The Maryland ACLU dramatically upped the ante on the police spying scandal today, issuing new FOIAs for documents related to 32 advocacy groups and more than 250 individuals. This scandal is about to get a lot bigger, and no one – including the current Governor – is safe.
In a conference call with the press (and bloggers) today, ACLU lawyer David Rocah described an “overwhelming response” from fearful activist groups in the aftermath of the state police spying scandal. The ACLU chose to file FOIAs on behalf of groups and individuals involved with large rallies on the theory that the police offered the need to monitor potentially “violent or disruptive” demonstrations as a reason for their prior spying. The groups represented by the ACLU span the ideological spectrum and include ACORN, Amnesty International, Casa de Maryland, Children 1st, Christian Peace Witness for Iraq, Defend Life, Equality Maryland, the Maryland NAACP, Maryland NOW, Maryland NARAL, Peace Action Montgomery, PETA and Progressive Maryland.
Two factors threaten to mushroom the scandal out of control:
1. The ACLU’s FOIAs are not merely directed to the state police. They are also directed to any local police departments holding jurisdiction over the rallies sponsored by the ACLU’s clients. So if a group that demonstrated in Baltimore suspected spying, the Baltimore City Police would receive a FOIA along with the state police. Since the ACLU’s FOIAs cover the period of 2000 to the present, a lot of local officials – including former Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley – might have some explaining to do.
2. On the press call, two group leaders directly challenged police units under the control of an O’Malley administration for their surveillance practices. Dr. Tyrone Powers, head of education activist group Children First of Baltimore, alleged that city detectives visited his residence prior to a rally he was planning. His wife and daughter directed the detectives to a hotel where Dr. Powers was giving a speech. At the hotel, the detectives asked Dr. Powers to cancel the rally and told him they had opened an intelligence file on him. Dr. Powers, a former FBI agent, told the city detectives they were wrong to maintain a file on him and held the rally anyway. The rally took place in 2003, during then-Mayor O’Malley’s first term.
Jack Ames, leader of anti-abortion group Defend Life, describes his group as “Fighting the Culture of Death.” Ames related a police action against a demonstration by his group in Harford County. According to his account in Defend Life’s newsletter, state police troopers demanded a permit (when none was required), arrested all 18 demonstrators (including 2 juveniles) and held some of them overnight. When one protestor asked, “Why am I being arrested?” the officer responded, “That’s not relevant.” The incident occurred in August 2008.
The ACLU is preparing legislation to crack down on police surveillance on lawful demonstrations and other expressions of First Amendment rights. Their Legislative Director said the O’Malley administration had “no reaction” to their proposal. If the new wave of FOIAs upholds Dr. Powers’ and Mr. Ames’ allegations about O’Malley’s law enforcement agencies, the Governor will have to get out in front of this issue or risk offending yet another part of his base.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
ACLU Issues Tidal Wave of FOIAs on Police Spying
Montgomery County’s Most Influential People, Part Two
In writing this series, I asked some of the county’s smartest and most connected people two questions. Who are the county’s ten most influential elected officials? And who are the county’s ten most influential non-elected people? Sounds simple, right?
Actually, it’s not simple at all. “How are you defining influential?” several of my respondents asked. “That’s up to you,” I replied. And so people went in different directions. One respondent defined influential as “able to get something done, not just perceived self-importance.” Others looked at day-to-day impact on county events. A few went for nationally-known individuals who happened to live in the county. But a lot of respondents identified different people for different reasons, arguing that influence comes in varying forms. Ultimately, my definition of an influential person is someone whom other influential people say is influential. That’s circular thinking to be sure, but it works in this case because the vast majority of our respondents are themselves important players in the county.
Who are our respondents? We will not disclose their identities, but here is the demographic breakdown of the 55 people who answered our call:
Affiliation
Elected Official: 18, Government Staff: 8, Non-Profit: 7, Business: 7, Civic: 4, Labor: 4, Civic/Labor 1 (me), Other: 6.
Race
White: 46, Black: 4, Latino: 3, Asian: 2
Gender
Male: 39, Female: 16
Age
Under Forty: 18, Forty or Over: 37
Residence
Silver Spring/Takoma Park: 20, Chevy Chase/Kensington: 10, Bethesda/Potomac: 9, Rockville/Gaithersburg: 6, Other Montgomery: 7, Out-of-County: 3
Note: Many of the Silver Spring respondents live outside the Beltway.
In discussing their picks, I told respondents that I was not looking for the most popular people, but the most powerful. Most respondents understood that. “I really hate some of these people,” snarled one caller. “They’re evil, but they’re on my list because they have the most juice. And if you ever tell them I voted for them, I’ll strangle you!”
That points to one of the most challenging aspects of this project: the extreme sensitivity of this information. In several instances, bitter enemies voted for each other. In several other instances, public political allies did not vote for each other. That was very revealing: quite a few people are more insecure with regards to their “friends” than their enemies! Of course, many, MANY people voted for themselves. But everyone who answered took a gigantic risk in trusting my pledge of confidentiality and I appreciate that profoundly. In accordance with their wishes, I have deleted all emails related to this project.
In Part Three, we will unveil our list of the most influential elected officials in Montgomery County.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Maryland U.S. Representatives on the Bailout Bill
Voting for the Bailout Bill: Wayne Gilchrest, Chris Van Hollen, Steny Hoyer, Dutch Ruppersberger, John Sarbanes.
Voting against the Bailout Bill: Roscoe Bartlett, Elijah Cummings, Donna Edwards.
Rep. Bartlett is the most conservative member of Maryland's U.S. House delegation and Rep. Edwards may be the most liberal member, but both voted against the bailout. According to Maryland Moment, Edwards said:This legislation would have done little to help the hard working people in my district... We must take steps that do not burden the taxpayers such as putting more regulation on the market, restoring a sensible accounting system, valuing these toxic assets with their value today and restraining short sellers who are just trying to make a quick profit. This bill did not do any of those things.
Montgomery County’s Most Influential People, Part One
This may be the riskiest, most secretive and most sensitive series we have ever run on Maryland Politics Watch. It will no doubt be one of our most hotly-debated works too. Because today, we begin unveiling the results of an exhaustive two-week project designed to determine and rank, at least for the moment, the most influential people in Montgomery County.
Other publications have released most-influential lists before, notably PolitickerMD and the Gazette. Like many of you that have seen these lists, I agreed with some choices and disagreed with others. But my primary reservation about them is that they did not make clear their methodology. For all anyone could know, these lists were generated by a handful of editors sitting around a desk. And so I thought: how could this be done better?
If any one person generated a list of powerful figures in a local area, that list would be skewed. Every one of us has a station in life. There are some issues we deal with and some we do not. There are some groups of people we talk to regularly and others we hardly know. There are some pieces of our world we perceive (relatively) clearly and others we have never seen. The opinion of any one person or even a small group of people is therefore inherently limited and not up to this task.
And so I began to reach out to some of the smartest and most connected people in the county. Who did they think was influential? I started out by contacting several dozen of my best sources. That mushroomed into additional input from their friends and even others beyond them. These people are part of the small network of politicians, staffers, activists and lobbyists that really run Montgomery County. Slowly, secretly – sometimes painfully – they began to tell me the real truth as they saw it. They named who really had the stick and who did not.
And soon, soon enough, dear readers – you too will know what they said.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Conservatives Oppose Slots
In a remarkable post on Red Maryland, the state's most prominent conservative bloggers have come out against the slots referendum.
The majority of them are not inherently opposed to gambling, but say that the state's constitution is an inappropriate place to specify the location of casinos. Many of them would favor a straight-up slots bill if passed by the state legislature, a position consistent with those of former Governor Ehrlich and House Republicans. None of Red Maryland's authors argue that slots are inherently immoral, a view shared by many religious people on both sides of the aisle.
Mark Newgent deserves special credit for this bit of brutal honesty:If Democrats could vote against slots to screw Ehrlich, why can't Republicans vote against it to screw O'Malley?
For the most part, the argument of the right is essentially process-related, but many rank-and-file conservatives may prefer slots to a tax increase (assuming they see a trade-off). The right may account for a quarter or more of Maryland's electorate. If grassroots conservatives agree with the views of their leaders, the referendum could be in serious trouble.
Obama Opening Gigantic Lead in Maryland
It's not exactly news that Senator Barack Obama is leading Senator John McCain in Maryland. But his margin is growing so rapidly that it could culminate in a historic blowout.
According to Real Clear Politics, there have been three presidential polls in Maryland this summer.
On 8/18/08, Rasmussen polled 500 likely voters who gave a 10-point edge (53-43) to Obama.
On 8/29/08-9/5/08, Gonzalez Research polled 833 likely voters who gave a 14-point edge (52-38) to Obama.
And on 9/20/08, Rasmussen polled 500 likely voters who gave a 23-point edge (60-37) to Obama.
Now sure, there's over a month to go in this campaign and Maryland has been a consistently Democratic state for a long time. But Obama's lead is approaching Biblical proportions. Consider the margins by which Democratic candidates won the last four presidential elections in Maryland:
1992: Bill Clinton 50%, George H.W. Bush 36%, Ross Perot 14% - Margin of 14 points
1996: Bill Clinton 54%, Bob Dole 38%, Ross Perot 7% - Margin of 16 points
2000: Al Gore 57%, George W. Bush 40% - Margin of 17 points
2004: John Kerry 56%, George W. Bush 43% - Margin of 13 points
Is Obama going to break a record here? And if he does, what does that say about the state of Maryland's GOP?
Free-State Reflections from the Debate
By Sharon Dooley.
Watching the debate on Friday evening with a crowd of fellow-Obama supporters was a bonding experience for this Democratic voter. Over 50 people crowded into DISH, (a Sandy Spring supper club whose Grand Opening is today) to listen to the Presidential candidates. Conversation was minimal as guests gave the debate undivided attention.
Neither candidate appeared to solve the financial crisis by their careful comments, but few in this group seemed to support McCain’s idea of a freeze on government spending. In my opinion, Obama did try to reach out to Main Street more by speaking of the teacher, nurse or firefighter who is struggling. Neither addressed any steps to take to prohibit such a crisis from reoccurring; such reflections would appear to be a requisite first step to forestall future crises. The out of balance compensation for Wall Street executives, who are paid whether or not their companies profit, was a topic I would have liked to have seen explored more. Tax breaks for this group seemed to be an important issue still for McCain. Additionally, on the domestic front, Obama’s health plan description seemed to be presented as the more comprehensive and affordable option for the middle class.
Many found McCain disrespectful of Obama as he neither looked nor spoke directly toward him. Perhaps that was some type of a tactic – or maybe it was a strategy, whatever, it did not appear to enhance his performance as a debater. Obama seemed formal, but open, his smiles seemed natural and not forced as did those of McCain, as Barack appeared to reach out more to his audience both in the room and in the national TV audience. That audience has been estimated to exceed 70 million viewers, showing that interest in this election remains high.
McCain was definitely the aggressor and attempted to portray his position as one of strength. Certain sound bites were peppered throughout his position answers and at times repeated, even though they did not always appear relevant. To his credit, Obama let few charges pass by without attempting to defuse them. One of Obama’s strong points was his repetitive use of the phrase “you were wrong” when he discussed the Iraq war. In my consideration of this debate, perhaps Obama over used the phrase - “I agree with John” as I thought he needed to contrast his positions forcefully. But the post debate pundits felt that this was a conciliatory tactic designed to reach the undecided independent voters, who prefer consensus to conflict.
By attempting to tie Obama to naïve thinking about Ahmadinejad of Iran, McCain was raising fears about the strength of Obama’s commitment to Israel, and his global understanding of the complex issues in the Middle East and nations of near Asia. This repetitive assault on Obama’s supposed lack of experience was skillfully parried in a dignified and intelligent manner belying the insult. It seemed that McCain was also calling out to his base by repeatedly invoking Republican heroes of the past, such as Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower, although he may have at the same time been distancing himself from the younger voters who are thought to be playing such an important role in the election this year. At the same time, Obama who showed emotion, but not the same passion of his convention oratory, was professorial sharing views looking toward the future.
Were there topics not addressed? Certainly I would liked to have heard more about global warming and international accord in that area, as well as how this financial crisis is affecting our international trade and ability to have a strong dollar. What do the two candidates think about international nuclear policies or multi-national efforts in space? We do not yet know and these are among many other topics that were not illuminated by this foreign policy discussion. But 90 minutes is not a very long time to cover topics in depth. We, as voters will have to go to campaign sites to learn more and tune in to the next two debates.
Jim Lehrer was a skillful moderator as he attempted to provoke a dialogue rather than allow a stump speech to be revisited. Unfortunately he was unsuccessful in spurring a conversation on the stage. He was flexible and moved nimbly from one topic to the next, pulling the audience along. I was struck that in our group, aside from the partisan cheers and occasional boo, the exchanges held the attention over the food and drink and camaraderie of the gathering. Discussions were left to the post debate reviews.
I do not have the same expectations for the Vice-Presidential debate next week as recent interviews have shown Sarah Palin to be out of her depth, once she cannot answer in memorized phrases. Will there be any substantive discussions? I worry that Joe Biden may be too verbose and seem boring or boorish, while she may be perky, if irrelevant, and be considered to have held her own edge if she survives without significant gaffes. In my opinion, she is totally unqualified to be a heart beat away from the Presidency.
Sharon Dooley is a Montgomery County Democratic Precinct coordinator.
Friday, September 26, 2008
How Much Would the Counties Pay for Teacher Pensions? (Updated)
One of the options under consideration in Annapolis for closing the state’s potential billion-dollar budget gap is passing down funding obligations for teacher pensions (currently paid by the state) to the counties. We obtained the following FY 2009 data for the size of those obligations by county from the state’s Department of Legislative Services.
In absolute dollar terms, Montgomery is the leader. The state is paying $131 million to fund pension liabilities for Montgomery’s teachers and some of its community college employees. (This is far lower than the $217 million reported by the Gazette in July, but we will trust DLS for our data.) Prince George’s County ranks second ($95 million) and Baltimore County ranks third ($78 million).
Now here are those costs expressed in per capita terms:
The average cost statewide is $116.77 per resident to fund pension obligations for teachers, community college employees and some library employees. For Montgomery’s teachers, the cost is $140.62, the highest in the state behind Howard County ($159.52) and Calvert County ($142.99). If the state sent teacher pension obligations down to the counties, these three would be hit disproportionately hard. And for Montgomery, which is already facing a $251 million deficit, the budget impact would be cataclysmic.
Why do these counties incur larger pension obligations than others? In the case of Montgomery and, to a lesser extent, Howard, it may be that higher costs of living have led to higher compensation. Another possible explanation is that all three counties are known for excellent schools and perhaps they have found that higher teacher pay is linked to better performance.
The above data may actually understate the threat to Montgomery County from a transfer of teacher pension obligations. One option that has been considered in the past has been to require counties to partially fund pensions, with “rich” counties paying higher shares than poorer counties. For example, Delegate John P. Donoghue (D-2C) of Washington County introduced a bill during the special session that would have required the counties as a whole to contribute 50% of pension costs subject to a wealth formula. Donoghue’s formula would have required Montgomery to pay 63% of its pension costs while Donoghue’s home county, Washington, would only have had to pay 44% of its costs. Is there any idea that could be more openly opposed to Montgomery’s economic interests than this one?
