If I were John McCain …
If I had voted to launch a completely unnecessary war on bogus evidence, a war that led to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of servicemen and women, an unnecessary war that was destroying our nation’s economy, an unnecessary war that was stretching our armed forces to the limit and leaving us unable to exercise military force where needed ...
If I’d spent the last eight years cheerleading the president who had the man responsible for 9//11 cornered like a rat in Afghanistan, but then chose to divert our forces to Iraq and let the real enemy get away ...
If I’d supported tax policies that for the past generation had so starved the federal and state governments that our bridges, roads, and levies were crumbling ...
If I’d supported an administration that left the poor of New Orleans to drown when some of those levies finally collapsed ...
If I’d supported the deregulation that led inevitably to today’s housing crisis, knowing that countless Americans were losing their homes because of my policies ...
If I were leading a political party that ran the K Street Project, where lobbying firms knew they had to hire Republicans and be Party members in order to have influence on the Hill ...
If I had spent eight years cheerleading a president who so politicized governance that you had to be Party member to get a government job or contract ...
If my policies and those of my party had caused so much damage to the nation I love, you can bet that I would do anything to talk about something else -- anything else.
If I were responsible for such devastation, you can be sure I’d change the topic to Obama and Paris Hilton, Obama not visiting troops, Obama being a flip-flopper, and Obama being an uppity … candidate.
So it is not surprising that the McCain campaign is engaging in a filthy campaign of lies and misdirection.
Because he and his supporters would do anything to change the subject.
And that’s how everyone who cares about our country should respond every time the Republicans change the topic away from their record and hurl some new piece of garbage from the Trash Talk Express:
“If I were responsible for [pick any of the above], I’d be changing the topic to Paris Hilton [or whatever the latest distraction is], too.”
Thursday, July 31, 2008
John McCain's Trash Talk Express
Jennifer Dougherty for Congress
By Marc Korman.
Recently, Jennifer Dougherty paid a visit to the Montgomery County Young Democrats at their monthly meeting. Dougherty is running for Congress in the 6th district of Maryland, which includes Frederick, Alleghany, Carroll, Garrett, and Washington counties and parts of Baltimore, Harford, and Howard counties. The district also has six, sparsely populated precincts in Montgomery County. The district map can be seen here. Since 1993, the 6th district has been represented by Congressman Roscoe Bartlett. Barlett has won the district with over 55% of the vote since 1992. It was specifically drawn for a Republican, going for President Bush with 61% of the vote in 2000 and 65% in 2004. So what is Dougherty’s game plan for knocking off the incumbent?
The Incumbent
Roscoe Bartlett is 82 years old and sits on three House Committees: Armed Services, Small Business, and Science. The House of Representatives was Bartlett’s first political office, although he ran unsuccessfully for Congress once before. He has had a diverse career including working as a teacher, a research scientist, inventor, businessman, and farmer. He has 20 research patents to his name.
In Congress, Bartlett is known for his science background and his involvement in naval issues. He does not have much of a record of passing legislation. Looking through the Library of Congress’ bill tracker, there is no indication that Bartlett passed a single bill or amendment on the floor during his entire Congressional career. To be fair, that does not necessarily mean he has not done anything, as often times legislation is combined with other bills or amended in committee.
The Challenger
Jennifer Dougherty was a one term mayor of Frederick from 2001 to 2005, beating a two term incumbent. However, she lost the Democratic primary in 2005. Dougherty has owned and operated a number of businesses in Frederick. Earlier this year, she defeated Iraq war veteran Andrew Duck for the Democratic Congressional nomination. Duck had run against Bartlett in 2006, keeping him to his lowest share of the vote since 1996. Although that was still a 59% victory for Bartlett.
In describing her mayoral term, Dougherty discussed her work to increase jobs in Frederick and improving public safety through police reform.
The Issues
Dougherty focused on three issues she thought would be important in the upcoming election. The first was energy/gas prices. Bartlett has a long history of discussing peak oil, the idea that oil is a finite resource, but Dougherty believes his record is lacking. Bartlett supported the Bush Administration’s Energy Policy Act in 2005, which is largely regarded as too generous to fossil fuels, at the expense of alternatives. The second issue was the economy, with Dougherty discussing some of the truly impoverished areas of the 6th district where jobs are sorely needed. She discussed the need to balance the free market with sensible regulation. The final issue mentioned was public safety, including homeland security issues, especially those stemming from Fort Detrick in Frederick.
The Plan
But those issues have little to do with how Dougherty really plans to become a Congresswoman. Her real plan can best be summarized as the two Bs: Bush and Bartlett.
The only reason the 6th Congressional district is in play is because the Republican brand is decimated thanks to President Bush. Dougherty needs to position herself to ride the Democratic wave, if it exists, on Election Day.
To help position herself for that wave, Dougherty needs to spend time talking about Bartlett. One issue that Dougherty probably will not discuss, but she has been asked about, is Bartlett’s age. Another issue now on the table is Bartlett’s property sales and his failure to disclose his estimated income. But the issue Dougherty brought up when she spoke is effectiveness, noting Bartlett’s lack of legislative accomplishment. Although Dougherty did not mention it, I know that Bartlett has introduced legislation for several years to allow GI Bill education benefits to be transferred from the servicemember to a family member. But it took a Democratic Congress and a Democratic Senator, Jim Webb, to actually turn it into law.
The Chances
So what are Dougherty’s chances? She likely needs a big Democratic wave to take the seat. As discussed above, the district is made for a Republican. Dougherty is also behind in fundraising. She only had $41,000 cash on hand, compared to $337,000 for Bartlett after the last fundraising quarter. Dougherty also mentioned her plan to canvass every house in certain neighborhoods, as opposed to limiting herself to registered voters or some other type of targeted effort. That demonstrates, to me, a lack of a serious campaign plan. Alternatively, she has an ambitious neighbor to neighbor phone banking plan that asks volunteers to make just a few phone calls a day to maximize the time of her volunteers and impact on voters.
While Dougherty has an uphill battle, the past two years have shown Democrats can win in unexpected places. If Jennifer Dougherty works hard, raises some money, and knocks on the right doors, she could be positioned to ride the wave to the Capitol.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Sierra Club: No Need for LEED
The Washington Business Journal reported this tidbit about the Sierra Club:The greenest of green organizations, the Sierra Club, is buying an office condominium in NoMa. But it won’t be joining in the green building craze — or at least it won’t be seeking the imprimatur of the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED certification.
I could point out that LEED-certified buildings have lower long-run energy costs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage the creation of green jobs - but why should I have to explain those things to the Sierra Club?!?
The Sierra Club is under contract to buy three floors — 28,000 square feet — of J Street Development’s office condominium project at 111 K St. NE in the neighborhood north of Massachusetts Avenue.
The nonprofit’s build-out will have green and energy-efficient elements, but the space will not be certified under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program. The building itself will not be certified either.
The Sierra Club declined to comment on the decision to forgo review and certification under the LEED program.
On top of this, J Street Development, the owner/builder/developer of 111 K Street NE, is not a union contractor.
So I guess one black eye is not good enough for the Sierra Club. They had to go for the twofer.
County Council: Tell Us More About Bait Cars
At a 7/28/08 work session of the County Council’s Public Safety Committee, Chairman Phil Andrews and committee members Marc Elrich and Don Praisner asked the Montgomery County Police Department for more information on successful bait car programs. Car thieves everywhere shuddered at the news.
Regular readers will remember how I declared war against car thieves after my neighbor’s car was stolen last fall. In researching the best practices for suppressing the lurking, squealing thieves, I quickly found British Columbia’s amazing baitcar.com website. British Columbia is one of dozens of jurisdictions in the U.S. and Canada that employs large, aggressive bait car programs to capture and deter car thieves. When a thief breaks into the bait car, its cameras begin recording, its GPS device activates and an alarm is triggered at police headquarters. The police then swoop in to capture the now-pitiful criminal and the video is posted on the Internet and other media outlets. The combined effect of apprehension, deterrence and the massive media campaigns that accompany these programs have produced double-digit declines in theft in British Columbia, Minneapolis, Dallas, Stanislaus County in California and other jurisdictions. Arlington County, Virginia reports that bait cars have helped cut its car theft totals to the lowest levels since 1965. Best of all, many bait car programs are paid in whole or in part by insurance companies. We have combined all of this information and more in the heavily-demanded Bait Car Bible available here.
The Public Safety Committee interviewed Acting Assistant Police Chief Wayne Jerman. Jerman said that Montgomery County purchased two bait cars in 2004: a 1991 Toyota Corolla and a 1995 Honda. Neither proved desirable to the car thieves, who have only committed one theft and one break-in on the cars over the past four years. Unlike other jurisdictions, the county does not promote the cars. (British Columbia’s famous slogan, “Steal a Bait Car. Go to Jail,” has been the centerpiece of its award-winning “advertising campaign.”) Jerman described the bait car programs in both Prince George’s County and Fairfax County as “successful” but did not have statistics on their performance.
Council Members Don Praiser (left) and Marc Elrich.
Chairman Andrews noted that Montgomery County experiences roughly 2,500 car thefts per year, much lower than in Prince George’s County (where it is 12,000 per year) but still, in his words, “a high plateau.” Mr. Andrews stated that vehicle-related thefts were the number one category of crime in Montgomery and handed out a reported crime list from the 7/17/08 Washington Post. Of the 120 Montgomery County crimes in that report, 56 were car thefts or car break-ins. Mr. Andrews told the Assistant Chief, “It seems to me we need to do more in this area, especially in those parts of the county where it is a problem.” He asked Jerman what more could be done to have a greater impact on car thefts.
Assistant Chief Jerman admitted that the police could use more bait cars, stating, “Two is not enough.” But he described them as “labor-intensive,” saying that each needed three officers – two to drive it to the drop-off point and another to monitor it from headquarters. The auto theft unit’s nine investigators together record a 70% recovery rate of stolen cars (but not the valuables inside), which everyone agrees is a good performance. But if the thieves were deterred from stealing the cars in the first place, how much more effective could the investigators be?
Public Safety Committee Chairman Phil Andrews.
Mr. Andrews then put his finger on the key issue: why have bait car programs worked so well in other places? Noting that British Columbia has used its program to cut its auto thefts from 26,000 in fiscal 2004 to 17,000 in fiscal 2007 – a decline of 35% – he told Jerman, “What I want to get is more details on how they do it... What have they done that has been so successful?” Mr. Andrews specifically asked for information on how funding is collected from insurance companies, how much costs are paid by the police themselves and how successful jurisdictions deploy the cars. Assistant Chief Jerman agreed to find out and the Public Safety Committee will reconvene in the fall.
It’s clear that the County Council, and Phil Andrews in particular, have heard us and are responding to our blockbuster letter from last fall. We will see whether the police believe that bait cars can work in Montgomery County. But if they can achieve the same success that other jurisdictions have seen, the county’s citizens will benefit in two ways:
1. The most common type of crime in the county will be seriously reduced.
2. Over the long run, the police may then be able to redeploy their resources to more serious problems, like home burglaries and violent crime.
As for the sniveling car thieves, I have one message for you: enjoy yourselves while you can because the good times won’t last forever. As our friends in British Columbia say:
STEAL A BAIT CAR. GO TO JAIL.
Update: The Gazette's coverage, which includes statistics on car thefts and break-ins, is here.
Update 2: Here's an article from the Washington Post detailing the successful use of a bait car by D.C. police in March.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Transgender Bill Defenders Gear Up for a Fight
Reacting to a recent court decision allowing the anti-transgender referendum to proceed, the transgender bill’s defenders have launched a new website and are seeking staff.
Upon looking at the website, I was struck by the fact that it did not list its backers. But the site does list a treasurer: Christine Grewell, who served as treasurer in the 2006 campaigns of County Council Member Marc Elrich and District 18 delegate candidate Dana Beyer. (Ms. Beyer, a staffer for the bill’s lead sponsor, Duchy Trachtenberg, is a Vice-President of Equality Maryland and a prominent backer of the bill.) As many donors may be uneasy about contributing to an anonymous site, more names than just Ms. Grewell’s may be helpful.
Incidentally, wouldn’t it be outrageous if the shower nuts started a pro-transgender site to collect donations? That would be one way to drain the enemy of resources! But the shower nuts are not clever enough for that and Basic Rights Montgomery is a real organization.
According to this press release from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Basic Rights Montgomery is chaired by Equality Maryland board member James R. Walker Jr., who is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the county’s Board of Elections. Equality Maryland is seeking a campaign manager and the new website’s purpose is, in part, to raise enough money to pay that person. Whoever it turns out to be, that individual could never be paid enough money to tolerate the hysteria coming from the other side.
In the end, the greatest advantage held by the bill’s backers may not be money or staff, but the referendum’s language as approved by the County Council. The language reads:Shall the Act to prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, cable television service and taxicab service on the basis of gender identity become law?
This ensures that every voter will be reminded of the ultimate purpose of the transgender bill: outlawing discrimination. Few Montgomery County voters will knowingly support discrimination so the shower nuts have a high curtain to climb.
MARC Train’s Mea Culpa
By Marc Korman.
I recently wrote two posts on the MARC train. In my post, I outlined some of the reforms I felt MARC needed to take before embarking on its planned expansion. Since I spent some time criticizing MARC, I want to also give credit where credit is due. On July 23rd, the Maryland Transit Administration sent the message below to the subscribers to the MARC email alert system after a series of MARC delays:A Message from the MTA Administrator
My personal experience with these delays was that my Camden line train’s engine broke down, not only delaying my train, but the Penn line train trapped behind us. Luckily, I have an understanding boss. But despite my continued frustration with MARC, I appreciate the Administrator sending a comprehensive message explaining what went wrong and efforts to improve it. The pitch for the MARC Tracker is a bit disingenuous, since the Tracker does not send updates in a timely matter.
For the past six weeks on-time performance for MARC Train service has fallen far below what customers expect or deserve. During June Penn Line trains were on-time 81% of the time; Camden Line trains were on-time 63% of the time and Brunswick Line trains were on-time 63% of the time. Although some service disruptions are unavoidable, there were instances where we could have taken actions to reduce the anxiety, frustration and inconvenience that you and your family, friends and colleagues experienced. Specifically, service was disrupted for the following reasons:
• Rising summer temperatures put additional stress on equipment and tracks, increasing the likelihood of failure;
• A severe storm cut power to the track signals and blew down trees along the Brunswick Line, forcing us to cancel service;
• A fuel tanker overturned on I-95 in Baltimore City, causing fire authorities to close the Camden Line;
• Our fleet of diesel locomotives is nearly 40 years old, and despite a major overhaul 10 years ago is increasingly unreliable;
• Electric locomotives used on the Penn Line have been out of service for a scheduled overhaul, requiring us to use the older diesel locomotives instead and
• Persistent reliability problems with our newest electric locomotives.
We are taking immediate corrective steps to regain your confidence in us. I have directed MARC Operations to review and analyze each recent incident with Amtrak and CSX Transportation, and implement measures to reduce this risk of reoccurrences in the future.
Penn Line customers should know that MARC managers communicate with their counterparts at Amtrak on a daily basis to anticipate and address issues that cause service delays. We are also working closely with Amtrak to improve the reliability of the electric locomotives. An overhaul of our four AEM-7 electric locomotives is nearly complete with the first overhauled unit back in service in early August and the second in service by mid-August.
For customers of the Brunswick and Camden lines, you should know that CSX has recently relocated dispatchers from Jacksonville, Florida to Baltimore which should greatly improve the communication and reliability of the service.
As we have previously announced, MTA has awarded a contract for the replacement of the diesel locomotives, and 26 new units will arrive in Maryland at the rate of two a month beginning in early 2009. Maintenance on the existing units will be enhanced to keep them operating safely.
In the mean time, we will continue to provide real-time information about MARC service using our email notification system. You can also see the current location of any train at www.marctracker.com. To further enhance our communication we have initiated a project to replace the public address system at all stations.
As MARC customers, you deserved better -- a lot better! We regret any inconvenience you have experienced and thank you for your continued support of MARC Train. Over the next several days MARC managers will be available at Union Station to monitor the service and answer your questions.
Paul J. Wiedefeld
Administrator
MTA needs to keep these updates coming while also making the other needed reforms I outlined previously: improving communications, tackling the operations and maintenance needs of the system, and addressing congestion on the rails.
Target: Eric Luedtke
Last month, I called for the revival of the state’s liberal blogosphere. That call has been answered! And the saviors of the online left are... the online right.
As I ended my series on the state of Maryland blogdom, Isaac Smith and Eric Luedtke resumed regular posting on Free State Politics. That has attracted significant attention from Red Maryland, the nexus of the state’s conservative blogosphere. Over a nine-day period from 7/17/08 through 7/25/08, conservative bloggers criticized Luedtke by name in nine posts on five different days. Luedtke’s views on transit, education and the environment made them howl like coyotes in the hills!
These Red Maryland bloggers have probably never met Eric Luedtke. Slightly-built, Luedtke has the appearance of a first-week college freshman searching for his backpack to avoid being late for class. A soft-spoken teacher from Burtonsville, he is no proponent of the two-by-four liberalism practiced by some on this blog. The laptop-toting, coffee-sipping Luedtke is about as threatening as dew on the grass.
But Luedtke is really driving the conservatives nuts as some of their criticism is strikingly personal. In one post, Brian Griffiths accuses Luedtke of promoting “racial nonsense” and says the following on accountability in education: Luedtke, as we mentioned, is a teacher. He is a member of the teachers union. Once he reaches tenure, he is virtually unable to be fired. How's that for accountability?
This follows Griffith’s labeling of Free State Politics bloggers as “privileged Caucasians.”
