Here's more from Marylanders in Fells Point. The focus of this video is whether the state's Constitution should be changed to include slots, an argument cited by conservatives who oppose the referendum.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Sounding Off on Slots: Maryland's Constitution
Barack Obama and the Jewish Vote
By Marc Korman.
A recent poll found Barack Obama leading John McCain among Jewish voters 67% to 33%. This is a commanding lead, but how does it compare to previous Democratic presidential candidates?
In Maryland, 4.2% of the population is Jewish, over 235,000 people. There is also a substantial Jewish population in important swing states like Florida (over 653,000 people), Ohio (about 145,000 people), and Pennsylvania (about 285,000 people). So even though Jews make up just 2% of the national population, they could help swing the election.
Popular conception has been that Barack Obama has a problem with Jewish voters. Polling back in May indicated he could expect about 60% of Jews to support him, far less than supported John Kerry and Al Gore. The Obama campaign has taken such concerns seriously, forming Jewish outreach teams in several states, addressing a meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and visiting Israel. People outside the campaign have also tackled the problem, perhaps most famously Sarah Silverman.
So how do Obama’s current numbers compare to previous Democratic nominees?
From 1928, when the Democratic nominee was New York Governor Al Smith, through all of the elections of Franklin Roosevelt, to the 1948 reelection of Harry Truman, 75% to 90% of Jews supported the Democratic candidate.
Jewish Vote For the Democratic Nominee By Year (1952-2004):
1952-Stevenson-64%
1956-Stevenson-60%
1960-JFK-82%
1964-Johnson-90%
1968-Humphrey-81%
1972-McGovern-64%
1976-Carter-71%
1980-Carter-45%
1984-Mondale-67%
1988-Dukakis-64%
1992-Clinton-80%
1996-Clinton-78%
2000-Gore-79%
2004-Kerry-76%
Barack Obama’s current 67% is still lower than any winning Democratic nominee’s share of the Jewish vote since World War II. But the good news is that he is doing better than expected and the number could continue to rise before Election Day. Of course, Barack Obama is doing better than Democratic nominees do in several other categories, so even if his share of the Jewish vote drops a bit, he could still have a great night next Tuesday.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Slots Study Tells The Truth of All That's False About Gambling
By Wayne Goldstein, MCCF Immediate Past President.
Last week I stated that I would tell you some of the unique gambling history of Maryland. However, the same day, the Maryland Institute for Policy Analysis and Research, located at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC), released a detailed study titled: "An Analysis of the Impact of Introducing Video Lottery Terminals [VLTs/Slots] in Maryland." The researchers elaborate on the false promises being made by the state government and gambling interests and tell the truth about the negative impacts of gambling.
We have been told that slots will raise money for education. This is a false promise. The study states: "DLS [State Department of Legislative Services] has already included the Education Trust Fund (ETF) as substitutable, or fungible, dollars as they have subtracted the ETF from expenditures. Thus DLS assumes that the expenditure budget can be reduced by the $660 million ETF. This leaves a net effect of $564.6 million." What this means is that all slots dollars "dedicated" to education could result in the same amount of education dollars, now coming from other sources, instead being used for other purposes, so there could be NO increase in education funding as a result of slots.
The study describes estimates that Marylanders spend $550 million per year gambling in Delaware, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The slots revenue estimate by DLS assumes that every penny of the $550 million would instead be spent on Maryland slots and an additional $800 million would also be spent by Marylanders. As I've pointed out, these other states, some with lower income taxes and lower property taxes because of a reliance on gambling revenue, and also suffering greater poverty, will not let this happen without fighting back hard with better and more sophisticated gambling facilities to keep the loyalty of their Maryland customers.
"The Lottery Commission estimates that revenues will suffer a permanent 10 percent loss due to the presence of slots… The second effect is a substitution of dollars from other purchases to slots. "Consumers are faced with a budget constraint and thus if they increase their spending on slots, other purchases must be decreased."
This has been seen across the nation the past year as gambling revenue declined for the first time in what had been considered a recession-proof business. Furthermore, in 2004 "[Professor Earl] Grinols estimated the average losses in sales revenue given a $1,000 increase in casino revenues to be $381 for businesses within 30 miles of the casino." Not only is there a loss of tax revenue from these sales, but the businesses are harmed by this competition for customer dollars and some may go out of business as a result of this competition.
The study describes a “social benefit” in the form of the satisfaction people get from visits to slot machines. This entertainment is valued at $25 million. The study finds no job creation benefit from slots. With unemployment in Maryland averaging 4% in 2008, the authors believe any new jobs created by slots “may merely be a substitute from other employment.”
On the other hand, the social costs are considerable. The study has calculated the “Incidence of Potential Pathological & Problem Gambling in Maryland Upon the Introduction of” Slots. The authors found that 2/3rds of pathological & problem gamblers will use "abused dollars" which is "a term applied to dollars that are lost gambling that the gambler acquires through family, employers or friends under false pretense." Each gambler will create an average lifetime debt of $35,000. An average of 5% will declare bankruptcy, 5% will commit violent crimes, 5% will commit auto thefts and larceny, 20% will attempt suicide, and 28% will divorce, causing as many as 16,000 divorces. These addicted gamblers will miss an average of 9.8 hours of work per month because of gambling, about 6% of the work week.
The cost of addiction treatment is an average of $2,340 per gambler, whether or not they receive treatment and the actual cost is an average of $7,022 for those who obtain treatment. This works out to a total of $135,366,660 just for treatment of new gambling addicts who will be generated by slots coming to the state. It does not include those who are currently addicted and for whom Maryland provides no treatment dollars despite regularly earning $500 million per year from its lottery. The $6 million per year in slots revenue that would be pledged for addiction treatment will be a drop in the bucket for what will be needed. It would take almost 23 years for every newly addicted slots gambler to receive money from the state for treatment. Since the result of this addiction is that the gambler loses everything and is also likely to take money from the family and from the employer, there may be no other financial option for treatment, if existing health insurance does not cover treatment.
It is perhaps ironic that while the financial impact of gambling addiction is so high, a 1985 study found that treatment has such a high benefit cost ratio in terms of the impact on the reduction of the use of abused dollars that it made "pathological gambling one of the least costly illnesses to treat."
In 2004, Professor Grinols calculated the annual cost to society of pathological & problem gamblers as $11,630 in 2007 dollars for each pathological gambler and $3,315 for each problem gambler. According to the 1999 National Opinion Research Center (NORC) report, the "prevalence of both pathological and problem gamblers doubles when a casino opens within 50 miles (versus the 50 to 250 miles away where most other gambling venues outside of Maryland are located). As previously mentioned, we believe that the majority of Marylanders will be located within 20 miles of one of the proposed gaming sites. This means that the amount of new gamblers, both pathological and problem, in Maryland, will double. Using the NORC (1999) prevalence rates of 0.8 percent and 1.4 percent, respectively, as well as the American Community Survey population estimate of 4,253,595 Maryland adults, we obtain figures of 34,029 pathological and 59,550 problem gamblers. It is important to clarify that these figures are not the total number of gamblers in Maryland, but instead represent only those current nongamblers who would develop a gambling problem upon the introduction of VLTs [slots]. Similarly, at the overall level, the social costs noted are those that would arise only when gambling was introduced."
The 1999 NORC report found "that approximately 2.5 million adults in the U.S. are pathological gamblers and that another 3 million are problem gamblers... This same study finds that pathological, problem and at-risk gambling are proportionately higher among African-Americans and other ethnic groups. It is also noted that problem and pathological gamblers are more likely than low-risk gamblers to have been on welfare, declare bankruptcy, and to have been arrested or incarcerated."
Other studies have found that "that machine or slots gamblers have a quicker transition into pathological gambling (1.09 year versus 3.58-3.89 years) compared with other forms of gambling." Grinols and David B. Mustard examined all U.S. casinos outside of Nevada in 2004, and found "that around 8 percent of crime in counties with casinos was attributable to those casinos."
"Utilizing the costs from Grinols (2004) this would total to an annual cost in 2008 dollars of $418.7 million for pathological gamblers and $208.8 million for problem gamblers. Utilizing the social costs from Walker (2004) [Professor Douglas M. Walker, a seemingly preferred consultant to the casino industry] the annual social cost is $228.3 million. This range ($228.3 to $627.5 million) is a higher bound as we estimated a large impact in the number of problem and pathological gamblers. In fact, many pathological and problem gamblers currently exist in our population but are not identified. This estimate utilizes the increased incidence at an extreme end but no other incidence estimates currently exist." Even based on Professor Walker's much lower calculation of social costs, these studies show how little additional net revenue the state will actually gain from slots, especially when the expected, aggressive, counter-response from other states takes effect. If Professor Grinols costs are correct, Maryland will actually lose money by legalizing slots.
At its regular meeting last week, MCCF voted overwhelmingly to oppose the slots constitutional amendment after learning of some of the harms of gambling addiction. A Washington Post article this week cited its recent poll showing wide support for slots. It was reported: "About one-third of voters who think slots may have negative consequences still support the plan…" It is unlikely that these voters understand the full extent of the "negative consequences" as detailed in this column and elsewhere. Unfortunately, history may be poised to repeat itself in Maryland in 2008 as happened in 1947, when slots were first proposed and accepted in this state as the solution to the financial needs of government. Next week I will explore the history of the eventually successful battle to eliminate slots from the state, despite the lure of the easy money that some local governments quickly became addicted to.
Readers can access the study here.
Note: An edited version of this column is also appearing in the Montgomery Sentinel.
Maryland’s Budget Apocalypse
In a disaster movie that never seems to end, the state’s budget is getting even worse. We use the latest documents from the state’s Department of Legislative Services (DLS) to dissect the biggest government collapse since the Weimar Republic.