Two other developments occurred this week on this issue.
1. On September 23, the Baltimore Sun reported that Baltimore County was in negotiations with the state government on accepting partial funding responsibility for teacher pensions:Baltimore County and state officials have talked about various options for sharing the costs, [County Executive spokesman Donald I.] Mohler said. The expense could be shared equally between the county and state. Or the county could begin paying a percentage, or perhaps just the annual increase, which would be $4.6 million a year.
Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith took great exception to this article and released the following statement the next day:Smith Reiterates His Steadfast Opposition to Pension Shift
2. Governor O’Malley told Maryland Moment that he would “rather not” send teacher pensions to the counties. As a former mayor, the Governor has consistently opposed the idea since before the special session. But the Governor is only one player in this process; the Senate and House leaders will have their opinions on the issue too. We recall that the Governor did not suggest the computer tax during the special session but that did not stop the legislature from proposing, passing and ultimately retracting it anyway. We hear that if slots are not approved and out-year deficits project into the hundreds of millions of dollars annually, everything – EVERYTHING – will be on the table.
Shift of Pension Costs to Counties Would Have Dire Ramifications
Towson, MD — Reacting to a recent news story that erroneously reported that Baltimore County was in discussions with state officials regarding the shift of pension costs to local government, Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith issued the following statement:
“I want to make it clear that at no time has Baltimore County entered into any discussions with the state or any state officials regarding transferring the funding of teacher pensions from the state to local governments. Such a shift of pension costs to Baltimore County would result in a $78 million hit to Baltimore County’s budget that would have draconian budget ramifications for county citizens. Let me make it very clear, and my position has been consistent: the shifting of the state’s responsibility for teacher pension costs from the state to local government is wrong and simply unacceptable.
As the President of MACO, I have been pushing for the passage of the slots referendum and its critical funding for education. The discussion of shifting teacher pension costs to local governments makes it clear how important the passage of that referendum will be to county taxpayers.”
Update:
The dust-up between Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith and his spokesman, Donald Mohler, is incredibly revealing. Baltimore Sun reporter Larry Carson quoted Mohler on the record that the county was in discussions with the state over accepting part of the pension liabilities. That no doubt generated some angry phone calls from other County Executives and produced Jim Smith's denial.
But is it true? Mohler had no reason to lie to the Sun. In fact, it is entirely possible that Mohler was not told that the discussions were secret. Carson may be onto a much bigger story than he knows.
So if some counties are negotiating favorable deals with the state - thereby minimizing their liabilities if teacher pensions are passed down - guess who will be left holding the bag?
Thursday, September 25, 2008
MoCo: More Diverse Than You Think
The prior posts in this series have sought to dispel the notion that Montgomery County is universally rich. This post attacks another misconception – that the county is monolithically white. The twin beliefs that Montgomery County is both wealthy and white make it a convenient target for politicians in other parts of the state. Both beliefs are completely wrong.
According to the Census of 2000, Maryland had 5,296,486 residents. Of them, 3.3 million were white non-Hispanic, 1.5 million were black non-Hispanic, 210,000 were Asian non-Hispanic, 104,000 were two or more races and 228,000 were Hispanic (of any race). Foreign-born residents topped half a million. Large percentages of each of the non-white groups lived in Montgomery County. Below we show demographic distributions for the state and its six largest jurisdictions. The column “MoCo Rank” refers to how the county ranks on the number of people in each category when compared to other Maryland counties.
Whites
Montgomery had 16.5% of the state’s total population but only 15.8% of its white population. Even though its total population was 15.8% larger than Baltimore County’s, Montgomery actually had fewer white residents (519,318 vs. 533,980). Montgomery’s white percentage (59.5%) is lower than the state average (62.1%).
Blacks
Montgomery has fewer black residents than Prince George’s County, Baltimore City and Baltimore County. But its black percentage (14.8%) is still higher than the national average (12.1%).
Asians
Forty-seven percent of all Asian residents of Maryland live in Montgomery County. Put another way, more Asians live in Montgomery than in Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Howard County and Prince George’s County combined.
Hispanics
Forty-four percent of all Hispanic residents of Maryland live in Montgomery County. Montgomery’s Hispanic population is nearly equal to the combined Hispanic population of the next five most-populated jurisdictions.
Two or More Races
Again, Montgomery leads the state with 29% of all Maryland multi-racial residents.
Foreign Born
Forty-five percent of all foreign-born residents of Maryland live in Montgomery County, nearly equal to the next five jurisdictions combined. Montgomery leads the state in the number of foreign-born residents from every region of the world.
Non-English Spoken at Home
Forty-one percent of all residents that do not speak English at home live in Montgomery County. The percentages of all state residents who do not speak English who live in Montgomery are highest for Chinese speakers (58%), Arabic speakers (42%), Korean speakers (41%) and Spanish speakers (41%). For each of the eight language groups we examined, Montgomery had more residents than any other jurisdiction in Maryland except for African language speakers (where Prince George’s had a slight lead) and Russian speakers (nearly half of whom lived in Baltimore County).
Again and again, Montgomery County finished first or second (usually first) in terms of the number of minority residents for almost every group we looked at. The data is irrefutable: Montgomery is the most diverse county in Maryland, and possibly one of the most diverse jurisdictions anywhere in the United States.
So dies another myth. And we have killed a number of them recently. In May, we showed how Montgomery County has tremendous income inequality, with the richest neighborhoods enjoying a growing gap with the poorest. In this series, we showed how nominally high incomes in Montgomery are swallowed by high housing and gas prices. We showed one of the consequences of our inability to keep up with the cost of living: foreclosures. And we demonstrated here how Montgomery is far, far more diverse than any other county in Maryland.
We are not all white and wealthy. We are multitudes of different cultures and races, many of whom are struggling to get by just like everyone else.
And it is time for the Lords of Annapolis to relearn everything they think they know about us.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
MoCo Democratic Precinct Captains Vote Against Slots
Tonight, Montgomery County's Democratic precinct captains gathered to cast their votes on whether to recommend slots on the party's sample ballot. Their overwhelming recommendation: NO.
Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee (MCDCC) member and MPW guest blogger Marc Korman described MCDCC's sample ballot recommendation procedure last week. The Central Committee appointed a ballot issue committee to study four issues: early voting, slots, an anti-tax proposal by Robin Ficker and the transgender referendum (which was decided by Maryland's Court of Appeals). The ballot committee recommended supporting early voting and opposing both slots and the Ficker proposal.
Step two was a vote by the Democratic precinct captains, which took place tonight. They voted 112-4 in favor of early voting, 102-2 against Robin Ficker's anti-tax proposal and 97-17 against slots. As of this writing, MCDCC is expected to vote in line with the precinct captains' recommendations, which means all three positions will appear on the party's sample ballot.
It is the slots vote that has the most meaning. The Prince George's Democratic Central Committee voted to remain neutral. But an overwhelming majority of Montgomery's precinct captains - a very important part of the party's grassroots base - voted against the wishes of County Executive Ike Leggett to oppose the slots referendum. That adds to the fact noted by the Examiner's Kathleen Miller that voters in the Washington suburbs oppose slots by a 50-42 margin - the only region in the state to lean in that direction.
Black churches in Prince George's County and MCDCC's sample ballot will now argue against slots in the state's most-heavily Democratic area. Will that be enough to stop the referendum? And will all of this be enough to cause a rift between Montgomery's County Executive and his party faithful?
On Political Pulse
Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett will be on the 'Political Pulse' TV Show on Thursday, September 25th at 9 p.m. and Tuesday, September 30th at 9:30 p.m.
Topics that will be discussed include Mr. Leggett's decision to support the Slots Referendum on the November 4th, 2008 Ballot, the projected County and State budget deficits, transportation and other issues.
Political Pulse is on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County.
Enough With the Commissions!
By Marc Korman.
“Blue-ribbon commissions,” usually bipartisan groups studying a specific problem outside of the normal legislative system, have taken on mythic status in government. Although they have existed at least since the Roberts Commission that investigated Pearl Harbor, their reputation and demand has soared in more recent decades. The premiere examples are the Greenspan Commission on Social Security Reform and the 9/11 Commission.
Undeniably, these commissions can have value in coming up with bipartisan solutions that focus the public, the press, and politicians. But the appointment of a commission can also be a crutch for inaction. The reports these commissions issue usually just gather dust and do nothing to fight chronic inaction on intractable issues. Remember the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform? How about the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission? The National War Powers Commission?
Recently, John McCain called for a bipartisan commission to investigate the current economic crisis. I cannot go online or open a newspaper without reading about the causes of the economic crisis: too much credit and too little oversight. Are there complexities? There sure are, but the Secretary of the Treasury, Council of Economic Advisors, Federal Reserve, Congress and other elected and appointed government officials can perform the investigation needed to figure out legislative solutions. John McCain, should he be elected president, may also want to study up on economics a bit. But the job does not need to be outsourced to a “blue-ribbon commission.”
Maryland is not immune to the trend of over reliance on these commissions. A prominent example is the Thornton Commission on education reform. Task forces are common in the General Assembly as a starting off point for legislative reforms. Now, Comptroller Peter Franchot has hopped on the bandwagon and called for a “blue-ribbon panel” to determine where the state can cut spending. But isn’t that exactly what our state legislators and other elected officials should be doing?
Article VI of the Maryland Constitution defines some of the Comptroller’s duties:The Comptroller shall have the general superintendence of the fiscal affairs of the State; he shall digest and prepare plans for the improvement and management of the revenue, and for the support of the public credit; prepare and report estimates of the revenue and expenditures of the State;
Since that is the Comptroller’s responsibility, perhaps he could start making a few recommendations instead of calling for another panel or commission. If the Comptroller needs some commission provided suggestions, he can take a look at the Commission on Maryland’s Fiscal Structure from 2002 for ideas. But the last thing the situation needs is a new bipartisan panel to kick the can further down the road.
MoCo: Not as Rich as You Think, Part Three
Have you ever heard of zone pricing for gasoline? Under this practice, energy companies, wholesalers and service stations adjust gas prices for shipping costs and a large variety of geographic characteristics, one of which is rumored to be household income for the areas around the stations. This conforms to the basic realities that most of us have noticed in looking for gas. No one drives into wealthy neighborhoods to fill up – we go into relatively poorer areas instead.
And so we launched an empirical investigation: do Montgomery County residents pay more for gas than other Marylanders because their household incomes are greater?
To find out, we consulted Gas Buddy, a website that relies on volunteers to gather gas prices and report them by service station. During the week of 8/30/08-9/5/08, we tracked every price reported on Gas Buddy in Maryland. This database does not cover every service station, but the volunteers collected 2,947 individual price observations all over the state during that week. Below are the average regular gasoline price levels they reported by county:
Garrett County had the highest average price, but Gas Buddy’s volunteers only made 26 observations there over the week – less than four per day. Given the small sample size, it is doubtful that that accurately reflects gas prices there. Montgomery’s average price ($3.63) was easily the highest among the remaining counties and was significantly higher than the state average ($3.50).
Below are the average regular gasoline price levels for every local area with at least 30 observations, along with their average household incomes in 1999:
The four most expensive areas for gas were all in Montgomery County, as were six of the top ten. Was that because the Montgomery areas had higher incomes than other places around the state? Not necessarily. For example, Silver Spring’s average household income ($51,653) was slightly lower than in Catonsville ($53,061). Yet, gas prices were much higher in Silver Spring ($3.62) than in Catonsville ($3.43). Similar inconsistencies show that average household income and gas price do not track each other very well.
In fact, when we ran a simple regression of household income on gas price, our model found that income only explained 27% of the variation in price. In contrast, a simple regression relating location to price found that whether or not a station was located in Montgomery County explained 37% of the variation in price. In other words, for this rather large sample of price data, whether or not a station was located in Montgomery may actually be a more important determinant of its price than the average household income in the surrounding area. In wealthy local areas (like Bethesda) and in less-wealthy areas (like Silver Spring and Aspen Hill), gas in Montgomery costs more than in the rest of the state.
What is driving this? We don’t have enough data to know (so you statistical geeks out there should forget any multi-variate or logit models). One possible cause may be the higher price of real estate in Montgomery than in other counties. Higher land costs, higher mortgages and higher property taxes may be pushing up gas prices here.
But regardless of the reason, the evidence is clear: Montgomery County residents pay more for gas than other Marylanders. Metro offers no relief because it periodically raises fares and parking charges. And higher gas prices, like higher real estate prices, may very well ripple through and push up prices for goods and services throughout the county’s economy.
So if Montgomery County residents make more money only to pay higher prices for housing, gas and everything else, is their living standard really superior to most people in other counties? Except for the wealthiest residents of Montgomery’s richest neighborhoods, the answer may very well be no.
Tomorrow, we will conclude this discussion by taking a hard look at who exactly is paying these high costs of living.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
MoCo: Not as Rich as You Think, Part Two
Because people in Montgomery County are wealthy, they can easily afford big mansions, right? WRONG.
The residential real estate boom started in Montgomery County in the late 1990s, as it did in many other parts of the country. According to Zillow.com, the average market value of a home in Montgomery soared from under $200,000 in 1999 to just over $500,000 in late 2006. The county’s Department of Finance estimates that the average residential sales price topped out at $601,995 in July 2007 before falling to $506,151 in May 2008. These are high prices and steep declines, even for “rich” people to bear.
Montgomery County has long been an attractive place to live, but has had problems generating affordable housing. We have previously explored the inadequacies of the county’s Moderately-Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) program and the unfortunate tendency of its subsidized housing programs to funnel poor people away from transit. But easy money from sham loan programs convinced many people that high housing prices were no barrier to home ownership in Montgomery County. The inevitable result: massive foreclosures.
The Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development’s property foreclosure report for 2008’s second quarter listed foreclosures by county. Montgomery County’s total of 1,314 ranked behind only Prince George’s County (2,853). Montgomery’s total was almost as high as the combined total of Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties. Below is a complete list of foreclosures by county from the report.
Montgomery also had two of the top ten foreclosure “hot spots” ranked by total number of foreclosures and foreclosure rates: zip codes 20874 in Germantown and 20877 in Gaithersburg. Below is a complete list of zip codes in Maryland that recorded at least 50 foreclosures in the second quarter.
The second quarter report credits recent state laws lengthening the foreclosure process with reducing foreclosures by 22% since the first quarter of 2008. That effect has been especially strong in Baltimore City, where foreclosures dropped from 1,654 in the first quarter to 832 in the second quarter (down 40%). Montgomery’s foreclosures decreased from 1,646 to 1,314, a more modest drop of 20%. Clearly this county’s foreclosure problem is far from over.
The foreclosure data reinforces a fundamental truth we revealed in Part One: high incomes in nominal dollar terms do not compensate for higher costs faced by Montgomery County residents. In the housing market, that fact contributed to economic pain unsurpassed by the vast majority of the “poorer” counties in Maryland. This is not evidence of wealth – it is evidence of overburdened Montgomery home budgets that is ignored by politicians from elsewhere in the state.