All of this attention from conservatives is having an unintended consequence: they are helping to revive Free State Politics. Every time they link to one of Luedtke’s posts, they encourage their readers to visit them and pass them on. In the three weeks prior to 7/17/08, Free State Politics averaged 181 visits per day. But over the nine-day anti-Luedtke jihad, Free State averaged 268 visits per day – an increase of 48%.
On behalf of the Maryland left, I extend my sincere gratitude to Red Maryland for coming to the aid of Free State Politics. I only have one question for them: where’s the love for me?
Monday, July 28, 2008
How Low Can Bob Ehrlich Go?
In an astounding interview on WBAL last Wednesday, former Governor Bob Ehrlich blamed former Maryland Attorney General Joe Curran for the state police spying scandal and went on to tell state legislators not to “micro-manage” the police!
Following are excerpts from an interview of Governor Ehrlich by conservative talk show host Bruce Elliott on 7/23/08:Elliott:
A spokeswoman for current Attorney General Doug Gansler immediately denied that the state police asked the Attorney General’s office for an opinion on the investigation. Here is more from the former Governor:
On this issue, somebody authorized 288 hours of spying on peace and anti-death penalty groups. I personally would like to know who and why. The implication from Martin O’Malley yesterday was somehow it’s the responsibility of the former administration. Thus, he is, it seems to me, kind of implying that a piece of paper crossed your desk and you signed off on this.
Ehrlich:
Yeah, which of course is silly. There’s not a whole lot to add to what I guess Superintendent Hutchins has already told the press. Police agencies are paid to protect us, Bruce. They make discretionary decisions regarding their operations. Governors do not get involved in those operations quite obviously. There are however Assistant Attorney Generals that they report to. Assistant Attorney Generals are assigned to every agency in state government. And so if Martin O’Malley has an issue with regard to the Attorney General’s actions during our administration, he should probably talk to his father-in-law [former Attorney General Curran].Elliott:
But the former Governor is not done yet.
OK Bob, do you have a problem with this? Knowing what you know now.
Ehrlich:
I don’t know a whole lot. I know this Bruce – here’s what I do know – that if there would be a danger to the public or a public official or something or some element occurred within these groups, the Martin O’Malleys of the world, talk radio folks of the world would be the first to ask me why weren’t the state police or the agency involved doing their job? So it’s a very interesting issue, obviously. I have no problem with the oversight. As I’ve said, that’s what Assistant Attorney Generals do. But if you really want to get into the state legislature micro-managing the state police agency, I’ve got a big problem with it...Elliott:
Blair Lee has criticized this blog in his Gazette column this week:
OK now, Jim Brochin, a Senator you know from Baltimore County, Democrat, said the whole thing is disturbing. He is somewhat comforted by assurances made by [current Superintendent of State Police] Sheridan and O’Malley and is not considering legislation. Now that does raise an interesting question, Governor. The indications from Governor O’Malley are, well, this just took place under the previous administration and somehow stopped as if on cue when you left Government House.
Ehrlich:
It would be interesting to ask, again I’m not [unintelligible] but, what similar operations were performed by Baltimore City Police during his tenure as Mayor. But again the issue here is, Bruce, the press is doing its job, I think the Attorney Generals really need to be talked to and we need to find out exactly what they said, what interaction there was between the state police in this case and the Attorney General assigned to that agency. But the last thing I want is the Brochins or the [Senator Brian] Froshes of the world getting involved in the day-to-day operations of the state police agencies or defining probable cause. I mean, these are not exactly people I want making those decisions. I’d rather have the people we pay to make those decisions make those decisions.
Elliott:
Yeah, but somebody has to sign off on it, gov. I mean, somebody has to say, yes, this is a good thing. And if it was Curran who signed off on it or somebody in his office, I think that the public would like to know who did, and why, and who authorized the continuation of this kind of surveillance…
Ehrlich:
Well, where do you draw the line? Bruce, my main question, and I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, but where do you draw that line on a day-to-day basis?
Elliott:
Look, I think it’s perfectly justifiable to say that if you might have a problem here, yeah, you better take a look at these groups. But somewhere within the first, you know like, hundred hours, in other words, the first two-and-a-half solid weeks of surveillance, assuming this is a forty-hour work week, that somebody would say, “You know what? These people are creampuffs…”
Ehrlich:
Well, I think it’s an appropriate thing for the last three, four, five, whatever, State Superintendents of Police and the Attorney Generals assigned to the police to give you, provide the parameters. But again, I’d be very careful about going beyond that, because I don’t want the Brian Froshes of the world telling the state police what they can and cannot do on a daily basis.And, of course, the liberal bloggers went into lynch mob mode. Maryland Politics Watch launched a four-part series, ‘‘Inside Ehrlich’s Secret Police” and went completely over the top with this: ‘‘If you want to surrender your liberties to tyrannical government, vote for Bob Ehrlich in 2010.”
While we appreciate Mr. Lee’s regular reading of our blog, we would like to point out that we ran a five-part series, not four. Let no one claim that we devote too little attention to civil liberties here! And we will concede that at the time we made the statement he cites, it may have been premature. But we now know the following about Governor Ehrlich’s views from both his statements in the Sun and the above interview on WBAL:
1. He declines to say that there was anything wrong with the investigation.
2. He blames the former Attorney General for the spying without a shred of evidence to back up his view.
3. He believes that the state police should not be monitored by either the Governor or the legislature. In other words, the state police should be accountable only to themselves.
So now I will say it again:
If you want to surrender your liberties to tyrannical government, vote for Bob Ehrlich in 2010.
Friday, July 25, 2008
State Police on Spying: Unfortunately, More of the Same
According to the Washington Post, Maryland State Police Superintendent Terrence B. Sheridan has reviewed the circumstances of the political spying that occurred under his predecessor. Sheridan's comments, like so many out of the administration on this issue, sound great ... but any hope of reassurance falls apart upon a closer examination.
But before we get to implications for the current administration's activities, there's the question of 2005-2006. Who ordered the spying that occurred during the Ehrlich administration? According to the Post article, Sheridan reports thatthe commander of the special operations division at the time made the decision to spy after receiving a request from a department preparing to monitor protests related to the scheduled execution of Vernon Lee Evans.
No evidence has been reported that Governor Ehrlich ordered it or even knew about the spying that occurred during his administration.Ehrlich said in an interview on WBAL-AM this week that he was not asked to approve the spying. Sheridan's predecessor, Thomas E. Hutchins, has said Ehrlich was not aware of the program.
I trust that investigations by Congressional committees and the MD Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee will get more information about exactly what happened in 2005-2006, and why.
Now, what about today? What about this administration?
The Post reports Superintendent Sheridan's assertion that "Law enforcement has no right or authority to infringe on citizens' rights to free speech or public assembly." (emphasis mine)
I'd agree with that. In fact, it's in the Constitution.
Nevertheless, Sheridan also says the surveillance was lawful.
That means that, in Sheridan's view, spying by the Free State Stasi on yours and my peaceful political activities without a scintilla of evidence of criminal activity or national security danger is not a violation of our rights to free speech or assembly. That's a pretty damn narrow interpretation of free speech and assembly - one that Comrade Stalin would have heartily agreed with, I'm sure. And unless Governor O'Malley contradicts Sheridan, it would appear that this frighteningly cramped view of our First Amendment freedoms is the official position of the O'Malley administration.
Sheridan's statement has other implications, as well. If the surveillance was lawful, then clearly the State Police does have "the right and the authority" to do exactly what it did. So Sheridan's statement that "law enforcement has no right or authority to infringe on citizens' rights to free speech or public assembly" is a meaningless distractor, obviously referring to something other than the what he's being asked about.
It's a statement meant to fool people into feeling complacent, like the other statements we've heard from the administration over the past week. And the distraction seems to be working, judging from the general lack of interest in the mainstream media or among elected officials to find out what's going on NOW, in the O'Malley administration, and not just during the Ehrlich administration.
The Post reports Sheridan's belief that the spying was simply bad judgment, adding his assurance that "this method will not continue." But given his less than candid use of misdirection make it look like he was saying something he wasn't, his assurance is not enough.
And I find chilling his assertion that we should rely on the judgment of those in power, rather than the force of law, to protect our right - a belief shared by Governor O'Malley.
I will be urging my District 18 legislators to sponsor legislation next session to address this issue. I put my faith in the rule of law, not the kind hearts of governors and police superintendents.
Light Rail is Catching On
A guest post by Hans Riemer.
Hi everyone, it's Hans Riemer — Silver Spring resident, political activist, regular MPW reader — and now, occasional MPW guest writer.
Some of you might remember me as the guy who ran for Council and said he was going to build the Purple Line or die trying. I’ll have you know that I’m still working on it — and I’m not going to up my life insurance policy.
Today, via Purple Line NOW, I bring you a quick update of how light rail is catching on around the country and even the world.
Now, here in Maryland, a lot of people don’t realize that the Purple Line is intended to be light rail. Light rail can be integrated into an existing community harmoniously because it is smaller scale, quiet, and incredibly modern. In Europe, you see light rail laid down right in the middle of many of the oldest and most beautiful cities.
By contrast, metro-scale rapid transit trains are expensive, loud, and, unless they are built underground, very disruptive to existing communities.
Purple Line = light rail = wave of the future:
HOUSTON:
The Houston City Council voted 13-2 to give the Metro Transit Authority permission to move forward with construction of five light rail lines on city streets. Groundbreaking for the East End line is expected next month. These lines were previously planned to be bus rapid transit, however the City switched gears based on their positive experience with Houston’s first LRT line, which is a source of civic pride.
TEXANS SUPPORT RAIL:
A recent survey of 1,000 Texans about transportation issues found that a majority of participants support investment in light rail, regional rail, and high-efficiency bus systems, and also oppose the building of new toll roads. 76% of the respondents support a regional rail system connecting Texas cities. Nowhere is this amazing transformation of priorities more evident than in Dallas where the area transit agency DART is working on expansion plans to add two rail lines by 2013 for a total of 91 miles and 93 stations.
MINNEAPOLIS:
The University of Minnesota Board of Regents voted to support the Central Corridor Light Rail alignment through the heart of campus... The line is an 11 mile $892 million project, which will link downtown St. Paul and Minneapolis. Like Purple Line plans in College Park, automobile traffic will be banned from one road segment passing through the heart of campus. The project will come with $20 million worth of road improvements in the university district east of the Mississippi River.
PHOENIX:
Phoenix will become the latest Sunbelt city with light rail when it opens its first LRT Line in December. The 20-mile line connects the Phoenix to Tempe and Mesa and was initiated in 2000 when voters approved a 20-year transit sales tax by a wide margin.
FRANCE LOVES LIGHT RAIL:
The French LRT system continues to expand by leaps and bounds with the network expected to grow to 358 miles of tracks by 2015. Mulhouse, a small city in the northeastern Alsace region is the latest to open a line. “We wanted a tram that called attention to itself,” says Deputy Mayor Michel Samuel-Weis, “as a symbol of economic vitality, environmental awareness and civic improvement -- transportation as an integrated cultural concept.”
Montgomery and Prince George’s county voters and legislators are remarkably unified on the Purple Line. It doesn’t take an engineer to see that the problem we face in the Washington region — the state’s economic engine — is that our regional transportation plan was originally designed largely to get people in and out of DC. But today, more people are moving around the region rather than to and from the center. The Purple Line should be the start of a new approach to transportation in the region—and just a start.
Inside Ehrlich’s Secret Police: Part Five
Among other things, the state police spying scandal reveals immense differences between Governor O’Malley and former Governor Ehrlich. Voters would be wise to remember their contrasting reactions in 2010.
Governor O’Malley has said that his administration “does not and will not use public resources to target or monitor peaceful activities where Maryland citizens are exercising their First Amendment rights.” Nevertheless, Paul Gordon faults him for not pushing corrective legislation. That could be a mistake because legislation might be an effective way to keep the state police from causing further trouble on the current Governor’s watch. Even so, Governor O’Malley has a powerful incentive to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past: political survival. He has fragile relations with some parts of his base and if he sanctions another police investigation of peaceful protestors – especially after promising not to do it – his relationship with the left will be irreparably damaged.
Former Governor Ehrlich, on the other hand, is unburdened by relationships with the left or any concern for civil liberties. The Baltimore Sun reports: Friday, Ehrlich said on WJZ-TV that he was “sympathetic” to the principle that police should not spy on groups when there no evidence of wrongdoing.
Put aside for a moment whether the non-violent death penalty activists were a “cell” that “put people at risk.” Governor Ehrlich could have said what his former State Police Superintendent Thomas E. Hutchins had the decency to say: “Whatever occurred during my tenure I obviously am responsible for.” Instead, the Governor’s statements hint that he would tolerate, and maybe even encourage, these sorts of activities if he were ever re-elected. That provides a compelling rationale for why he should never be allowed to hold elected office again.
But he added, “We pay state police to make decisions, and obviously they bring discretion with them to their jobs every day, so their job on a daily basis obviously is to weigh the relative value of intelligence they've received and to make decisions accordingly.”
A governor or police chief risks being blamed for not doing his job if an activist “cell” or organization takes actions that put people at risk, Ehrlich said. People could ask, “‘Why weren't you doing your job? Weren’t you supposed to have intelligence operations out there to monitor this sort of situation?’” he said in the television interview.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Court Sides with Shower Nuts (Updated)
Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge Robert A. Greenburg ruled today that the anti-transgender ballot referendum could go forward. But his opinion was based on one narrow issue: the timeliness of the challenge. Equality Maryland is vowing to appeal.
Judge Greenburg rejected an argument from Equality Maryland that the voter's name be entered on a petition exactly as it appears on the voter registration rolls. I agree with that reasoning as few voters carry their registration cards and petition gatherers should not be expected to carry hundreds of thousands of voter registration records with them. But he also ruled that the Board of Elections applied the wrong standard for calculating the petition threshold necessary to trigger a referendum. And he said that the Board had a greater responsiblity for verifying signatures than acting as "something more than that of a bean-counter."
So if the judge believed that the Board applied the wrong standard for gathering a sufficient number of names for the petition and that the Board did not perform due diligence on the signatures, then why should he let a technical issue like timeliness rescue an otherwise faulty petition? After all, this ruling allows the Board to make future mistakes on petition thresholds and encourages future ballot groups to slip in dicey signatures. If the signatures are suspect and the wrong standard for certifying them is applied, why allow the referendum to stand under any circumstance?
One way or another, Montgomery County voters will not support discrimination. Even the shower nuts sensed that when they objected to the wording approved by the County Council for the ballot. But if Judge Greenburg's decision is upheld, the will of the voters will only be expressed after great sums of money - and great amounts of vitriol - are expended.
Update: Jim Kennedy at Teach the Facts has more details on the ruling.
In Praise of Phil Andrews
Margarita-drinking penguins surf off the sandy beaches of Antarctica. Osama bin Laden sips matzo ball soup in Tel Aviv. George W. Bush admits the Iraq War is a mistake. But in an even more unlikely event, I am praising Montgomery County Council Member Phil Andrews for winning a spending increase in this year’s budget. These are strange times indeed.
Regular readers know that I am a career trade unionist. During the last county budget round, I vigorously disagreed with Mr. Andrews’ recommendation to cut two percentage points from the public employees’ cost of living increase. I went out of my way to demonstrate how the unions’ contracts were affordable on this blog. And still Mr. Andrews faced down three hundred chanting, stomping union members and told them, “Employees need to do their part… It would be unfair to expect taxpayers to pay a tax increase to fully fund employee contracts that would be 8% next year.”
But Mr. Andrews is no mere budget cleaver. While he was pursuing labor savings, he was also trying to restore another part of the budget that was of utmost importance to the county. In his original budget plan, County Executive Ike Leggett proposed doing away with the police department’s community service officers (CSOs). The CSOs maintain regular contact with community leaders and citizens inside their districts and train them to implement Neighborhood Watch programs. My neighborhood had just started a watch program and feared seeing them abandoned just as we were creating one. Moreover, many African American, Latino and immigrant leaders protested losing an important communication channel to the police. The total savings from the elimination of the liaison officers was only projected to be $623,000 (out of a $297 million deficit).
Mr. Andrews, Chairman of the council’s Public Safety Committee, would have none of it. He declared: The officers in these positions provide a crucial link between the department and the public and often are the main link between community members, HOAs and other groups... A relationship has developed between the CSOs and folks in the respective district that very much needs to continue.
Mr. Andrews promptly formed an alliance with Police Chief Tom Manger and guided the restoration of the CSOs through every step of the budget process. Other spending hikes and cuts would come and go, but the CSOs survived. Yes, Mr. Andrews wanted to limit spending in some areas, but he fought hard to fund a program he believed made sense. And as the summer crime season begins, the CSOs are working with my neighborhood and many others to greet the criminals with wary eyes in every house.
But that is not all. Last year, a group of nine civic associations in Silver Spring, Wheaton and Kensington representing 4,440 households wrote to the county asking for implementation of a bait car program. As we detailed in January, bait cars are decoys rigged with cameras and GPS devices by the police to catch car thieves. We asked Mr. Andrews to consider the idea, but that was before the budget crisis dominated Rockville. However, he never forgot about us and has scheduled a Public Safety work session on the issue on July 28. Perhaps he will agree with us that bait cars are a cost-effective way to fight vehicle crime and perhaps he will not. But the fact is that none of our associations are located inside his district and he had no direct self-interest in helping us. He listened to us anyway.
One of Rockville’s most brilliant lobbyists once told me, “I communicate with everyone. Someone might disagree with me nine times in a row, but they could be with me the tenth time.” And so it is with Phil Andrews. Even his detractors admit that he will tell you exactly what he thinks without hesitation and will stick to his word. Crime-weary neighborhoods are lucky to have him in Rockville; the criminals are not.
Inside Ehrlich’s Secret Police: Part Four
The Maryland State Police file on anti-death penalty protestors contains a chronological record of the state’s spying on liberal activists but little else. There is much, much more to this story that must be discovered.