In September, the state’s Board of Revenue Estimates forecast total general fund revenues for fiscal 2010 (which begins on 7/1/09) at $14.7017 billion. Just one month later, DLS estimated those revenues at $14.4135 billion – a reduction of $288.3 million. That adds to a billion-dollar deficit previously forecast over the summer.
So the Governor and the General Assembly must scrub the budget. What does it look like in broad terms? The general fund (which does not include transportation) is divided into three different categories: aid to local governments, entitlements and state agency spending. Each of those three categories has sub-components as detailed below. Pay special attention to the fourth column from the left (FY 2010), which applies to next year.
Budget cutting demands priorities. One way to do it is to decide what to protect. So suppose you preserve education funding. After all, if Maryland went from 24th to 45th among U.S. states in business tax climate in one year, perhaps we ought to maintain our human capital investments to keep whatever employers choose to remain. The problem is that combined education spending adds up to $7.6773 billion in 2010, or 49% of general fund spending. Suppose you decide to protect healthcare spending. That adds up to $4.1112 billion in 2010, or 26% of general fund spending. Or suppose you decide to protect spending on public safety. That accounts for $1.3952 billion (more if you include some county and municipal aid), or 9% of general fund spending. Suppose you decide to protect all three. Then you have exempted $13.1837 billion, or 83% of the state’s general fund spending, from cuts.
Pure and simple, the state budget pays for education, health and public safety, in that order. These are the services Marylanders expect and demand. And that is why the upcoming budget cuts will be so excruciating. There are no easy or painless cuts to make.
But cut we must. No member of the General Assembly I know, including the most liberal members, believes the legislature will pass tax hikes. And the cuts cannot be temporary – they must be permanent. Why? Because DLS forecasts that the wretched state of the economy will produce gigantic budget deficits well into the indefinite future.
In 2010, DLS estimates a deficit of $1.318 billion, rising to $1.487 billion next year. The deficits will fall to the $800 million-$1 billion range after that. In total, between 2010 and 2014, DLS expects the state to suffer a combined $5.718 billion budget deficit under current revenue and spending projections. And those numbers include revenues from slots. Without slots, the total five-year deficit would rise to $7.539 billion.
All of this leads us to advise the members of each of the following three groups to be careful what they wish for.
1. If you are a conservative, you should think twice about celebrating these spending cuts. They will go deeper than you expect and will damage even your priorities, such as the police.
2. If you are a slots opponent, you may very well rue the defeat of the referendum if the alternative is an extra $1.821 billion in cuts to education and health.
3. And if you are thinking of running for office in 2010, you may regret winning. Because if you do win, this mess will belong to you!
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
More on Politicians Against Slots
The next wave of slots campaign contributions are in. Here's our updated list of the politicians who contributed to one or more of the groups opposing slots.
In our earlier post, we reported these contributions from politicians to Marylanders United to Stop Slots:
Friends of Peter Franchot: $6,000 (plus $500 of personal money)
Friends for Delegate J.W. Hubbard (D-23A, Prince George’s): $1,000
Citizens for Josh Cohen (Anne Arundel County Council): $1,000
Friends of George Leventhal (Montgomery County Council): $1,000
Citizens for Paul Pinsky (Senate D-22, Prince George’s): $600
Citizens for Karen Montgomery (D-14, Montgomery): $500
Since then, the following politicians have also contributed to Marylanders United to Stop Slots:
Friends of Susan Lee (D-16, Montgomery): $500
Friends of Justin Ross (D-22, Prince George's): $500
Bill Bronrott for Delegate (D-16, Montgomery): $400
Friends of Joseline Pena Melnyk (D-21, Prince George's): $200
Friends of Eric Olson (Prince George's County Council):$150
Also, the Committee to Elect Delegate Liz Bobo (Howard, D-12B) gave $1,000 to Stop Slots Maryland and Rockville City Council Member Piotr Gajewski gave $100 of his own money to Marylanders United to Stop Slots.
As far as we can tell, the above is a complete list of all politicians who have actually donated money to one of the anti-slots groups. If I am missing anyone, please contact me through my Blogger profile.
Have a Drink for the Road!
Sound like a bad idea? Hey, if you don’t want to listen to me, then listen to your County Council Members!
I am writing this blog post from the Royal Mile Pub in Wheaton, MoCo’s best scotch bar. And why am I here? I am doing my part to finance transportation projects in the county and so are all my rowdy friends. Bring out another round, barkeep!
This blog has chronicled MoCo’s transportation woes over and over again and the situation has gotten much worse in the wake of the state’s billion-dollar transportation cut. The vast majority of the county’s transportation problems occur on state highways (like Wisconsin Avenue/Rockville Pike, Georgia Avenue, Connecticut Avenue and US-29) or are connected to transit needs. Every year, the County Executive and the County Council send a letter to the state delegation outlining their highest priorities for state projects. And the projects move through the state capital program slower than frozen molasses.
Here’s one example. The stretch of Georgia Avenue between 16th Street and Forest Glen Road, commonly known as Montgomery Hills, is a blighted mess. Crumbling buildings, ugly power lines, hellish pedestrian conditions and more traffic than any other non-interstate road in the county have produced long-simmering discontent among the natives (one of whom is me). The North and West Silver Spring Master Plan contains a plan for redesigning this part of Georgia as an attractive, pedestrian-friendly boulevard and the county has made it its number one road design request to the state since 1999. This past January, the O’Malley administration included $3 million for project design funding, but that fell victim to the recent cuts. If this were left only to the state’s devices, the natives might never see any relief.
Two years ago, Council Members Steve Silverman and Nancy Floreen came up with a novel way to jumpstart state projects: they would use proceeds from bonds backed by liquor profits. Montgomery County has a wholesale monopoly on all alcohol sales and a retail monopoly on hard liquor. As with all things connected to mankind’s favorite beverage, this monopoly is hugely profitable. By leveraging future liquor profits into current capital funds, the county could get some state projects moving.
Hey barkeep – give me a refill on those Goldfishies! For you non-Wheatonites, the Royal Mile’s house bar food is Pepperidge Farm Goldfish. That’s yet another reason to come here. Give us another round of Loose Cannon too (hic)!
Where was I? Oh yeah, transportation. The County Council authorized $104 million in liquor bonds to pay for new projects, but only spent $31 million. So a joint staff panel from the Council, the County’s Department of Transportation and Park and Planning recommended a list of languishing state projects that would be started with the remaining $73 million in county money. The projects are all over the county, ranging from Montgomery Hills to design money for a new Metro entrance at the Intersection of Death to new sidewalks in Kensington to two bus-rapid-transit lines to relocating a treacherous stretch of Georgia Avenue in Brookeville. Most of the spending will finance design because $73 million won’t pay for a lot of construction. But without design acceleration, we will be waiting well past last call to get something actually built.
The council’s Transportation Committee approved the project list last Thursday, so the full council should be considering it soon. So let’s drink a toast to those Council Members! (Hey buddy... (hic) What are their names again?)
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Ted Stevens Endorses Sarah Palin
Isn't it nice to remember the good times in life? When everybody was happy and no one was going to jail?
Franchot Drives Slots Opponents to Near Mutiny (Updated)
IBEW Local 26 Business Manager Chuck Graham, Chairman of Marylanders United to Stop Slots, is threatening to leave the group's leadership over the actions of Comptroller Peter Franchot. He is particularly unhappy over the entanglement of the Comptroller's disputes with the Governor with the slots issue and also with a commercial released by the anti-slots group.
Here is the ad that has so enraged Graham and divided the anti-slots movement. Note the reference to the special session's tax increase and the tagline: "Don't Let Annapolis Fool You Again. Slots Won't Fix Our Economy."
Update: Franchot is now claiming that "the leadership of the Maryland Democratic Party has become indebted to the national gambling industry." You just can't make this stuff up, folks.
Update 2: Here is Franchot's letter to the state Democrats in which he says "a few political bosses are allowing the Maryland Democratic Party to be hijacked by the national gambling industry, silencing those who believe that our progressive values are at odds with an industry that preys upon the poor and vulnerable, all in the name of excessive greed." Hmmm... I wonder what Franchot means by political bosses?
MoCo Delegation Speaks Out on Slots, Part Three
The Montgomery County Sentinel’s series on the MoCo delegation’s positions on slots concludes this week. Following are the positions of legislators from Districts 19, 20 and 39. The Sentinel did not report responses from Senators Mike Lenett (D-19) and Nancy King (D-39) and Delegates Hank Heller (D-19) and Kirill Reznik (D-39), but as we have seen, that does not necessarily mean that those legislators did not contact them. Of the legislators who are quoted in the Sentinel, Delegates Roger Manno (D-19), Sheila Hixson (D-20) and Tom Hucker (D-20) voted for the referendum and Senator Jamie Raskin (D-20) and Delegates Ben Kramer (D-19), Heather Mizeur (D-20), Charles Barkey (D-39) and Saqib Ali (D-39) voted against it.
Delegate Ben Kramer (Against):Kramer voted against the referendum during the special session and said he has some difficulty understanding why many voted for the referendum last year and now claim they oppose it. “I question their rationale,” he said.
Editor’s Note: Can someone explain to us in the comments section what this alternative could be?
Kramer said he would like to see, as an alternative to slots, a repeal of a tax cut that was disapproved.
Delegate Roger Manno (Against):Manno said he will vote against the slots referendum on the November ballot. “I do not believe that the slots proposal offers a stable or justifiable source of revenue, even if we assume the most generous slots revenue projections,” he said.