But it does not end here. Tomorrow we examine gas prices.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Is Franchot Out-Hustling O’Malley for the Black Vote?
One of the most-practiced parlor games in Annapolis is placing bets on whether Comptroller Peter Franchot will dare to challenge Governor Martin O’Malley in 2010. If the Comptroller does take the plunge, he may take a lot of black voters with him.
One of the biggest battles in the last general session concerned a proposal by the Governor to collect DNA samples from criminal suspects. The Legislative Black Caucus and civil libertarians protested the idea, claiming that black defendants would be disproportionately targeted. So the Governor struck a deal with them: the bill would be amended to provide for DNA collection only upon indictment, and samples would be expunged if defendants were found not guilty.
But the Legislative Black Caucus and their allies are now charging that the administration’s regulations are weakening their compromise on the bill, especially by not explicitly addressing removal of innocent suspects’ DNA from federal databases. Senator Verna Jones (D-44) of Baltimore issued this unusually strong statement to the Sun: “I am really challenging the O'Malley administration to come forth and put their cards on the table,” said Sen. Verna L. Jones, a Baltimore Democrat and caucus member. “If they were not going to be fair and aboveboard with us, they should not have been in negotiations with us just to make sure that legislation got passed.”
In the meantime, the Comptroller is strengthening his relationships in the black community through his battle against slots. He has been urging black churches to do everything in their power to defeat the referendum, throwing them strong stuff such as: Put it in the church bulletins and fliers, talk to your family members ... so we can take back control of our destiny and vote, “No!”
If that was not enough, the Comptroller lobbed this tidbit to a conference of church leaders in Prince George’s last week: “We see what comes out of Annapolis,” Franchot said. “We know we can't trust them.”
Who is “them,” Mr. Comptroller? The Democratic Party? Its leadership? Or maybe, just maybe... its sitting Governor?
MoCo: Not as Rich as You Think, Part One
When our state legislators go to Annapolis and look for adequate funding for our schools and transportation facilities, they confront a common attitude from the rest of the state. “You guys in Montgomery County are rich,” a legislator from another area will likely say. “You’ve got more money than you know what to do with. We’re the ones with needs.”
It may be true that there are needs across the state. But the conventional wisdom that Montgomery County is universally wealthy is DEAD WRONG. In this series, you will find out that we are not as rich as you think.
It is true that Montgomery County has a high median household income in nominal terms. The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey estimates a variety of economic data for 16 of Maryland’s 24 counties (including Baltimore City) for 2006. (Caroline, Dorchester, Garrett, Kent, Queen Anne’s, Somerset, Talbot and Worcester Counties had 2000 populations of under 50,000 and their small size probably prevented reliable mid-term estimates). Of those 16 counties, Montgomery’s median household income ($87,624) was higher in 2006 than any other county except Howard ($94,260). In fact, Montgomery’s household income was 35% higher than the state’s. This would seem to support the view that we are rich.
But the factor people miss when they look at household incomes alone is that Maryland’s counties have wildly varying costs of living. This is particularly true of Montgomery, a jurisdiction in which many people work but cannot afford to live. One of the biggest determinants of the cost of living is the cost of housing. Below are the median home values for each of the 16 counties tracked by Census in 2006. Montgomery’s median home value ($527,700) is 58% higher than the state average ($334,700).
For those who have lived in Montgomery a long time and no longer have mortgages, high home values can be a substantial addition to wealth. (Set aside the higher property taxes they create.) But for those with mortgages, higher home values mean higher servicing costs. Below are median monthly housing costs, including mortgage payments, for the 16 counties tracked by Census in 2006. Montgomery is the leader ($2,285 per month), followed by Howard ($2,103).
So Montgomery has higher household incomes, higher home values and higher housing costs than the rest of the state (with Howard as a partial exception). How do those components balance? In the chart below, we calculate median monthly housing costs as a percentage of median household income by county in 2006.
The data above shows that 31% of median pre-tax household income goes to pay for housing in Montgomery County. Only Baltimore City (38%), Prince George’s (34%) and Allegany (34%) rank higher. The other 12 counties tracked by Census all rank lower with Howard – the richest county in nominal terms – at the bottom.
This data illustrates what every resident of Montgomery County knows and is not commonly appreciated in other parts of the state: a dollar does not go far here. Montgomery’s proximity to the nation’s capital combined with its quality schools and modest crime pushes up the price of its real estate, and through it, nearly everything else. Yes, people here have higher incomes in nominal terms, but many here need those incomes to maintain middle-class living standards. For a lot of people in the county, this is not real wealth – it is the illusion of wealth, but one that is believed by politicians from elsewhere in the state.
Tomorrow we will begin to explore the consequences of that illusion.
Montgomery County Council Members to Co-Sponsor Town Hall Meeting on Iraq
From PeaceAction Montgomery.
What is the Iraq war costing you? What can local government do? What is the Montgomery County Peace Resolution?
These questions will be discussed at a Town Hall Meeting on Sept. 22 entitled "Can Montgomery County Help End the War?"
County Executive Isiah Leggett will moderate, and speakers will include Columbia University economist Dr. Brendan O'Flaherty and Institute for Policy Studies Fellow Karen Dolan.
Cosponsors of the forum include County Council members Valerie Ervin, Nancy Floreen, George Leventhal, Duchy Trachtenberg, and Marc Elrich.
In addition to the huge loss of life and the enormous toll of injuries, the Iraq war is one of the costliest in our nation's history in economic terms. These costs are being felt at the local level, and they need to be understood for what they are.
Everyone is invited to this Town Hall Meeting, which will be held Monday, Sept. 22, 7-9 p.m., Germantown campus of Montgomery College, Globe Hall, 20200 Observation Dr., Germantown.
This event is sponsored by PeaceAction Montgomery, Montgomery College Peace and Justice Studies Community, Pax Christi Montgomery, Progressive Maryland, Montgomery County Government Employees Organization, DC Region Veterans for Peace, Social Justice Committee of UUCR, Progressive Neighbors of Montgomery County, Network of Spiritual progressives of MD, RRUUC Peace Action Task Force, Episcopal Peace Fellowship (MD/DC), and Maryland United for Peace and Justice.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
The State of Working Maryland 2008
The central findings in Progressive Maryland's new report are:
1. Rising productivity since the mid-1990s has not lead to significant gains in real wages.
2. Income inequality persists as only earners in the 90th percentile have seen any wage increases.
3. 251,000 fewer Marylanders have health insurance than in 2001.
4. The unionized percentage of the state's workforce continues to fall.
All week long, we have seen the Bush administration increase the size of its bailout to Wall Street. What about the rest of us?
MPW on the Radio
Rockville Central Radio interviewed me on Friday about Ike Leggett and slots, the state's transportation cuts and our recent series on the Gazette. If you can stand hearing any more from me than you already do, start at the 18 minute mark on the show stored here.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
MPW Passes 100,000 Visits
Yesterday, Maryland Politics Watch surpassed 100,000 visits. To our knowledge, only seven other Maryland blogs - Red Maryland, Inside Charm City, Pillage Idiot, Rethink College Park, Howard County, Baltimore Reporter and Teach the Facts Vigilance - have broken that threshold. We know that some of you like our material, some of you hate our material and some of you change your opinion on a daily basis. But no matter how you feel about our content, we thank you for reading.
Alan Banov Runs for President
Not content with his current position as the Vice-Chairman of the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee, Alan Banov has mounted an insurgent campaign for the U.S. Presidency. Exclusive coverage of this breaking news story can be found here.
Friday, September 19, 2008
On Ike Leggett and Slots
And so it has finally come to pass: County Executive Ike Leggett has announced his intention to vote in favor of the slots referendum. This may not have a huge impact on the referendum’s chances, but it could very well have a significant impact on the future of the County Executive.
Why did Mr. Leggett switch his position to support slots? There are three reasons: the budget, the budget and the budget. Regular readers know that we have been following both the state and county budgets and the situation is grim. Montgomery County closed a $297 million gap this year and faces another $250 million gap next year. The state’s deficit could be as high as one billion dollars. While the slots referendum, if passed, would not generate any money next year, its importance looms in the out years. Back in April, we reported that state budget analysts estimated structural deficits of at least $600 million per year, every year, from fiscal 2012 on if slots did not pass.
Now while the County Executive does not manage the state’s budget, state aid is an important component of every county’s budget. Next spring, the General Assembly will be considering cuts in aid to the counties. Mr. Leggett is calculating that if the slots referendum fails and Montgomery County is blamed, it will be targeted by the Lords of Annapolis (and especially by rabid slots supporter Mike Miller) for a disproportionate share of cuts. For example, if the legislature passes down teacher pension funding obligations to the counties, that will combine with Montgomery’s existing problems to create a county deficit of close to 10% of its budget. It is impossible to overstate the devastating impact such a deficit would have on county services. Mr. Leggett is seeking to escape that fate along with the resulting political consequences.
Now Mr. Leggett may have little influence over the voters’ decision on slots. The introduction of slot machines to Maryland is not a complicated issue and voters do not need anyone to explain it. Many view slots as morally wrong. Many others view slots as preferable to tax increases. Will endorsements from politicians, one way or the other, really affect their thinking? Probably not.
As we reported earlier this week, the Washington suburbs are currently the only part of the state in which poll respondents lean against slots. This creates some political risk for Mr. Leggett. But that may underestimate his potential problems. Among Democratic Party political activists – the people who contribute time and money to campaigns, and work hard to elect candidates – slots are HUGELY unpopular. Mr. Leggett will no doubt be paying close attention to the slots recommendation of Democratic precinct captains next week, which will likely determine MCDCC’s sample ballot recommendation. Smart money is betting on fierce opposition to slots from the county’s liberal grassroots. And what will those people think now about their pro-slots County Executive?
Regardless of whether you agree with Mr. Leggett, he deserves credit for his honesty on the issue. Back in May, we revealed just how few politicians were campaigning against slots, even among those who voted against the referendum during the special session. Many of them privately hope that the referendum will pass so that they do not have to face a budget apocalypse so close to the next election year (2010). Mr. Leggett could easily have hidden under his desk with the rest of these politicians, but he chose to take a stand.
Some time ago, I asked a prominent office holder who was a longtime slots opponent about voting on the referendum. After much hemming and hawing, this individual finally sighed, “I am voting for slots, but don’t tell anybody I said that.” Many, many politicians in Montgomery County – perhaps even a majority of them – hold this secret opinion. At least Mr. Leggett’s opinion is now out in the open.
Update: Eric Luedtke's reaction is just a taste of what Mr. Leggett has coming.
O’Malley Staffer Joins Anti-Union Lobbying Firm, Part Two
In Part One, we described the powerful position of soon-to-be former O’Malley labor liaison Sean Malone and the lobbying activities of his new employer, Lisa Harris Jones. Today, we describe how those things came together in favor of Malone and against one of O’Malley’s biggest backers in 2006 – organized labor.
Mrs. Jones was employed by the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), a virulently anti-union trade association, to lobby on HB 1590 last spring. The bill’s intent was to crack down on worker misclassification, a common tax-scam practice in the construction industry. I described how the scam works in a blog post last year: Under state and federal tax laws, workers are supposed to be classified as employees when they operate under an employer’s direction (such as under established hours of work), use tools and equipment owned by the employer and do not bear business risk. Employers are required to withhold income, Social Security and Medicare taxes and pay premiums for workers compensation and unemployment insurance for their employees. However, many employers misclassify workers as independent contractors and pay none of the above. Workers may (or may not) receive Form 1099 to report income as independent contractors, but these forms are often discarded. This problem is especially severe in construction but also afflicts trucking, janitorial services and other industries.
At the time I wrote the above, I argued for a crackdown on misclassification to be included in the 2007 special session’s package. After all, if the state was raising taxes on working people (through the sales tax hike) and on legitimate businesses (through the corporate income tax hike), why not go after tax cheats first? But the General Assembly was uninterested and the issue was punted to 2008.
Employers have a huge incentive to misclassify. FICA payments (Social Security and Medicare) account for 7.65% of an employer’s payroll costs. In Maryland, state unemployment insurance premiums average 7.5% of payroll. Workers compensation premiums can range into the double digits depending on the occupation. All told, cheating contractors can shave 16% off their labor costs – not including workers compensation – when they misclassify. That is a huge advantage in an ultra-competitive industry like construction. Law-abiding employers face a grim choice between holding the line on compensation, cheating themselves or leaving the industry entirely.
State governments can lose massive amounts of unemployment insurance premiums and income taxes due to misclassification. A 2004 Harvard study found that Massachusetts was losing $12.6-35 million per year in unemployment insurance premiums and $91-152 million per year in income taxes. A 2006 University of Missouri-Kansas City study found that Illinois lost $53.7 million in unemployment insurance premiums and $149-248 million in income taxes in 2005. A 2007 Cornell University study found that New York was losing $176 million in unemployment insurance premiums alone per year.
HB 1590 was a bill put forward by the state’s Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation last spring after another anti-misclassification bill failed to move. That’s right, this was the administration’s own bill. But Mrs. Jones lobbied against it and the bill was killed on an 18-3 vote by the House Economic Matters Committee. What made her so effective? According to multiple sources, one factor in her favor was her "very close friendship" with none other than the Governor's labor liaison, Sean Malone.
In July, Malone had a lunch meeting with several labor leaders and discussed the administration’s position on the misclassification bill. Malone informed the attendees that they needed to negotiate any bill on misclassification with the ABC – a statement akin to telling the NAACP that they needed to clear their priorities with the Ku Klux Klan. Why? Because, according to Malone, the administration represented both the ABC and labor.
Had Malone forgotten the fact that labor pulled out all the stops to get Martin O'Malley elected while the ABC was an ally of Governor Ehrlich? Had Malone forgotten the fact that one of his chief duties as the Governor's aide was to promote the administration's own bills? And now, just two months later, Malone is taking a job with Mrs. Jones' lobbying firm, which is financed by the ABC.
No one can prove what Sean Malone did or did not do on the misclassification bill – a piece of legislation submitted by Labor Secretary Tom Perez. And no one can prove what understanding, if any, Mrs. Jones had with Malone as the bill progressed last spring. But the fact is that a bill that would have recaptured millions of dollars for taxpayers by going after tax cheats did not get out of committee. And the fact is that America’s worst anti-union trade association financed the effort to kill the bill. And the fact is that the Governor's labor liaison will be a richer man tomorrow while one of labor’s top priorities – an administration bill – languishes in limbo.
Does the Governor know about any of this?
There is one chance for a silver lining. With Malone’s departure, the Governor has an opportunity to appoint a successor who will treat labor – one of his biggest supporters in 2006 – with fairness and respect. Will he take it?
Disclosure: While the author is the Assistant to the General President of the Carpenters Union, this post is not an official statement on behalf of the union.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Gilchrist Endorses Obama
From The Politico:Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, a maverick Republican from Maryland, endorsed Illinois Democratic Sen. Barack Obama for president in an interview Wednesday with WYPR, Baltimore's National Public Radio station.
Thanks to Marc Korman for the link.