1. Who Ordered the Investigation?
Former Superintendent of the State Police Tim Hutchins claims that Governor Ehrlich did not know about the investigation. If that is true, then who targeted the anti-death penalty protestors? Was it Hutchins or someone closer to the Governor? Did anyone on the Governor’s staff know about it or condone it?
2. Why Go After Anti-Death Penalty Activists?
On page 14 of the file, even one of the spies admits, “Most death penalty protests in the past have not been violent.” And yet the state labeled the investigation “Terrorism: Anti-Government.” No allegation was ever made that these activists were linked to al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban or any other terrorist group. If the police wanted to investigate a violent group, what about anti-immigration activists? After all, the Gaithersburg day laborer center was set aflame a year ago and Casa de Maryland has been targeted with bomb threats. Did the police simply prefer to investigate liberal groups?
3. What Was the Involvement of Other Organizations?
The spies regularly shared their findings with other law enforcement organizations including other branches of the state police, the Department of General Services Police, the Baltimore City Police Department Intelligence Unit, and the Annapolis City Police. What did these agencies do with the information? The involvement of the Baltimore City Police is especially important because Martin O’Malley was the Mayor of Baltimore at the time. If the city police used information passed on by the state police to launch their own investigation, then former Mayor O’Malley bears as much responsibility for them as former Governor Ehrlich has for the state police.
4. Were There Other Investigations?
The spying on anti-death penalty protestors began in March 2005, well after 9/11. Were there other investigations in the interim or did the state police wait three-and-a-half years before deciding that terrorism was a problem? If peaceful anti-death penalty activists were targeted, was any liberal group safe?
All of these questions and more require a thorough public investigation. The Church Committee played a vital role in curbing abuses by the CIA and FBI after the excesses of the 1950s and 1960s. Perhaps Senate Judiciary Chair Brian Frosh will subject the state police to similar scrutiny in his upcoming hearings.
There is one last dimension to this story: what does it say about Governor O’Malley and former Governor Ehrlich? We will explore that in Part Five.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
On Political Pulse
Montgomery County Council President Mike Knapp will be on the 'Political Pulse' TV Show on:
Thursday, July 24th at 9:00 p.m.; and Tuesday, July 29th at 9:30 p.m.
Topics that will be discussed include:
--Whether County taxes are too high;
--Whether the County needs to cut or slow the rate of spending such as on salaries, which constitute about 80% of the County's operating budget;
--The state of the relationship between the County and the State; and
--The possible effect on the County if the slots referendum on the ballot in November, 2008 does not pass.
Political Pulse is on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County.
Inside Ehrlich’s Secret Police: Part Three
In November 2005, the spies became concerned that death warrants signed for Wesley Baker and Vernon Evans would stir the protestors to increased militancy. After a meeting of the Baltimore Coalition to End the Death Penalty on November 15th, an agent of the Secret Police wrote this:There were approximately 30 people at the “emergency” meeting which was called because of several pending executions. Gov. Ehrlich signed a death warrant for Wesley Baker for the week of December 5th and a death warrant is likely to be signed for Vernon Evans soon with a possible execution date in early 2006. Crips founder Stan “Tookie” Williams is also scheduled to be executed in California on December 13th. Attendees at the meeting included family and friends of Baker and Evans, people from Amnesty International, the National Socialists, students from Goucher College and members of the public. Emotions were high at the meeting with increasing inflammatory rhetoric about “making noise” to try and stop the executions.
Intelligence indicates that attendance at the below listed events is likely to be large with some events drawing several hundred people. Information about the events is being widely posted on the Internet, at many college campuses, in area churches and through leafleting sessions around the state. Although most death penalty protests in the past have not been violent, the potential for disruptions and problems continue to exist due to the strong emotions the issue illicit from people on both sides of the debate. Members of the family of Baker’s and Evans’ victims have not been outspoken in the past about either their support or anti-death penalty feelings.
Finally, eight months of hard work by the Secret Police would pay off. The anti-death penalty activists were set to launch possibly violent protests and the spies had a list of them. To date, the spies had put in 144 hours of investigative work. They had attended 17 events and meetings on a covert basis, using secret email accounts and false identities. At last they were poised to jail Max Obuszewski and his socialist allies once and for all.
Unfortunately for the spies, the protests would happen but the violence would not. At a November rally outside the Governor’s Mansion, the spies reported, “There were no disturbances at the protest and no problems were detected by the covert troopers. The protestors left the scene without incident."
At a November meeting held to discuss plans for Wesley Baker’s execution, the spies reported, “No plans were discussed at this meeting to cause any civil disruptions during the run-up or during the week that Baker is scheduled to be executed.”
At a December rally at Supermax, the spies wrote, “There were at least 100 people at the protest which lasted approximately 1 ½ hours. The group held signs and marched in circle in front of Central Booking before walking around the prison and then ending with speeches by activists and politicians who are against the death penalty. Traffic was not disrupted and no protestors caused any problems.”
All told, the Secret Police attended seven meetings and five rallies between November 2005 and May 2006. They found no violence, no disruptions and no illegal activity of any kind. The file does not state why the investigation ultimately ceased, but it may have been due to simple boredom. The spies attended 28 different events and invested 288 hours of time with no return.
The 46-page file from the hidden vaults of the Secret Police generates more questions than answers. We will ask those questions in Part Four.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
O'Malley Fails Civics 101
Through a spokesperson, Governor O'Malley assures us that no legislation is needed to prevent a recurrence of the political spying undertaken by the State Police when Bob Ehrlich was governor (and which he says isn't happening under his watch).
Why does he say we don't we need any legislation? Because we can be assured that his administration won't engage in that kind of conduct.
According to the Baltimore Sun:O'Malley spokesman Shaun Adamec said the governor . . . is confident that the state police will not undertake surveillance without evidence of wrongdoing during his administration and that legislation isn't necessary at this point.
Oh, okay.
We don't need to rely on laws to protect our most basic rights when we can instead trust in the good nature of the governor.
What Governor O'Malley seems to have forgotten is that we have the rule of law precisely because we cannot rely on the good will of whoever holds power. Has he learned nothing from history, to say nothing of Civics 101?
Our protection against abuses of our rights is the rule of law, not blind trust that those in power will be good people.
Since the spying story came to light last week, the governor has not clearly said that what the State Police did was illegal. He has not given a pretty good but not completely satisfactory denial that his administration has engaged in similar activities. And now he opposes legislation to put our basic First Amendment protections into state law, so that we can have specific processes in place to prevent these abuses.
Surely the governor knows basic civics. And even if he doesn't, surely he knows that the next governor may not be so gracious toward the people as he apparently is.
O'Malley's "you don't need laws to protect your rights - just trust me" approach to this issue does not indicate a healthy respect for civil liberties. Nor does it make me more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to figuring out what his own administration has been up to.
Ban the Monster Trucks!
I had one reaction when I heard about County Council Member Mike Knapp’s new bill prohibiting large trucks from parking in residential neighborhoods: it’s about time! Just look below to see why.
This fearsome charter bus has been the source of much conflict in my neighborhood. Yes, this is the same neighborhood mentioned in the Post article, but since I live here and they do not, I have the pictures! The above monster bus is owned and parked by a resident on the street outside of his single-family home. It is a giant monolith that dominates the block. The woman across the street keeps the curtains in her living room shut because if she opened them, this would be her view – her only view. But for all the wars fought by the neighbors to eject the lumbering mastodon, they have been stymied by one fact – it is perfectly legal under current law for the owner to park it where it is.
Want more? For years, a boat was parked in the street only two blocks away from the above monster bus. The boat was left there for so long that it sank into the asphalt. Lord only knows what it took to get it out.
One reason why many of these vehicles are parked in neighborhoods is that their owners are running businesses out of their homes. That’s legitimate so long as the business use does not infringe on the residential character of the neighborhood. (The Montgomery County Board of Appeals regulates business locations in residential areas through its issuance of special exceptions.) But some types of businesses, especially ones engaged in heavy industrial activities, simply do not belong in residential neighborhoods.
My own industry, construction, is an example. Many contractors operate their record-keeping operations out of their houses. So far, so good. But when they park heavy vehicles on residential streets and use their backyards as material storage sites, that’s an issue. They may protest that compelling them to use commercial parking is an unreasonable business expense. But their competitors can and do maintain commercial lots, sheds and storage facilities and pay for them through overhead markups on their bids. By using neighborhoods as industrial parking lots, some contractors are gaining an unfair cost advantage over their competitors at the expense of their residential neighbors. Mike Knapp’s bill would put a stop to it.
There should not be a civic association in the county that should not favor this bill. So go ahead and write the council! As for me, I am going to tell the poor lady on the back end of the above monster bus that she may someday be able to see the sun again.
Inside Ehrlich’s Secret Police: Part Two
Max John Obuszewski is not an ordinary liberal. The 63-year-old Baltimore resident has a long history of anti-war and anti-death penalty activism. He has participated in multiple anti-Iraq War protests at the Capitol. His Internet mailing list was named the best in the Baltimore metro area by the Baltimore City Paper in 2000. He even wrote a piece for film director Michael Moore’s website criticizing spying by the National Security Agency and was arrested for protesting there. In fact, Obuszewski told the Sun that he had been arrested at least 70 times for protests going all the way back to the Vietnam War.
Now here was a target worthy of the attention of the Secret Police. Obuszewski was no mere socialist from Takoma Park; he was a nationally-known, almost professional protestor. He was a big fish. He had to be watched.
So the Secret Police began gathering information on Obuszewski. Here is what they found:
The heavily redacted portions of the first two pages raise questions. What did the spies find out about Obuszewski? How did they collect it? Did they search his trash? Did they tap his phones? Did they obtain his financial information? Did they follow him around in his private life? Did they watch his friends and neighbors? We may never know. That’s why they are called the Secret Police!
Despite the spies’ obsession with Obuszewski, they were not rewarded with evidence of illegal activity. To the contrary; the protestors were consistently peaceful. After a 5/24/05 meeting, the spies wrote this about their plans to support Vernon Evans at a court hearing:The group is planning to meet up outside of the Court of Appeals and “pack the courtroom.” They said they would likely wear armbands to show their support for Evans. The 60 minute oral arguments in Evans’ case are scheduled to start at 1000 hours so the group said anyone who tries to get into the small courtroom should get there at approximately 0915 hours. The people who can’t get in are going to try and stand silently near the courthouse holding signs protesting the death penalty… The group was very firm about any protests being silent and non-disruptive because they were worried about damaging Evans’ case.
But Obuszewski wanted a loud protest outside the Baltimore County State’s Attorney’s office. That piqued the interest of the spies, who reported:The MSP Annapolis Barrack, Department of General Services Police, Baltimore City Police Department Intelligence Unit, and the Annapolis City Police were informed about the above events.
Through November, the Secret Police went on to monitor Obuszewski and the other anti-death penalty protestors at two courtroom hearings, one rally and nine internal meetings. Unfortunately for the spies, no illegal activities occurred.
1. At a 6/6/05 Supermax rally, the spies reported, “There were no problems observed at the event.”
2. At a 6/7/05 court hearing for death row inmate Wesley Baker, “There were approximately 10 to 15 anti-death penalty activists who were inside of the courtroom and none caused any problems. There were several additional protestors outside of the courthouse who held signs against the death penalty and they were joined by those in the courtroom when the hearing was over. No problems were observed.”
3. At a 9/2/05 court hearing for death row inmate Vernon Evans, “The people in the courtroom did not cause any type of disturbance during the arguments and no problems were observed. Four members of Evans’ family were also in the courtroom and also did not cause any disturbances. There were no problems observed outside of the courtroom and the group left after the hearing was concluded.”
The vast majority of the spies’ time was spent in meetings with the Committee to Save Vernon Evans, often attended by fewer than ten people. Typically, the attendees discussed publicity around the Evans case, publicity around the death penalty issue generally and sometimes participation in other protests (like those against the war in Iraq). Violence was not discussed. Nevertheless, the spy would sign each report with the simple statement, “Due to the above facts I request that this case remain open and updated as events warrant.” But why?
The spies would soon have their work put to the test. We’ll find out how in Part Three.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Summer Reading List: Maryland A History
By Marc Korman.
So you have finished reading the Great Society Subway? Why don’t you take a peak at Maryland: A History by Carl Bode.
The book was published in 1976, part of a 51 volume set about each state and the District of Columbia published for the bicentennial. Many people who read MPW probably know all about current and recent events in Maryland, but they may be less familiar with some of the rich history Bode shares. For example, did you know that Maryland was the only state to give its electoral votes to Know Nothing Presidential candidate (and former president) Millard Fillmore in 1856? Or that the Maryland colonial legislature met for only six weeks once a year? Or that a deal once existed between the Eastern Shore and the rest of the state that one of two US Senators would always come from the Eastern Shore, or else the Eastern Shore would threaten to merge with Delaware? These and many other interesting tidbits that make up Maryland’s history, political and otherwise, can all be found in Bode’s book.
Bode tells the historical story of Maryland through biography. The early chapters covering the 1700s and 1800s are largely told through the stories of two men. The first is Daniel Dulany, an immigrant who arrived in Maryland as an indentured servant and rose to legal, business, and political prominence as a vast landowner and one of the founders of Frederick. The next is Severn Teackle Wallis, another prominent businessman and politician who spent a lifetime working for political causes in Maryland, including advocating that Maryland join the Confederacy during the Civil War.
The second half of the book introduces such notable Marylanders as Arthur Pue Gorman. Gorman is one of a breed of Senators from the late 1800s who was both the state political boss and a US Senator, similar to the better known Marcus Hanna from Ohio. Before the 17th Amendment established direct election of Senators, political bosses could ascend to the Senate with ease since they were appointed by state legislatures beholden to them for their elections. Gorman, along with Baltimore political boss Freeman Rasin ruled the state with an iron hand. Another is Johns Hopkins, a bookkeeper who rose up in the banking world and established “The Johns Hopkins University for the Promotion of Education in Maryland” and “The Johns Hopkins Hospital” and eventually left $7 million to them upon his death in 1873. The book closes with the story of James Rouse, who established the corporate-run planned community of Columbia which he envisioned as a utopia that could enhance happiness and turn a profit. Interestingly, Rouse was in many ways following the model set by the New Deal, which established Greenbelt as a planned community in the 1930s.
There is much more in Bode’s book then can be recounted here. Bode chose to only share a few post-World War II stories, so the book primarily ends long before most readers of the blog were born. But the book is still worth a read to learn about the state’s history and how we came to be what we are today. It will also provide answers to trivia questions, for instance where the state nicknames of “Old Line” and “Free” state came from. One downside to the book is that it largely overlooks Montgomery County in favor of areas the author views as more vibrant historically. Still, you cannot understand Maryland politics without understanding the Eastern Shore and Baltimore, and Bode’s book offers plenty to improve your knowledge.
Ticking Time Bomb: Who Were the Spies?
Who in the Maryland executive branch gave the spying orders in 2005-2006? And who are the undercover police officers who worked so diligently to sabotage our First Amendment rights?
I don’t know their identities. But I do know that they are dangerous. Their actions make that abundantly clear. And if this or a future administration decides to resume the sort of undercover spying that is more characteristic of a police state than a free democracy, we have no reason to think these individuals will do anything but once again collaborate.
I assume that most of the people involved in the bureaucracy of the Free State Stasi were simply following orders. But "I was just following orders" is not an excuse. When a government official tells you to break the law, your obligation is to the law, not to that government official.
When government employees follow that principle — when they refuse to carry out the illegal orders of an overreaching executive — they protect citizens from losing the constitutional rights we cherish. Our freedom relies on civil servants’ refusal to break the law.
It scares me to know that our state police has members who were so willing to spy on people and monitor our constitutionally protected political activities. And it scares me to know that they’d do it again.
Inside Ehrlich’s Secret Police: Part One
Much has been written about the spying undertaken by Maryland’s State Police against liberal activists. But the most revealing story is contained in the actual documents unearthed by the ACLU. What did the police do? Why did they do it? Come with us down to the secret vault as we reveal the inside story of Bob Ehrlich’s Secret Police.
The 46-page file is remarkable for its lack of context. It does not begin with a rationale for the espionage that began on March 14, 2005. It does not state who ordered it or why. It does not state the names of the officers involved in the investigation or their superiors. At the top of the first page, it merely states that the first entry is a “Supplement to Intelligence Report Initiated by Analyst Sparwasser.” So on March 13th, there is no spying. On March 14th, suddenly there is. Or so the files of the Secret Police would have us believe.
The first entry is a report by an agent who attended while “undercover” a meeting of activists in Takoma Park about death-row inmate Vernon Evans. The spy’s report is humdrum: the meeting attendees discussed putting out flyers, going to other meetings and events and soliciting donations. The report contains no evidence that violent acts, crime or terrorism was discussed by anyone at the meeting. Nevertheless, the report states, “After the meeting, [redacted] set up a covert e-mail account, was accepted on the Maryland Campaign to End the Death Penalty Yahoo List Serve and also contacted a man who attended the Takoma Park meeting about attending future meetings.” Accepted as a confidant by the anti-death penalty group, the spy had established a regular channel of information that would enable continuous monitoring and reporting on the group to superiors.
The Post article discusses an individual named “Lucy” who was later suspected by the activists. Was “Lucy” the spy writing these reports? It is hard to tell from the documents, which redact any mention of an officer’s name. The reports could have been written by one spy, two spies or many spies. The Secret Police protect their own identities just as they track the rest of us.
The very next day, a spy attended another organizational meeting in Baltimore. There the sisters of inmate Vernon Evans, convicted of murder and languishing on death row, discussed their communication strategy with politicians and the press. They did not discuss bombing, or shooting, or subversion, or terrorism against the government. They only discussed how to save their brother from being put down by the state. The spy reports, “The goal which many of the attendees stated was a moratorium on executions until a study promised by Governor Ehrlich about racial disparity in the judicial system was completed.” Apparently, that was enough to justify further spying and the espionage continued.