Senator Jamie Raskin (Against):
“As a legislator,” he continued, “my focus is to protect vulnerable populations, shore up critical infrastructure commitments, fulfill our contract with retirees who have paid into the system, and eliminate waste, fraud and abuse.”
In lieu of revenue from the slots proposal, Manno said cuts and efficiencies in the range of $100 million to $200 million are “likely unavoidable. In addition, alternative revenues include cracking down on the misclassification of employees (yielding some $200 million annually in other states), and implementing combined reporting to capture revenue from corporate tax loopholes (yielding perhaps $100 million annually). If enacted, these measures would close the portion of the budget shortfall that slots revenue would assume.”Raskin said he voted against the slots proposal in the Senate and intends to vote against it at the polls as well. “To me, it seems like a low road for the state to go down,” he said. “After so many home foreclosures, risking bankruptcies and staggering consumer debt, I cannot imagine that it’s a good idea to set up 15,000 slot machines in our state.”
Delegate Sheila Hixon (For):
He said if there was universal health care, universal accessibility and a stronger safety net, then the state could, perhaps, responsibly rely on people’s gambling losings to fund essential state services. “We don’t have a real social safety net,” he said. “Just a tight rope and it’s already shaky enough for a lot of people and kids right now. I don’t think the government should help push people off of it with the introduction of slot machines.”
Raskin said he believes there are people of good will on both sides of the issue. “Our economic problems, flowing downhill from the fiscal recklessness and out-of-control spending of the Bush Administration, are deep and will require sustained attention,” he said.
Alternatively, Raskin said he would like to see a tax on liquor and continued pruning of the state budget, including a repeal of the death penalty, which, according to the Senator, will save millions of dollars a year.Hixson said that without slots, the budget would be very tight. “We have given the voters to choose,” she said. “If they want it, they will vote for it.”
Delegate Tom Hucker (Against):“While there is no question that the state needs additional revenue,” Hucker said, “any significant revenue from slots won’t arrive until fiscal year 2012, too late to fix the budgets for next year or the following year.”
Editor’s Note: As we will see in an upcoming post, next year’s budget deficit is projected to be $1.3 billion. That’s a lotta gold bullion! Hey Tom – how many of those “gold bullion collectors” live in District 20?
He said the revenue from slots is “overestimated” and will be “offset by millions of dollars that will be needed for increased bankruptcies, gambling addiction treatment, domestic violence and other crimes that typically increase in the states that legalize slots.”
Hucker said he has been an organizer and vocal advocate for a progressive state income tax for years and said he was proud to vote last year to finally make the income tax progressive. He said he also worked in 2003 and 2004 to close the Delaware corporate tax loophole, which dozens of large companies, according to him, were using to cheat Maryland out of hundreds of millions of dollars.
“We need to end our state tax breaks for yacht owners, gold bullion collectors and country clubs. And most important, we need to enact combined reporting to make sure multinational corporations pay taxes in Maryland just like the rest of us. Taking those steps would raise more than $500 million annually – enough to close our budget deficit next year, not years down the road.”
Delegate Heather Mizeur (Against):“Maryland is the wealthiest state in the nation for a reason,” Mizeur said. “We invest in our people, in their skills and in our communities. Our state thrives on job creation fueled by creativity, research and new technologies.”
Delegate Saqib Ali (Against):
Mizeur said slots are “a regressive throwback to 19th Century thinking.” She said that the state should focus on science and technology and not slots to help balance the budget. “Instead of betting on slots, Maryland could expand its individual and corporate tax bases by promoting economic winners like nanotechnology, renewable energy or biotechnology,” she said. “Let’s bet on science, not slots.”Ali said that slots are a tax on the poorest members of society. “I think the detrimental aspects of slots, like addiction, ruined finances and broken homes, outweigh the fiscal benefits.”
Delegate Charles Barkley (Against):
He said he is also concerned that the gambling companies will be unjustly enriched by the referendum.
Ali said he would like to see the same budget cuts the government has made in the past. “Additionally, I see no reason why alcohol taxes in Maryland shouldn’t be raised,” he said. “They have not been raised in more than a generation.”“I am not a fan of gambling,” he said. “We shouldn’t base our revenue on slots because too many things come with it.”
Barkley said he is afraid, like many others, that the social problems that are attached to gambling such as crime, corruption and gambling addiction will burden the state.
“Cutting certain programs and spending could help turn around the budget crisis,” he said.
District 18 Town Hall Meeting, Part Two
Senator Madaleno and Delegates Gutierrez, Waldstreicher and Carr finish responding to constituent questions as read by moderator Charles Duffy. There is news here, so read on!
What is your position on the ICC?
Delegate Carr, who argued against cuts to MARC in the Gazette, said, “Something is wrong when mass transit is cut and something like the ICC is protected.” None of the Delegates defended the road.
Throughout his political career, Senator Madaleno – a former member of the Duncan administration – has been an ICC supporter. But Madaleno is changing his mind on the issue. In September, he told the Gazette: It seems, in transportation, we are infatuated with the mega-project, whether it be the ICC or the Purple Line, when it may be time to be rethinking the giant projects in favor of a much larger number of smaller projects that can be just as beneficial but don't lend themselves to ribbon-cuttings or groundbreakings.
In the Town Hall meeting, Madaleno went a bit further. He said that if the section of the ICC currently under construction between I-270 and Georgia Avenue was canceled, the state could face $100 million or more in contractor penalties. But if the rest of the road went unfinished, at least part of the ICC’s financing that is not tied to toll-backed bonds could be directed to other projects. (We outlined the ICC’s funding structure here.) Madaleno even said he was “in talks” with County Council Member Marc Elrich, who was present in the audience, about using ICC money to finance bus-rapid-transit throughout the county.
A combination of ICC supporter Madaleno and vehement ICC foe Elrich would be one of the strangest oddball alliances in MoCo politics. All parties on both sides of the issue should pay attention to this development.
Which Purple Line route do you prefer?
In District 18, the alignment of the Purple Line is a very sensitive issue. Most supporters of the project favor a light-rail line along the Capital Crescent Trail, but many residents of the Town of Chevy Chase prefer a bus-rapid-transit line on Jones Bridge Road, which is outside their town limits. The common perception of most political observers in this district is that few politicians challenge the wishes of Chevy Chase and survive to take their oath of office.
Senator Madaleno and Delegate Gutierrez answered the question directly, with opposite points of view. Madaleno said flatly that he “does not support” the Inner Purple Line alignment and favors more transit options outside the Beltway instead. He claimed that 80% of the Purple Line’s riders would be diverted from buses rather than cars. Gutierrez said she supports the original alignment, which would take the line on the trail, and stated, “There are so many pluses for the Purple Line. For me, it’s a no-brainer. I think it’s a model for how urban areas should be thinking.” Delegate Carr expressed concern that the planning process be inclusive but expressed no opinion on the proper alignment. Delegate Waldstreicher did not speak on the question.
Soon enough, the state will pick both an alignment and a mode for the Purple Line. At that point, every politician will have to say flatly whether they support or oppose the state’s plan. District 18 politicians will not be an exception.
Editor's Note: The green-shirted individual above is an awful sight for any MoCo politician at a public event.
What is your single biggest accomplishment in Annapolis?
Delegate Waldstreicher said he was proudest of his work in the House Judiciary Committee on a bill sponsored by late District 18 Delegate Jane Lawton that criminalized sex slavery. Prostitution is of course illegal, but the bill’s intent was to punish human traffickers who smuggle women into the state for paid (and often coerced) sex. Waldstreicher said the bill took three months of intense work to pass.
Delegate Gutierrez said she was proudest of her effort to pass a law requiring school districts to abide by a graduation rate formula established by the National Governors Association. Prior to the law, school districts were free to use their own calculations and thereby overstate their real graduation rates. Gutierrez said the State Department of Education has never implemented the law and was working to undermine it, so the fight goes on.
Senator Madaleno, a man who may very well read budget documents to his young daughter at bedtime, said he was proudest of his work to raise Maryland’s earned income tax credit. He described it as “the most successful program to help the poor pay their bills.” And he may be right about that.
Al Carr has only been in the General Assembly for one session. So how did he answer this question? “Just surviving my first session was a great accomplishment!”
Who says there are no honest politicians anymore?
Disclosure: The author is the Treasurer of the District 18 slate campaign fund.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Andy Harris Recycles--Yes, Really
The Politico reports that campaign operatives from around the nation nominated ads by Andy Harris as among the ten worst of the political season:This one makes it on sheer laziness. We can accept the occasional campaign volunteer serving as the “man on the street” for his or her candidate. But Harris took it to a new level – recycling the same exact people — and using the same exact footage — to attack both his primary opponent Rep. Wayne Gilchrest and his general election opponent, Frank Kratovil. The cherry is the ad’s title: “What people are saying about Frank Kratovil.” “Just too liberal,” says one guy in a warehouse. “He is a big spender,” says a woman in a grocery store. Both clips are from the Gilchrest ad.
See all of the worst ads here.
District 18 Town Hall Meeting, Part One
On a chilly Thursday night, the District 18 Delegation of Senator Rich Madaleno and Delegates Ana Sol Gutierrez, Jeff Waldstreicher and Al Carr converged on Holy Cross Hospital to field questions from 70 of their constituents. As your blogger lives just a couple blocks north of the meeting site and our civic association organized the meeting, I would be derelict in my duty to our readers if I did not cover the event. But this was no ordinary meeting. In answers that were at times brutally honest, the delegation made some news.
Charles Duffy, moderator of the meeting, is a genial enough fellow. But as the long-time host of Political Pulse, a resident of Chevy Chase and the moderator of the District 18 appointment forum last December, he has a knowledge of the district’s issues that is too deep for any politician to escape. Mr. Duffy relied on index cards submitted by the audience to determine most of his questions, but he occasionally subjected the legislators to merciless follow-ups. Luckily for them, all emerged with their seats intact.