Gilchrest, who lost a primary campaign and is retiring from Congress, has already endorsed the Democrat running for his seat, Frank Kratovil. Justifying his endorsement of Obama, Gilchrest said that "we can't use four more years of the same kind of policy that's somewhat haphazard, which leads to recklessness."
Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), "have the breadth of experience. I think they're prudent. They're knowledgable."
Gilchrest's reference to prudence may be an allusion to a widely-circulated op-ed written by conservative David Brooks, who questioned whether Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had the necessary wisdom and prudence.
Problem with Daily Kos Tracking Poll?
If you're among the poll obsessed like me and click for the latest polls several times a day at Pollster.com and Real Clear Politics, you may have noticed that the Daily Kos tracking poll appears the most favorable to Obama.
Today, the tracking poll, conducted by Research 2000, has Obama leading McCain 49-43, or by 6 points. In contrast Gallup Tracking has Obama up by four points, as does Diageo/the Hotline (.pdf file). The Rasmussan tracking poll has the race as a tie. One tracking poll even has McCain up by 2 points, though I can't tell if this is just for the Battleground states or not.
One might be quick to say that the difference between the Kos/R2K poll and the others is within the margin of error--and you'd be right. On the other hand, the Kos/R2K poll has consistently favored Obama over the past few days.
Kos laudably releases the internals of the poll which show the demographic composition of the poll. I was surprised to see that Latinos comprise 13 percent of the sample. Now, Latinos compose around 13 percent of the population, so you might say that makes sense.
However, many Latinos are non-citizens. The share of non-citizens is especially high among the voting-age population. A much higher share of Latinos not of voting age are citizens because they were born in the U.S., and thus are citizens by right under our Constitution even if their parents are not.
Latinos skew around 2-1 for Obama, so including too high a share of Latinos might skew the survey in favor of Obama and against McCain. I don't know what share Latinos compose in many other polls--it's 8% in the tracking poll which favors McCain. I'd be curious to hear from people with more thoughts or information on this point.
Update: Two top experts in Latino politics have told me that Latinos will probably compose around 8 percent of the electorate, confirming my sense that the share of Latinos in the Daily Kos poll is too high.
Diebold Blues
More heartening information about our voting machines in today's Washington Post:Premier Election Solutions, the company that makes many of the nation's voting machines, last month acknowledged that software used in 34 states, including Virginia and Maryland, could cause votes to be dropped. The company, formerly called Diebold, said it has no fix for the problem now, but election officials can catch the errors and recover the votes through a routine process of double-checking electronic memory cards.
O’Malley Staffer Joins Anti-Union Lobbying Firm, Part One
Maryland Moment, the Sun, the Gazette and PolitickerMD reported on the hiring of Sean Malone, the Governor’s Deputy Legislative Officer, by lobbying firm Harris Jones LLC. But they all completely missed the real story – a story that is once again straining the Governor's relationship with labor.
Sean Malone has been a close advisor to Martin O’Malley ever since O’Malley was a member of the Baltimore City Council. He rose with O’Malley through the city and state governments, becoming a legal counsel to the Baltimore police department, Baltimore's labor commissioner, and eventually the new Governor’s labor liaison. But Malone was even more than that – he was a member of the Governor’s tight, protective inner circle. That made Sean Malone a powerful figure in Annapolis.
Lisa Harris Jones is the owner of Harris Jones LLC, an Annapolis lobbying firm. Her client list includes the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), one of the most anti-union trade associations in the United States. As the above sources reported, Sean Malone is Harris Jones LLC’s newest employee.
In a lobbying disclosure filing covering January 21, 2008 to April 30, 2008, Mrs. Jones reported that she accepted $18,200 from the ABC to lobby on three bills, none of which passed: HB 1590, SB 958 and SB 995. SB 958 would have expanded the coverage of the state prevailing wage law to all projects funded by at least $500,000 in state money. The bill would have provided a meaningful extension in labor protections and that, of course, is anathema to anti-union contractors. SB 995 is described as, “Authorizing a procurement officer to disclose specified information for the purpose of encouraging minority business enterprise participation on construction projects under specified circumstances.”
But it is Mrs. Jones’ work on HB 1590, a bill that would have cracked down on worker misclassification, that is the issue here. And from that flows the good fortune of Sean Malone and the wrath of labor. More tomorrow in Part Two.
Disclosure: While the author is the Assistant to the General President of the Carpenters Union, this post is not an official statement on behalf of the union.
On Political Pulse
Valerie Ervin, Montgomery County Council-Member (Democrat, District 5) and Mary Kane, Secretary of State under Governor Robert Ehrlich (Republican), will be on 'Political Pulse' on Thursday, September 18th at 9p.m. and Tuesday, September 23rd at 9:30 p.m. to discuss:
The Sarah Palin VP pick, Hillary Clinton and the 2008 Presidential Race.
Political Pulse is on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Right Wing Distorts O’Malley’s Record on Jobs
Red Maryland blogger G.A. Harrison claimed last week that Maryland has lost over 2,500 jobs under Governor O’Malley. But that statement is a gross distortion with little basis in fact.
Harrison cites Republican consultant Ted Pibil, who estimates that 2,533 employees have been laid off since the Governor took office. But this ignores the fundamental churning in the labor market: workers are constantly laid off in good times and in bad. The key statistic is net job creation, which is the total number of new jobs minus the number of terminations. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics – commonly recognized as a more trustworthy source of economic data than GOP consultants – seasonally adjusted employment in Maryland has grown from 2,604,800 in January 2007 to a preliminary total of 2,637,600 in July 2008. In other words, net employment has risen by 32,800 during Governor O’Malley’s time in office.
Now we do not deny that the economy is in rough shape. Foreclosures are up, state budget deficits are stubborn and gas prices are high. Those factors could yet drive down the state's job performance. But there is a fundamental truth that all politicians admit privately and none will say publicly: politicians often get too much credit when the economy does well and too much blame when it does badly. That applies to Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Bob Ehrlich, Martin O’Malley and everyone else. The real test of a politician’s mettle is whether their policies tend to promote or discourage job creation and income growth. That is a worthy subject of debate on which people can disagree in good faith.
But first, we should argue from facts. Red Maryland leader Brian Griffiths, after debunking a number of rumor-filled blog postings, once lamented: Is fact-finding really that hard to do in the blogosphere these days? Passing on such bunk in lieu of thoughtful reporting or commentary is not constructive, and really brings the entire Maryland blogosphere down, with good blogs and bloggers getting lumped in with stuff like this. I just wish people would take more care before they post "true stories" that are easily debunked in two minutes since it hurts the credibility of the entire blogosphere...
Griffiths has a point. And Harrison can follow his recommendation by seeking statistics from bona fide statistical agencies rather than Republican consultants.
MCDCC's Sample Ballot
By Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee (MCDCC) member Marc Korman.
A recent Maryland Moment post announced that the Prince George’s County Democratic Central Committee has taken no position on the slots (sorry, video lottery terminals) question on the ballot in November. As MPW’s resident Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee (MCDCC) member, I thought I would share how the recommendation process works in our county. Why does it matter? Because the recommendation of the Central Committee is what gets printed on the Party’s sample ballot, which is mailed to the approximately 250,000 registered Democrats in Montgomery County.
The Process So Far
Back in April, I posted information about how to apply for the MCDCC Ballot Advisory Committee. MCDCC appointed the Committee members in May, appointing all fourteen applicants (one of whom later withdrew).
Below is the name of each member and some information about them. The information is not meant to be exhaustive:
1. Elliot Chabot-District 19 MCDCC member and chair of the Ballot Advisory Committee.
2. Stan Boyd-District 20 precinct official.
3. Doug Canter-President of the D16 Democratic Club and precinct official.
4. Lora Drezner-District 15 precinct official.
5. Elihu Eli El-District 20 precinct official.
6. Dolly Kildee-Distirct 17 precinct official.
7. Eric Luedtke-District 14 precinct official.
8. Judy Stout-District 39 precinct official.
9. David Kipping-District 19 precinct official.
10. Rosalind Kipping-District 19 precinct official.
11. Esther Gelman-Former County Council and Planning Board member.
12. David Scull-Former County Council and General Assembly member.
13. Veronica Sheets-District 20 resident.
14. Luis Zapata-Organizer for several campaigns.
The Committee met over the summer, deliberating and exchanging thoughts on the ballot questions both at those meetings and through other means. On September 2nd, they held a three and a half hour public hearing, allowing members of the community to share their views on the important issues at stake. I attended the hearing, which featured testimony from elected officials, community leaders, and others, primarily on the transgender referendum (since removed from the ballot by court order) and slots.
Following the public hearing, the committee deliberated further and came up with recommendations on each of the ballot questions in a detailed report. Their recommendations on the most consequential ballot questions were:
Early Voting- Support
Video Lottery Terminals/Slots-Oppose
Enactment of Transgender Non-Discrimination-Support
Charter Limit Override Votes Increase (Ficker Amendment)-Oppose
What Happens Next
The Ballot Advisory Committee recommendations are forwarded to the Montgomery County Democratic Precinct organization, which consists of a chair and vice chair for each of the approximately 250 electoral precincts in Montgomery County. Later in September, the precinct officials will take a position on each of the ballot questions by vote.
Following the precinct officials’ meeting, MCDCC votes on each of the ballot questions. If MCDCC’s position on a question is the same as the precinct officials, that is the position of the party. If MCDCC disagrees, then the party takes no position by default, meaning they are neutral. I have been told that since MCDCC adopted that policy a decade ago, they have never disagreed with the recommendations of the precinct officials.
Why Does It Matter?
It matters because the Democratic sample ballot will have the party’s positions on it. That ballot is mailed to 250,000 registered Democrats in the County and is available outside the polls on Election Day. It will not determine how every Democrat votes, but it can be influential.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Are You Kidding Me?
New Senate Minority Leader Allan Kittleman (R-9) issued an amazing statement today decrying the Governor’s upcoming spending cuts. You have to read this to believe it.
According to PolitickerMD, Kittleman said this about the cuts:Governor O'Malley's proposal to now cut one-quarter billion dollars from a budget only three months old will wreak havoc to state employees and those who depend upon state services for their livelihood.
Many liberals might agree with such a statement. The problem is that Allan Kittleman himself would disagree with it – at least, before he apparently became a liberal.
Way back in 2002, when Kittleman was running for a Howard County Council seat, he offered this view on government spending to The Business Monthly: I support a smaller government that lives within its means. I firmly oppose increasing property or income tax rates. I would make up budget shortfalls by reducing expenditures in areas that are not primary functions of government and by eliminating government waste.
Once he was in the Maryland Senate, Kittleman opposed the special session’s tax increases and advocated spending restraint. Capital News Service reported his views before the special session began:Kittleman said Maryland has “a spending problem, not a revenue problem,” noting that state revenues continue to increase "1 to 2 percent a year.
Kittleman advocated spending restraint again according to the Baltimore Daily Record:
The Senate minority whip believes the state should simply limit its spending to the receipts it collects.
“If you can't afford your mortgage, don't build a garage,” he said.Republicans on Tuesday called for O'Malley to revisit local aid when dealing with the budget deficit. Senate Minority Whip Allan H. Kittleman, R-Carroll and Howard, said the deficit could be solved by slowing state spending increases.
Kittleman then joined a lawsuit to overturn the special session’s tax package that was subsequently thrown out. One of the principle objections by the plaintiffs to the special session, of course, was that it focused on tax increases and not on spending cuts.
“We can frankly resolve this problem not by having tax increases and not by cutting any programs,” he said.
After all this, Kittleman is now worried that spending cuts will “wreak havoc to state employees and those who depend upon state services for their livelihood.” So is the Senate Minority Leader a liberal, a conservative or someone who cannot make up his mind? You decide!
More on the Latest Maryland Poll
Here are a few interesting findings from the latest poll by Gonzales Research that have not been widely reported.
1. The Governor's rebound in approval rating from 37% in March to 45% in September is due almost entirely to Democrats. Their approval for him rose from 48% in March to 59% in September, an 11 point gain. Approval from independents went up by 7 points (39% to 46%), but that is within the poll's margin of error of 3.5 points.
2. The Governor's approval ratings vary substantially based on demographics. Men disapprove of his performance by 43%-41%, while women approve by 49%-27%. Whites approve of his performance by 43%-40% while African-Americans approve by 51%-20%. The results for men and whites fall within the margin of error, so the Governor's net approval rating - currently 45% approval against 35% disapproval - is entirely dependent on women and African-Americans.
3. While the poll finds that slots support went from 54%-38% in favor in January to 49%-43% in favor in September, almost every region of the state still leans towards slots. The Washington suburbs, defined as Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, are the sole exception with 42% supporting slots vs. 50% against.
That could make the sample ballots released by the the two counties' Democratic Central Committees crucially important to the upcoming slots referendum. The Prince George's Central Committee voted to remain neutral. The Montgomery Central Committee will vote on a slots recommendation on September 24.
Tomorrow, MPW guest blogger and Montgomery Central Committee member Marc Korman will detail exactly how their recommendation voting process works.
Monday, September 15, 2008
County Council Gets the News on Transportation Cuts
The County Council’s Transportation & Environment Committee, comprised of Chairwoman Nancy Floreen and Council Members George Leventhal and Roger Berliner, was informed about the state’s transportation cuts this morning. Their reaction was not pretty.
Deputy Council Staff Director Glenn Orlin analyzed the cut list, which is included in the committee packet. There was broad agreement that the O’Malley administration had spread the pain around on the road projects. In general, the most recently added projects were the most likely to be cut. But the real sticking point was on the administration’s treatment of the state’s three major transit projects, which I chronicled this morning.
All three Council Members zeroed in on the Governor’s ranking of Baltimore’s Red Line over the Montgomery-Prince George’s Purple Line and Montgomery’s Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT). That prioritization can be easily seen by the fact that the Red Line’s programmed funding (now $221 million) is greater than the combined funding for the Purple Line ($106 million) and the CCT ($48 million). But it goes further than that. The Ehrlich administration programmed Red Line funding of $80 million for right-of-way acquisition and $55 million for construction – decisions upheld by the current administration – while the two Montgomery projects are only funded for planning and engineering. According to the Director of Montgomery’s Department of Transportation (MCDOT), that sends a clear signal to the federal government: the state is more serious about funding the Red Line than the other two projects.
And there is more. MCDOT reports that the Purple Line’s per-passenger cost varies from $14.30 (for the cheapest bus-rapid transit option) to $23.70 (for high-investment light rail). The CCT’s per-passenger cost varies from $18.25 to $32. The Red Line’s per-passenger cost varies from $18.10 to $62(!) The cost effectiveness threshold used as a rule of thumb by the U.S. Department of Transportation is $23.99, making many Red Line alignments ineligible for federal funding. Nevertheless, the O’Malley administration is advancing the Red Line over the other two projects.
That provoked quite a reaction from the Council Members. Mr. Berliner deplored the budgeting of right-of-way and construction money for the Red Line even before federal approval, saying the funding should be deployed to BRAC improvements on Wisconsin Avenue instead. (BRAC funding in Bethesda was cut by $15.9 million, but BRAC funding in Fort Meade and Aberdeen was cut by similar amounts.) Mr. Leventhal questioned “a policy of advantaging one project over two others.” And Ms. Floreen declared the entire situation to be “intolerable.”