Interestingly, the report states, “Further intelligence will be added as it is developed. The above information was relayed to MSP Executive Protection Section and Baltimore City Police Intelligence Section on 3/16/05 by [redacted].” Did the Secret Police really worry that the anti-death penalty activists posed a physical threat to Governor Ehrlich?
Two more reports follow on meetings attended by the spy “in a covert capacity:” a town hall meeting in Takoma Park and an anti-death penalty rally at Baltimore’s Supermax facility. The spy named as many attendees as he or she could identify, including “exonerated inmate Shujaa Graham,” “Mike Stark, a socialist and organizing member of the Maryland Campaign to End the Death Penalty” and Vernon Evans’ “sister, Gwen Bates.” The spy wrote, “Each speaker mentioned the April 9th rally at Supermax but no one advocated any kind of violence or disobedience.” But still the Secret Police persisted. After all, at any gathering of socialists, exonerated inmates and liberal activists, violence would be the inevitable result. It was just a matter of taking more time, gaining more trust, working into the inner circle of the activist leadership and their nefarious true purpose would be exposed.
Finally, the spies’ persistence would be rewarded. Because attending the Supermax rally was none other than Max John Obuszewski, a person who would quickly become the central figure in the investigation. We will find out how the Secret Police dealt with Obuszewski in Part Two.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
O'Malley Responds to Political Spying
Governor O'Malley's response to the uncovering of the Ehrlich administration's Free State Stasi sounds good upon first read. However, upon closer inspection, it may still leave unanswered just what kind of "intelligence gathering" is permissible under the O'Malley administration.
The Governor's office released a statement consisting of two paragraphs. The first paragraph sounded the right notes:"While these events happened in 2005 and 2006 under the previous administration, the Maryland State Police, under the O'Malley-Brown Administration, does not and will not use public resources to target or monitor peaceful activities where Maryland citizens are exercising their First Amendment rights."
He could have ended his statement there. Unfortunately, there was apparently a need for a second paragraph:"The State Police and other law enforcement agencies have an obligation to take seriously and investigate all potential threats to public safety consistent with state and federal law, including the Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies contained at 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 23. But where there is no evidence of a potential public threat, illegal activity or criminal wrongdoing, all investigatory or intelligence gathering activities shall cease."
This raises questions that I was hoping would have been put to rest.
The first paragraph says that the Maryland State Police does not monitor and target peaceful activities protected by the First Amendment. However, the second paragraph says that the State Police and other law enforcement agencies investigate potential threats etc. That begs the question: Since the first paragraph is explicitly limited to the State Police, is there a part of the state government other than the State Police that "use[s] public resources to target or monitor peaceful activities where Maryland citizens are exercising their First Amendment rights"? Why was the statement written to limit the coverage of the first paragraph to the State Police, while the rest of the statement covers the entire law enforcement and intelligence gathering apparatus of the executive branch?
Another problem raised by the second paragraph is its use of the phrase "consistent with state and federal law." The problem is that the State Police clearly believed the activities they were engaged in were consistent with state and federal law. Without a clear statement that Governor O'Malley believes that the political spying revealed by the ACLU was illegal, the statement his office released might say nothing about the very activities that prompted its release.
This is the same problem that plagued the State Police superintendent's response quoted in the initial Washington Post article.
Over the past several years, especially in response to 9/11, we have seen such an erosion of commitment to the principles of the First Amendment that I find it difficult to simply give the executive the benefit of the doubt.
I look forward to information from the governor's office that would allay my concerns.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Congressional Investigation of Maryland Spying
Reports of Gov. Ehrlich's spy operation have gotten the attention of Congress. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, chair of the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has announced an investigation of the surveillance of Maryland citizens engaged in constitutionally-protected political activities.
According to a press release from Congressman Kucinich's office:
Washington, Jul 18 - “I think that most people would be upset to know that police were spying on lawful citizens and infiltrating peaceful organizations, rather than chasing down real criminals. At a minimum, such police spying is clearly a waste of taxpayer dollars and a diversion from the mission of protecting and serving the people. I want the subcommittee to determine how widespread these activities are and who ordered them,” Kucinich said.
Congressman Kucinich is Chairman of the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Yesterday, it was revealed that Maryland State Police officers infiltrated Maryland peace and justice groups engaged in peaceful, non-violent activities. The documents were made public through a lawsuit.
Mother Jones magazine uncovered evidence of surveillance of environmental groups by Beckett Brown International on behalf of several large corporations. The information and documents were provided by a former investor.
While I am glad someone in Congress is looking at this, I would urge the Maryland General Assembly to take action, as well. The legislature should determine the extent of the Free State Stasi's activities under Governor Ehrlich and whether similar activities are continuing today.
Purple Line Debate Continues
This morning, the Washington Post printed a letter of mine defending supporters of protecting the Capital Crescent Trail from the Purple Line. On Free State Politics, Eric Luedtke has attacked your gentle blogger as blinkered, unknowing tool of the economic and racial elite. You can read my reply on FSP as well. On MPW, you can read earlier posts by Adam Pagnucco and Pat Burda to get informed as well. Even Red Maryland is getting in on the act.
The Free State Stasi
As important as it is to condemn in no uncertain terms the Ehrlich administration's use of secret police to spy on Marylanders engaged in constitutionally protected political activities, our current governor is not off the hook. Nowhere does the Washington Post article say that this odious practice has ceased under the O'Malley administration.
The key paragraph from the article:
"No illegal actions by State Police have ever been taken against any citizens or groups who have exercised their right to free speech and assembly in a lawful manner," Col. Terrence B. Sheridan, the state police superintendent appointed last year by Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), said in a statement. "Only when information regarding criminal activity is alleged will police continue to investigate leads to ensure the public safety."
The first quote, clearly designed to make people think it is a denial, in fact tells us absolutely nothing. If O'Malley officials believe that Stasi-like spying on us is legal, then the phrase "no illegal actions by State Police" tells us nothing about whether the activities are still going on under O'Malley.
Unfortunately, we do not know if the State Police or anyone else in the O'Malley administration considers spying on legal, constitutionally-protected political activity to be illegal. After all, the Ehrlich folks thought it was legal. So the first quote is the classic non-denial denial.
The other part of the quote is equally misleading: "Only when information regarding criminal activity is alleged will police continue to investigate leads to ensure the public safety." (emphasis mine)
"Continue to investigate ... " That means that the police have already begun what they consider "investigating leads to ensure the public safety."
In other words, spying.
Regardless of the legality of this spying, it is reprehensible, frightening, and simply unacceptable in a free country.
We need answers from Governor O'Malley, and we need them now.
Supporting the Transgender Non-Discrimination Act: Part 2
By Marc Korman.
In part one I discussed the contents of the Transgender Non-Discrimination Act up for repeal on the November ballot. For the policy reasons alone, I oppose repeal. But there are also two political reasons: ballot initiatives run amuck and rewarding the far right.
Ballot Initiatives Run Amuck
I first got involved in politics while in college in California. The Golden State has provided us with endless hours of entertainment from Hollywood, the ability to read MPW from Silicon Valley, and the nectar of the gods from Napa. Unfortunately, it has also set the tone for ballot initiatives. As of 2003, 85% of California’s over $100 billion budget was controlled by state initiative and not the legislature and governor. California’s ability to raise revenue has also been severely harmed by a property tax cap so rigid even Ronald Reagan opposed it at the time and the need for supermajorities in the legislature to raise any tax. That means when California has a problem, for example an electricity crisis as they had a few years ago or an infrastructure deficit as they are currently experiencing, elected officials cannot effectively work for solutions. For a full treatment of California’s political decline relative to its increased ballot initiatives, see Fareed Zakaria’s The Future of Freedom. California has helped trigger a national increase in ballot initiatives. Their use has grown from just 88 across the country during the entire decade of the 60s, to 204 in 2000 alone.
The biggest problem with the growth of ballot initiatives is that complex issues of public policy are being boiled down to single paragraphs on ballots, thirty second commercials, and knee jerk reactions by voters. The latest example is a Colorado ballot initiative which would declare a fertilized egg a person for the purpose of constitutional rights. That’s an important issue, but probably one that should be informed by oversight hearings, scientific panels, and careful deliberation, not attack ads.
Unfortunately, Maryland seems to be joining the ballot initiative trend with not only the transgender referendum, but also the slots referendum which I consider an abdication of responsibility by Annapolis. Our country and its states are famous for democracy, but that word does not appear in the US Constitution. Republic does, because we elect representatives to go to Washington, DC and state and local capitals to do the hard work of research and deliberation on matters of public policy. They do not always do it well, but it is their job and instead of taking it off their hands through ballot initiatives, we need to hold them accountable at elections.
Rewarding the Far Right
Now all my reasoned policy and political process discussion gets cast aside in favor of cold, partisan politics. I do not believe that most opponents of the transgender bill are discriminatory, but I do think they are discomforted. As with many white Americans when it comes to African American equality and many heterosexual Americans when it comes to gay rights, they do not hate, they just do not know. The problem is greatly enhanced with transgendered issues because there are fewer and people are less likely to meet and know them. With time, as with these other communities, understanding will grow. Just as with discrimination against African Americans, homosexuals, and other groups, there will always be stragglers, but change will come.
However, those who will be rewarded should the referendum succeed are not just the discomforted. Some are discriminatory, and many more are just politically motivated. They will revel in the success of the referendum regardless of the policy because it comes in liberal Montgomery County. They will crow on talk radio and use it as a tool to raise more resources and recruit new members. The same organized right wing groups have already been rebuffed by the Maryland courts over the sex education curriculum. They need to be defeated here too or they will be empowered to challenge progressive Democrats throughout the County in 2010. Would they win much? Probably not, but it is a fight that could be entirely avoided by defeating the referendum.
Conclusion
For policy and political reasons, I oppose the transgender referendum. But, as my contracts professor always said, “reasonable minds can differ.” I hope as the debate continues we remember that it is reasonable that we need to be, not prejudiced or dogmatic.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Ehrlich Does Bush Proud
The Post carries news that the administration of former Governor Robert Ehrlich had the Maryland State Police conduct surveillance on "local peace activists and groups opposed to the death penalty." Do you know what this means?
If you want to extend George W. Bush's spying policies, vote for Bob Ehrlich in 2010.
If you want to surrender your liberties to tyrannical government, vote for Bob Ehrlich in 2010.
If you want the state police to record your first amendment activities, vote for Bob Ehrlich in 2010.
If you want government agents to join your listservs and file secret reports on you to their superiors, vote for Bob Ehrlich in 2010.
Hmmm... if you are a liberal who cares about civil liberties or a conservative who cares about the free exercise of individual rights without government interference, vote against Bob Ehrlich in 2010!
Rethinking the Purple Line
Event on the Capital Crescent TrailFrom Pat Burda, Chair of the Town of Chevy Chase's Long-Range Planning Committee
Recent press focus on the Columbia Country Club gives the mistaken impression that the Club is the major source of community opposition to placing the Purple Line on the Capital Crescent Trail. It’s not. The Greater Bethesda Chevy Chase Coalition has long fought to keep the Trail open in the form of a park. Save the Trail Petition has documented thousands of petitioners from the greater community who oppose putting transit on the Trail. Most recently, Rethinking the Purple Line was formed by the eighteen community organizations which support protecting the Trail.
These groups are trying to alert the public to the true impact the Purple Line will have on the Trail, including the destruction of 15 acres of mature trees which makes the Trail so wonderful. Even MTA has acknowledged that building the Purple Line would require destroying the trees and that there is no room to replace them. They have been less than forthcoming, however, about specific details for how the Trail will function in this extremely narrow right of way – how can it be safe and usable by bikers, families, joggers alike – and how much construction may need to occur outside the right of way to allow for the creation of the infrastructure needed to support the Line, including substantial retaining walls.
Furthermore, MTA’s plan for putting the trail in a narrow, short tunnel over the rail tracks as it goes under Wisconsin Avenue is technically difficult and expensive to build, potentially dangerous to use, and probably will never be built. The tailtrack for the Purple Line would be placed directly in the urban park the community worked so hard to obtain as part of the Woodmont East development. These are things the public needs to fully digest before they embrace any alignment of the Purple Line.
Other pro-transit options are available. The Town of Chevy Chase’s transportation consultants (fully paid for by the Town) feel that the Jones Bridge Road Bus Rapid Transit alternative by directly servicing BRAC at NNMC, the north Woodmont Area slated for substantial development, and downtown Bethesda is a very attractive alternative. Unfortunately, they have determined that the State’s assessment of the Purple Line options is biased and the numbers are stacked against a fair assessment of that alternative. The Town has urged MTA to reconsider their analysis of the JBR BRT alternative so the public can make a fair comparison. This transit option also costs one third the cost of the high LRT option. One wonders why groups like ACT and Purple Line Now! are working so hard to discredit the Town’s position when the JBR BRT alternative may be a real winner for meeting transit needs in the region and could actually be built.
To learn more on the Town’s position, I encourage readers to visit the townofchevychase.org website and click on the Purple Line tag line.
Supporting the Transgender Non-Discrimination Act: Part 1
By Marc Korman.
I recently had dinner with my father and the transgender legislation ballot referendum came up. He had not heard anything about it, because despite being vocal and caring deeply about national politics, he has almost zero interest in the local end. After I started to give him an explanation of the issue, he cut me off and said “they don’t bother me, I won’t bother them.” Meaning he would vote against any effort to repeal the County Council-approved law because he does not really care if someone is transgendered because it does not affect him. I doubt convincing others will be as easy, so I thought I would offer some reasons why I oppose the effort to repeal the Transgender Non-Discrimination Act. Part one will deal with the policy grounds. Part two will deal with the political grounds.
Background
Last year the County Council passed Bill 23-07, the Transgender Non-Discrimination Act. The Council memorandum on the legislation is available here. The legislation was controversial from its initial offering until today. Its opponents have petitioned a referendum of the legislation on to the November ballot. The two sides are still battling over the propriety of the referendum in court.
What The Bill Does
Call me old fashioned, but to find out what a piece of legislation does I like to read it, rather than what its supporters and opponents are saying about it. Their views can help inform, but cannot replace actually reading the text. So what does the bill actually do? The basic purpose is to provide transgendered individuals with the same protections as already exists to protect against discrimination based on race, sex, marital status, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, and sexual orientation. The areas in which the bill seeks to extend protection are housing, commercial real estate, employment, taxicabs, and public accommodations.
So what does that protection mean? It means that a restaurant cannot refuse service to an individual because they are transgendered, just like they cannot refuse to serve someone who is black. It means that a piece of commercial real estate cannot be sold or leased for a higher cost only because someone is transgendered, just as more cannot be charged because someone is a single woman. It means that a taxicab driver cannot refuse to transport a person solely because they are transgendered, just as a taxicab driver cannot refuse to transport a person solely because they are disabled.
The legislation also charges the County Human Rights Committee with a number of educational, investigative, and informational tasks related to the new protections.
So Why All The Controversy?
I think to most people, those protections sound sensible. I have heard two major complaints about what the bill does. The first is on whether or not employers will be able to control the appearance of their employees. The second is about restrooms, which has monopolized most of the coverage of the legislation.
Regarding employee appearance, the bill specifies that an employer may require an employee to conform to reasonable workplace appearance, grooming, and dress standards. Insofar as those requirements do not violate state or federal law, are consistently applied, and allow employees to dress consistent with their gender identity, the business can impose appearance requirements. I believe that means they can require their employees to dress neatly and in sync with the rest of their employees, but still leaves some discretion and rights to the employee. I am not entirely sure why there is an issue here. I mean, why do I really care what my cable repairman, doctor, or waiter wear, as long as they act in a professional manner and do their jobs?
The more controversial issue is about restrooms. While being considered by the County Council, the issue of restrooms and locker rooms drew the most interest. There was a concern that the legislation would lead to men, or those who appear as men, going to the bathroom in the ladies room or vice versa. Or that men, or those who appear as men, would change in the women’s changing room.
Speaking from nothing but gut feeling, my impression is that even a transgendered individual would probably end up going into the changing room that most conforms with their physical appearance. The bill also makes no changes to sexual harassment or assault law, so if any individual, transgendered or not, acts inappropriately in one of these rooms then they could be subject to prosecution. But if that is not enough, the bill also specifies that the bill does not apply to accommodations that are distinctly private or personal, which the Human Rights Commission can easily define to include restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms. Enhancing that interpretation is that the Council removed a provision explicitly allowing transgendered access to accommodations consistent with gender identity, demonstrating that they did not intend to allow that type of access.
Conclusion
The purpose of the legislation is to offer transgendered individuals freedom from discrimination that already exists for multiple other classes of individuals. Thirteen states, DC, and 91 localities have all enacted similar legislation and yet, society has managed to survive while making life a little easier for those who are transgendered. I am certain part one of my post will draw its share of replies and perhaps criticisms, but I hope they are constructive on all sides of the issue and not dogmatic or personal. Have at it and see you soon for part two...
Africa Against the Purple Line
As regular MPW readers know, the Purple Line has many opponents, including residents of Chevy Chase, supporters of SSTOP and a few homeowners with “No Trains on Wayne” signs in Silver Spring. But now a new combatant enters the field of battle… an entity based on the tiny African island of Madeira?!??!!
In case you missed it, a new anti-Purple Line website has recently popped up, this one run anonymously. When Action Committee for Transit reported that it was registered to a firm based on the autonomous Portuguese island Madeira, I checked it out. Sure enough, whois.com gave the following information about the registrant:
Now, the bikini-clad residents of Madeira have little obvious reason to protest the Purple Line (unless ACT plans to relocate after MoCo’s project is done). Most Purple Line opponents, including MPW blog-father David Lublin, denounce the project openly. Activist Pam Browning owns the domain savethetrailpetition.org under her own name. So who would have the incentive to start an anonymous anti-Purple Line website through the ultra-secretive Domain Discreet registrant service?