As I describe the major questions asked by Mr. Duffy and the answers given by the delegation, bear in mind that I am the Treasurer of the District 18 slate campaign fund. If that causes me to be too lenient (or too critical) in my account of the meeting, I invite our many readers who attended to correct me in the comments section. Let’s start with the most contentious state issue in the current cycle.
What is your position on slots?
Delegates Waldstreicher and Carr are both opposed to slots. Waldstreicher described them as “a tax on the most vulnerable” and Carr said they would have a “corrupting impact” on state politics. Waldstreicher voted against the referendum and Carr was not in office during the special session.
Delegate Gutierrez also opposes slots and said, “There are better ways to grow the economy and to grow jobs.” She also stated that slots have “an incredibly negative impact on our society.” Despite her views, she voted in favor of the referendum. Describing intense lobbying by both Governor O’Malley and County Executive Leggett prior to the referendum vote, she admitted, “After all of the pressure, I caved.” Shaking her head, she told the crowd, “It was one of the hardest votes I ever cast. I am sorry I did cast that vote... I am working as hard as I can to get people to vote against the referendum.”
Senator Madaleno started by mentioning his votes against prior free-standing slots bills when he was in the House of Delegates. But he said the referendum was different because it was part of a “comprehensive plan to close the structural budget deficit… The only way we could cobble together enough votes to pass the entire package was to pass the referendum.” Madaleno voted for the referendum and said he continued to support it because of long-run budget problems. “It’s hard to imagine where we will go forward after 2011 without the slots revenues.”
Mr. Duffy questioned Waldstreicher about his comment in the Sentinel that “We should not be making a decision on the issue based on political agenda.” Waldstreicher clarified that the issue had “become a bit of a personality contest between the Governor and the Comptroller” and should be evaluated on its merits.
District 18 is, at the level of local Democratic Party activists, extremely hostile territory to slots. Some may not have been pleased with the answers given by Madaleno and Gutierrez. But they deserve credit for their honesty.
Would you favor additional progressivity in the income tax to finance education?
The delegation turned this question into a general discussion of budget options. Delegate Waldstreicher said he would consider higher taxes on alcohol to help deal with the upcoming billion-dollar-plus state deficit, which he estimated would bring in $25-40 million per year. He also favored combined reporting, which would prevent large companies from hiding their earnings from Maryland’s income tax in other states. Delegate Gutierrez suggested making the beneficiaries of dredging in Baltimore’s harbor pay fees for that service. Senator Madaleno noted that the vast majority of the state’s budget is spent on education and health care and is therefore very challenging to cut. He noted the hope of many in Annapolis that an Obama administration might increase state aid.
But in the eyes of your blogger, Delegate Carr stole this question by condemning tax cheating by employers who intentionally misclassify their workers as independent contractors, a practice that costs the state untold millions. We appreciate politicians who pick up good ideas and run with them.
In Part Two, we will explore the delegation’s opinions on the ICC, the Purple Line and their “greatest achievements” in Annapolis.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Adam P Tips Election to McCain
One of our "fans" sent this video to me. It seems that I am really going to have to vote now.
Friday, October 24, 2008
MPW on the Radio
Rockville Central Radio interviewed me today. Helping Rockville Central scoop our very own blog, I unwisely unveiled brand new voter registration data that I have collected for a future post and also discussed the slots issue very briefly. Start at the 35-minute mark to hear a blogger who just can't help himself!
State Legislators Cry Foul on Sentinel Coverage
Two state legislators claim that the Montgomery Sentinel has inaccurately characterized their responses on the slots issue. These are serious allegations that the Sentinel must address immediately.
In Part Two of our series reprinting the Sentinel's questions to state legislators on slots, we reported the Sentinel's statement that it did not receive return communications from Delegates Bill Bronrott and Bill Frick, both of District 16. Both Delegates claim that is untrue.
Delegate Bronrott told me, "The reporter and I traded calls a couple of times. While we did not connect in time to have a conversation before his deadline, I did leave him a message letting him know that I oppose the slots referendum." Nevertheless, Sentinel reporter Joe Slaninka wrote, "Though the Montgomery Sentinel tried repeatedly to get in contact with Bronrott, by press time he still had not returned our phone calls."
Delegate Frick received an email from Slaninka on Tuesday, October 14 at 11:56 AM saying:Dear Delegate or Senator,
Delegate Frick emailed Slaninka four minutes later:
I am polling the Montgomery County Delegation about your positions on the Slots Referendum on the upcoming November ballot. I am asking for your position (either for or against) and your reasons for your position. If you are against, I am also asking what alternatives you would like to see to help fix the current budget crisis in Maryland.
I have a deadline of tomorrow (Wednesday, Oct. 15) so I would appreciate it if you could respond as soon as possible. You can respond to this email or you can call me at my office or on my cell phone (provided below). I appreciate your time and I look forward to hearing from you very soon. Thank you.Joe, I am voting "no" on the referendum.
Nevertheless, Slaninka wrote, "Though the Montgomery Sentinel tried repeatedly to get in contact with Frick, by press time he still had not returned our phone calls."
This is irresponsible press coverage on multiple levels. First, given the woeful understaffing of state legislative offices when the General Assembly is out of session, it is absolutely unreasonable to give them 24 hours notice to respond to press questions. Anyone who covers Annapolis would understand this. Second, the Sentinel blatantly mischaracterized these two Delegates as unresponsive when they in fact did reach out to the reporter. In Frick's case, he did so in four minutes.
The Sentinel's editors need to investigate this and issue a retraction and an apology to these two Delegates. And they should do it yesterday.
What They Don't Want You To Know About Gambling Addiction
By Wayne Goldstein, MCCF Immediate Past President.
There is a conspiracy to conceal the truth about gambling addiction that rivals the conspiracy to conceal the truth about tobacco addiction. For decades, this nation had an endless debate about whether nicotine was addictive and whether smoking caused cancer and heart disease. We are in the early stages of a similar debate about gambling addiction.
Organizations that profit from gambling argue that gambling is legitimate entertainment, that very few recreational gamblers become addicted, that it is someone’s genetic makeup that predisposes them to become any kind of addict that may then result in gambling addiction, and, most importantly, that the findings of gambling addiction research are always inconclusive and always require further research. I have looked at dozens of abstracts of a wide range of such studies. All seem to minimally advance knowledge of gambling addiction and usually call for more study, including three published since June 2007: “It is necessary to continue prospective research on exposure and adaptation theories as potential explanations for the development of pathological gambling... Longitudinal studies are needed to clarify the relationship between gambling and health in older adults in the context of healthy aging… Future research addressing whether underlying constructs, confounding variables, or interactions exist will further specify PG [pathological gambling] risk and inform prevention and intervention efforts.”
In February 2006, two professors, Earl L. Grinols and David B. Mustard published a revised “Casinos, Crime, and Community Costs.” In it, they drew significant conclusions based on analyzing much information. They were the first to claim that casinos sometimes lowered crime in the early years through job opportunities but then increased crime after about five years as growing numbers of gambling addicts began to commit more crimes and criminals began to prey more and more on tourists and local residents in casino counties: “We find that crime increases over time in casino counties, and that casinos do not just shift crime from neighboring regions, but create crime. We estimate the crime-related social costs in casino counties at approximately $75 dollars per adult per year… Our sample covers all 3,165 US counties from 1977-96… Our empirical strategy addresses many limitations of the current research. First, by conducting the most exhaustive investigation and utilizing a comprehensive county-level data set that includes every U.S. county we eliminate sample selection concerns. Second, by analyzing crime effects over time we exploit the time series nature of our data. Third, we are the first to articulate a comprehensive theory about how casinos could increase or decrease crime. Last, we use the most exhaustive set of control variables, most of which are commonly excluded from other studies.”
In the January 2008 edition of a journal, another professor, Douglas M. Walker, responded to this study with “Do Casinos Really Cause Crime?” There was much technical discussion, but what made the biggest impression on me was this: “...Sponsors of my consulting work have included the casino industry (e.g., American Gaming Association, Nevada Resort Association, Casino Association of Indiana) as well as government/research organizations (Alberta Gaming Research Institute and the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse). I assume that the industry has hired me as a consultant because my social cost methodology (welfare economics) leads to significantly lower social cost estimates than the methodologies used by other researchers, including Grinols and Mustard. Much has been made of financial ties that researchers sometimes have to industry. For example, Grinols and Mustard have questioned the validity of casino crime research that was conducted or funded by pro- or anti-casino groups (28). In other work, Grinols has cited a paper of mine (Walker 2003) as being an example of “shadow research,” or work that is “funded in the hope or expectation that it will contradict research unfavorable to the sponsoring industry.”
In the same January 2008 journal, Grinols and Mustard answered with: “Correctly Critiquing Casino-Crime Causality” where they write: “Professor Walker raises five concerns that are standard in empirical research. We addressed these concerns in the working and published versions of the paper and discussed them with the referees and editor during the review process. Some are well-known statistical issues, some are data limitations, and some are methodology issues. All of his concerns speak of potential problems. He includes no new research or statistical results to provide evidence that the potential problems are actual problems or that they are important... Because he presents no new data, no new research, and his criticisms are largely addressed in the working and published versions of our paper, we have no reasons to alter the conclusions of our existing research.”