The evaporation of state funding is causing the Council to consider financing more state projects from county bonds backed by liquor profits, a practice that began in 2006. The movement of state projects in Montgomery County is so glacial that the county’s number one state construction request, a grade separation of the Georgia Avenue-Randolph Road interchange, is not scheduled for completion until fiscal year 2019. If that is the case for the county’s top-ranked project, how long do the trembling residents crossing the Intersection of Death have to wait for relief?
The County Council and the County Executive will probably write to the Governor asking for him to explain the disparate treatment of the state’s three transit lines. And they will have to consider which state projects should be accelerated by county funding – a practice that, in a perfect world, they would never have to do. But all the county government can do is mitigate the damage of state cuts, an exercise it will probably have to repeat when the General Assembly reconvenes to discuss next year’s state operating budget.
The real holders of leverage over the state are the members of Montgomery’s statehouse delegation. They are the largest geographic bloc in the legislature and it is time for them to work together to ensure that Montgomery’s transportation needs are not downgraded below other jurisdictions. As a transportation activist myself, I cannot describe how profoundly discouraging it is to be told that meaningful action on state projects is more than a decade away even on relatively small projects. How much longer must we wait?
Update: The Examiner's Kathleen Miller has more.
O’Malley: Baltimore Transit Comes First
Buried in the details of the state’s recent $1.1 billion cut to transportation spending is a crucial fact: the O’Malley administration has decided that Baltimore’s Red Line is a higher priority than either of Montgomery County’s proposed new transit lines.
Of course, this is not obvious from Secretary of Transportation John Porcari’s press release, which states, “The Baltimore Red Line and both the Purple Line and the Corridor Cities Transitway in the Washington region remain on track. Funding levels will allow each project to be ready to compete in the federal New Starts transit program next spring.” But the prioritization of the Red Line can be seen in the revised project list released by the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT).
The state’s Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP) is a six-year capital spending plan that is updated annually. All projects are assigned spending levels in each of the relevant years and in functional categories including planning, engineering, right-of-way and construction. In January 2008, the CTP was updated to include new money approved by the General Assembly after the special session. At that time, the spending plans for Baltimore’s Red Line, Montgomery-Prince George’s Counties’ Purple Line and Montgomery’s Corridor Cities Transitway were:
The numbers above clearly show that even before last week’s cuts, the Red Line was due to receive more money than the Purple Line and the CCT combined. And unlike the Montgomery projects, the Red Line was budgeted for both right-of-way acquisition and actual construction.
The newly revised project list made the following cuts in total spending on the three transit lines. Negative numbers indicate increases.
Under the state’s revised plan, the Red Line would actually get a spending increase of $8,928,000 through 2012. It would take a cut of $41.57 million in 2013 before getting an increase of $15 million in 2014. The Purple Line would get a spending increase of $763,000 in 2009-2010 before taking big cuts starting in 2011. The CCT would get an increase of $207,000 in 2009 before receiving cuts from 2010 on.
The chart below shows the new spending plan after taking into account last week’s announced cuts:
The cut percentages for the three lines are 7% for the Red Line, 19% for the Purple Line and 47% for the CCT. These percentages as well as the distribution of funds from 2010 through 2013 point to an inescapable conclusion: the O’Malley administration has determined that the Red Line will come first, the Purple Line will come second and the CCT, with nearly half its funding eliminated, may never come at all.
During the special session, the O’Malley administration promised the Montgomery County statehouse delegation $55 million for school construction – an amount that was subsequently cut to $46.3 million. Also at that time, the administration promised funding support for transit in Montgomery County. While the state transportation revenue shortfall made cuts necessary, the above data shows that those cuts are falling disproportionately on Montgomery's transit projects despite the administration’s assurances.
Now, what will be the response from the Montgomery County delegation?
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Chevy Chase Town Council Meeting
The Chevy Chase Town Council met on Wednesday night. The executive session to discuss the acquisition of property began at 6:30 and the regular session began at 7:00pm.
Public Comment: A group of B-CC students spoke during the public comments period to ask the Town to set aside space for a skate park.
Variances: The Town Council unanimously approved two variances for the Thomas home at 3903 Thornapple St. and 4208 Rosemary St.
Hearings and Council Actions: The Town Council held four public hearings on one resolution and three ordinances. No one testified regarding a resolution to confirm existing permit parking areas within the Town which was passed unanimously by the Council.
Passage of a New Ordinance to Make It Easier to Replace Walls and Fences: The Council passed two ordinances to allow residents to replace existing fences and walls in their front yard and adjoining public right-of-way without having to go through the full variance process. Instead, residents will now be able to obtain an administrative variance from the town manager and mayor.
Time Limits on Variances: No one testified at the hearing on the new ordinance to impose time limits on new variances. The ordinance requires residents to obtain a permit or request an extension of the variance within one year of receipt of a variance. The Town Manager and Mayor have broad discretion to provide extensions of both variances and permits. The new time limit will be written into variance decisions as well as the Town Code in order to make sure residents have proper notice. The new ordinance was approved on a 4-1 vote with Councilmembers Barnes, Enelow, Lublin, and Strom voting in favor and Councilmember Lang opposed.
Introduction of a New Sign Ordinance: The Town Council introduced unanimously an ordinance to amend the existing portions of Town Code which regulate the display of signs. The existing ordinance appears to violate the First Amendment. As under current rules, the new proposal would prohibit signs in the Town right-of-way except for signs placed temporarily for directional purposes. A hearing on the proposal will be held at a future Council meeting. The proposal can be found online at:
http://www.townofchevychase.org/assets/documents/pdfs/ordinances/2008/signs.pdf
Contribution to Ellen's Run: The Council agreed unanimously to donate $1000 to Ellen’s Run.
Town Elections: The Election Board—Costis Toregas, Bren Lizzio, and Hope Pinkerton—made a presentation about election processes in the Town. The Council complimented the Board on improvements to the process in the 2008 election, and approved their recommendation that the Town continue to employ the League of Women Voters to assist with Town elections. The Board explained that employment of the League made possible the substantial extension of voting hours and increased professionalism.
Strategic Plan: Pat Burda and Bridget Hartman gave an update on the Strategic Plan, explaining that many of the Plan’s goals had been accomplished in a relatively short time. Town Manager Todd Hoffman has kept track of progress.
Climate Protection: The Town Council scheduled a work session with the Climate Protection Committee on the Climate Protection Plan for November 6th at 7pm.
Parks and Playgrounds: The Town Council accepted Councilmember Linna Barnes’s recommendation that the Town set up a Parks and Playgrounds Commission as part of its effort to promote play and playgrounds in the Town and obtain designation as “a playful Town”. The Town Manager reported that a memo of understanding had just been signed which will assure that the Leland Center playground is redone in the near future. The County is contributing funds in addition to the $30,000 donated by the Town.
Public Safety: I reported to the Council on the meeting held by the Town Manager and myself with the Bethesda Police Commander on both communication issues and concerns regarding safety, especially in the parks and recent thefts from autos. I was pleased that the Town Council unanimously approved my request that we give the Town Manager greater discretion to direct off-duty County police officers employed by the Town to patrol by car and foot throughout the Town even as we maintain existing entry enforcement and the officer at CCES. The Bethesda Police Commander has accepted the Town’s invitation to speak at the Mid-Year meeting which will be held on November 13th.
Traffic Safety on Bradley: The Council discussed the Traffic Engineer’s report on sight lines at intersections along Bradley Lane. The Council unanimously agreed to pursue efforts to improve sight lines where existing conditions are dangerous. Most improvements can be accomplished through trimming vegetation though there is also concern regarding a pillar at the intersection of East and Bradley. The Council also reiterated its support for measures to reduce speeding on Bradley La. and East-West Highway which will continue to be investigated by the Public Services Committee.
The meeting adjourned at around 10:30pm.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Poll: Mike Miller vs Peter Franchot
It's time for another MPW poll, this one on the state's biggest political feud. As you can see from their recent exchange of letters, there are many differences between Senate President Mike Miller and Comptroller Peter Franchot. But this poll focuses on their disagreement over the state budget.
Simply put, Mike Miller defends the tax and spending package of the 2007 special session as necessary to close the state's structural budget deficit. He also believes that revenues from slots are necessary to fund education and other priorities in the future. Peter Franchot believes that the special session was unnecessary and its product has not worked. He also believes that slots revenues are not required to fund state programs.
Let the readers decide who is right!
Franchot vs Miller
Following is the text of Comptroller Peter Franchot's response to Senate President Mike Miller's letter of September 10.
September 12, 2008
The Honorable Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr.
President of the Senate
Miller Senate Office Building
Annapolis, MD 21401
Dear Senate President Miller:
Thank you for your timely response to my letter of September 8, in which I offered a sobering overview of Maryland’s current economic conditions, assessed the severe toll they have taken on our state’s fiscal well-being, and called for the establishment of a bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission to undertake a comprehensive review of state government revenues and spending.
While impressed by the length of your letter, and the obvious thought that went into it, I was quite disappointed by its tone and substance. It was yet another illustration of what is broken and dysfunctional about Annapolis. Instead of acknowledging that your solutions for Maryland’s immediate fiscal challenges – higher personal and business taxes, heavier debt loads and slot machines – are not working and far worse than the problem itself, you instead lobbed personal insults and questioned my character. A point by point written reply to your letter would, no doubt, be a waste of time, as we are both grappling with the critical issues facing Maryland, so I will spare us that chore. Suffice it to say that I respectfully disagree.
In light of your correspondence, in which you questioned my motives, credibility, integrity, seriousness and effectiveness as a public servant, I’ll confess that I was tempted to respond in kind. I was tempted to compare my 22-year record of public service with yours as Senate President, one in which your formidable legislative prowess has often been overshadowed by intemperate public remarks, acrimonious personal feuds, unconditional fealty to the interests of the national gambling industry, and stories of brass-knuckle political tactics that would cause the hardest-bitten of Tammany Hall ward-heelers to blush. However, in the interest of restoring civility and purpose to the public debate, I won’t go there.
I must, however, take issue with your attack on my agency and the 1,100 men and women who serve here with honor and distinction. Our agency is determined to help overcome Maryland’s fiscal challenges by tightening its belt and ensuring the prompt collection of existing tax revenues to which our State is entitled. Earlier this week, we presented Budget Secretary Foster with a series of operational efficiencies that, when implemented by the Comptroller’s Office, will save the taxpayers of this State over one million dollars.
Thanks to the support of the General Assembly, we are moving aggressively toward the implementation of our Maryland Tax Fairness Initiative – a new state-of-the-art tax collection and compliance system that will ultimately generate between $80 and $100 million annually for the State. For a modest up-front investment in equipment and software, our Federal Vendor Offset Program – the first of its kind in the nation – is collecting more than $500,000 in unsatisfied tax liabilities each week. And we’ve brought in nearly one-half billion dollars in tax revenue owed the state through our aggressive actions against corporations sheltering their incomes with Delaware holding companies.
We are achieving these ambitious goals within the agency budgets that have been authorized by the legislature. This extraordinary work was recognized earlier this year by the Association of Government Accountants, which presented my agency with the prestigious William R. Snodgrass leadership award, an honor that recognizes the outstanding leadership of individuals in state government that lead to improved financial management and consistently exhibit the highest personal and professional standards.
You ended your letter by extending the invitation to speak with you directly about the work of the Comptroller’s Office. I appreciate the offer, and my staff will follow up with yours to arrange a meeting at our mutual convenience. Our State has arrived at an economic and fiscal precipice, and the time for letters is hereby over. To borrow your words, it is now time to earn the respect and gratitude of the citizens of Maryland by setting aside past differences, coming to the table, rolling up our sleeves and working through the challenges that threaten Maryland’s economy and quality of life.
Sincerely,
Peter Franchot
Miller vs Franchot
Following is the text of Senate President Mike Miller's September 10 letter to Comptroller Peter Franchot about the state budget and MANY other issues.
September 10, 2008
Comptroller Peter Franchot
Comptroller of Maryland
80 Calvert Street
P.O. Box 466
Annapolis, MD 21404-0466
Dear Peter:
I have worked with many statewide elected officials during my tenure in the Maryland General Assembly, and I have watched each deal differently with the mantle of statewide leadership. I was most impressed by those who understood the truism: “What got you here won’t get you there.” They knew they had to grow beyond the experience they brought with them into office, which helped them thrive in their statewide leadership role. These successful officials served our State well, and they earned the respect and gratitude of the citizens of Maryland.
Regrettably, as you stumble through your second year in the Comptroller’s Office, it is evident you do not understand that what got you into statewide office will not ensure success as a statewide official. Rather than growing into your role, you are clinging to the worst habits of a novice elected official - preening for the press, repackaging old ideas and calling them new, expanding your budget while criticizing others for bloat in theirs, offering policy alternatives one day that are incongruous with your positions from the day before, and criticizing others for leading while offering nothing to the debate.
Your letter of September 8 is the latest example of your obsession with the press, and your disregard for the relationships you need to be an effective leader. I received requests from reporters for comment before I received the letter. Your decision to leak the letter before delivering it can only lead to a conclusion that your goal is to gain media exposure for yourself - not to raise concerns in the spirit of good faith or good government. Your tactics are not becoming of a statewide elected official - they are stunts better left to backbench lawmakers. After making a career for twenty years as an Annapolis insider, you should know better.
In your letter, you recycled an old idea and offered it up as new. That mistake is usually reserved for someone with far less institutional knowledge and experience than you. You called your proposal for a blue ribbon commission “fresh” and “truly worthwhile” - when, in reality, a blue ribbon commission is a bridge to nowhere in State government. During your time in the General Assembly, State leaders assembled at least four commissions to assess the State’s finances. Surely you remember the Butta, Linowes, Puddester and Mandel Commissions. If not, I would be happy to ask the Department of Legislative Services to send you copies of their reports.
You also promised a list of “spending reforms” you will implement - I believe you referred to it as “leading by example.” I welcome such initiative, but I would be remiss if I failed to point out that if we had followed your example for the last two years, our State’s fiscal situation would be far worse. Since becoming Comptroller, you have expanded your executive office’s budget by an average of 9.4% annually - as compared to an average of 3.8% annual growth in the Governor’s Office, 5.6% annual growth in the legislature, and 6.5% annual growth across all other state agencies. Ironically, the Governor and the General Assembly have done a better job of controlling State spending than you have done controlling your own executive office’s growth. While I doubt your ability to match our fiscal discipline, I commend you for realizing that instead of simply criticizing others, you can be a part of the solution to the challenges we face.
Your letter of September 8 offers an example of your propensity to offer positions today that are incongruous with your record in the past. Sadly, you are the first statewide officeholder I have watched change positions with such ease. To wit, you wrote that “we cannot tax, or gamble, our way out of fiscal and economic distress” - yet, lest anyone forget, you passionately advocated for those options as a member of the House of Delegates. You sponsored legislation to bring slot machine gambling to Maryland in 1998 and 2001. You also voted for:
● A 1% increase in the State sales tax,
● Expanding the sales tax to property management services,
● Expanding the sales tax to health and fitness clubs,
● Imposing a five-year income tax surcharge of 6% on net taxable income over $150,000 for single filers and $200,000 for joint filers,
● Controlling interest legislation, and
● A 1% increase in the vehicle titling tax.