Could it be… the Columbia Country Club? Regular readers will remember how the club vowed to start a “grass roots campaign” to protect its lovely golf course from those awful Purple Line trains (and their uncouth riders). This follows a long history of cooperation with former Republican Governor Robert “I Love Golf” Ehrlich to block the rail project. After being outed by the Post, the club finally admitted responsibility for the new website. Eric Luedtke covered ACT’s wine-soaked reply outside the club gates. And just to throw gasoline on the fire, Silver Spring trail activist Wayne Phyillaier noted the club’s squatting on nearly three acres of Capital Crescent Trail right-of-way to add to their already-luxurious golf course. Does the county even know about the club’s erection of a giant, hideous fence on public land?
Picture from Finish the Trail Blog.
As you can see from the following excerpts from its 2005 filing with the IRS, the club can draw on significant amounts of resources to fight the Purple Line. In the year ended September 30, 2006, the club reported revenues of $13.3 million, net income of $2.5 million and net assets of $25.5 million (of which $5.7 million is in cash). The club has minimal liabilities of $2.3 million and its property is not encumbered by a mortgage.
But all of this hugely understates the club’s influence. Its members are among the wealthiest people in the Washington metro area and have donated thousands of dollars to politicians, including Ehrlich. Club President J. Paul McNamara even had his employer, United Bankshares, pay his club dues for years.
For all of its wealth and power, the club’s Madeira affiliate has constructed a truly sorry website. It has just five pages, stock graphics, no contact names and no actual pictures of the Capital Crescent Trail. Considering that in its most recent reporting year the club spent $165,452 on laundry and linen, $25,110 on uniforms, $38,325 on decorations and $65,093 on china and silverware, we would expect it to offer more than a bargain-basement website.
Neighborhood residents have every right to oppose the Maryland Transit Administration’s proposed Purple Line alignments if they wish. But any participation by the country club will hurt their cause. No non-club members will see protection of their golf course as a legitimate reason to block a transit project. If the Columbia Country Club really wants to help the Purple Line opponents, it should give its members one-way tickets to Madeira.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
On Political Pulse
Maryland Senate President Mike Miller will be on the 'Political Pulse' political talk show on Thursday, July 17th at 9:00 p.m. and Tuesday, July 22nd at 9:30 p.m.
Some of the topics that will be discussed include:
-The Slots referendum on the ballot in November, 2008 and possible scenarios if it passes or does not;
-The State's deficit that was addressed by the Governor and General Assembly during the November, 2007 Special Session and the 2008 Regular Session;
-Whether there is a rift between the MD Comptroller Peter Franchot and some of the other Democratic leaders in the State; and
-President Miller's decision to not retire when his current term ends in 2010.
Political Pulse is on Channel 16TV in Montgomery County.
Editor's Note: Regular readers know how much we love Big Daddy. This show is a must-see for us!
Put Up Your Dukes!
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Woman’s Club of Chevy Chase for a night of the best in political entertainment!
In the red corner, standing at five feet, eight inches and weighing in at 145 pounds, originally from Buffalo, New York and now fighting out of Takoma Park, Maryland… with a record of one win, no defeats and one disqualification… Maryland’s Secretary of Labor, Thomas E. Perez! (The crowd goes wild.)
And in the blue corner, standing at six feet even and weighing in at 175 pounds, originally from New Haven, Connecticut and now also fighting out of Takoma Park, Maryland… with a record of six wins and no defeats… Maryland’s Comptroller, Peter V. Franchot! (And the crowd goes wild.)
Wouldn’t this be great? Well, it won’t happen exactly in this fashion, but Carole Brand advises us that the Secretary of Labor and the Comptroller will be holding a public debate on slots. Courtesy of Ms. Brand, here are the details:
Wednesday, September 10 Forum on Slots
As you know, the November election will bring to the ballot a referendum on expanding slot machines in the state of Maryland. This proposal has evoked strong arguments for and against it, and the Woman's Suburban Democratic Club of Montgomery County is hosting this forum to help you explore this issue and its implications for our state.
Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot will take the anti-slots position, and Maryland Secretary of Labor Tom Perez will take the pro-slots position. Bruce De Puyt of News Channel 8 will moderate the discussion.
The forum is free of charge and open to all. Questions will be taken from the audience.
Date: Wednesday, September 10, 7:30 - 9:00 p.m.
Place: Woman's Club of Chevy Chase
7931 Connecticut Avenue
Chevy Chase, Maryland
Contact Carole Brand, csbrand@verizon.net/301-657-2547
Wheaton: Ready, Aim, Aim, Aim….
A Guest Blog by Holly Olson.
On June 30th, the International Downtown Association (IDA) presented its study findings on redevelopment in Wheaton. IDA is a membership association for professionals in the field of downtown revitalization, commercial district management, and economic development. In addition to conference events, IDA provides consulting and information services to downtowns worldwide.
In the case of Wheaton, IDA evaluated redevelopment opportunities within the Wheaton area, with a special emphasis on how County property and facilities could serve as the impetus for revitalization. A panel of experts was convened, focus groups and one-on-one interviews were held with various community stakeholders, and a report was delivered with their findings.
As those that have been involved in the Wheaton redevelopment effort know, studies in Wheaton are nothing new. In fact, we’ve actually had lots of studies (some of which I list below).
• Wheaton Business Survey, 2005
• Wheaton Metro Station Area Pedestrian Safety Evaluation, 2004
• Wheaton Public Safety Audit, 2004
• National Main Street Visioning Study, 2000 (PP presentation)
• MTA Sponsored Study by Nelessen Associates, Wheaton MD Options for Redevelopment, (PP presentation)
So, does the IDA report offer new enlightenment? Is it the Holy Grail for Wheaton redevelopment? The short answer is that we’ll have to wait and see. Most of the report’s findings have been noted in earlier studies, discussed extensively among Wheaton’s two advisory committees, or brought up by the community at large—yet very little progress has actually been made. The true measure of success will be whether the County actually acts on the recommendations.
With that said, let’s take a few moments to review the findings, which are divided into three main sections: strengths, weaknesses, recommendations. (Please note that this is not a comprehensive summary of IDA’s findings. The full report can be read on-line here and Dan Reed’s take can be found here.)
Strengths
Among the strengths listed by IDA were Wheaton’s strategic location, the stable mix of housing, the unique mix of restaurants and shops, and the involvement of citizen groups and advisory committees.
New findings: Prime county assets include Mid-County Service center, Wheaton library, and Wheaton Regional Park.
Weaknesses
Weaknesses noted by the report included poor communication within the government and to residents, inadequate marketing of the downtown, property owners that are unresponsive to tenants needs, niche businesses that are not maximizing their potential, a high level of frustration in the community about the lack of redevelopment progress, a downtown that is not pedestrian friendly, and a perception that the CBD is too restrictive when it comes to development.
New findings: Current use of County facilities does not represent the "best and highest use," connectivity, linkages, and wayfinding between CBD and Wheaton regional park could be improved.
Recommendations
IDA recommendations include creating a quality town center on "Lot 13" that would be unique to the region, developing an aggressive marketing campaign that includes branding Wheaton’s civic identify, developing a comprehensive economic development plan for the entire CBD, and creating the most pedestrian-friendly urban environment in the County.
New recommendations: Parking Lot "13" and Mid-County Regional service center should serve as "ground zero" for the first phases of redevelopment. Library should be relocated to downtown and housed in a signature building that includes an arts and cultural center along with retail, office, residential, and parking.
So, what does this report actually do? First, it does an accurate job of summarizing the issues facing Wheaton. This is particularly helpful for those that may be new to Wheaton or unfamiliar with the redevelopment effort. Second, it independently validates much of what the community and advisory committees have been saying for years. Third, it lays out a plan of action that is divided into three phases for the next ten years, something the county has been unwilling or unable to do thus far. Finally, it points out the real potential of Wheaton — that Wheaton can go beyond being the forgotten step-sister of Silver Spring and Bethesda, and become the beautiful princess that the locals know she can be.
With that said, there is still the question of whether this is yet one more study that ends up languishing in the bowels of the County’s website. In County Executive Ike Leggett’s introduction, he encouraged patience with the redevelopment process, and emphasized that it is more important to proceed wisely than to rush forth. This sentiment was later echoed by Betsy Jackson, (an advisory panel member and presenter of the findings), when she likened the planning and redevelopment process to one of, "Ready, Aim, and Fire." She said that many central business districts often commit one of two mistakes: They are forever in the aim (planning) mode, or they don’t spend enough time planning and head directly into "Fire" (development). Now that we are going on our second redevelopment study in the last 10 years and updating our sector plan this fall, I know that I am ready to FIRE!
Holly Olson is the former Chair of the Wheaton Redevelopment Advisory Committee.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
No Spoils for MoCo (Reprise)
Back in February, my blog-brother Kevin Gillogly and I put up back-to-back posts on how MoCo was not getting a fair share of state appointments. Trying to be helpful, I promoted beloved Kensington Mayor Pete Fosselman for the Secretary of State vacancy. After all, the mayor was a rare and very early supporter of Martin O'Malley over then-Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan in the Democratic gubernatorial primary.
But illustrating once again that the Governor does not read our blog [sigh...], the administration has decided that the new Secretary of State will be Prince George's County lawyer John McDonough, whose daughter works for Senate President Mike Miller. This is a wasted opportunity because the Governor could use a bit more good will in MoCo at the moment and Mayor Fosselman has many friends here.
Labor and the Governor
At first, I believed that Maryland’s labor movement would be annoyed at the anti-union propaganda on the state’s business development website but would ultimately see it as a blip in an otherwise positive relationship with Governor O’Malley. But after talking to many labor leaders around the state, I am not so sure about that.
MPW readers should know that our original post on this subject that followed Free State Politics’ breaking of the story received more visits than any individual post on our blog for many months. In fact, direct visits to this post alone without going through the site URL accounted for nearly one-quarter of all visits to MPW for two straight days. And yesterday we received more visits than on any other single day in two months. This is all extremely unusual considering that our first post on the issue appeared on a Saturday in July, hardly a prime viewing time for political blogs. We hear that our original post and a follow-up dating some of the rhetoric all the way back to the Glendening administration zoomed across the state’s labor movement and crystallized some of labor’s existing feelings about the current Governor. By Monday morning, the anti-union language on the state’s website had been taken down but the damage remains.
Martin O’Malley was elected with overwhelming support from Maryland’s labor movement. He got off to a good start on labor issues, helping pass a state living wage law in his first year and supporting a bill that allowed public employee unions to charge fees to non-members for representational services. His appointments of former Montgomery County Council Member Tom Perez as the Secretary of Labor, Licensing and Regulation and former Baltimore building trades leader Ron DeJulius as Commissioner of Labor and Industry were widely praised by labor. And the Governor announced that he was restoring and beefing up the labor inspections office after his predecessor virtually killed it.
But since then the relationship has cooled. During the special session, labor assisted the Governor in passing his tax package and the slots referendum even though many did not like its regressive elements. Despite its aid to the Governor in his time of need, labor did not achieve many of its priorities in the general session that followed. One angry labor leader told me, “Seven labor bills were introduced before the legislature last year and not one made it out of committee. The administration was essentially AWOL on all of them.” Another labor leader gave O’Malley a grade of “C,” saying, “I understand that politicians make lots of promises and then do a little less, but…” A third labor person described a state of “discontent” with the Governor. “He’s been good to blue-collar families in a general sense, but he hasn’t done a whole lot to help the labor movement grow.” Still another labor veteran challenged the perception that the Governor was responsible for the living wage law, claiming that since the legislature already passed it once but was stymied by former Governor Ehrlich’s veto, all that was necessary was to have a Governor who would not veto the bill again. “What can you point to with O’Malley? On living wage, when he was handed the football on the one-yard line, he got it in… He hasn’t picked up any labor bills as one of his top 3 or 4 priorities in any year. There’s been no initiative, and that’s the sad thing.” This leader also gave the Governor a grade of “C.”
The Governor does have his defenders. One longtime labor pro credited him for the living wage bill since “it would not have passed without him.” This leader also praised the Governor for advocating combined reporting (which would make it harder for corporations to hide their income in other states) and making the income tax system more progressive. “I have nothing but admiration for him for that.”
Among the bills that died in 2008 were ones requiring employers to provide shift breaks, requiring construction contractors on state jobs to participate in state-registered apprenticeship programs, requiring construction contractors on state jobs to provide health insurance, requiring construction projects over $500,000 to have lavatories, prohibiting state agencies from purchasing apparel from sweatshops, requiring any casinos permitted by the slots referendum to negotiate project labor agreements for their construction jobs, establishing a Public School Labor Relations Board, and increasing the maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit.
Perhaps most troubling of all was the death of a bill designed to crack down on misclassification of workers as independent contractors. As I explained last November, employers in many industries, but especially construction, often illegally misclassify employees as contractors to escape responsibility for paying FICA taxes, unemployment insurance premiums, workers compensation premiums and income tax withholding. Several states have found revenue losses from these practices totaling in the hundreds of millions of dollars a year, though no one has studied the issue in Maryland. In a year that the administration supported cuts of $25 million to the newly-established Chesapeake Bay cleanup fund and $50 million to transportation to pay for repeal of the computer tax, the Governor might have been expected to embrace a labor-backed bill that would have raised millions of dollars more for the budget. But the bill died in a House committee and the Board of Public Works voted in favor of more spending cuts last month.
The Governor currently has troubled relationships with some in the immigrant community over the drivers license issue, many in the GLBT community over marriage equality and now some in labor. These are three very important parts of the state’s progressive base. At a time when the Governor’s approval ratings are still low, he needs these groups more than ever.
“What’s the alternative?” asked one labor leader, dismissing out-of-hand any consideration of the still-detested former Governor Robert Ehrlich. That may be a valid point, but here is the problem for Governor O’Malley: how many people in his base are now asking that question?
Update: Kathleen Miller of the Examiner picked up the story and obtained confirmation from the state that the anti-union site went back to the Glendening administration. Further, they admitted “staff researchers had occasionally updated data on the page during O’Malley’s tenure.” Ms. Miller recognized the role played by both Free State Politics and MPW in fixing the problem, a rare acknowledgement by the mainstream media of the blogging community. Thank you Ms. Miller!
Improving the MARC Train: Part 2
By Marc Korman.
In my last post, I discussed the MARC train and the Governor’s expansion plans. While I applaud Governor O’Malley for his attention to the state’s commuter rail, I have three areas he should focus on before the more radical expansion plans are undertaken: communications, operation and maintenance, and congestion.
Communications
To his credit, Governor O’Malley’s MARC proposal does call for upgrading signage, the public announcement system, and the email MARC tracker which supposedly provides updates to MARC train riders. I began regularly riding MARC in August of 2007 and have done so consistently since then, I can see first hand that there has been no improvement in communications aboard the Camden or Penn lines. As a result, the MARC train is inaccessible because many people cannot tell which track their train is located at in major stations, what the costs are, or when the train is at their stop. For regular riders, the email tracker does not send messages when a problem first arises, so it is of little value in planning an alternative route or delaying their departure to or from work. For those on the trains, the PA systems do not usually work so unless a kind conductor announces the problem by shouting in the train, you are left in the dark as to the cause of the delay and how long until it might be resolved. Also problematic, the conductors seem to rely on cell phones to stay in touch with the dispatcher. Not an effective means of communications on a noisy train.
MARC could do a few things better immediately to improve communications and accessibility. First, it needs to empower MTA employees to quickly and promptly send out email alerts. Sitting on the 5:15 Camden line train to DC in a long delay, I already know the train will not be into Union Station on time for the passengers departing on the same train from DC scheduled for a 6:40 departure, yet the email alert is not sent out until much later. That can be easily resolved.
MTA can also make the train schedules more honest. Although the Union Station to Camden ride is scheduled for one hour and twenty minutes, it usually takes only an hour. The inflated schedule allows MTA to doctor its statistics, a common occurrence with all transportation carriers. Schedules should be altered immediately so that the times are listed honestly, even though it will decrease MARC’s on time arrival rate.
In the long term, MTA needs to improve signage at stations to help passengers find their trains, fix rail car intercoms, and figure out a better approach to conductor/dispatcher communications.
Operations and Maintenance
Another major problem with the MARC train is the constant delays. There are multiple reasons for these delays, but one is simple wear and tear of train lines that have existed since the 1800s. Tracks need to be fixed, switches upgraded, and new train cars furnished. But the money for much of this is simply not available. What limited funds are available are spread thin across many transportation needs. MTA’s budget of approximately $720 million annually is split between MARC, bus service in Baltimore City and Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties, and Baltimore’s rail service. Combined, MTA is responsible for over 93 million trips annually.
I have previously discussed the need for more transportation revenue. An increase in the gas tax is politically unlikely right now. Another option is to explore further partnerships with the federal government, especially since the proposed expansion of MARC service is partly in response to BRAC. Federal funds already account for 1/7th of MTA’s budget, but our state leaders need to explore further funding.
Congestion
A third major problem facing MARC is congestion. Two of the MARC train lines are controlled by CSX, a freight railroad. Freight rail has seen a 26% increase in use over the last decade, meaning CSX’s tracks have seen an increase in usage for freight. CSX, unlike Amtrak, is not obligated to contract with Maryland to allow MARC to operate, but does so anyway. Although that should be appreciated, the increase in freight and CSX’s ability to control its own tracks means that MARC trains operate as second class citizens on the rails.
Before more trains are added, MTA needs to sit down with CSX and come up with better working agreements to keep both commuter and freight traffic moving. That may involve changing MARC schedules, but also requiring more predictability in freight traffic.