This “Battle of the Research Professors” takes place in other fields all of the time. However, one side in such battles is usually not backed by a multi-billion industry which has put together a comprehensive research conspiracy using an array of organizations and individuals to thwart those who would tell a different story from their research findings. At the front lines of this conspiracy to legitimize gambling is Harvard University. Harvard has been a co-conspirator since the Harvard Medical School’s Division on Addictions accepted a research contract in 2000 from The National Center for Responsible Gaming to form the Institute for Research on Pathological Gambling and Related Disorders. “The Institute’s mission is to alleviate the individual, social, medical and economic burdens caused by pathological gambling through support of rigorous scientific research. Advancing understanding of pathological gambling and related psychiatric disorders, such as substance abuse, will lead to improved methods of diagnosis, intervention, treatment and prevention.”
A 6/16/08 article titled: “Gambling with science - Determined to defeat lawsuits over addiction, the casino industry is funding research at a Harvard-affiliated lab” tells the story of this conspiracy:With the ugly specter of gambling addiction, of ruined lives and families, hanging over their heads, gaming advocates will bolster their cases with research from the National Center for Responsible Gaming (NCRG), a nonprofit group, associated with Harvard University, that funds most of the scientific research on gambling addiction. The research will show that only a few unfortunate souls -- those predisposed to addiction -- will get into trouble, while everyone else can gamble for entertainment with no ill effects... But there's a serious kink in the studies: The NCRG is a wing of the casinos' main trade group, the American Gaming Association, which has committed a total of $22 million to the center. To ethicists and casino critics, that relationship is a cautionary tale of science getting too close to industry. While NCRG leaders say they fund independent science, it's not a coincidence that the science aligns so well with the interests of the casinos. It's not that gambling executives are tampering with research findings, or scientists are skewing results. Rather, gaming executives are drawing extravagant conclusions from the studies. By trumpeting these conclusions, the gaming industry is helping casinos gain a legal foothold across the country -- and covering up the ways casinos profit from gambling addiction.
An example of the ways that the gambling industry simultaneously hides behind its research front groups and undermines the legitimacy of these groups is epitomized by the brochure for the upcoming 9th Annual NCRG Conference on Gambling and Addiction, to be held November 16-18, 2008 at the Mandalay Bay Hotel & Casino, Las Vegas, Nevada. My credulity is stretched to the maximum simply by learning that a conference to deal with gambling addiction will be held in a casino. Imagine a conference on alcohol addiction being held in a distillery. Here are some of the dubious goals of this conference: “New trends in science and society are raising provocative questions about gambling addiction. Will the definition of “pathological gambling” change in the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders? ...Are government-sponsored programs on gambling disorders using tax dollars wisely? How close are we to establishing a treatment standard for gambling addiction?”
Between 6 million and 8 million Americans are thought to have trouble walking away from the casinos each year, with a full spectrum of consequences, according to the National Council on Problem Gambling [NCRG], an advocacy group… Frank Fahrenkopf, president of the American Gaming Association, laid out the gaming industry's lines of defense at a 1996 speech before industry bigwigs in Las Vegas. He called problem gambling the "Achilles' heel" of the industry and told the assembled executives that their "enemies" would use the issue in a "crusade to crush our livelihood."
Fahrenkopf said the issue hits home with state legislators, who could be turned against the expansion of gambling or convinced to pass restrictive regulations. (Regulations proposed in other countries include mandatory clocks on casino walls, "time out" periods after a certain amount of money is lost and maximum bet limits.) Meanwhile, media stories of gamblers who had lost everything tugged at the public heartstrings, jeopardizing support. "The growth of our industry is certainly endangered by the issue, and it is not hyperbole to say that the industry's very existence is at stake," Fahrenkopf warned.
The plan he proposed owed a debt to the tobacco industry executives who had spectacularly lost public support just a few years before, when they raised their hands before a 1994 congressional committee and testified that nicotine was not addictive. "Our industry cannot afford to make the mistake made by the tobacco industry," Fahrenkopf said. He told his colleagues that the gaming industry must not only admit that gambling addiction existed, but also lead the discussion of its origins, symptoms and social impacts.
To investigate those origins, the American Gaming Association created the NCRG, and the casinos keep it flush with money. This past September, the NCRG announced $7.6 million in new funding commitments for the next five years, including $2 million from Harrah's, $2 million from MGM Mirage and $1 million from International Game Technology, the largest slot machine manufacturer in the world. Its board of directors includes executives from MGM Mirage, Harrah's and the casino company Boyd Gaming Corp., as well as Judy Patterson, executive director of the American Gaming Association.
I can’t help but wonder if the goal of the conference organizers is to remove the stigma of gambling addiction by removing it from the list of mental disorders and to eliminate government funding for gambling addiction because it isn’t a “real” addiction. A researcher is quoted in “Gambling with science...” as saying: "It's clear their ideal customer is the addict. They have a term, 'player extinction,' which means you lose all your money. They're talking about this as a goal!" A psychologist, “[Henry] Lesieur says that by conservative estimates, 30 percent of the profits from gambling machines come from problem gamblers.”
Furthermore, the brochure states: “The conference is designed to enhance your professional development — whether you’re in the health care sector, the gaming industry, government or academia — by providing the following [partial list]:
• A critical perspective that will help gaming regulators and public officials evaluate policies that address gambling disorders.
• Updates on litigation related to gambling disorders and CLEs [Continuing Legal Education] for attorneys.
No matter what sector you’re in, you’ll also enjoy the following benefits:
• Behind-the-scenes tour of a casino.
• Access to Global Gaming Expo (G2E), the gaming industry’s largest international trade show and conference.
• Discounted rates for combined G2E and NCRG Conference registration.”
Next week, I intend to tell you some of the unique gambling history of Maryland, which was the second state in the country, after Nevada, to allow legalized gambling, in the form of slot machines, in 1947, and which then spent the next 22 years fighting over the negative impacts of those one-armed bandits until the last of them were removed in 1969.
Robin Ficker Never Gives Up
Imagine if you tried something in 1975 and it didn’t work out. So you tried it again in 1990 and it failed. And then you did it in 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998 and 2004 – all with no success. You would stop trying, right? Well, you’re not Robin Ficker.
Say what you will of Robin Ficker, but he is a man of immense energy. After many years of heckling that would have put a two-headed jackal to shame, the Washington Wizards relocated his season seat away from visiting players. (Unusually, Ficker got the message and failed to renew.) Next, the Maryland Court of Appeals suspended Ficker’s law license, stating in a 7-0 opinion, “The hearing judge found that he exhibited incompetence, lack of diligence, failure to communicate with his client, and committed conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.” Ficker then started a “Robin Realty” brokerage, but that seems to be mainly a front for planting his notorious “Save Our Homes” signs everywhere.
All of the above pales beside his endless runs for office (County Executive, U.S. Senate, U.S. Congress, State Senate and even a successful Delegate race in 1978). The signature Ficker move came in 2004, when he briefly considered challenging Governor Ehrlich in a GOP primary. His problem? No running mate. His solution? Posting this classified ad in the Baltimore Sun for a Lieutenant Governor: Prefer female who is tax-cutting Republican, ambitious, intelligent, fearless, adventurous, hardworking and young (age 30 by 01/07) with flexible schedule to traverse Maryland.
But enough of Ficker’s illustrious career of mayhem. His latest ballot proposal, like almost all of his others, would limit Montgomery County’s ability to raise property taxes. Under current law, seven of the nine County Council Members must vote to approve any property tax increase that would exceed the rate of inflation. Ficker’s Question B would change the requirement to unanimous approval. That could give any one County Council Member absolute veto power over the entire budget – a power that not even the County Executive possesses.
Ficker cares more about minimizing his property taxes than he cares about your needs for fire, police and school services – needs that do not go away when a recession depresses county tax revenues. While his proposal differs structurally from Prince George’s County’s 30-year-old TRIM amendment (which requires voter approval of tax increases), its intention is the same: starving the government of revenues. Prince George’s Delegate Joanne Benson (D-24) recalled the battle over TRIM in a 2003 Gazette article: Del. Joanne C. Benson (D-Dist. 24) of Landover was there in 1978 when a group of residents banded together at a meeting to pass TRIM.
So there you have it. If you would like Montgomery County’s schools and police department to resemble those in Prince George’s, you should take your place alongside Robin Ficker. Otherwise, vote no on Question B.
“Research showed us that if we put this initiative in place, in 25 years we were going to see a devastating impact on public education and public safety, and that is exactly what has happened,” Benson said.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
A Footnote on Ambulance Fees
The Washington Post reports that the County Council's Public Safety Committee voted unanimously to block County Executive Ike Leggett's proposal to impose ambulance fees. Marc Korman explained the proposal in June.
The interesting point here from a strictly political viewpoint is the composition of the Public Safety Committee: Chairman Phil Andrews, Marc Elrich and Don Praisner. Council Members Andrews and Elrich were largely aligned with Mr. Leggett on growth issues in the 2006 elections. Furthermore, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Elrich and Mr. Leggett all endorsed Mr. Praisner in the 2008 special election and contributed money to his victory. And yet, Mr. Leggett was unable to advance a high-profile initiative through a committee that was stocked with his political allies. Is this an isolated event or does this hold broader meaning?
Update: My sources tell me I misinterpreted the committee's action. They say what the committee did was to postpone - not block - the ambulance fee proposal to provide more time to evaluate it. We'll see if it will indeed come up again.
MoCo Delegation Speaks Out on Slots, Part Two
The Montgomery County Sentinel's series on the MoCo delegation's positions on slots continues. This week, legislators from Districts 16, 17 and 18 reveal their views on the subject. However, only Senators Brian Frosh (D-16) and Jennie Forehand (D-17) and Delegates Susan Lee (D-16), Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-18), and Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18) responded to the Sentinel's questioning. The other legislators went AWOL (although who can doubt Delegate Luiz Simmons' position?). Of the ones who responded, Senator Forehand and Delegates Lee and Gutierrez voted for the referendum while Senator Frosh and Delegate Waldstreicher voted against it.
