill Batman.
More than any other legislator I've ever had, Rich Madaleno has earned the right not to be accused of bad motives, but to instead be given the benefit of the doubt.
One of the other things I know about Madaleno is that he is one smart cookie. He understands budget and tax issues in a way that I know I never will. So that, combined with the things I know about his politics, makes me feel quite comfortable that he knows what he’s doing. He has the same goals that I do, and he feels that the position he is taking is the best way to reach those goals.
After the session is over, I plan to sit down with him and ask him to explain it all to me. Maybe I’ll agree with him. Maybe I won’t. And maybe I won’t even understand. But whatever the case, I know that he is honestly doing what he thinks is best to achieve the goals that we both share. I find myself in much the same situation as when he voted for slots in the fall.
It’s a rare politician who can earn that kind of respect from me. And I have seen evidence that others feel the same way. After all, it’s not every politician who could have run unopposed in a primary for an open senate seat.
So I expect that most of the constituents who are upset by Madaleno’s actions this week will nevertheless judge him not by the actions of one week, but by the greater backdrop of five years.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Madaleno Surprises Many (Part I)
Among the tiny slice of people living in District 18 who follow the politics of the General Assembly, the big news this week has been Rich Madaleno’s position relating to the much-hated computer services tax. Under a plan pushed hard by Gov. O’Malley and Sen. President Miller, that tax would be replaced by (1) an increase in the income tax rate for millionaires, and (2) a cut in the transportation budget. Madaleno would prefer ditching the millionaire-tax increase and cutting the budget even more - not a position one might have expected, and one that has clearly displeased the powers that be in Annapolis.
Madaleno bucked the governor, the president, and possibly a number of people in his district by opposing the plan. As reported in places such as the Baltimore Sun:Some members of the Senate's tax committee argued for using budget cuts alone to compensate for its repeal, saying that the millionaires levy was effectively a tax against hundreds of small business owners who file personal income taxes rather than corporate income taxes.
"I just don't see how, at a time when we're unwilling or unable to move forward with the computer services tax, that we should move forward with another tax on small businesses," said Sen. Richard Madaleno, a Montgomery County Democrat who voted against the bill.
So, with his typical “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature” attitude, Miller was quick to publicly threaten Madaleno. According to the Washington Times, “Miller said Mr. Madaleno endangered his political future by voting against the tax increase.”
Lest there be any doubt as to Miller's intentions, the Sun makes it clear:After the hearing, Miller said he was "disappointed" in Madaleno and attributed the freshman senator's refusal to fall in line with the governor's proposal to being "young" and "probably nervous."
Miller hinted darkly that Madaleno, a freshman senator and fiscal expert, was "pegged for leadership" but had let down the boss, who is known for rewarding loyal senators with coveted committee leadership slots.
Let’s not forget that Miller only recently promoted Madaleno, a freshman senator, to a subcommittee vice-chairmanship. He is quite comfortable using his position to reward his allies and to punish others.
But is Madaleno really in trouble with Miller and O’Malley? While I don’t know for certain, I suspect not. First, the committee vote that Madaleno lost was 10-5; this was going to easily pass out of committee with or without Madaleno’s support.
Second, Madaleno worked long and hard during the special session to push reluctant colleagues on Miller and O’Malley’s tax package. The bill passed the Senate with zero votes to spare; Madaleno made the difference, and both Miller and O’Malley knew it. With his encyclopedic knowledge of budget and tax issues, he was able to make very persuasive arguments to nervous colleagues. Were it not for Madaleno, the special session could very easily have failed, making the governor look foolish for having called it.
In return, both Democratic leaders gave Madaleno the back of their hands on the gay-rights issues that are so important to him. Miller, in fact, was actively hostile not only to marriage but even to civil unions, and he even voted against a small bill to give domestic partners the same tax exemption rights as other families when they make changes to the title of their homes.
And when it came time to directly fund research into the transportation project at the Intersection of Death, a project that Madaleno has said is one of his top priorities, O'Malley's Department of Transportation said no.
Also, as Madaleno told the Sun, this is the first tax increase he hasn't supported in the six years he’s been in the General Assembly (the first four as a delegate). We’re not talking about someone who routinely defies senior members of his party when tax increases are on the table.