The MARC Train can be an invaluable way for Marylanders to travel, but until the fundamentals of communications, operations and maintenance, and congestion are in some way addressed, plans to increase and expand service are premature.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Luiz Simmons Breathes Fire, Burns Bridges on Slots
Kathleen Miller of the Examiner picked up some nice quotes from flame-throwing Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) blasting his colleagues for not supporting the anti-slots campaign. Here's a sample:“Slots are the easy road for politicians to travel down; it holds the promise of a free lunch, all net-net and no cost,” the Montgomery Democrat said. “Overwhelmingly, those who lose money are the poor, the old, the vulnerable and racial minorities, the very same people we’re always saying we are trying to help...”
Well now! We ran a complete list of the elected leaders who joined the anti-slots campaign back in May, along with those who voted against the referendum but did not sign on with Marylanders United to Stop Slots. Delegate Simmons is a longtime opponent of slots, but one wonders whether statements such as these are the best way to persuade his fellow politicians to join his cause.
Simmons said, “The Montgomery County political establishment has caved in here.” What bugs him the most, he added, is that Montgomery’s state legislators, who largely fought together against slots proposals from former Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich, were vital to passing this year’s referendum.
“I thought when many people spoke out against Ehrlich’s slots, that they spoke on principle,” Simmons said. “It turns out they spoke on politics. Here’s a group that said rhetorically, we’re against slots, but when push came to shove, the referendum couldn’t have passed without them.”
Would you care for some saltpeter to go with that nitroglycerin you've been drinking, Delegate?
Are Domestic Workers Employees or “Help?”
Montgomery County’s domestic workers protection bill, introduced way back in January, is finally coming up for a vote tomorrow. At last we will learn its fate.
The bill, co-sponsored by Council Members George Leventhal and Marc Elrich, would provide domestic workers with the right to negotiate a binding contract with their employers. It was prompted by a 2006 study by George Washington University documenting extensive abuses in working conditions for domestic workers. While the bill would make domestic worker employment contracts enforceable by the County’s Office of Consumer Protection, it does not prescribe wage or benefit levels. Those items are subject to negotiation between the worker and the employer.
In a lengthy post in February, I defended the bill against critics who alleged that illegal immigrants employed as domestic workers could not be covered by contracts and faced risk of deportation. But the question really is more basic: are these workers employees or “members of the family?” If the latter category applies, “members of the family” are often expected to perform “chores” without compensation. The refusal to recognize these workers as bona fide employees is the source of many derivative abuses such as failing to pay overtime or respect U.S. labor laws as documented in the 2006 study.
The bill has a decent chance of passage. It has two co-sponsors. Council Members Valerie Ervin and Duchy Trachtenberg are believed to support it. And Council Member Don Praisner voted in its favor in a meeting of the council’s Public Safety Committee (which has jurisdiction over the Office of Consumer Protection). But the bill has opponents and nothing is certain.
So will the County Council see domestic workers as employees or “help?” We’ll find out tomorrow.
Improving the MARC Train: Part 1
By Marc Korman.
As gas prices rise, it is expected that more people will take mass transit to get to their destination. In Maryland, one option is the commuter rail system, MARC Train. Can the MARC train handle increased ridership?
The MARC train system is managed by the Maryland Transit Administration. 30,000 rides are taken daily along its three different lines, 200 miles of track, and 42 stations. This is 3,000 more daily rides than what it claims its current capacity is.
MARC train is actually a strange hybrid created by the state in the 1970s and 1980s. As the B&O Railroad and other rail lines sought to get out of the passenger rail business, Maryland began partnering with private companies to keep the service running. In the early 1980s, MTA created the MARC brand to unify the three Maryland commuter rail lines, although the state only owns the rolling stock (train cars and engines) and some of the stations. Today’s Camden line, running from Union Station in DC to Camden Yards in Baltimore, and Brunswick line, running from Union Station out to Frederick and Martinsburg, are actually operating through an agreement with CSX. The Penn Line, which runs from Union Station to Penn Station in Baltimore, operates through an agreement with Amtrak. 60% of MARC’s funding comes from fares and the rest from the state’s over subscribed transportation trust fund and other miscellaneous sources.
Almost one year ago, in September of 2007, Governor O’Malley proposed an expansion of the MARC system. The far reaching plan takes a long view of the MARC train, planning ahead until 2035. The expansion plan calls for adding more trains during the day, initiating weekend service, improving and replacing rail cars, improving stations by fixing signage and making transfers to non-MARC trains smoother, and adding new stops and stations, partly to help move Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) related employees, as Maryland has a big influx of employees coming due to structural changes in US military bases. The plan would cost $4 billion in capital costs between now and 2035 and added operations and maintenance costs of $91 million annually. Unfortunately, the plan does not explain how any of these goals would be funded.
I applaud Governor O’Malley for his attention to the MARC train. But in my next post I will discuss some of what the Governor and his Transportation Secretary should consider before undertaking their effort.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Anti-Union Bragging: How Far Back?
How long has Maryland been spouting anti-union propaganda to businesses on its web site (a story broken by Free State Politics)? Is this something that the O'Malley administration began, or did they simply update a web page they inherited from Gov. Ehrlich? Surprisingly, the answer is neither: This seems to go back at least as far as the Glendening administration.
As Adam Pagnucco points out, the statistics used on the website became available only after O'Malley took office, putting his administration's fingerprints on the deed.
However, a search of old, cached versions of the choosemaryland.org website shows that both the Ehrlich and Glendening administrations were using pretty much the same anti-union approach to business solicitation.
In the summer of 2005, the Ehrlich version of the web page was exactly the same except for the specific years' statistics being cited. No surprise, really.
What about during the Glendening administration?
In the fall of 2002, the Glendening version of the web page had pretty much the same tone and much of the same text as the Ehrlich and O'Malley versions, although it did not include quite as many anti-union stats as its two successors. But it was still pretty bad in its anti-union spin.While not a "right-to-work" state, Maryland offers businesses a very favorable labor climate.
* A quality work force supplies a great resource, key to achieving corporate goals.
* The percentage of private sector union membership in Maryland is 7.8 percent, which is below the national average of 9.0 percent and lower than half of the other states. (Source: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.)
Right-to-work laws are not guarantees of a good management/labor climate
A comparison of Maryland and the 21 RTW states dispels some misconceptions about RTW and depicts the state's favorable labor climate.
Right-to-work does not prevent unions from waging aggressive organizational campaigns and winning union certification elections. It does not prevent them from maintaining a stronghold or from striking to achieve their goals.
* Unions won 42 percent of the union representation elections held in Maryland from 1990 to 2000, which is a lower percentage of union wins than in all but three of the 21 RTW states.
Right-to-work does not prevent employees from joining unions voluntarily.
* From 1990 to 2000, only 28 percent of Maryland's eligible employees joined unions. The RTW states climbed as high as 54 percent, averaging 38 percent of eligible employees joining unions during this period.
(They followed this with a state-by-state chart comparing Maryland to Right to Work states)
If anyone out there wants to pinpoint exactly when particular changes were made to the choosemaryland.org site, you can use the so-called Internet Archive Wayback Machine as a resource. It goes back to 2000.
So it would appear that the O'Malley administration inherited and decided to maintain and update an anti-union sales pitch on the state website, just as the Ehrlich administration had done when it took over.
Looks like all three administrations get a black eye here.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
State Government Proud that Maryland is Anti-Union (Updated)
When I saw this post on Free State Politics, I could not believe my eyes. But it's true: the state's Department of Business and Economic Development is trying to paint Maryland as an anti-union state to attract new businesses.
I encourage everyone to read the original post on FSP but here is the issue in a nutshell. The state is telling business that even though it does not have a right-to-work law, businesses have nothing to fear because unions here are (in their opinion) weak. Here's a sample of their language:While not a "right-to-work" (RTW) state, Maryland offers businesses a very favorable labor climate.
Now Governor O'Malley has been fairly pro-labor. I am sure that he had no knowledge of this vile propaganda spewed by underlings scurrying within the bowels of the state bureaucracy. But as I write this, outraged emails are flying across the state's entire labor movement. We cannot believe that rhetoric typical of Georgia and Oklahoma would be sanctioned at any level inside the O'Malley administration.
A quality workforce supplies a great resource, key to achieving corporate goals.
The percentage of private sector union membership in Maryland is 7.2 percent, which is lower than the national average of 7.5 percent and lower than most northeast and midwest states.
13.8 percent of the state's private sector manufacturing workers are union members, a lower percentage than two of the RTW states, as well as other states including New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
(Source: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.)
An analysis of companies new to Maryland from 1990 to 2001 (excluding firms that were already unionized upon their entry to the state and firms with fewer than 25 workers) reveals that:
Only two percent of the over 3,200 companies were petitioned by unions.
Half of Maryland's counties experienced no petitions for union elections.
Unions won representation rights for only one percent of the total new firms during the period analyzed.
Although petitions were filed most frequently in the services and manufacturing industries, unions won representation rights in just four percent of new Maryland manufacturing firms.
FSP's Eric Luedtke is asking blog readers to register their protests with the state's leadership. I agree with him and I refer you to his post for the relevant email addresses. If the Governor acts swiftly to revoke the state's anti-union pandering, most reasonable people will probably view it as a mistake and be willing to move on. But quick action is in order.
Update: The state's union-bashing is based partly on National Labor Relations Board election data from 2006. That data would not have been available until well into 2007, after Governor O'Malley assumed office. That proves that the propaganda was at least partially drafted during the O'Malley administration and cannot be blamed entirely - or perhaps not at all - on his predecessor.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Senator Madaleno Comments on the Budget
Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18) sent the following message to his constituents on the budget. We reprint it here with his permission.
On Tuesday, the Senate Budget & Taxation Committee was briefed by the Department of Legislative Services (DLS) on our state’s finances and economic outlook. Unfortunately, the news is not good. I wanted to share with you some of the highlights from this meeting. All of the briefing documents are available on-line – just click here. The documents include a detailed summary of the budget reductions approved by the Board of Public Works last week.
While Maryland continues to perform better than other states during this national economic slowdown, we are seeing our revenue sources under perform estimates. Most critically, our two largest revenues accounting for 81% of total revenues, the personal income tax and the sales tax, continue to come in lower than predicted. Through May, the income and sales taxes were down $46.3 million and $23.9 million, respectively. Tobacco taxes have also come in $24 million lower than expected. Cigarette purchases are down by 25%. While this is good health news, it does add to our fiscal challenges.
It looks now as if our official revenue forecast for the fiscal year that began July 1st will also prove to be overly optimistic. If these same patterns continue for FY09, revenues will be off between $100 and $200 million. Fortunately, we have built in buffers in the FY09 budget totaling $226 million. However, every dollar of expected revenue that does not materialize eats into this buffer. As the buffer disappears, the anticipated deficit for the following year grows. Right now, the estimated FY10 deficit is $243 million. Without any excess revenue carryover from FY09, the FY10 deficit would be nearly $500 million.
The only good news is that this deficit is “cyclical” as opposed to “structural.” Our current problem is caused by a cyclical downturn in the economy as opposed to a structural imbalance in our spending and revenues. As a result, deficits are now only estimated for the next two fiscal years (10 & 11) if the slots referendum passes. We could use the $700 million plus we have in our Rainy Day Fund to help get through this cycle. However, without the revenues from slots, we will once again be facing a more than $1 billion structural deficit by FY12, and use of the Rainy Day Fund in this situation would be imprudent.
Perhaps the most interesting observation of our economic slowdown was that we are in a “slow-motion recession.” In 1991-92, the last time our state faced a severe economic crisis, our state experienced a rapid decline in our performance indicators. For example, at their peak in 1991-92, 35,000 Marylanders were making initial unemployment insurance claims per month. In the 2001-2002 downturn, initial unemployment claims were made by 25,000 Marylanders per month. Today, we have roughly 20,000 people making initial unemployment insurance claims per month, but that reflects an 18% rise over this time last year. Rather than a sharp rise in unemployment insurance claims coinciding with a steep set of job losses as we saw in 1991-92, we are seeing a gradual slowing of job growth combined with a steady increase in unemployment insurance claims.
In the short term, we are able to adjust our budget outlook to reflect these changes. In the long term, it seems as though the bottom of this recession will continue to elude us and will present larger budget concerns in the future. Should the recovery also turn out to be slow-motion, than our current revenue estimates for the out-years could also prove overly optimistic.
The housing slowdown is also causing significant economic problems for the state. Home prices are expected to be down anywhere from 5-8% for 2008, with a 12 month supply of homes on the market. While the state government does not use property taxes or transfer taxes for general fund expenditures, the housing market slowdown is impacted sales tax revenues. Construction-related sales tax revenues are down 6% this year. The decline in home sales and prices has a much greater impact on local government finances. The Maryland housing market does not appear close to a recovery and is expected to continue its decline, which is further evidence of the “slow-motion recession” that may stick with us for some time.
The general downturn is also having a significant impact on the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF). Both the gas tax and titling tax are below estimates. Coupled with a decline in sales tax revenues and the $50 million TTF reduction included in the legislation repealing the computer services tax, the TTF is behind $150 million in anticipated revenues. DLS reported that the current transportation program is unsustainable in this fiscal environment. As a result, projects will have to be eliminated from the program plan when the new six-year plan is released in the fall. This could make any new major construction unaffordable.
Compounding our transportation funding problem will be a lack of debt capacity should any new revenue become available. During the briefing, State Treasurer Nancy Kopp reported that the state will exceed its debt capacity guidelines next year for the first time in decades. Maryland has a self-imposed debt limit of 3.2% of total personal income. Thus, the state government’s total debt cannot exceed 3.2% of the total combined personal income of all residents.
Over the past six years due to a lack of surpluses, the state has issued bonds more aggressively to pay for projects such as new schools, roads, and prisons. With a slowdown in income growth, we will now exceed our debt limit. This is an extremely troubling development and one that the mainstream media did not report.
Treasurer Kopp informed the committee that her office will be contacting the credit rating agencies over the next few weeks to determine what effect this situation might have on our cherished AAA bond rating. As you know, Maryland has maintained the highest bond rating (AAA) for decades because of our fiscal prudence. Our excellent credit rating reduces the interest rates incurred for state borrowing, ultimately saving the state, and taxpayers, millions of dollars. In order to retain our rating, we may need to scale back our commitment to capital expenditures dominated by schools construction and transportation improvement to keep our debt within our guidelines. With the rating agencies already concerned about our fiscal situation if slots revenues do not materialize, this confluence of issues could be just the “perfect storm” needed to jeopardize our AAA rating.
I certainly wish I had better news to report. It is often said that timing is everything in life. Last year, we finally took action to correct the state’s structural fiscal imbalance through a number of budget cuts and tax increases. I continue to applaud Governor O’Malley for addressing this issue which had festered for years. Unfortunately, this downturn comes just as we restored balance to our fiscal affairs. Such timing!
As always, I will update you on our state’s fiscal outlook as we get a clearer picture of our revenues.
Rich Madaleno
Editor's Note:
Given recent developments on the budget, we are not surprised by many elements of the Senator's commentary. But two items he reports have not been generally acknowledged in the mainstream media.
1. The possibility of cancellation or postponement of transportation projects.
Back in April, I made this prediction about the Transportation Trust Fund: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.
This may be dangerously close to reality.
2. The risk of losing the state's AAA rating.
No politician of either party wants to lose this rating and face higher interest payments on state debt. It will be the highest priority of the entire leadership in Annapolis to protect it. That means no spending program is safe.
I would expect slots supporters to attempt to capitalize on this budget news in the near future.
Update: Maryland Moment completely missed the real story on the state's credit rating.
Slots Polling Foreshadows New Marketing Initiative
Someone has hired a sophisticated polling firm to analyze voter attitudes on slots, as my wife and I found out last night. This signals a new marketing effort on the issue.
Have you ever made the mistake of answering the phone right before dinner? I rarely do that – I am too busy fielding cell-phone calls from complaining MPW readers! Anyway, my wife actually answered the phone and the call was from a polling firm identifying itself as “Issues and Opinions.” The caller kept her on for over a half-hour with questions broken out into the following categories:
1. Ratings of Politicians and Economy
The caller began by asking my wife to rate Barack Obama, John McCain, Martin O’Malley and other politicians on a scale of 1 to 10. Then he asked her to comment on the state of the economy in Maryland.
2. Tests of Slots Arguments
The caller tested a variety of arguments favoring and opposing slots. He would read one argument and then ask her to rate it as very convincing, somewhat convincing, somewhat unconvincing or totally unconvincing. Examples of the tested arguments in favor include “slots are an alternative to tax increases,” “slots are necessary for education,” and “Marylanders are spending lots of money on slots in other states.” Examples of the tested arguments opposed include “politicians will raise taxes anyway,” and “slots will cost more dollars to fight crime and addiction than they will generate for the state.” There were many, many other tested arguments on both sides. Clearly, the caller wanted to know what would work.
3. Questions on Supporters or Opponents of Slots
The caller asked my wife whether knowledge of a politician’s or organization’s position on slots would affect her position one way or the other. Tested supporters or opponents included Martin O’Malley, Mike Miller, Peter Franchot, “your state legislators,” the Maryland Chamber of Commerce and the Maryland State Teachers Association.
4. General Demographic Questions
The caller finished by asking my wife to identify her age, race, party affiliation (and strength of affiliation), political ideology and religion.
This was a long and sophisticated poll with dozens of questions. The details will provide ample opportunity for informative cross-tabulations if the firm contacts enough respondents. The firm is seeking to develop a matrix that will illustrate the most effective arguments, both favoring and opposed, for each of many racial, age-based, political and geographic sub-units. This is clear preparation for an advanced mass-marketing effort.
My hunch is that the anti-slots activists do not have enough money to afford professional research of this kind. That means it is a project implemented by the well-financed pro-slots forces. Get ready, people – whatever your opinion on slots, you will be hearing scientifically-tested arguments on them very soon!