Senator Brian Frosh (Against):From 2001 to 2003, Frosh served as co-chair of the Senate Special Committee on Gaming. He says his experience at that position convinced him that slots will burden a community. "These burdens will add to the expense of building new infrastructure to accommodate the crowds, the potential for higher crime rates, bigger crime prevention budgets and beefed up social service programs to address the problems attendant to gambling addiction," he said.
Delegate Susan Lee (Against):
He is also concerned about the argument that the slots amendment will raise money for schools. $660 million of the revenue from slots is earmarked for education. "The state's education budget, currently $5.5 billion, is set according to formulas based on enrollment and other factors," Frosh said. "The budget won't go up because another $660 million is available. Instead, the slots money will shift existing education dollars to be spent in other areas."
"The bottom line is that we're going to have to balance the budget and pay for our schools the old fashioned way: by finding economies and making hard choices," he said. "Slots aren't the answer."Lee said gambling is an unstable source of revenue for the state. Her biggest concern is the social burden annd costs that slots bring.
Senator Jennie Forehand (Against):
"The problems it creates, such as addiction, domestic violence, burden on the criminal justice system, and damage to neighborhoods far outweigh any possible short term revenue to the state," she said.
She said the state needs to do what it has done before to help fix the current budget problem and that it has to come up with more responsible ways to raise revenue, prioritize and make cuts where there are inefficiencies. "We will have to make some very hard choices," she said. "However, slots are not the answer.""I know the state needs money, but I plan to vote against the referendum," Forehand said.
Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez (Against):
Forehand's concern is that a lot of the revenue will go to Maryland's racing industry. "I think the public is better served and comfortable if the money goes to education and other state priorities and not the racing industry," she said. Forehand said that the racing industry does not need the $100 million that is promised to it.Gutierrez says she is 100 percent against allowing slots in Maryland and is doing everything that she can to not let the referendum pass.
Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher (Against):
"I am very concerned of the social damages that come with slots," she said. "We should be finding better ways to increase a better economic base."
She said that Montgomery County is a good example of economic development and does not want to see it go in the opposing direction. "We should not be selling our soul to the devil."Waldstreicher said slots are the wrong way to go. He also said that the revenue will not show up for several years. "Fiscal year 2009-2010 will not be affected so we will have to address the problem now," he said.
We are grateful that no one imitated Delegate Craig Rice's infamous response from last week. But we do wonder what "political agenda" were referenced by Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher. Would you care to elaborate, sir?
The social costs that slots bring are another of his concerns. "Crime, addiction and other social burdens will affect the state and could possibly add insult to injury," he said.
"We need to focus on the right thing to do for Maryland," he said. "We should not be making a decision on the issue based on political agenda."
State Police Track Environmentalists as Terrorists
The Maryland ACLU reports that the State Police entered the names of Mike Tidwell, founder of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) and Joshua Tulkin, a former Deputy Director of CCAN, into its terrorist database. The dates of the spying are unclear, but the State Police have previously stated that their spying activities stopped in October 2006.
The ACLU has not posted their press release on their website as of this writing. When we see it, we'll update this post.
We have previously reported on the ACLU's new wave of FOIAs to the State Police on behalf of 32 advocacy groups and more than 250 individuals. What on Earth are we going to learn next?
Update: Here is the ACLU's press release with the details.
Death By A Thousand Cuts
By Marc Korman.
In July, I posted two entries about Governor O’Malley’s MARC train expansion plans. Those plans seem farther away than ever now that the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) has announced cuts to the existing MARC train service. A list of proposed cuts is available here. To summarize, certain trains will no longer run on the Penn and Brunswick lines, holiday service (already reduced) will end, and a discount pass for regular riders will be cancelled.
The recently announced cuts seem to be a preemptive effort by MTA to address future budget shortfalls. These cuts are unrelated to the Board of Public Works’ recent cuts and the $1.1 billion in transportation cuts announced in September. The Board of Public Works’ transportation cuts only eliminated sixty-six transportation related positions. The September cuts were for capital projects, not the services at issue here.
As a regular MARC train rider, I was quite annoyed when I originally read about these cuts. But I understand that the massive budget deficits the state is facing mean tough choices need to be made. On the other hand, MARC train ridership has increased recently and transit is how we need more people to get from point A to point B. If we cannot maintain the existing MARC system, how can we expect to expand the system as the Governor has proposed, build the Purple Line, and address other transportation needs?
Transportation funding is important for economic development and helping the environment. As Maryland works to address its budget challenges, it needs to figure out how to prioritize important needs. In the case of transportation, that could mean an increase in the gas tax or at least pegging it to inflation, as the Governor proposed before the Special Session. Alternatively, the state can drastically reduce its transportation commitments and acknowledge that it will not be supporting transportation in the way it has historically. But the current approach, which seems to be death by a thousand cuts, is not sensible. Happily, a few state legislators, including Montgomery County's own Delegate Al Carr, seem to agree.
In the meantime, if you feel strongly about the MARC train cuts there are opportunities to publicly comment in writing or in person. More information is available here.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
District 18 State Legislators Town Hall Meeting
Featuring:
State Senator Rich Madaleno
Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez
Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher
Delegate Al Carr
Moderated by Charles Duffy, Host of Political Pulse
Time/Place: Holy Cross Hospital, Thursday Night, October 23 at 7 PM
Our state legislators would like to know what you think. Come and ask them about:
The Georgia/Forest Glen Intersection
Montgomery Hills Revitalization
Budget and Taxes
Slots
Transportation
The Economy
The Environment
Or Anything Else!
On Political Pulse
Tom Perez, Maryland's Secretary of the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation and former Montgomery County Councilmember (from District 5) takes on the Slots Referendum that will be on the November 4th ballot. Both sides of the Slots debate are discussed and also considerations effecting Montgomery County.
The interview will air on Thursday, October 23rd at 9:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 28th at 9:30 p.m. and Thursday, October 30th at 9:00 p.m.
Political Pulse is on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County.
The State Delegation and the Politics of the ICC
MPW friend and staffer for Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20) Patrick T. Metz left this comment on our recent post on transportation funding:
Re: “One sentiment united every person in the meeting: an absolute disdain for the county’s statehouse delegation. NO ONE credited them for bringing back adequate infrastructure funding from the state.” [This is a quote from our previous post.]Patrick’s point is a logical one and deserves some analysis. The ICC is indeed a very large project. Shouldn’t our state delegation receive credit for it from the standpoint of bringing back transportation dollars to the county?
Without speaking to the wisdom (or lack thereof) of building the ICC, it seems to me that it's a pretty substantial percentage of state transportation spending over the next decade.
First, let’s understand the ICC’s funding structure. The project’s total cost is budgeted at $2.4 billion. Of that amount, $1.23 billion is from toll-backed revenue bonds, $750 million is from GARVEE bonds (which are backed by future federal aid), $264.9 million is from Maryland’s general fund, $180 million is from Maryland’s Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) and $18.5 million is from direct federal aid. That means that just $463.4 million, or 19% of the project’s cost, is coming from direct expenditures. The remainder consists of borrowed money (though some of that will draw from future federal aid).
How much of the state’s total transportation budget is taken up by the ICC? That depends on how you calculate the numbers. In the aftermath of its recent cuts, the state is spending $9.4 billion on transportation projects over the next six years. In terms of raw percentage, the ICC accounts for 26% of all state transportation spending. But remember that 81% of the project’s cost is paid for by toll and GARVEE bonds. If bond financing is set aside and only TTF, general fund and direct federal aid are counted, then the ICC’s $463.4 million would account for 6% of the state’s transportation spending.
Regardless of its percentage of state spending, it is unlikely that any of the county’s constituencies will point to the ICC as a parochial triumph of MoCo’s needs over the rest of the state. Let’s examine two contrasting points of view.
Much of the county’s business community has been supportive of the ICC. Under its former leadership, the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce made the project one of its top goals. However, business does not see the ICC as merely a Montgomery project, but one that conveys economic benefits to the state as a whole. By connecting western Montgomery to Prince George’s, Howard, Anne Arundel, and Baltimore and its suburbs, their argument holds that the ICC creates more mobility of goods, services and labor all across Maryland. An analogy might be a hypothetical terminal expansion at BWI Airport. Should such a project be judged as only conveying localized benefits to northern Anne Arundel County or as an infrastructure project with broad statewide benefits? So while business may continue to support the ICC, they will not see it strictly in terms of fulfilling a narrow county-focused priority.
The civic and environmental communities increasingly view the ICC as a disaster. Destruction of homes, encouragement of greenhouse gases, damage to greenspace, increased traffic, incentives for more sprawl – all of these arguments and more combine to produce a seething stew of unrest. Silliness such as the MoCo Planning Board’s characterization of a parallel bike path as harmful to parkland only fuels the opposition. The ICC may be the least-appreciated large transportation project in the history of Maryland.
So let’s suppose a state legislator uses Patrick’s argument on skeptical constituents: you may not think we’ve received enough on transportation funding, but at least we brought you the ICC. Business will say it’s a good start, but not enough by itself. Civic and environmental activists will react like a starving man who is thrown a bucket of rotten eggs. Don’t you pity our delegation, even just a little bit?
But those who support and oppose the ICC agree on one thing: no one project will solve all of Montgomery’s transportation woes. The differing geographies of the county (especially with regard to Metro access), different levels of density and commuter pattern pressures from both inside and outside the county demand a combination of projects – and a reliable funding source for them. Who is going to step up?
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Nancy Floreen Calls the Question
In a jam-packed conference room last Wednesday night, MoCo County Council Transportation Committee Chairwoman Nancy Floreen rolled out her parking space tax proposal before the county’s business community. Hey, do any of you remember the old Waylon Jennings song, “Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places?”