I have no doubt that Mike Miller is mad. O’Malley may be, as well. But Madaleno's actions this week have not done them any harm, and he has helped them immensely in his short time in the Senate. I suspect they know that they’re stronger with him than without him.
Only time will tell if I’m right on this score.
And what about outside of Annapolis? How are Madaleno’s votes and statements playing in District 18? Is he in serious trouble at home?
That is the subject of part II of this post.
(Hey, if I don't break it up, then no one will read it all the way through)
The Politics of Paranoia
One charge made with increasing ferocity against County Council District 4 candidate Nancy Navarro is that she is allegedly a “tool of the developers.”
Stuart Rochester, a District 4 resident supporting Don Praisner, told the Gazette: “I’m finding that although there is a good deal of respect for Navarro, there is a concern that she is identified, fairly or not, with the pro-business and pro-development forces in the county,” Rochester said. “For that reason she may not be relied on to carry on the positions that Marilyn had.”
Takoma Park activist Mike Tabor, who does not live in the district, wrote the following to the Gazette in endorsing Mr. Praisner: The problem that many have with this election is the quiet support of the fast, uncontrolled growth activists for Navarro. She openly accepts contributions from developers, PACs, special interests and land use attorneys. She is not willing to place limits on those contributions.
The issue erupted at the People’s Community Baptist Church forum last weekend. The Gazette reports:
My belief is that this could lead to a conflict of interest any elected politician making decisions regarding land use issues.
The fear of many of us is that if Navarro is elected, the faster, uncontrolled growth advocates will have a majority on the council once again. Furthermore, a Navarro victory might enable a more developer and business-friendly majority on the council to fill the two vacant positions on the Park and Planning Board.During the only negative exchange in the meeting, Praisner took issue with a Navarro comment in response to a moderator’s question about campaign financing and avoiding undue influence. Navarro had said she was financing her campaign as Marilyn Praisner had, with contributions from many sources, including business interests.
Neighborspac, a MoCo activist group that opposed overdevelopment, raised the issue of politicians and development contributions starting in the 2002 county races. Neighborspac began tabulating contributions from development-connected people or entities and reporting them as a percentage of the total receipts for each candidate. Neighborspac had a point: if a politician received an overwhelming percentage of his or her support from one industry, like real estate, voters had a right to know that. I certainly looked at Neighborspac’s data in 2006 before casting my votes.
“I resent how you represent Marilyn Praisner and her influence,” Donald Praisner said. “In her last year, she was disappointed with you because you were not an independent voice.”
After the meeting, Navarro said she only meant to show she was financing her campaign in the same spirit as Marilyn Praisner had. “I’m not sure why he took my comment negatively,” she said. “I was only referring to public campaign information. If we’re going to talk about financing campaigns, this is what the record shows.”
On Monday, Donald Praisner said that only Navarro is taking money from developers and that Navarro may “undo some of the work my wife did,” referring to provisions supported by Marilyn Praisner and passed by the County Council designed to slow the pace of growth.
But since then, the issue has mutated. Now the standard is not whether a politician accepts an overwhelming majority of his or her contributions from business, but whether a politician accepts any contributions from business at all. Because Navarro has refused to rule out any business contributions, she is accused of being controlled by them. This is a difficult test for any politician to pass, including a very prominent one who is relevant to this race: the late Marilyn J. Praisner.
According to state board of elections data, Mrs. Praisner raised a total $78,056 between 2001 and 2008. Of that total, $32,769 – a full 42% – came from businesses, business owners or corporate lawyers. See the graphic below for the specific contributions.
Among Mrs. Praisner’s contributors was Bryant Foulger, head of construction and real estate giant Foulger Pratt, who gave her $200. That firm is a partner in Downtown Silver Spring developer PFA, against whom a First Amendment demonstration was launched last summer. Companies and relatives of Aris Mardirossian contributed $3,000 to Mrs. Praisner. Mardirossian, developer of Crown Farm in Gaithersburg, is infamous in MoCo for suing civic grand-daddy Wayne Goldstein for the mere act of writing him a letter. Three Linowes and Blocher lawyers contributed a total of $975. And four limited liability companies from Colorado gave Mrs. Praisner a combined total of $2,000 in 2006.