Chevy Chase Town Council July Meeting
The Council had a productive meeting and took several actions on Wednesday night. After a half-hour executive session, the Council began the public meeting at 7pm.
Variance Hearings
The Council approved 5-0 the Wang/Squitieri request for a side yard setback variance needed for their small one-story addition.
The Council approved 4-0 the Minchik side and rear yard setback variances for the second floor addition. The proposed addition does not expand the footprint of the home. I recused myself from this hearing because I live next door.
The Council approved 5-0 the Murray request for 15 foot wide driveway and a front yard retaining wall variance. The driveway at the Murray’s home is entirely below grade and very difficult to use as currently constructed.
Public Hearings
The Council approved new sidewalks on Oakridge Avenue and Thornapple Street. The new 3.5” wide sidewalk will be on the north side of Thornapple and the east side of Oakridge. It will connect to the existing sidewalks on the east side of Oakridge and Curtis—the latter via a crosswalk. The Council also approved a new three-way stop sign and crosswalks at the intersection of Oakridge and Curtis. New crosswalks were also approved for the intersection of Oakridge and Thornapple. You can see a map of the planned new sidewalks on the town website at: http://www.townofchevychase.org/n/108
The Council agreed to hold a special work session to craft a more comprehensive CCES traffic plan. The work session will contain opportunities participation by Town residents, and will be followed within a couple of weeks by a public hearing where it is hoped that the Council will adopt a plan. The Town will send out postcards announcing information about the time and date for both meetings.
Discussions and Presentations
The Council unanimously approved a request presented by Anjali Prakash and Susan Milner for $30,000 toward the construction of a new playground at the Leland Center. Councilmembers thanked profusely both Anjali and Susan for their tremendous efforts to make this happen.
The Council unanimously approved the removal of the “Access to Wisconsin Avenue Restricted” Signs on streets intersecting Connecticut Ave. New speed limit signs will go up shortly in the same or nearby locations.
Mayor Kathy Strom reported that County Councilmembers Nancy Floreen and Duchy Trachtenberg had recommended to the Planning Board that the Leland Center be renamed in memory of Jane Lawton. Thanks to both Councilmembers for their efforts.
New Business
The Council discussed the issue of crime and police protection. Town Manager Todd Hoffman informed the Council of several efforts he has taken to secure more police activity in Elm St. Park. The Council also asked the Town Manager to ask police employed by the Town to walk through the park more often, and to develop additional options for a greater police presence in the Park. The Town also discussed the complexities surrounding the issue of informing Town residents about criminal activity in the Town, including difficulties related to accuracy and incomplete information.
The meeting adjourned shortly before 11pm.
On Senator Currie and the Ethics of Office
The recent revelations of Senator Ulysses Currie’s relationship with Shoppers Food and Pharmacy may be the beginning of the fall of a man once widely thought to be an admirable public servant. But it is more than that: it is a warning about the kinds of conflicts that can happen in a citizen legislature.
Maryland, like most states, allows state legislators to hold outside employment. The General Assembly meets for three months each year (not including special sessions) and pays its members over $40,000 annually. Nevertheless, members of legislatures with similar configurations to Maryland’s report that they spend 70% of the equivalent of a full-time job on their legislative work. These positions are clearly time-consuming, even for rank-and-file members lacking Senator Currie’s responsibilities.
The benefit of a citizen legislature is that it allows members to bring significant expertise to their jobs. But there is a price: the potential for conflicts between a legislator’s public and private roles.
The Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics Guide lays out general rules for dealing with conflicts of interest. Legislators must disclose their financial dealings, including employment, contracts and corporate ownership; refrain from voting on matters of direct and personal financial interest to themselves, their relatives and their employers; and file disclaimers before voting on other matters with more indirect conflicts of interest.
The following statement on page 13 of the guide is relevant to Senator Currie’s case:The Ethics Law states that a member of the General Assembly is prohibited from assisting or representing another party, for compensation, in a matter before or involving any unit of the State government or a local subdivision of the State, unless covered by one of the exemptions to the prohibition. The prohibition relates to representation in the course of any type of employment relationship, including regular salaried employment, contractual consultant work, and representation in a professional capacity (e.g., attorney-client.)
None of the exemptions to this rule apply to the allegations against Senator Currie. This is a clear problem for him as he was a paid consultant to Shoppers – a relationship that he did not disclose.
But there is more. Consider this account of the evidence of Senator Currie’s lobbying for Shoppers reported in the Post: The documents, released by several state transportation agencies, show a pattern of interventions by the Prince George's Democrat dating to at least 2003, not long after he became chairman of the powerful Budget and Taxation Committee.
Neil Pedersen has been the State Highway Administrator since 2003. He is not regarded as a political player but rather as a highly-respected professional. He is one of only a handful of powerful officials to survive the transition between the Ehrlich and O’Malley administrations. The State Highway Administration oversees more than a billion dollars a year in capital projects across the state. This agency is not a minor organization and any legislator can only harass it so much.
Currie held meetings with state officials and made phone calls about traffic lights at Shoppers stores in Owings Mills and Laurel and about road changes at a store in Anne Arundel County.
“Senator Currie asks me every time he sees me whether we have resolved the Reisterstown Road Shoppers Food Warehouse issue,” Neil J. Pedersen, the head of the State Highway Administration, wrote in a 2004 e-mail to a staffer. “How close are we to resolving it?”
It is a matter of political capital, that intangible stock of favors, influence and goodwill that is vital to the fortunes of any politician. It must be raised energetically and spent carefully. Even Senate President Mike Miller, the most feared politician in the state, does not wantonly bully his Senators on every single issue but only on what he views as the most important ones. If Senator Currie spent as much political capital on the needs of Shoppers as the Post suggests, what was left over for his constituents?
The most typical comment by state legislators I have spoken with about Senator Currie has been some version of, “He was the last person I expected to be involved with something like this.” If the Senator hid his conduct behind a cloak of propriety, then everyone in Annapolis should look around carefully at everyone else. There may very well be others like Senator Currie who have yet to be revealed, at least for now.
The bottom line is this: when state legislators set foot into the statehouse, they work for us – the people – not for their employers or their extracurricular paymasters. The politicians need to remember that. So too do the voters.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
How to Get Clout in Annapolis, Part Four
In Part Three, we recommended that Montgomery County’s state legislators do three things together to begin building clout in Annapolis: get organized, control the county’s campaign funding and limit new legislation. Today we finish the plan.
4. Jam the Committees
Most of the action in the state legislature happens in the committees. Prodded and spurred by leadership, the committee chairmen try to steer the Governor’s and the leaders’ priorities through their committees along with those of individual legislators and important groups. Most bills never make it out of committees. Montgomery’s legislators only chair one committee in each chamber, far less than the delegations from Baltimore City and Prince George’s County. But because of sheer numbers, Montgomery’s legislators have the most Democratic members of many of these committees. And through that membership comes power.
When the committee chair and the leaders begin polling committee members for their support on the leadership's priority bills, Montgomery’s legislators should not say yes or no. Instead, they should say something like, “I’m studying it.” “I’m talking to my colleagues about it.” “I’m undecided.” The Republicans can be counted on to oppose anything desired by the Governor or the Democratic leadership, so hesitation on the part of Montgomery’s legislators will throw the fate of more than a few bills into doubt.
This will make some of these committees very difficult for their chairs to manage. Consider the all-important Senate Budget and Taxation Committee. It has 15 members, of whom three are from Montgomery and four are Republicans. If all the Montgomery members and all the Republicans did not support a measure, Chairman Ulysses Currie would have a remaining margin of just one vote. That is awfully tight.
Consider the House Judiciary Committee. It has 22 members, of whom five are from Montgomery and six are Republicans. If all of the Montgomery and Republican delegates did not support a bill, it could not pass through the committee.
Here’s how the ten standing committees of the two chambers break down:
Senate Budget and Taxation: 15 members, 3 from Montgomery, 4 Republicans. Remaining margin: 1 vote.
Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs: 9 members, 1 from Montgomery, 3 Republicans. Remaining margin: 1 vote.
Senate Finance: 11 members, 1 from Montgomery, 3 Republicans. Remaining margin: 3 votes.
Senate Judicial Proceedings: 11 members, 3 from Montgomery (including the Chair), 4 Republicans. Remaining margin: Negative 3 votes.
House Appropriations: 26 members, 4 from Montgomery, 6 Republicans. Remaining margin: 6 votes.
House Economic Matters: 23 members, 3 from Montgomery, 6 Republicans. Remaining margin: 5 votes.
House Environmental Matters: 23 members, 3 from Montgomery, 6 Republicans. Remaining margin: 5 votes.
House Health and Government Operations: 24 members, 3 from Montgomery, 7 Republicans. Remaining margin: 2 votes.
House Judiciary: 22 members, 5 from Montgomery, 6 Republicans. Remaining margin: Zero votes.
House Ways and Means: 21 members, 6 from Montgomery (including the Chair), 5 Republicans. Remaining margin: Negative 1 vote.
By sticking together, the Montgomery delegation can make many of these committees difficult (or even impossible) to control. This is a gigantic opportunity for leverage over the leadership that can only be exploited through cooperation and discipline.
5. String it Out Until the End
Everyone knows that little happens in Annapolis until the last two weeks of the general session. Consider the order of battle if the prior four steps are followed. Montgomery’s legislators have agreed on a common program to protect their county. A few rogues have strayed, been chastised, and been brought back into compliance. Prior to the session, many political contributors in the county have mysteriously slowed down their rate of giving to anti-Montgomery politicians. Montgomery’s legislators have introduced an unusually low number of bills. Few of the Governor’s and the leadership’s priorities have moved out of the committees because of a lack of support from the Montgomery delegation. And now the end of the session is approaching.
Suddenly, Big Daddy and the Governor will be ready to deal. What is Montgomery’s price? At this point, the concessions demanded by the newly-empowered Montgomery delegation could be significant: no transfer of teacher pensions, more education money, more transportation money. And they will get most of it if they stick to our plan because the Governor and the leaders will have no other choice.
Organization defeats disorganization, willpower defeats weakness and leadership defeats fecklessness. Every single time. So what are you waiting for, Montgomery legislators? It's time to take charge in Annapolis!
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
How to Get Clout in Annapolis, Part Three
In Part Two, we heard from a Montgomery County budget official that a possible state shifting of teacher pension funding down to the counties would result in a fiscal “nuclear explosion.” Montgomery’s statehouse delegation successfully resisted that fate in 2008, but it may happen next year. If not, Governor O’Malley, Senate President Mike Miller and the other statehouse leaders will find some other way to extract money from “the state’s piggy bank.” It is time for our state legislators to fight back. They can do it successfully if they implement the following five steps:
1. Get Organized
When Senator Rona Kramer (D-14) revolted against the special session tax package because she believed it drew too much on Montgomery County, no other Montgomery Senator joined her and she was demoted by Mike Miller. When Senators Kramer and Rich Madaleno (D-18) revolted against the millionaire tax, again because they believed it would damage their county, only a minority of the county’s delegation supported them. Lonely rebellions fail. Organized revolts can succeed.
Montgomery’s state legislators have a county delegation structure, as do many other counties in the state. This delegation structure does not function as a hierarchical, authority-wielding organization, but rather as a clearinghouse to develop and focus the priorities of the legislators. So far, it has proven insufficient to unite and direct the delegation. That must change. Unless the delegation agrees on a common list of priorities, a strategic plan to enhance the county’s clout and an accompanying internal enforcement mechanism, it will never out-Miller Big Daddy.
In the next four steps we will suggest the elements of such a plan. But organization and discipline are key prerequisites. Once a plan is agreed to, there must be consequences for renegades. Possible punishments range from defeat of an offender’s local bills (bills that apply to the county and must be approved by the delegation) all the way up to bans from district campaign slates. Without punishment, Montgomery’s legislators will strike out on their own and the delegation will not hold together – a situation that critics allege happens all too often right now.
2. Control the Campaign Funding
Many state politicians rely on Montgomery County for one thing: campaign money. Even when they act against the county’s interests, Mike Miller and his co-conspirators will periodically swoop in here for cash. But most of the contributors who live here depend on our state legislators for one thing or another. That gives our legislators leverage over who gets that money and who does not.
Our delegation needs to send a message to all major contributors who live in Montgomery and rely on them for help: do not give money to state politicians who damage the county. Any contributors who break this rule will fall into disfavor with the delegation. This message will be doubly effective if it is also delivered by county politicians. It is bad enough for a major contributor to cross the state legislators; it is even worse to run afoul of the county’s power-brokers at the same time. When Big Daddy’s allies begin to see their private campaign spigots go dry, they will understand that a new day is coming.
3. For Now, Limit New Legislation
Montgomery’s eager, idealistic legislators introduce lots of bills and many of them work hard to get them passed. That is perfectly understandable: the best legislators have clear policy goals and do their best to get them implemented. Over the long run, that is great for both the legislators and the people. But in the short run, there is a cost.
Simply put, getting a bill passed requires an expenditure of political capital. Any legislator who convinces someone else to vote for their bill – or especially, someone in the leadership to support it – is in their debt. Now a favor is owed. When the leader returns to that legislator asking for repayment, the legislator has to seriously consider the request, even if it goes against his or her hometown interest. And so some Montgomery legislators may find themselves pressured to go against the county’s interests to support their public policy goals.
The solution to this is to stop introducing lots of bills. Now the relationship is reversed. A legislator who supports other legislators’ bills accumulates political capital and owes less of it to anyone else. At the appropriate moment, those debts can be cashed in. If the Montgomery delegation followed a common policy to limit introduction of bills, its members would gradually build up a treasure trove of favors by helping others. This will prove valuable later.
We will finish our plan in Part Four.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
How to Get Clout in Annapolis, Part Two
In Part One, we covered the prevailing opinion of many about our county’s state legislators: they need to improve their effectiveness in protecting Montgomery’s interests in Annapolis. Step one in doing that is examining the incentives of the opponents.
One of the biggest obstacles to Montgomery’s clout in Annapolis is Senate President Mike Miller. Back in May, we offered this description of Miller’s practice of power: Better than anyone, Mike Miller understands the volatile and fragile mix of ego, fear, hope, insecurity and the needy desire to be loved that defines most politicians. He knows how to push every one of those buttons. He praises obedient Senators as courageous. He predicts dire consequences for the wayward. He shuffles subcomittee chairmanships and vice-chairmanships like cards in an ever-winning hand. He elevates junior Senators above senior ones when they stick with the boss. A longtime Annapolis player told me, “We call him Big Daddy. When people screw up, he doesn’t get mad at them. Instead, he tells them he's ‘disappointed.’ No one wants to let Dad down.”
Big Daddy is a formidable opponent for anyone seeking more power in state politics, including Governors. Mike Miller wants two things: first, as many Democratic seats in the Senate as he can get, and second, making the holders of those seats dependent on him for money and support. Those two goals go together. As the Democratic Party pushes out into conservative areas (like the Baltimore suburbs, the Eastern Shore and Western Maryland) and increases its Senate ranks, the Democrats who hold those outlying seats are vulnerable. Both Miller and Governor O’Malley have an obvious incentive to direct as much campaign money and state funding to those districts as possible. If Miller can help those vulnerable Senators survive, they will be grateful – and obedient – to the boss. This will increase Miller’s stranglehold on power. But the strategy is only feasible if the resources controlled by Miller and O’Malley are directed to these fragile districts. That means they cannot be tied up in Montgomery County, especially if the delegations in Baltimore City and Prince George’s County are restive.
House Speaker Mike Busch has similar incentives as the Senate President, but he has a larger margin in his chamber and is generally more subtle than Miller. As for the Governor, he is focused on winning Baltimore County in his re-election campaign. So the three most powerful politicians in the state are united in one objective: directing state funding to just about anywhere else other than Montgomery County. Why? Because it does no good to them to shore up an area that is supposedly wealthy enough to take care of itself and liberal enough to vote Democratic no matter what. This is a severe problem for every Montgomery County politician, state and local.
Montgomery has carried this burden for a long time but now things are coming to a head. As we have previously chronicled, the tax hikes of the 2007 special session and the spending cuts of the 2008 general session have not eliminated the state’s long-run budget deficit. Since the legislature will not implement any more major tax increases prior to the next election year and many significant spending cuts have already been made, only two options remain: revenue from the slots referendum and sending teacher pension obligations, which are now mostly paid by the state, down to the counties. Montgomery budget officials tell me that if pension funding is shifted down from the state, the county would face an extra $120 million per year in costs or more. Putting that in perspective, each percentage point of the county’s 5% public employee union pay increase equals about $20 million. That means Montgomery County could cancel the entire pay increase for all of its unionized employees and still be unable to pay the cost of assuming state-funded teacher pensions. One high-ranking budget official described the fiscal impact of a state handoff of pension funding as “a nuclear explosion.”
Will Montgomery County be spared this fate if the slots referendum passes? Not necessarily, for three reasons. First, it will take several years for any casinos to be up and running. Second, slots revenues may not be as high as projected (currently estimated at over $500 million per year). Third, an election year is coming in 2010. The Governor and the legislative leaders will be looking to spend some serious money to get votes. If slots money is not enough, pension obligations may have to be shed. And that means a state-sponsored fiscal nuke will annihilate Montgomery County’s budget.
But our delegation can fight back. We’ll learn how in Part Three.
Monday, July 07, 2008
How to Get Clout in Annapolis, Part One
Montgomery County Council President Mike Knapp, during the council’s recent budget debate:
Montgomery County is “the state’s piggy bank.”Senator Rona Kramer (D-14), commenting on Governor O’Malley’s broken promise on Montgomery school construction funding:
“I think he's not sensitive to the needs of Montgomery County, and that he's taking the county for granted.”Gazette columnist Blair Lee:
“The problem is: once a chump, always a chump. Lawmakers who sell out are promoted but never respected. That’s why it was so easy this week for Governor O’Malley to break his promise to give MoCo $55 million of school construction aid in exchange for MoCo’s special session tax and slots votes. Instead, we’re only getting $46.3 million. Can you imagine O’Malley ripping off PG County or Baltimore city that way?Unnamed Montgomery County politician:
Until MoCo stands up on its hind legs, it will always be shortchanged, double-crossed and pushed around in Annapolis.”