First, a few details on the Council Member’s proposal. Drawing on one of the recommendations of last year’s county-sponsored Working Group on Infrastructure Financing, Ms. Floreen suggested levying an annual $250 tax per commercial parking space. The tax would apply to both for-profit and non-profit owners and would be indexed to increase with inflation. Owners could reduce the levy by up to 50% if they had a traffic mitigation agreement that required employees to pay market parking rates and gave employees discounts for transit use and carpools. Owners who did not pay the tax would be subject to interest, penalties and possible conviction of a Class A violation. Proceeds of the tax would be dedicated to transit projects only.
Present in the room to greet the Council Member were nearly 40 people representing county employers, including GEICO, Foulger Pratt, Washington REIT, Colonial Parking and Discovery Communications. Everyone who spoke opposed the proposal on a variety of grounds. Chamber of Commerce Vice-President Lisa Fadden questioned the fairness of the tax, noting that upcounty employers would pay it but not have access to the transit projects it would fund. Foulger Pratt principal Bryant Foulger estimated that the tax could reduce county property values by up to $1 billion, thereby depressing property tax receipts. Former Chamber of Commerce CEO Rich Parsons called the tax a “non-starter” and declared, “I would not go anywhere near a parking tax now or in the near future if you care about the business climate here.” Several other people called the tax an example of “double taxation” because they already pay property taxes on their lots.
But the crowd did not simply say no to all new revenues. One attendee claimed that switching to digital meters could raise extra money without raising rates. Another participant suggesting levying an infrastructure surcharge on top of the property tax, phasing it in and sunsetting it later. One wag joked about setting up toll booths on I-270 and US-29 at the county lines to snare commuters. (As a former District of Columbia resident, I can tell you that such ideas are taken seriously down there.)
Ms. Floreen and the attendees may have disagreed about this specific proposal, but all acknowledged the need for new transportation funding. And the Council Member deserves credit for calling the question. As the Chairwoman of the County Council’s Transportation Committee, her job is to build the infrastructure that the county needs. And that job has become a lot tougher with the state’s billion-dollar transportation cut, an adjustment that favors Baltimore’s Red Line over MoCo’s Purple Line and Corridor Cities Transitway. It would be the easiest thing in the world for Ms. Floreen to hang back, do nothing and complain about the state. Instead, she continues to look for project funding even at the risk of offering unpopular ideas.
As for the business community, they favor transportation funding. During the 2007 special session, the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce called for a 6-cent increase in the state’s gas tax. During the last general session, the Chamber advocated for a $600 million revenue increase for the state’s Transportation Trust Fund. Chamber CEO Georgette Godwin laid out three criteria for transportation funding that the Chamber would support:
1. The revenue source should be broad-based and raised from both business and residents.
2. The revenue should be dedicated to transportation and not diverted to other uses.
3. The financed projects should include both transit and road projects in order to address the needs of every part of the county.
One sentiment united every person in the meeting: an absolute disdain for the county’s statehouse delegation. NO ONE credited them for bringing back adequate infrastructure funding from the state. When one participant suggested that the Council “work more with the state delegation,” the room broke out with rueful smiles and shaking heads. “We have got to get our delegation on the same sheet of music,” blustered one attendee. Another captured the prevailing cynicism in the room by railing, “There is no consequence for bad behavior at the state level!”
Regardless of the reaction to Ms. Floreen’s parking tax proposal (which she has since withdrawn), this discussion hammered home a fundamental truth: Montgomery County in the broadest sense favors more transportation funding. Prior to the 2007 special session, business called for a gas tax increase. So did the County Executive. So did the County Council. Governor O’Malley proposed indexing the gas tax for inflation. But instead, the legislature chose to increase vehicle excise taxes and title certificate fees and to devote part of its sales tax hike to transportation. Those revenues are now falling short while the needs are as acute as ever.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Time to Get Rid of Steve Abrams (Updated)
The Gazette Editorial Board must not read the Gazette. If they did, they would never have endorsed incumbent school board member Steve Abrams’ bid for re-election.
Forget about the fact that Abrams was the sole opponent of a school board resolution calling for increased federal funding of No Child Left Behind requirements and opposition to vouchers for private schools. And forget about the fact that Abrams wrote the state legislature to oppose an assault weapons ban back when he was Chairman of MoCo’s Republican Central Committee. And – we know it is difficult to ask you to forget more – put aside the fact that he has been running non-stop for every office conceivable, from County Executive to County Council to Circuit Court Judge to House of Delegates to Rockville City Council to State Comptroller. (Everybody needs a hobby, although one wonders how he finds the time to do school board work.) Instead, let's discuss the fact that during the last two years, Abrams has been blazing a path of pathology through the Gazette that would make Robin Ficker recoil in outrage.
The latest blow-up occurred after Abrams’ ill-fated 2006 Republican primary run for State Comptroller, a race that saw him win just three of the state’s 24 counties. Unable to bear the thought of government without him in it, Abrams then announced his intention to join the Republican slate for Montgomery County Council. But the party already had a full slate, so Abrams bullied Adol T. Owen-Williams II into dropping out. Abrams’ tactics ultimately failed as he lost by more than 80,000 votes to the Democrats in the general election.
The story could have ended there, but with Steve Abrams, the story never really ends. Owen-Williams thought he had a “gentleman’s agreement” with Abrams for reimbursement of $5,000 in campaign expenses he had incurred before withdrawing. When Owen-Williams asked Abrams for the money after the general election, the “gentleman” erupted in fury. According to African-American Owen-Williams, Abrams called him “boy,” grabbed him by the throat and slammed his head against a wall. The two men filed assault charges against each other which were later dropped by prosecutors.
But once again, the story never ends with Steve Abrams! Abrams told the Gazette that county Republicans “conspired to set him up” for the assault charge because they were tired of dealing with his complaints. (We sympathize.) Abrams then became a Democrat and endorsed Barack Obama, prompting Montgomery County’s Republican Party Chairman to say, “He’s free to go where he wants to go... He had kind of made that threat before. As far as I can tell, no one on the Democrats want him either.”
Upon learning that Abrams had joined the Democratic Party, MCDCC Chairwoman Karen Britto gasped, “I’m speechless.” Well, I’m not going to be speechless and neither should you. There are plenty of sane, intelligent people who care about education in Montgomery County, one of whom is school board challenger Laura Berthiaume. There is no reason to tolerate bad behavior from our school board members that we would never tolerate from our students. It’s time to get rid of Steve Abrams.
Update: At the League of Women Voters Candidates Forum on October 27, Laura Berthiaume said she would not run for any other office during her four-year term and challenged Abrams to make the same commitment. Abrams, who constantly runs for office of every conceivable kind, declined. Folks, that says it all concerning what these two candidates care about.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The Final Debate
By Sharon Dooley.
John McCain entered the final campaign debate of 2008 in full offensive mode. He came into the evening like an old bull ready for one last outing in the arena, ready to defeat his younger, less tested opponent. He was unprepared for the matador known as Barack Obama. At first Barack seemed surprised by this aggressive manner, but soon, he shook his head, showed a smile and crafted careful answers without even brandishing his red cape.
McCain appeared angry and seemed to frequently be in a struggle to control his emotions as his eyes blinked, his eyebrows twitched, and he frowned again and again. He charged into the debate with all of his weapons at hand: his tax policy, foreclosure scheme, healthcare policy ideas, abortion and “Joe the plumber”. He threw in ‘the tired ole terrorist – Bill Ayers’ (a man younger than he is, if facts are considered), but his punch was parried and the charge missed its target. Time and time again Obama corrected statements made during these explosive attacks, while McCain interrupted frequently and sputtered in the background. Obama countered with the occasional remarks about McCain and Bush being buddies and McCain got off one of his best lines of the evening claiming that if Obama wanted to run against Bush, he should have run 4 years ago.
The moderator, Bob Schieffer, was a bland, but effective host and did try to get the two candidates to engage, particularly over the issues of negative campaigning, and choice of running mates, without a great deal of success. McCain defended his selection of Sarah Palin in an odd manner and seemed to not understand the differences between Downs Syndrome, a congenital condition and autism, which develops later, after birth. McCain would not disavow Palins’ negative characterizations of Obama. Obama noted the strengths and appropriateness of his pick of Joe Biden and claimed the vast majority of his ads were positive.
Most telling, perhaps, was an exchange when Obama was trying to explain his vote in the Illinois legislature against a bill about late-term abortions, which was also opposed by the local medical societies as restrictive and redundant, and which did not include protections for the health of the mother. As Obama was explaining there were other laws addressing this matter that sufficed, McCain was actively interrupting, gesturing that the term ‘health of the mother’ was a false issue.
(Aside: Perhaps in the storied, overly macho world of the Top Gun pilots, pregnant women are not players, but from my health care perspective – they DO count. In a NY Times article, Cindy McCain was said to have suffered several miscarriages alone – how utterly sad that must have been.)
Throughout the evening Barack Obama seemed bemused as if to say – ‘is that the best that you can show me?’ Initially placed on the defensive, he settled in and calmly made his way through the debate, although he was thrown off track several times and neglected to make his better arguments. For McCain, the evening seemed to be surreal. The “Joe the Plumber” symbolism was a hook that by the end of the evening he was clinging to like a life-line. Far better it would seem for McCain to have reached out to women, the Madge the manicurist, Alice the waitress – women in the service economy whose wages and tips disappear in times of economic downturn. These are the women McCain seems to be trying to scare with tales of terrorists, a known Rovian tactic. These are the women, formerly loyal to Hillary, who are appearing to turn toward Obama in the closing days of the campaign. Consider the frequent mention by Obama on the campaign trail of Lilly Ledbetter, the female factory worker disdained by the current Supreme Court on an equal pay dispute. During the debate, Barack seemed to indicate that while he would have no litmus test for judges, the process could be improved. McCain – far from reaching out – seems to be falling back toward his base and reinforced his support for decisions of the current Court.