Does any of the above make Marilyn Praisner a “tool of the developers?” Hell no. As I wrote in my tribute to her, “She was a woman of incredible intelligence, great fairness, and most of all, unquestioned honor. Nobody was smarter, tougher, harder-working or more honest.” Mrs. Praisner was a fearless crusader for her constituents and nobody was stupid enough to accuse her of being anything different. She could have taken a million dollars from Mardirossian and she would still have told him “NO.”
So what has Nancy Navarro done to justify treating her differently? Why is she the only candidate to be attacked by illegal, anonymous robo-calls? Why is she the only one accused of being controlled by “special interests?” Why are her critics making an issue of this before she has filed a single campaign finance report?
What we have here is the Politics of Paranoia. Taking a single dollar from a business buys off your integrity and makes you their slave. Or at least that’s what Navarro’s enemies would have you believe.
My advice is to vote the old-fashioned way. Grab the politicians by the lapels. Determine whether they agree with you on the majority of things that you care about, whether they are capable enough to deliver on those priorities and whether you think they are people of good values. If they pass those tests, vote for them. If they don’t, find someone else to vote for. No political jihads. No illegal robo-calls. Just you, your brain, your heart and your vote.
Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our local affiliate, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, endorsed Nancy Navarro.
Computer Tax at Death's Door
Yesterday the Senate's Budget and Taxation Committee voted to replace the computer tax with a package combining a surcharge on residents earning at least $1 million a year, transportation cuts and budget cuts. The Post and the Sun have the details. The package is very close to the Governor's proposal and so these predictions may be coming true.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Special Election to Replace Al Wynn
The Post is reporting that there will be a special election to fill the seat that will be vacated when Rep. Al Wynn steps down in a couple of months.
To save money, there will be only a general election, without a primary. This will require the passage of a law to allow a primariless congressional election - a statute that will have to be introduced and go through the entire legisltive process between now and midnight Monday, when the 2008 session of the General Assembly ends.
Should Donna Edwards win the special election and then subsequent November election, she will have higher seniority next year than other freshmen representatives in the House.
While this is an unusual situation, I think it can serve as a precedent for filling state legislative vacancies. One of the arguments made against midterm elections to fill vacancies in the General Assembly is that the primary would be held early in the election year, while the General Assembly is in session and the appointed replacement (who would presumably be running in the midterm election) would be both too busy to campaign and prohibited by law from fundraising.
While the current situation is not identical, it does create a precedent for bypassing the primary to fill a legislative vacancy.
On Political Pulse
Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith (Democrat) will be on the 'Political Pulse' political talk show on Thursday, April 3rd at 9:00 p.m. and Tuesday, April 8th at 9:30 p.m. Topics that will be discussed include:
1. Mr. Smith is also the President of the Maryland Association of Counties ('MACO') and he discusses the decision by MACO to endorse the slots referendum that will be on the ballot in November, 2008 mainly because the revenues therefrom will help fund the education needs of the State;
2. There have been published reports that Mr. Smith, who is in his 2nd term as County Executive and cannot run for a 3rd term, may run for statewide office in 2010 and he comments on that possibility; and
3. Mr. Smith was a Judge for 16 years before he stepped-down to run for County Executive.
Political Pulse is on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County.
Mike Knapp, Just Say No to Bloggers
Poor Mike Knapp. Montgomery County’s current Council President really stepped in it this time. He did the worst thing imaginable with another blogger: he acknowledged his existence and did what he wanted. Oh boy, now it’s never going to end.
Do you remember the annoying kid in the back of the class who wouldn’t shut up? You know, the one who made faces, sat on top of his desk and wouldn’t stay put? Now I’m not admitting that that was me, but I understand the mentality. The purpose is to get attention. And if you acknowledge the foolishness, you’ll get more of it. (Just ask my wife.)
So a Germantown blogger, a constituent of Mr. Knapp’s, challenged the Council President about his blog. “Johno95” said:Mike Knapp, county council member for District 2, has a blog now. (His district includes Germantown and surrounding areas.) But he likes Germantown best, I suppose.