You are on the record voting in favor of $1 billion in new taxes, and you sponsored legislation to raise the gas tax and to tax food - regressive options which would have disproportionately affected the working families all fight to protect.
More recently, you have advocated for more spending on biotechnology, while opposing any revenue increases and advocating for “belt-tightening” in State government. You make heart-felt pleas for more school construction dollars in Baltimore County, while opposing changes to our debt ratios or the video lottery program which would ensure public school funding in future fiscal years.
By offering a chameleon-like approach to public policy, you have become a practitioner of the “politics as usual” that you criticize. Your ever-shifting positions are intellectually irreconcilable and beneath the station you hold in State government. After twenty years of steadfast advocacy for liberal causes and progressive taxation in the General Assembly, I am disappointed to watch you pander to the citizens of Maryland.
Your letter offers another example of your tendency to criticize from the sidelines while others are leading. This Monday-morning quarterbacking is more appropriate behavior for the minority party - not for a statewide official who could exercise influence over public policy in the State of Maryland.
Your insinuation that last fall’s special session lacked “transparency and meaningful citizen input” has me concerned that you are spending too much time listening to talk radio. To the contrary, lawmakers sat in hour after hour of public hearings, listening to ordinary Marylanders voice their support for and concerns about the Governor’s proposal to address our State’s structural deficit. Lawmakers held public - and often heated - debates and ultimately took publicly recorded votes. Our process, though not always pretty, was certainly public.
I want to correct your more egregious misconceptions about the past two years. Working together, Governor O’Malley and the General Assembly have cut $1.8 billion from the State budget. We have provided full funding to our public schools and invested a record sum in school construction and renovation - without raiding Program Open Space or transportation funds. We have broadened healthcare coverage for working families, and we have renewed our investment in Chesapeake Bay restoration. We have emphasized accountability with the Governor’s StateStat and BayStat programs, and we have increased transparency in State spending.
Like many states, we have fallen victim to a sluggish national economy. At least 29 states are facing a total budget shortfall of $48 billion in FY 2009, and lawmakers around the country are preparing to make difficult decisions to shore up their State budgets. The Governor is going to make hard choices this fall as he cuts from FY 2009 and crafts his FY 2010 budget.
While you have endured a rocky start to your statewide service, I believe there is time for you to restore faith and credibility with the citizens of Maryland. As you consider your role in the statewide arena, I encourage you to get back to the basics.
Take a look at your own website if you need guidance. It reads, in part: “The principal duty of this office is to collect taxes… Acting as Maryland’s chief accountant, the comptroller pays the state’s bills, maintains its books, prepares financial reports, and pays state employees.”
You are the “chief accountant” - but none of your tax collection duties make you the “chief fiscal officer of the State.” That role is and has always been held by the Chief Executive of the State - the Governor. More than ever, Maryland needs a Comptroller who is focused on the fundamentals, so that we can weather this financial crisis without wondering whether revenue was left uncollected.
You ended your letter with the hope of collaboration, and I will end mine on the same note. I share your hope to work collaboratively, but I remain skeptical of your ability to work in partnership with other state officials. Your bad habits have diminished your standing and reduced your effectiveness as Comptroller. I encourage you to work on the fundamentals so you can restore your reputation and help all of us achieve great things for the people of Maryland.
Moreover, I hope that one day you are able to fulfill the potential that existed when you were elected. If you should ever wish to speak to me about substantive issues relating to the duties of your office, please do not hesitate to call me.
Very truly yours,
Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr.
Reaction to Crisis at the Gazette
We have covered quite a few big stories on this blog, including the special session, the District 18 vacancy, the millionaire tax, the County Council District 4 special election and the state police spying scandal. But none of these stories generated the intense interest that our Crisis at the Gazette series did.
First, do not judge this blog by the number of comments our posts receive. We only allow comments from people with Google accounts, which keeps most one-shot anonymous comments at bay. And most of our regular readers are politicians, government staffers, activists and lobbyists – the kind of people who are reluctant to discuss issues on the record. These two factors combine to minimize our online comments.
In terms of site visits, we are consistently in the top five among Maryland blogs that publicly release visit data. On Tuesday, Crisis Part Two generated links to us from many other sites including DCRTV, Media Bistro, PG Politics and countless private listserv posts. That traffic pushed our visits to three times their normal level and set an all-time one-day record for MPW. On Wednesday, Crisis Part Three was seen by double the number of people who normally visit this blog. On both days, we were the most-visited blog in the state (of those that publish data) and it was not even close.
When readers have opinions on my posts, they call me and email me directly. This story was no exception. Readers are astonished at the Gazette’s rock-bottom pay levels and those who contacted me universally believe their reporters deserve more. But a few readers think I am only getting part of the story. They point out that the Gazette’s problems started years before the layoffs and tick off a long list of distinguished editors and reporters who have left. “If they weren’t going through such a brain drain, they would be better equipped to deal with their economic challenges,” says one observer.
Employee instability goes to the top of the company. In the middle of 2006, the newspaper’s much-respected, longtime top editor left. His successor lasted just three months. At the beginning of this year, the Gazette hired a number two manager to work directly under the CEO. That manager also left within a few months. “You are only seeing the smoke,” one reader told me. “There’s a fire going on in there.”
Another reader pointed out that the Washington Post recently reported on its parent company’s financial problems but left out any mention of the Gazette. The Post story contained this tidbit:The Post has had three rounds of buyouts in five years, reducing its newsroom from more than 900 journalists to fewer than 700, but has never had newsroom layoffs.
How comforting to the laid-off Gazette employees! While they did receive severance payments, they had no choice concerning their departures as did their Post colleagues.
As for Gazette management, they have initiated the first consequence of their layoffs. They have closed their Sykesville office and have merged their coverage of Carroll County into their Frederick desk. The Gazette’s new website no longer has a Carroll County tab. As of this writing, their Frederick page has 24 current stories, none of which cover Carroll. Will this someday be the fate of Burtonsville, Aspen Hill, Poolesville or Damascus?
We are also told that Gazette management is quietly searching for our sources. My blogger profile was accessed over 100 times on Tuesday and Wednesday and there was a number of long, intensive searches through my older posts. Could Gazette management be reacting like a typical target of investigative journalism: staying the course but seeking to plug the leaks?
Here are three better courses of action.
1. Pay the reporters more than hairdressers or security guards.
2. Pay the reporters overtime consistent with current Department of Labor regulations. Even the Bush Administration recognizes that the majority of journalists are due overtime pay under federal law.
3. Rebuild the newspaper by committing to hire, develop and retain the best talent, from the reporters up through the executive offices.
The Gazette was once a great local newspaper. It can be great again with the right leadership. We are watching.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Registration Deadlines
By Marc Korman.
Maryland is one of twenty-six states with closed primaries, meaning primaries are only open to those who register with the party. Some state parties in closed primary states choose to open their primaries, but it is not required by law. As a closed primary state, voters in Maryland must be registered with a political party to vote in its primary. Meaning if you wanted to weigh in on Clinton versus Obama back in February, you had to be a registered Democrat. To weigh in on McCain versus Huckabee, you had to be a registered Republican. In Maryland, voters can either register with a political party or be unaffiliated. If a voter changes their mind in the future and decides to change or select parties, they may find an unexpected roadblock in their path.
Maryland’s 2008 presidential primary was February 12, 2008. The registration deadline was three weeks prior to the election. But, if you are already registered and simply want to change or select a party, your deadline was on November 19, 2007, about twelve weeks before the election. That means if a voter did not plan well ahead of time to register with a party, they are out of luck. Unfortunately, most voters were not thinking about the Democratic primary back in November of 2007. As I was registering voters before the state’s Democratic primary, I met many unaffiliated voters who were getting excited about the primaries due to the increasing news coverage, but were unable to participate in the primary as a result of the early deadline. The problem is especially prevalent among young people, who I find are less inclined to affiliate with a political party.
State law sets the early deadline for party affiliation change. Voters may change other information on their registrations, such as their address, up to the registration deadline. Maryland is not alone in the strange timing provision. I did not survey every state, but Delaware had a party affiliation change deadline of October 31, 2007, a registration deadline of January 12, 2008, and its election on February 5, 2008. Virginia does not require voters to select parties. California has no alternate deadline for party affiliation changes.
Last week, I heard from Stan Statland, the President of the Montgomery County Board of Elections, at a Bethesda-Chevy Chase Democratic Club breakfast. I asked Mr. Statland about the differing deadlines. He explained that the different deadlines were to help the State Board of Elections manage the amount of data entry and changes required leading up to the election.
Mr. Statland’s explanation is legitimate and I do not doubt that the State Board of Elections could use more resources. However, the amount of party affiliation changes is probably fairly small and the state should make that deadline match the overall registration deadline.
States such as Minnesota and Wisconsin have figured out how to have same day voter registration, a phenomenon that makes voting more accessible but also gave us Governor Jesse Ventura. Surely, Maryland’s Board of Elections can handle the much smaller administrative burden of allowing voters to change their affiliation during the same period of time they can change their address or a new voter can register.
Some may argue that allowing a later party affiliation could bring “Operation Chaos,” Rush Limbaugh’s effort to subvert the Democratic primaries by having Republicans vote in them, to Maryland. Even if Mr. Limbaugh’s recent efforts were successful, the current voter registration deadline of three weeks before the election would put a limit on partisan manipulation. More importantly, it would open the primaries to more voters who want to participate in a constructive, not chaotic, way. If “Operation Chaos” concern is really that high, then the deadline change could only apply to unaffiliated voters who select a party and not members of other parties.
I hope our legislators will take a look at the deadline discrepancy next session, prior to the 2010 election cycle. Others may want to go farther than I am suggesting and make Maryland’s primaries open or allow same day registration. I would be happy to see a debate on these issues, but the narrow issue presented here can be dealt with easily and should be done, regardless of the broader changes that may also be considered.
Starting Gazette Salary in Perspective
We have attracted significant amounts of offline comment on our Gazette series, most of which we will address tomorrow. But one subject that appalls many is the starting salary for Gazette reporters: $26,500. Below we compare that salary to other annual occupational pay rates in the Bethesda-Gaithersburg-Frederick Metropolitan Division (which includes Montgomery and Frederick Counties) as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Two quick notes:
1. As we reported in Crisis Part Two, Gazette reporters receive a $500 pay increase after six months and a $1,000 increase after one year. But unlike the vast majority of workers in the other occupations listed above, they are not paid overtime.
2. While we do not have the data, it would be interesting to compare the post-college debt load of workers in the above occupations. Gazette reporters are usually recent college graduates - a demographic cohort with heavy educational debt.
Can't the $4 billion-dollar-a-year Washington Post Company afford to pay these highly-educated, skilled workers more than security guards?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Montgomery County Council Passes Prevailing Wage Law
By a 7-2 vote, the Montgomery County Council passed a prevailing wage law covering county-funded construction work. In doing so, they protected thousands of construction workers on public jobsites.
Prevailing wage laws have been in existence in the U.S. for more than a century. They ensure that construction contractors on public jobsites do not pay less to their workers than the wages and benefits that prevail on other jobs in the same community. The federal government, thirty-one states and countless local entities employ prevailing wage laws to protect local labor standards.
Without prevailing wage laws, out-of-state contractors can undercut local bidders by lowballing labor costs, thereby eroding local labor standards. In a landmark study, University of Utah economist Peter Philips found dire consequences in nine states that repealed their prevailing wage laws, including declining income and sales tax revenues, increased cost overruns on road projects, lower earnings for construction workers, reduced construction worker training, falling enrollment of minorities in training programs and a 15% increase in occupational injuries.
In Maryland, the state government, Baltimore City, Prince George’s County and Allegany County all have prevailing wage laws, as does the federal government (which covers the District of Columbia). Montgomery County was the largest jurisdiction on the eastern side of the Potomac River without one. Six County Council Members – lead sponsor Valerie Ervin and Marc Elrich, George Leventhal, Duchy Trachtenberg, Nancy Floreen and Roger Berliner – co-sponsored a prevailing wage bill that ensured that workers on county jobs are paid the same rate that they would be paid on state jobs. County Council President Mike Knapp joined them in voting for the bill. County Executive Ike Leggett contributed invaluable support. Council Members Phil Andrews and Don Praisner voted against it.
Prior to the vote, Council Member Andrews expressed concern that the bill would inflate construction costs. But the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence is that prevailing wage laws encourage higher productivity that offsets any wage increases and prevents cost hikes. In a 1999 study done for the Prince George’s County government, Cortland State University economist Mark Prus found that prevailing wage laws had no statistically significant impact on public construction costs of schools built in Maryland and the Mid-Atlantic region. Economic Policy Institute analyst Nooshin Mahalia conducted the most comprehensive academic literature review ever undertaken on the subject of prevailing laws and costs and concluded:Critics of prevailing wage laws argue that they inflate government contract costs. But a growing body of economic studies finds that prevailing wage regulations do not increase government contracting costs. Some of these studies use a cross-sectional approach, which compares costs of contracts subject to a prevailing wage with costs of contracts that are not during a common time period, and others use a time-series approach, which examine whether contract costs have changed with the adoption or repeal of a prevailing wage requirement. These studies also show that prevailing wage laws provide social benefits from higher wages and better workplace safety, increase government revenues, and elevate worker skills in the construction industry...
At this point in the evolution of the literature on the effect of prevailing wage regulations on government contract costs, the weight of the evidence is strongly on the side that there is no adverse impact. Almost all of the studies that have found otherwise use hypothetical models that fail to empirically address the question at hand. Moreover, the studies that have incorporated the full benefits of higher wages in public construction suggest that there are, in fact, substantial, calculable, positive benefits of prevailing wage laws.
The County Council’s action brings Montgomery County into line with the federal and state governments and many of its neighbors. And by acting to preserve labor standards in the construction industry, they are protecting thousands of workers on county jobs in difficult economic times. Passage of the bill is a victory for construction workers, their families, and Montgomery County taxpayers (like me) who benefit when public funding supports a high-wage, high-productivity path for our local economy.
Update: Maryland Secretary of Labor Tom Perez, who testified in support of the bill, wrote in support of prevailing wage legislation in this Gazette column.
Disclosure: The author is the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters.
Crisis at the Gazette, Part Three
The best newspapers are the ones that attract, develop and retain reporters with experience in and knowledge of their coverage areas, lots of contacts and – most importantly – good long-term relationships with their sources.
The Gazette’s business model makes this almost impossible.
Low pay and few opportunities for advancement create high turnover at the Gazette. The newspaper is always hiring because people are always leaving. For example, since the early summer of 2007, three different community reporters have covered the Silver Spring area. The median tenure of community reporters may be as low as 18 months. And that was before the cataclysmic July 31 layoffs which forced the remaining employees to work longer and harder to cover their departed colleagues’ work.