“Our guys are pathetic. Every year they go to Annapolis and every year we get jacksh*t!”And so it goes. I hear some version of this from nearly everyone outside of the county’s statehouse delegation (and even a softer variant from a couple legislators themselves). The common assessment is that the county’s state legislators are, for the most part, intelligent and progressive but insufficiently parochial. They may get occasional wins on a few liberal priorities, but Baltimore City gets huge amounts of state subsidies and the Prince George’s delegation received a state bailout of their hospital. In the meantime, Montgomery taxpayers get 15 cents back in aid for every dollar they pay in taxes, less than half the state average of 35 cents.
It does not have to be this way. I have met most of our state legislators. Almost all are extremely bright. In fact, no other delegation from any other part of the state can match our people in sheer braininess. Many of our legislators have experience in the federal government as staffers or lobbyists. Many are experts in their policy areas. While the delegation is handicapped by a lack of seniority, the younger legislators are clever and ambitious. And they have the advantage of numbers: Montgomery’s legislators account for 8 of 34 Democratic Senators (24%) and 24 of 104 Democratic Delegates (23%), the biggest bloc in the state. Our legislators have the makings of a great fighting unit for the interests of Montgomery County residents. But first they have a bit of work to do. We’ll get started in Part Two.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Al Gore, America’s Greatest President
By Adam C. Pagnucco, Jr.
November 1, 2023
Essay Contest, Richard Madaleno Middle School, Silver Spring, MD
Al Gore almost did not become President. The 2000 election was the closest in U.S. history. Gore won only when the Supreme Court decided by a 5-4 margin that every vote in Florida should be counted. While it took a month to certify Gore’s 427-vote victory in the state, it turned out to be the wisest decision the Supreme Court ever made.
Less than a year in office, the Gore administration confronted America’s worst tragedy in sixty years: the September 11, 2001 attack on New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon. After swiftly implementing a rescue and recovery operation, Gore turned to dealing with those responsible. “We will meet terrorism with justice,” he told Congress. “We will meet fear with freedom. And we will offer the people of the world a path to peace with honor and dignity for all.”
The administration responded on two tracks. First, Gore activated the mutual defense provision of the NATO treaty. The NATO countries expelled Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda group and its hosts, the Taliban, in a quick joint campaign in Afghanistan. But NATO’s mutual defense was also expanded into intelligence and financial operations. Working as a group, the NATO countries and their allies were able to root out al-Qaeda cells in London, Madrid and Bali that were planning follow-up attacks. While bin Laden continued to hide for many years, his organization was defanged.
The administration’s second track was even more ambitious. Gore’s national security team believed that Islamic militant groups gained strength by continued conflict between the Palestinians and Israel, and by extension, Israel’s western protectors. So President Gore made renewed peace negotiations between the two sides one of his highest priorities. While the final peace agreement was not signed until after the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, it has mostly held up since then. As a side benefit, extremist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah faded away once the agreement (as well as a treaty with Syria) led to economic prosperity throughout the region.
The Gore administration’s biggest decision was on how to handle Iraq. Many Republicans and some Democrats, including Vice-President Lieberman, argued that Saddam Hussein’s regime needed to be removed. But Gore ultimately decided that war against Iraq would undermine negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Instead, NATO, the UN and the United States pressured Iraq into admitting that it did not have any weapons of mass destruction or any relationship with al-Qaeda. The survival of the Hussein regime prompted Vice-President Lieberman to decline to run again in 2004, leading to his replacement on the ticket by Virginia Governor Mark Warner.
It was not until many years later that we learned about President Gore’s most controversial initiative. In the secret 2004 Ankara Pact, the administration forged an alliance with the Hussein regime and internal Iranian opposition groups to work against Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Over the next three years, a combination of escalating UN sanctions, Iraqi border incursions, and sabotage of Iranian nuclear facilities led Iran’s leaders to force out their fanatical President and negotiate. While many later objected to Gore’s willingness to work under the table with America’s former enemies, the secret program probably kept Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The issue’s sensitivity is reflected by the fact that UN Secretary-General Gore will still not discuss it.
President Gore had his disappointments. He never could win universal health care; that had to wait for President Warner’s administration. He could not convince the Congress to accept the amended Kyoto treaty on climate control, but his 2005 cap-and-trade legislation started America down a path of declining greenhouse gas emissions. And his administration was sorely tested by Hurricane Katrina. After dealing with initial shortcomings in the rescue operation, Gore proposed an ambitious plan to rebuild Louisiana’s wetlands. An entire generation of engineers, architects, scientists, environmentalists and construction workers was trained in the greatest American public works project since the New Deal. Completed in 2010, the Louisiana wetlands restoration has served as a model for the rest of the world ever since.
Many conservatives still imagine what would have happened if Texas Governor George W. Bush had been elected. They question whether toppling Saddam Hussein would have given America more leverage in dealing with other rogues. It is true that aggressive regimes continue to be a problem. Qusay Hussein, Saddam’s successor, has been accused of arranging the 2015 assassination attempt on the Emir of Kuwait and is believed to be financing Shiite rebels in Saudi Arabia. President Van Hollen is now dealing with two crises: the recent missile exchange between Taiwan and China and Russia’s invasion of Georgia.
But Gore’s critics miss the central lesson of his presidency. Gore’s greatest successes did not come through military action, but rather through coalition building. Large groups of countries worked together to suppress terrorism, bring peace and economic growth to the Middle East, reduce disease and poverty in Africa and, most crucially, to collaborate in developing EFE (emission-free energy) technology to fight global warming. America’s prestige and influence have never been higher around the world. A new era of optimism based on American leadership, genuine multi-lateral cooperation and rising shared economic growth began during the Gore administration and has been ably continued by his successors.
I for one am glad that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to count every vote in Florida. The first eight years of the 21st Century were some of the most critical in U.S. history. It is difficult to imagine how the country would have fared without Al Gore, America’s greatest President.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
State and County Budgets Create Perfect Storm for MoCo
The Gazette and Free State Politics have both covered the state’s continuing budget problems. Now the Gazette informs us that Montgomery County is facing at least a $240 million deficit next year even after closing a $297 million deficit this year. These twin typhoons are coming together to pound the county once again.
First, let’s look at the state budget. Back in April, we noted that despite tax hikes and spending cuts in the 2007 special session and the 2008 general session, the state had not completely closed its long-term deficit. At that time, the state’s Department of Legislative Services (DLS) projected a $243 million deficit in FY 2010 and a $596 million deficit in FY 2011. Thereafter, deficit amounts depended on the passage of the slots referendum. DLS said: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.
Since then, the Comptroller’s office released estimates of state revenues through May. The Comptroller wrote:General fund revenues for the month of May totaled $961.0 million, an increase of 15.1% over May 2007. For the fiscal year to date, general fund collections are $11.312 billion, growth of 5.1%. After a steep decline in April (adjusted for the rate increase), the sales tax showed some growth in May. Year-to-date, revenues are slightly under expectations, with underperformance in the individual income tax, sales tax and tobacco tax offset by strong performance from most other revenue sources.
We reproduce the summary data below.
A 5.1% increase in general fund revenues is not a disastrous performance, but the Comptroller states that it is “slightly under expectations.” That is the key. A very large chunk of state spending is driven by formulas, including education, special education, community colleges, Medicaid, library subsidies, land conservation, community services to seniors and aid to counties, municipalities and local health departments plus more. That says nothing of benefit payments to state employees. If these formulas call for a spending rate growth that exceeds the growth in revenues, there will be a gap that must be resolved by the Governor and legislature. Right now it appears that the state’s deficit may very well exceed the $243 million originally projected for next year.
And now we look at Montgomery County’s budget. This blog blanket-covered the County Council’s agonizing, but ultimately successful effort to close its $297 million deficit in May. Now they face at least a $240 million deficit next year. But that could change depending on the state of the county’s economy.
Back in May, I wrote the following on the county’s budget: As for the future, the most volatile components of the county’s revenues are the two tied to real estate sales: the real property transfer tax and the recordation tax. According to the county’s Department of Finance, residential real estate sales volume averaged over $500 million per month from 2006 through the first eight months of 2007. Since then, residential real estate sales volume has averaged between $200 and $300 million per month. It is this collapse in residential real estate transactions that has caused many of the county’s current budget problems. All policymakers – both inside the government and inside the unions – should watch this figure in the Finance Department’s monthly economic updates. If it rises back up to $400 million per month or more, the county’s real property transfer and recordation taxes will begin to recover. If it falls further, tougher times are ahead.
Since then, the county’s Department of Finance reported residential real estate volumes of $287 million in March, $385 million in April and $381 million in May. Average home prices are still down in the low five hundred thousands (well below the July 2007 peak of $601,995), but unit sales exceeded 700 homes in both April and May, the best performance since last August. If the real estate market continues to improve, the county’s budget office may need to adjust its deficit estimate.
Still, the county’s budget deficit will be substantial and that means the public employee union contracts may very well be back on the table. Right now, the vote count looks precarious for the unions. Council Members Phil Andrews and Duchy Trachtenberg both recommended a 2-point cost-of-living adjustment cut last time. Council Member Roger Berliner supported a two-day furlough. New Council Member Donald Praisner ran on the notion that the contracts should be “reviewed.” The unions may be only one vote away from a contract cut.
Council Member Trachtenberg, Chair of the Management and Fiscal Policy Committee, had this to say to the Gazette: “Clearly we are expecting revenue that is not on the high end, and we certainly recognize that next year’s budget cycle will be a difficult one,” said Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At large) of North Bethesda, chairwoman of the council’s finance committee. “It wouldn’t surprise me if at the end of the calendar year, we won’t have to look at more program savings, and a possible mid-year savings plan, which are what we try to do in a difficult deficit situation.”
Savings at mid-year would reduce next year’s deficit. That will in turn relieve the pressure on the unions’ contracts. It may therefore be in the unions’ interest to consider scouring their agencies’ budgets for potential reductions.
But any détente at the county level could be easily undone by the state. The lords of Annapolis may very well be preparing a nasty witches’ brew for Montgomery County, including a handoff of funding responsibility for teachers’ pensions. That move alone would easily swamp any savings identified by the unions. And so dealing with the county’s budget problems is not merely the responsibility of the county politicians and the public employee unions. It is also the responsibility of Montgomery’s state legislators to protect the county from any damage threatened by the state’s budget difficulties. We will be discussing this at length next week.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
The Scandals of MoCo
That really is one humdinger of a scandal Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon is embroiled in! It’s got everything – money, corruption, sex, evil developers, furs, sex, contracting violations, sex, and probably even more sex. I hope for Baltimore’s sake that she doesn’t have some kind of perverted competition going on with Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. (My money’s on Kwame because the text messages are documented.) But then I started thinking – how does MoCo compare on the scandal meter? The answer is that we are just pathetic. Take a look at the pitiful scraps we are offering:
1. Jerry Weast’s meeting with the unions
When MCPS superintendent Jerry Weast discussed support for Nancy Navarro in the recent District 4 race with the county’s unions, he must have thought he was helping the school board president. He wasn’t. All he got for his trouble was spankings from bloggers and three straight weeks of negative Gazette coverage. Weast wound up hurting Navarro by giving ammo to her opponents and encouraging Don Praisner’s voters to turn out. This was a legitimate scandal because no school superintendent should be involved in elections, but its ultimate impact was to backfire on Weast. Scandal meter (1= Bennifer, 10=Monica): 3.
2. Illegal anti-Navarro robocalls
In a story first reported here and then picked up by the Gazette, illegal anonymous robocalls went out branding Navarro a tool of the developers. This played right into the hands of her opponents, all of whom rejected developer money. A few of us held a nice parlor game trying to figure out the source (I think it’s Foolio) but I doubt the calls alone tipped the race. And let’s face it – a Baltimore candidate who didn’t use illegal calls would be regarded as soft. Scandal meter: 3.
3. Duchy challenges council trips to Israel
When County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg found out that the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington was paying for trips to Israel by council members, she requested an opinion from the county’s ethics commission. Ultimately, the commission ruled the group could not pay for the trips even though they had been going on for 20 years. Duchy’s instincts were proven right although I think the Council Members could benefit from some time away from each other every now and then. Scandal meter: 2.
4. Silverman and Knapp caught breaking the ex parte rule
Near the end of the 2006 primary election, the now-deceased MoCo Progressive blog publicized meetings between a developer lawyer and Council Members Steve Silverman and Mike Knapp. The meetings violated the county’s ex parte rule, which forbids private discussions between Council Members and outside parties on zoning issues.
Now I know that the ex parte rule is supposed to prevent developer (and citizen) influence over land use issues, but this may be a little silly. I want the right to talk to my Council Members about anything! Only in MoCo would we label a conversation between a developer and a politician a scandal. In Baltimore, that’s called “lunch.” Scandal meter: 2.
5. Ann Marimow catches Praisner campaign manager in council building
During the District 4 special election, Washington Post reporter Ann Marimow exposed Praisner campaign manager Eric Hensal’s trips to meet allied council staffers in the council building during business hours. The staffers claimed they used personal cell phones to communicate and ate lunch outside the grounds.
This is not just small potatoes, it's tater tots. The real scandal is how much time I spend in Rockville. One of these days the receptionists will get wise to my fake County Council staff badge and throw me out onto the street where I belong! Scandal meter: 1 (Hensal), 4 (Adam).
So what's next? Will one of the Council Members forget to wear green on St. Patrick's Day? Will MCDCC appoint Itchy or Scratchy to the next delegate vacancy? (Can you imagine their presentations before the committee?) Will Marc Elrich be caught skinny-dipping in Sligo Creek? Unfortunately, none of the above will probably occur.
Yawn... I guess I'll wake up when Marion Barry moves here.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Summer Reading List
By Marc Korman.
Find yourself with some free time this summer? Taking a vacation? Waiting in METRO due to delays with nothing to do? Let me recommend The Great Society Subway: A History of the Washington Metro by Zachary M. Schrag.
THE REGION
Schrag’s book is a comprehensive history of the METRO, but also the region’s entire transportation grid and the battles that have accompanied it. Some of those battles continue today with the Dulles Rail Line debate and our own Purple Line. The rapid growth of Washington, DC during and after World War II, combined with the mass transit vision of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, triggered the early plans for METRO. The federally triggered idea led to regional cooperation and coordination on transportation issues for the first time. The vision for the agency that became the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), which runs METRO today, was a much more ambitious plan for a regional compact on a number of planning issues. But as the clock ticked on Congressionally imposed deadlines for METRO, the broader vision was abandoned in favor of a rail transit only (eventually expanded to bus as well) authority with no ability to raise its own funds. That decision, necessary to get all of the jurisdictions to sign off quickly, left METRO forever dependent on the federal, state, and local government.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
Schrag spends a great deal of time focusing on Washington, DC and the long fights between advocates of highways and transit. But since the METRO was largely designed to bring in suburban workers there is also plenty of material about Northern Virginia, Prince George’s, and Montgomery Counties. For example, when what became the Red Line was initially being discussed, one possibility was terminating the western half at Pooks Hill in Bethesda and the eastern half would turn from Silver Spring and go on to Rockville. That would have left the rest of the stations on that half of the Red Line, as well as a long stretch of 355, without METRO service. As early as 1976, when the METRO first began operating, then-Montgomery County Executive Jim Gleason sought a study of a “circumferential line,” which today we call the Purple Line.
Schrag also offers an extensive section on development around METRO stations, one of METRO’s early goals, favorably comparing the development in Bethesda and Silver Spring to the less developed areas around Northern Virginia’s METRO stations. Of course, Maryland’s work is not done. Several METRO stations in Maryland could use further development and are not yet the walkable communities some had envisioned. The effort is not complete in Bethesda. While Schrag discusses the Bethesda Metro Center as a victory, recent Washington Post articles and MPW posts show there is still work to be done.
PROBLEMS WITH CONGRESS
The most sobering part of the book is how little has changed. From the day it opened, METRO was hopelessly underfunded as WMATA quickly realized it would not be able to pay for operations and maintenance, let alone repay the original capital costs, from fares alone. Right from the start METRO was also dealing with Congressional interference. Although early federal support was crucial to METRO planning, by the late 1960s Kentucky Congressman Bill Natcher, Chairman of the DC Appropriations Subcommittee, was blocking all federal funding for METRO until a new bridge was built between Virginia and Georgetown. Only a broad coalition of reform minded Democrats and moderate Republicans spoke up for the right of the local governments to decide their own transportation plans.
Today, conservative Republicans are holding up much needed funds for METRO by objecting to legislation that would provide $1.5 billion in sorely needed capital funds for METRO in exchange for Maryland, Virginia, and DC establishing a fixed funding mechanism. They consider the capital funding bill an unnecessary earmark, despite how important METRO is to moving the federal workforce, and the many contractors it relies on, to and from work each day. Ironically, the capital funding bill is just a replay of a 1979 bill which authorized $1.7 billion for METRO, but those funds were appropriated in such small amounts over such a long period of time, it delayed the completion of the original METRO system and led to large cost increases.
CONCLUSION
I read a large chunk of Schrag’s book while sitting in delays on the MARC train and METRO. Like myself, Schrag has a lot more love for mass transit than it sometimes deserves given the constant delays and broken escalators that can infuriate riders. And while the system can be improved, Schrag also reminds us to think about what our transportation grid would be like if we did not have a 100 mile mass transit system with over 800,000 trips ridden on it each day.