So what does Mr. Knapp do? He tells him what he wants to know! The Council President begins his latest blog post by saying:
You would think he’d be busy doing his 9-5 job, but instead he’s busy blogging. I am going to list him in my blogroll. But I am not above trying blackmail. Unless he mentions what he had to eat for breakfast (a typical David Burd question) in his next blog entry, I am removing this link. I want his blog to be casual. I want Mike to let his hair down. After all, he’s a Democrat.
Mike, go ahead and blog to this blog, if you want to answer my breakfast question.Well. I've been called out by some bloggers for not being informal enough. It would seem that some in the blogsphere want to really know what's really going on behind the scenes -- so far behind the scenes, in fact, that apparently my breakfast choices are of interest to some. So, here goes...
And then he tells us just about everything. Every detail of each day of the week, except for a few related to basic bodily functions. Now I know quite a few of our readers might want to be on the County Council someday. Well, read this poor guy’s schedule and then see if you really want to do it. When does he have time to swill beers with the guys? How about watching a Redskins game? Or chasing away transgender opponents from grocery stores? Nope, fuhgeddaboutit. Mr. Knapp doesn’t even have time to post; he averages one or two posts a month.
So remember the kid who shot a spitball at you from behind? If you turned around and gave him a look, you knew what you were going to get: another spitball. It won’t end here. Next they’ll want to know his waist size. Or his 40-yard-dash time. Or his vertical leap. I could throw in a few other things, but this is a family blog.
Mr. Knapp, we know you were trying to be a good guy. But take some advice from a former classroom troublemaker. Don’t respond to the bloggers. After all, it’s not like anyone reads these blogs, right?
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
General Assembly Announces Blogger Tax
Following is the exclusive transcript of the press conference called by Senate President Mike Miller.
Senate President Miller: Ladies and gentlemen of the press – the real press – I am announcing today a solution for the state’s financial crisis. Delegates Bill Frick and Kirill Reznik are introducing The Blogger Taxation Act of 2008. For too long, a growing group of rogue bloggers have been enriching themselves by impugning the integrity of your state’s noble public servants. It’s time that the people received a share of their ill-gotten gains!
Under the provisions of the bill, each blog post would be taxed $1,000. Any post mentioning a state legislator would be taxed $5,000. And any post that mentions me – well, don’t bother, because you don’t have the money!
Reporter: What about a companion bill in the Senate?
Senator Rich Madaleno: I will introduce the Senate version of the bill. It will of course be amended to exempt sitting office-holders.
Miller: I can’t stress enough what a high priority this is for the state. Your legislators work hard every day and these bloggers don’t understand that. Our folks get more emails than God, have to put up with crazy constituents at home and are forced to stay up until 2 in the morning listening to boring speeches by assembly leadership!
Reporter: But Mr. Miller, you are the Senate President.
Miller: Errr, well yes, strike that remark from the record. Anyway, support for the legislation is coming in faster than we can track it. Already, we have letters from the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee, Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett, Montgomery County Council Members Nancy Floreen, George Leventhal and Marc Elrich and famous television personalities Itchy & Scratchy complaining of defamation on these blogs. Even one of the bloggers themselves is calling for a halt to the nonsense! And poor Don Dwyer is still apologizing to his constituents after those bloggers caught him raising money for Dana Beyer!
[Unidentified delegate shouting from back]: Why are you blogging about the CARR bill? I’ve got five bills that are better. Where’s my blog coverage you little punks?!
Miller: Enough of that! These bloggers are getting rich – I mean, some of them live in Chevy Chase for heaven’s sake! It’s time for them to pay up!
[Just then, a stretch limo arrives with a license plate number of “CH CH 1.” Preceded by four tuxedo-wearing servants, world-famous blogger David Lublin steps out carrying his chihuahua, Muffitt.]
Lublin: This blogger tax is unfair, Mr. President! The Blogger.com fees are already killing me, my advertisers are asking for lower rates and now you want to tax me. I might have to move to Virginia! As it is, I can only afford to feed caviar to Muffitt three times a week. [Yap! Yap!] Look, you’re disturbing Muffitt! [Yap-yap! Yap!]
Miller: Now now, Muffitt, I meant no offense. [Kisses chihuahua on head] We certainly can’t have you rich people moving to Virginia. After all, we need the campaign contributions! So maybe we can work something out. But can you bloggers at least just tell the truth the way your public servants do?