I have known quite a few Gazette reporters and have always liked them. Every one of them has been smart, fair, polite and has turned out well-written work. But they come and go. Silver Spring has over 70,000 people, five County Council Members, sixteen state legislators and dozens – perhaps hundreds – of hard-charging grass-roots activists. How can anyone come in from a different part of the country and learn the complete social-political landscape of the place in just a few months?
If the Gazette was truly devoted to high-quality reporting, it would invest in its reporters. Start them at modest salaries (although much higher than $26,500) and institute steep, sliding pay scales for the ones who stay. Let them hone their craft in their coverage areas and reward the ones who consistently write high-quality work. Give them a future in the company as respected professionals because that is what they are. The reward for the newspaper is a must-read product that is attractive to advertisers.
But that is not the Gazette’s way. Corporate management from the Post Company has dictated a low-wage, high-turnover business model that funnels any profits into their much-loved Kaplan division. Only the spirit and dedication of their reporters keeps their newspaper in production – but even the best of them leave. And we the readers are paying the price.
The Gazette may produce more articles about Montgomery, Prince George’s, Frederick and Carroll Counties than all other news sources combined. But if it continues to squeeze the pay of its reporters and has more layoffs, the newspaper’s quality will decline. Some community reporting areas may have to be merged – perhaps Kensington with Chevy Chase, or Silver Spring with Takoma Park – if the number of reporters keeps shrinking. That will mean fewer articles spread over larger geographic areas. Analysis and fact-gathering will wane. Reporting will be replaced with transcription.
Some believe that blogs will replace mainstream media sources like the Gazette. I disagree. As a blogger, I depend on quality reporting from the Gazette as much as any of their other readers. Blogs combine fact, opinion and bias to wildly varying degrees of effectiveness. There is still a role – and will always be a role – for true practitioners of the noble profession of journalism.
A place without reporting is a place that does not – cannot – know itself. The Crisis at the Gazette is a crisis for their readers. It is time for the Gazette to stop the layoffs, compensate its employees fairly and treat them with respect. Anything less and we will not get the reporting quality we deserve.
Editor's Note: There are continuing developments on this story and we will be following up later this week.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Crisis at the Gazette, Part Two
Thursday, July 31, 2008 will go down as a black day in the history of the Gazette. But its ramifications can be understood only in the context of how the newspaper operates on a daily basis.
The Gazette covers four counties: Montgomery, Prince George’s, Frederick and Carroll. It maintains offices in Laurel (for reporters covering Prince George’s and eastern Montgomery), Gaithersburg (for Montgomery), Frederick (for Frederick and Carroll) and Annapolis (for state politics). Each of the non-Annapolis offices has a cluster of reporting desks that are overseen by an assistant managing editor. Each cluster covers areas that are geographically close together. For example, the northern Prince George’s cluster includes Laurel, College Park, Hyattsville and Greenbelt. A cluster includes community reporters who cover specific areas but their stories can run in other areas nearby. So a story from College Park may also run in the Laurel and Greenbelt editions of the Gazette. The key supervisors in this structure are the assistant managing editors and their immediate superiors, the managing editors. Reporters on county politics, education, sports and business work directly for managing editors in each county.
The backbone of the Gazette is its network of community reporters. Each one is assigned a specific beat, such as Takoma Park. The newsweek starts when the new edition is produced (either on Wednesday or Thursday). The community reporters have meetings with their assistant managing editors at the start of the newsweek. They pitch their own ideas and also receive assignments from above. Each community reporter is expected to produce 5-6 stories per week. Most of the work occurs at the initiative of the community reporters – they are expected to visit relevant events, maintain contact with sources and track down new info. If the community reporters score an especially important story, it might appear in multiple editions of the Gazette or even the Washington Post. It is a challenging job.
Even so, Gazette reporters are some of the lowest-paid college graduates in the entire Washington metro area. Their starting pay is $26,500, disbursed on an hourly basis. If they stay six months, their annual pay increases by $500. If they last a year, their pay goes up by $1,000. They are eligible for the Washington Post Company’s health care plan but must pay the premiums out of their checks. They have a 401(k) plan but their base salaries are so small that few save large amounts in it. The Gazette reimburses them for gas at 36 cents per mile – well below the IRS rate of 58.5 cents. Unlike their counterparts at the Washington Post, Gazette employees are not represented by a union. As a result of the newspaper's compensation policies, most Gazette reporters are single people in their twenties, often living in group houses and commuting from cheaper areas. Few Gazette reporters can afford to live in the communities they cover and many come from other parts of the country.
Worst of all, Gazette reporters are paid only for 40 hours per week and do not receive overtime. This is a serious problem since community reporters often attend night meetings and sometimes weekend events. It does not matter whether a reporter works 50 or 60 hours per week or even more – it is considered “part of the job” and is not reimbursed. U.S. wage and hour laws generally require overtime payments for non-exempt, non-supervisory employees.
On July 31, everything got worse. The Gazette announced it was eliminating 23 positions - a full 14% of its workforce. Among those released were the Silver Spring managing editor (an individual with 15 years experience in the job) and two managing editors in Prince George’s County. The rest of the employees – especially the critical assistant managing editors – will be expected to pick up the extra workload with no commensurate increase in compensation. The layoff announcement shocked the workforce and prompted additional resignations.
In explaining the terminations, Gazette management mentioned the twin pressures of falling ad revenue and rising newsprint prices. They also cited the need to invest in their website (although they did not elaborate on how a beefed-up website with less reporter-generated content was supposed to improve the bottom line). Interestingly, management never directly addressed the question of whether the Gazette is profitable. If the Gazette is indeed losing money, it would make sense for them to tell the employees in order to obtain their buy-in to the new business plan. But management never formally commented on whether the newspaper is making money and that omission may hint at an underlying truth.
In Part One, we chronicled the financial condition of the Washington Post Company, owner of the Gazette. The parent company is slowly making a transition to becoming an educational services firm built around its Kaplan Inc. subsidiary. The Post Company does not release financial information pertaining to the Gazette, but its circulation has been relatively stable since 2000. That may not matter, however. Because the Post Company is trying to grow Kaplan, its publishing divisions may be increasingly viewed as cash cows. Their costs must be constrained and any net income they earn must be channeled into Kaplan for the long-run benefit of the company. It does not matter how hard the Gazette reporters work or how good their coverage is – it is irrelevant to the Post Company’s ultimate goals.
The Gazette’s business model and the pressure it is enduring from its parent company represent a dangerous threat to political discourse in its service area. We will explore how in Part Three.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Crisis at the Gazette, Part One
The Gazette is the weekly newspaper of record in Montgomery, Prince George’s, Frederick and Carroll Counties. No other mainstream media source offers more detailed coverage of local issues in those jurisdictions. But the newspaper has fallen into a dire crisis that threatens both its viability and the capacity of its readers to access high-quality local reporting.
First, some background. The Gazette is a very small part of the Washington Post Company, a gigantic multi-media conglomerate. The Post Company has many lines of business including the Washington Post newspaper, Newsweek Magazine, six local television broadcast stations, a cablevision subsidiary, Kaplan Inc. (a testing and educational firm) and numerous smaller media-related entities. Last year, the Post Company had 19,000 full-time employees, $4.18 billion in revenues, $477 million in operating income and $289 million in net income.
By far the biggest part of the Post Company is its Kaplan subsidiary. In 2007, it accounted for a majority of its full-time employees (11,800), almost half its revenues ($2.03 billion) and nearly a third of its operating income ($149 million). Its entire newspaper division reported revenues of $890 million and operating income of $66 million. Last year was not a good one for the Post’s newspaper operations according to this statement from its annual report: Newspaper publishing division revenue in 2007 decreased 7% to $889.8 million, from $961.9 million in 2006. Division operating income for 2007 totaled $66.4 million, compared to $63.4 million in 2006. The increase in operating income for 2007 is due primarily to $47.1 million in pre-tax charges associated with early retirement plan buyouts at The Washington Post during 2006. Excluding this charge, operating income was down sharply for 2007 due to a decline in division revenues and a $2.3 million pre-tax gain on the sale of property in 2006, partially offset by a reduction in newspaper division operating expenses, including a 19% reduction in newsprint expense. Operating margin at the newspaper publishing division was 7% for 2007 and 2006; however, the 2007 operating margin declined significantly, excluding the $47.1 million in early retirement plan buyouts in 2006.
In fact, the Washington Post newspaper has been in decline for years. Between 2000 and 2007, the Post newspaper’s average daily circulation fell every year from 777,521 to 658,059. The newspaper’s total advertising inches have fallen from 3,363 to 2,301 over the same period – a drop of 32%.
Print advertising revenue at The Post in 2007 declined 13% to $496.2 million, from $573.2 million in 2006. The decline in 2007 is due to reductions in real estate, classified, general and retail. Daily circulation at The Post declined 3.6%, and Sunday circulation declined 3.7% in 2007; average daily circulation totaled 649,700 (unaudited), and average Sunday circulation totaled 902,500 (unaudited).
Gradually, the Post Company is transforming itself from a media entity into an educational firm built around its Kaplan subsidiary. In 2000, Kaplan accounted for about one-third of the company’s full-time employees and one-seventh of its revenues. Last year, Kaplan employed a majority of the company’s workforce and accounted for almost half of its revenues. Why? Educational services is a growth industry and print news publishing is not.
The stock market reflects that basic reality. Since 2002, the Post’s stock value has increased by 12%. Over that period, the S&P Publishing Index (a group of publishing stocks) has fallen by 13% while the Post’s education company peer group saw a stock value increase of 86%. To Post Chairman and CEO Donald E. Graham, owner of 93% of the company’s Class A stock and 35% of its Class B stock, the message is clear: education is the company’s future.
And what of the Gazette? It is a tiny, tiny part of the giant firm that owns it. Of the Post Company’s 19,000 full-time employees last year, only 168 worked as editors, reporters or photographers for the Gazette and its subsidiary, Southern Maryland Newspapers. The Post Company does not report revenue and operating income for the Gazette. But in terms of its print circulation, the Gazette has turned out a steady performance. Since it acquired Southern Maryland Newspapers in February 2001, the Gazette’s circulation has varied between 660,000 last year and 680,000 between 2003 and 2005. Its professional employment has ranged from 165 to 170 over the same period. While it is reasonable to believe that its ad revenues have fallen along with the area’s economy in recent years, the Gazette has not suffered the same magnitude of problems endured by the Washington Post.
But that has radically changed. We will elaborate in Part Two.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Ike Leggett Poll
Eric Luedtke and I disagree over County Executive Ike Leggett's re-election prospects. So let the readers settle this! Below are two Internet polls: one on your approval of Mr. Leggett's performance and one on the likelihood of his return. Go for it and decide which one of us is right!
MoCo Obama Supporters Focused on Virginia
Montgomery County Obama activists have set up a website with an event schedule. Among the events is this notice:
The Bethesda Office is providing a huge service to the campaign with data management. Due to increased demand we have now scheduled three data trainings each week. After you attend one session, you can stop by any time we are open and get to work.Obviously, Senator Obama is going to win Maryland but Virginia's decision could determine the election. If you are an Obama supporter, volunteering in Virginia is the most valuable contribution you can make.
VoteBuilder (Data Training): Mondays at 1:00 pm, Fridays and Saturdays at 11:00 am.
Canvass and Phone Bank turnouts are bigger than ever, still, we need to do even more in the coming weeks.
Phone Bank: Monday-Thursday, 5:30-8:30 pm (bring cell phone if possible, some land lines available).
Canvass in Northern Virginia: Meet at the Bethesda Office: every Saturday at 10:00 am or 2:00 pm, every Sunday at 2:00 pm.
To RSVP for any of the above activities, email mcforobama@gmail.com. THANK YOU in advance.
BOO Office Hours:
Monday-Thursday: 10:00 am to 8:30 pm
Friday: 10:00 am to 4:00 pm
Saturday: 10:00 am to 7:00 pm
Sunday: 2:00 pm to 7:00 pm
Office location: 7832 Wisconsin Ave (north of Bethesda Metro, across from CVS)
Office phone: 240.396.6739
Slots Debate: Simmons vs Perez
From Carole Brand.
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 on WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 10th, at 7:30 pm, there will be a forum to help you explore this issue and its implications for our state.
Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) 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. County Council Member Nancy Floreen will introduce the evening.
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 301-657-2547 or csbrand@verizon.net
Sponsored by Woman's Suburban Democratic Club of Montgomery County.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Palin Portrait from Wasilla
This email posted on Crosscut Seattle provides a view of Sarah Palin's career in Wasilla, Alaska and more information on the potential veep than has probably appeared in the papers since McCain surprised the nation with his choice.
Palin's fiscal approach as mayor will sound eerily familiar to those who have followed the Bush Administration's fiscal policy:Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative." During her six years as mayor, she increased general government expenditures by more than 33 percent. During those same six years, the amount of taxes collected by the city increased by 38 percent. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax, which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefitted large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.
I wonder if Red Maryland, which has been so vocally critical of Gov. O'Malley's tax record, thinks highly of this approach. I wouldn't be so fast to give Palin kudos for balancing Alaska's budget as the State essentially floats on an oil largess unavailable to other states.
The huge increases in tax revenue during her mayoral administration weren't enough to fund everything on her wish list, though — borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt but left it with indebtedness of more than $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? Or a new library? No. $1 million for a park. $15 million-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex, which she rushed through, on a piece of property that the city didn't even have clear title to. That was still in litigation seven years later — to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5 million for road projects that could have been done in five to seven years without any borrowing.
The writer on Crosscut also provides a critique of Palin's claim to hate earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere, as well as more information on past ethics problems facing the Republican veep nominee. Read the whole thing for yourself.
A Reply to Brian Griffiths on the State Budget
Brian Griffiths, leader of Red Maryland, believes that the tax package passed during last year’s special session is causing Maryland’s budget problems. He accuses me of covering for Governor O’Malley and the General Assembly by not blaming them for their “irresponsible tax hikes.” But Griffiths did not bother to check the economic data or my prior work before expressing his opinion. Nor does he understand the relationship between fiscal policy and economic growth.
Even casual readers of the news know that Maryland’s economy has suffered along with the rest of the nation. The causes of American economic stagnation are well known: a bursting real estate price bubble, resulting problems in financial markets and rising fuel prices exacerbated by a weak dollar. (The weak dollar is caused in part by immense federal budget deficits driven by the war in Iraq.) Those national problems affected Maryland. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Employment Survey, job growth in Maryland slowed from 36,000 in 2005 to 28,500 in 2006 to 24,600 in 2007. That is not the fault of either Governor O’Malley or Governor Ehrlich – it is merely a reflection of national economic problems that impacted the state’s economy.
The slowing economy laid bare an underlying truth: the state had a structural deficit and was on track to spend $1.10 for every $1.00 it received in taxes. As I said nearly a year ago in a blog post ignored by Griffiths, the cause was two-fold: a 10% income tax cut in 1997 and billions of additional spending on education (commonly called the Thornton Plan) started in 2002. Both of these events occurred during the Glendening administration, but Governor Ehrlich did nothing to reverse them. It therefore fell to Governor O’Malley to devise a solution to the problem in the face of a bad economy. I was unenthusiastic about the ultimate outcome, but it was an honest attempt to right the state’s fiscal ship.
Griffiths said the following about my post yesterday on the budget: If Pagnucco was being an honest broker, he would note that the decrease in revenues is directly caused by the irresponsible tax hikes enacted by O'Malley and Annapolis Democrats last year, and that the current structural deficit has been caused by irresponsible discretionary spending increases. But, for reasons that shall remain obvious, he refuses to place any blame whatsoever on O'Malley and his band of merry tax hikers.
Griffiths’ assertion that the tax hikes caused a decrease in revenue is directly contradicted by state budget officials, as reported by the Examiner: David Roose, director of revenue estimates, said that the slowing economy had lowered receipts from the income and sales taxes. If the sales tax hadn’t risen from 5 percent to 6 percent, “receipts would have been essentially flat, the worst performance since 1991.”
There are of course limits to the usefulness of sales tax increases in a small state with lots of neighbors. The Sun’s Jay Hancock and a recent Post article speculate about whether cross-border shopping has cut into sales tax revenues. But Griffiths should do his homework: I criticized the special session sales tax hike from the very beginning and recommended a crackdown on tax-cheating employers instead.
Griffiths implicitly assumes that tax hikes hurt the economy while government spending cuts do not. Here he demonstrates a basic ignorance of every macroeconomics course taught to college freshmen. From the perspective of economic growth, it does not matter whether the government implements a tax hike or a spending cut as a deficit reduction measure. Both reduce aggregate demand in the economy, especially when taking into account a reverse multiplier effect. A big tax hike and a big spending cut are equally damaging to the state’s economy in the short term, but because the state cannot deficit spend (as the federal government does), policy makers must pick one, the other, or both. After next year’s round of spending cuts is added to last year's tax package, we will have both.
The best thing the state government could do to revitalize Maryland’s economy is to increase its investment in infrastructure, even if it means taking in additional revenues. The Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce recommended raising $600 million for the Transportation Trust Fund this year, a step that was unfortunately not taken by the General Assembly. The business community and building trades unions believe that infrastructure construction creates jobs, long-lasting physical assets and abundant opportunities for private sector growth. Those things in turn will stabilize the budget over the long term. If only conservatives like Brian Griffiths could agree.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Our Budget Predictions are Coming True
For months, we have been making dire predictions about the state’s budget and its consequences for the counties. Those warnings are now coming true and we will all pay the price.
On March 6, we wrote that state revenue estimates were coming in low and that was “sure to trigger alarm bells in every county government in Maryland.” On April 17, we cited information from the state’s Department of Legislative Services indicating that the state’s budget deficit could range from $200-600+ million annually, with higher numbers associated with a rejection of slots. On July 3, we detailed how economic problems at the state and county levels were creating a “perfect storm” for Montgomery County’s budget. And now the Post reports that Maryland’s budget deficit could be as high as one billion dollars next year.
For the exclusive viewing pleasure of the MPW audience, we reproduce state budget analyst Warren Deschenaux's Letter of DOOM below:
It seems that no matter what the General Assembly does to close the budget gap, the failing economy undoes it. But still the state is required by law to balance its budget. No state legislator I know believes that more tax hikes are an option so that means almost a billion dollars in spending cuts will have to be considered. The Board of Public Works, comprised of Governor Martin O’Malley, Comptroller Peter Franchot and Treasurer Nancy Kopp, may pass some interim cuts but the heavy lifting will have to be done by the legislature. It is a task that nearly all of them dread.
The first target will be any remaining new spending approved during the 2007 special session (such as money to expand health care and the $25 million still allocated for the Chesapeake Bay fund). The next target will be transportation spending, which some legislators suggested cutting as an alternative to last spring’s millionaire tax. Transportation spending reductions combined with falling toll revenues and rising construction costs could devastate the state’s infrastructure needs for years. The legislature would be wise to consider subjecting corporations to combined reporting – an accounting practice designed to prevent them from hiding income in other jurisdictions to escape taxes. But even if the legislature did all of the above, they would still fall well short of plugging a billion dollar hole.
On July 8, we predicted that the legislature would consider passing teacher pension funding obligations, currently paid by the state, down to the counties. At that time, a Montgomery County budget official told me that the county’s share of the obligations would be at least $120 million per year. Since then, the Maryland Association of Counties (MACo) has estimated Montgomery’s share of the obligations at $217 million. If MACo is correct, that would nearly double Montgomery County’s budget deficit next year.
Few Maryland politicians truly embrace any spending cuts, but the state’s potential shedding of teacher pensions carries three particularly difficult problems. First, many counties may not be able to afford the pension obligations, thereby endangering the benefits of some of society’s most important workers. Second, those counties that can afford them may have to raise taxes to pay for them. Taxpayers enjoy no net benefit if they are protected from state taxes only to see county taxes go up. Third, the state’s bearing of teacher pensions is one of the few aid programs that actually favor Montgomery County. Teacher salaries in Montgomery are higher than many other parts of the state because of this county’s steep cost of living. Pension formulas tie benefits to salary levels. So if teacher pensions are sent to the counties, Montgomery will face a bigger burden than perhaps any other jurisdiction.
Many legislators consider the Governor’s refusal to include county aid cuts in his special session budget proposal a mistake. One state legislator recently told me, “The counties are getting fat and happy from state aid.” This view is fairly common in Annapolis. If a state politician tells you that teacher pensions or any other state aid is “off the table,” don’t believe it. Because if Maryland’s budget deficit really turns out to be a billion dollars, every bit of state spending will be fair game.
The Sarah Palin Church Videos
Is this the person you want to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency? A person who claims that the Iraq War is a "task that is from God" and that a natural gas pipeline is "God's will?"
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Maryland Right-Wing Hypocrisy Never Ends
It was bad enough that Maryland conservatives reacted with rank hypocrisy to the recent state police spying scandal. But they have topped that performance with their praise of Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin.
The chief line of attack by national Republicans against Senator Obama is that he is inexperienced and not ready to be President. Maryland Republican Party Chairman Jim Pelura adopted this argument in a press release during the Democratic convention. Pelura commented, “...The Democrats’ cure for what they say ails our country is to elect a man that has served less than one term in the U.S. Senate…” and followed with, “Throughout this campaign, Barack Obama has shown the kind of weak judgment Americans cannot afford in our next commander-in-chief.” But in assessing Sarah Palin, Pelura gushes, “As the head of Alaska 's National Guard and as the mother of a soldier herself, Governor Palin understands what it takes to lead our nation and she understands the sacrifice of our troops and their families.” So according to Maryland Republicans, Senator Obama, with nearly four years experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is not ready for the White House. But Governor Palin, with two years experience supervising Alaska’s National Guard, is ready. Such are the arguments we would expect from paid political hacks.
And so I turned to the Free State’s conservative blogosphere and its leader, Brian Griffiths. Agree with him or not, Griffiths has a history of going after fellow Republicans, whether skewering Anne Arundel County Executive John Leopold or hounding former Maryland GOP Executive Director John Flynn out of his job. But even Griffiths fails the consistency test when it comes to Governor Palin.
After Senator Obama picked Senator Joe Biden as his running mate, Griffiths wrote: Obama selected Biden from a position of weakness, not a position of strength. Biden was picked to overcome Obama's noticeable shortcomings in experience and knowledge. And Biden was selected in an effort to stop the bleeding. Somebody in Obama's campaign thinks that the selection of Biden is going to shore up concerns with Obama's inexperience, and that the selection is going to reinforce the ticket's foreign policy credentials. Problem is, the selection only accentuates the weaknesses the American people already knows Barack Obama has.
And after Senator McCain picked Governor Palin as his running mate, Griffiths wrote:
Sarah Palin has more experience in government than Barack Obama does. She has no less foreign policy experience than he does. And, unlike Obama, she is the # 2 on the ticket. Obama's glaring lack of experience to be President still shines through. Friends, this is what we have been waiting for. This is what we have wanted to see all along.
The contention that Senator Obama and Governor Palin have similar levels of foreign policy experience is factually wrong. Senator Obama has worked with respected Republican Senator Dick Lugar to reduce conventional weapons stockpiles, sponsored a measure to encourage public pension funds to divest from companies connected to Iran and co-sponsored the 2006 Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act along with Senator McCain. This does not match Senator Biden’s record, but it is hardly equivalent to the “experience” of Governor Palin.
The point of this post is not to criticize the selection of Governor Palin as a Vice-Presidential nominee. Jackie Lichter handled that very well. Rather, the Orwellian reasoning of Maryland conservatives is the real issue here. According to them, Senator McCain is superior to Senator Obama because of his vast experience. But that is suddenly irrelevant in evaluating Senator McCain’s choice for Vice-President, a novice whose primary role in public service has been as mayor of a town less than half the size of Takoma Park. I am always amazed by people who believe totally opposite things at the same time with equal fervor. Such is now the case for many Maryland conservatives.
Barry Rascovar has an excellent piece in the Gazette detailing the irrelevance of the Maryland Republican Party. If Free State conservatives would like to turn around their misfortune, here’s a bit of advice: stop the hypocrisy. Maybe then your opinions will be respected by the independents and moderate Democrats you need to win elections.
Update: Brian Griffiths responds here. Among other things, he says:The argument that Obama is more prepared than Governor Palin to be President is absurd. And the idea that the right, particularly me, is being hypocritical on the Biden/Palin issue is equally absurd. Senator McCain, in selecting Governor Palin, selected somebody who will be a partner in change and in reform. Somebody who can lead on day one, without the training wheels.
Alaska state legislator Mike Doogan, who has had much more contact with Governor Palin than has Brian Griffiths, begs to differ with that last statement.
Professor Richard Vatz of Towson University stands out as the only honest conservative on Red Maryland, deploring inexperience on both sides. Whether you agree with Professor Vatz or not, he is at least consistent.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Guest Blog: Jackie Lichter on Sarah Palin
By Jackie Lichter.
So, it’s been four days since McCain announced his VP choice – Governor Sarah Palin – and I’ve had some time to think about what this choice means to me as a politically active woman. I was struck by what McCain’s pick means in terms of the glass ceiling and the GOP ticket – it’s an important precedent. That said, I have some grave concerns about Palin’s record and lack thereof, and I believe these concerns will be echoed in the minds of other women voters. Let’s examine why...
First, Palin is staunchly anti-abortion. She believes that abortion should be illegal unless a woman’s life is considered to be at risk. This includes instances of rape or incest [Juneau Empire, "Abortion Draws Clear Divide in State Races," accessed 8/29/08 and Anchorage Daily News, "Governor’s Race: Top contenders meet one last time to debate," 11/03/06.] She’s a member of Feminists for Life, a group whose website brandishes the slogan, “Refuse to Choose – Women Deserve Better than Abortion” and uses traditional scare tactics to frighten women away from abortion services, like a section titled “We Remember” that “commemorate[s] the lives of women lost to legal abortion.”
Governor Palin also believes that Sex Ed in schools should be confined to “abstinence only.” Yet, according to recent reports, her 17-year-old daughter is 5 months pregnant. You can’t help but be struck by the hypocrisy: she’s not able to keep her own child on the straight and narrow abstinence-only path, yet she thinks everyone else’s kids should be held to it and not be taught about how to stay healthy and safe if they stray?
So, will women and other rational voters be able to look past all this? I don’t think so. Women are not going to vote for a woman just because she’s a woman. One of the first factors women look at is a candidate’s position on choice. NARAL recently published a study that shows an anti-abortion candidate will draw pro-choice Republican and Independent women to Obama. I believe McCain will lose more pro-choice Republican and Independent women that will reject the now firmly anti-choice GOP ticket than he’ll pick up staunch conservatives who favor Palin’s political views.
Besides her position on choice and Sex Ed, Palin just doesn’t seem to be an experienced leader. She has been Governor for less than two years, and while her record on reform is decent, I’m not confident in her ability to lead. Take the following radio interview Palin did with “The Bob and Mark Show” which an op-ed in the Anchorage Daily news called “plain and simple one of the most unprofessional, childish and inexcusable performances I’ve ever seen from a politician.” The radio host called the State Senate President “a cancer and a b****.” He also referred to her being overweight. The Senate President happens to be a cancer survivor – apparently a well-known fact in Alaska (one Palin clearly knew). You can listen to the clip yourself here but be prepared to be appalled. Not only does Palin not condemn the comments, she laughs – actually she giggles, which I think is worse. Now, you could forgive the laughter, but at the end of the interview she goes so far as to tell the radio hosts that she’d be honored to host them at the State Capital anytime. Any leader, let alone a governor, should have the decency to stand up for others when they are being viciously attacked. When that leader is a woman and she’s condoning another woman being called a b****, it’s just disgusting.
Finally, you would imagine that a Vice Presidential candidate should have some understanding of history. When asked if she was offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, she responded, “Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.” Now, it’s possible that she actually intended to name President Eisenhower as a “founding father” but I would say, generally speaking, “our founding fathers” refers to those political leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence. I mean, it must be the case if this is the first hit when googling “Founding Fathers.”
Bottom line is this: Naming an anti-abortion, inexperienced, and historically- challenged woman as McCain’s VP does nothing to change my mind in who I’m supporting for President.
Jackie Lichter has lived in Montgomery County for 28 years. She is a former teacher in MCPS and is currently the Political Director for SEIU Local 500. She serves on the Executive Board for Committee for Montgomery, is the Vice President for the Maryland Legislative Agenda for Women, and is chair of the Policy and Legislation Committee for the Montgomery County Commission for Women. The views posted above are completely independent and not reflective of any of the organizations to which she belongs.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Maryland and Republican Conventions
By Marc Korman.
Last week I took a look back at Maryland and the Democratic National Convention. This week, in honor of the Republicans gathering in Minnesota (in whatever form it ends up taking), here’s a review of Maryland’s involvement in Republican conventions.
Conventions
The Republican Party was born in the mid-1850s. It was a collection of members of small and failed political parties, including Whigs, Northern Democrats, Free Soilers, and Know Nothings. Baltimore was home to one Republican Party Convention. In 1864, Republicans convened in Baltimore and renominated Abraham Lincoln. The Republicans also removed Vice President Hannibal Hamlin, a former Maine Senator, from the ticket and replaced him with Andrew Johnson, a Democrat from Tennessee. Republicans never again met in Maryland.
Nominees
As with the Democratic Party, there has never been a Marylander on the top of the Republican ticket. But a Marylander was elected Vice President as a Republican, Spiro Agnew. Governor Agnew was tapped as Nixon’s running mate in 1968, partly because of his firm response to the riots that followed the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Agnew’s actions during and after the riots complimented Nixon’s emerging Southern strategy, in which he sought to break the Democrats’ hold on the South by exploiting the contentious issue of civil rights.
No other Marylanders were nominated to a Republican ticket.
Speakers
Due to the Democrats’ dominance in Maryland, speakers from the state at Republican conventions are quite rare. This year, former Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele is scheduled to speak on the convention’s second night (subject to change due to Hurricane Gustav). Steele also spoke at the Republican Convention in 2004. The Washington Post reported last week that another of the state’s prominent Republicans, Bob Ehrlich, would not be attending.