It looks to me, that by the end of the debate the old bull had stumbled, but the matador, respecting his opponent unilaterally, chose valor over vengeance and walked away from the ring.
Friday, October 17, 2008
In the Wake of Saqib-Mania (Updated)
It is a great shame that we ran our MoCo Most Influential survey prior to the revelations about Delegate Saqib Ali’s Facebook page. Had Saqib-Mania erupted prior to the survey, the Delegate would have assumed his proper (although temporary) place on the top ten list. But all in all, the Delegate enjoyed a unique week of fame.
Whatever you may think of his status updates, Delegate Ali is a politically nimble fellow. A lesser man would have ranted about a “violation of privacy” or a “negative attack.” But the Delegate laughed off the post and promptly sent his legions of Facebook Friends to view it (click on below).
Next came an article by ace Gazette reporter Janel Davis, who must have chuckled while she wrote it. Ms. Davis said:Instead of the boring drivel that usually accompanies anything associated with a politician, Ali's page includes all sorts of funny tidbits and riffs on popular culture. For example: “Saqib loves Fridays like a fat kid loves cake.” And, “Saqib feels strange confusing emotions when Sarah Palin winks at him.”
“Boring drivel” indeed! What a deliciously cynical comment by Ms. Davis! For his part, Delegate Ali responded:More than just my constituents look at it. It's goofy and people recognize it as a joke... I think I started a trend among legislators. I've noticed others have started adding creative things on their Facebook pages... I'll consider that my legacy.
And now egged on by Ms. Davis, Delegate Ali is celebrating his newfound celebrity with a few more tidbits (click on below):
But a few of our readers are not amused, especially women. Minutes after I put up “Beware of Facebook,” one woman wrote me, “The Saqib post is good, but I don’t understand why you don’t call his comments OFFENSIVE. Particularly, to women.” Another woman hissed into my cell phone, “What is he saying about needy women?! Come election time, HE is going to be needy for US!” Still another woman wrote, “I think he is so arrogant he doesn't see the folly of his ridiculous FB [Facebook] rantings. I think there could be trouble down the road.” (If the Delegate knew who these women were, he would be shaking in his little red boots.) One male politician who was completely oblivious to any objections by women said, “Hey, he polled well, right?”
And so it appears that this blog struck an accidental Faustian bargain with Delegate Ali's Facebook page. His Facebook Friends descended on MPW like adoring locusts, driving our visit counts into the stratosphere. Beware of Facebook generated more visits in one day than any other post here with the exception of Crisis at the Gazette Part Two. In return, we have made the Delegate’s Wall an icon of local political culture. The Maryland political establishment is now divided into two groups: those who have the privilege of accessing Delegate Ali's wit and wisdom, and those who huddle in ignorance on the outside.
So, MoCo politicians – who among you will be following in Saqib Ali’s footsteps?
Update: Due to Delegate Ali's generosity, it looks like this will be another big-time visit day for the blog! Click on the picture below.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Maryland, Chicken Manure and Climate Change
By Marc Korman.
The Maryland Commission on Climate Change issued its action plan in August. The plan sets ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Maryland in the coming years. When I read through the plan, I found myself thinking about a recent Bethesda-Chevy Chase Breakfast Club meeting with Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler. At the breakfast, Gansler spent a lot of time discussing chicken manure. Not the best topic to discuss during a meal, but as it turns out an important one for Maryland’s future. Why?
Maryland farms produce 1.2 billion pounds of chicken manure a year, some of which usefully fertilizes farms but much of which ends up polluting the Chesapeake Bay. Gansler wants to lure a power plant into the state that would use 500 million pounds of chicken manure a year to generate power. Maryland has a renewable portfolio standard, which requires that 20% of the state’s electricity comes from renewable sources by 2022. Gansler helped lobby the legislature to classify converted chicken manure as a renewable source for the purpose of the law.
But the need for alternative energy sources is not just about the environment. Recently, the Public Service Commission and Governor O’Malley have been warning of possible rolling blackouts in the state in 2011 or 2012. Instead of building more coal fired power plants or other fossil fuel energy sources, reusing chicken manure offers a cleaner, working alternative. There are complications, for example chicken manure has many of the harmful substances in it that our chickens do, such as small amounts of arsenic. But Gansler is working on regulating those as well so that the burning of chicken manure is not harmful.
Gansler’s work, although not complete, is part of Maryland’s broader progress in addressing 21st century energy challenges and climate change. Last month, Maryland participated in the first mandatory carbon emissions cap and trade auction in the United States, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The RGGI caps carbon emissions from power generators and requires them to purchase credits from the government for the right to emit carbon. The cap starts high, but will be reduced downward so that by 2018 there will be a 10% reduction in emissions. Six states participated in the first auction, with Maryland receiving $16.3 million from the auction. The money will be divided between low income energy assistance, residential rate relief, efficiency and conservation programs, and clean energy programs.
The Renewable Portfolio Standard, RGGI, and other actions have helped give the state a big start towards its greenhouse gas reduction goals. The Maryland Commission on Climate Change has set statewide goals: 10% reduction by 2012, 15% reduction by 2015, 25% to 50% reduction by 2020, and 90% reduction by 2050. With actions already taken, Maryland is approximately 60% of the way towards the lower end of the 2020 goal. With forty-two commission recommendations to implement, plus better public awareness of the need to conserve and increased transit ridership, Maryland may even surpass its emission reduction goals.
Acting alone, Maryland has no chance of blunting global climate change. But if individual states all step forward and set goals like Maryland’s, it could make a big difference. Alone, Maryland emits as much greenhouse gases as Sweden and Norway. Other states emit even more. Maryland has not waited for the federal government to act or a new international agreement to be reached. That is not to say that Maryland is perfect. The Global Warming Solutions Act failed in the state house and transportation funding cuts are disproportionately affecting cleaner and greener transit projects. But as Maryland strives to do better, other states should follow our lead.
MoCo Delegation Speaks Out on Slots, Part One
The Montgomery County Sentinel is running a series in which they ask all of Montgomery County's delegation about their positions on the slots referendum. This week, they post responses from Senator Rona Kramer (D-14), Delegate Karen Montgomery (D-14), Delegate Kathleen Dumais (D-15) and Delegate Craig Rice (D-15). Senator Kramer and Delegates Dumais and Rice voted for the referendum, while Delegate Montgomery was "excused from voting." Concerning the other legislators, the Sentinel writes, "Though the Montgomery Sentinel tried repeatedly to get in contact with [Politician X], by press time he/she still had not returned our phone calls." Doesn't that sound like something a collections agency might say?
Here are the statements released by the above four legislators to the Sentinel:
Senator Rona Kramer (For):Kramer said she is reluctant to vote for the referendum but does not see any other alternative to help fix the $1 billion budget gap the state is facing. "It is not the best way to go," she said. "I do not want to see it in the constitution but it seems to be the only compromise available at this time."
Editor's Note: In an April blog post, we revealed that even if the slots referendum passes, it will not provide extra money right away. State budget projections find that slots revenues will total nearly $500 million in fiscal 2012 and $660 million in 2013.
Kramer does not see where the revenue could come from without slot machines. "If we don't have slots, then the state will have to cut other services that are already provided."
Delegate Karen Montgomery (Against):Montgomery said she believes slots will cause more harm than good and she raises the question of liquor tax. "How is it that Maryland has the lowest liquor tax in the country?" she asked. She said that Maryland does not put a tax on liquor like it does with tobacco and does not understand why that is.
Editor's Note: Delegate Montgomery was endorsed by MCEA in 2006. Are Bonnie Cullison, Tom Israel and Jon Gerson reading this?
According to the Comptroller of Maryland's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, the Maryland tax on distilled spirits is $1.50 per gallon compared to Delaware's $4.85 per gallon. Montgomery wants to look to other alternatives to slots to help mend the financial crisis.
"I like Montgomery County Public Schools' idea of freezing raises as an alternative," she said.
Delegate Kathleen Dumais (Against):Dumais did vote in the special session last year to put the referendum on November's ballot and says it was one of the most difficult decisions she has had to make. "I don't have the magic answer, but I do think we need to take a harder look at taxes," she said. She said her biggest concern is that she has not seen documentation stating that most of the revenue will go to education and that makes her think the state's education system will not get what is promised.
Delegate Craig Rice (Decided):
Like Montgomery County Council Vice President Phil Andrews, Dumais said she is afraid that money that would otherwise go to small businesses would be diverted to slots if passed. "Local businesses will feel the negative effects," she said. "I think it's a disaster."Rice declined to disclose whether he is for or against the slot referendum. "My decision stays with me until I close the curtain in November," he said.
Excuse me? Did I read that correctly? "My decision stays with me until I close the curtain in November." I have never met a politician who enjoys such a response when seeking votes on the campaign trail. The reaction of constituents upon hearing such a thing from their elected leaders is not much happier.
Rice did say he is not a fan of slots and he said if Maryland turns to them "we should look into expanding to casinos and higher gaming and bring in table games along with slot machines."
As for alternatives to slots, Rice says budget cuts need to go deeper. "We have made quite enough tax increases, and teacher salaries need to be protected," he said.
Next week, the Sentinel will print the responses of legislators from Districts 16, 17 and 18, with responses from Districts 19, 20 and 39 due the week after that. We will be reprinting them here. District 18 representatives, if you are reading this (and I know you are), I very much hope that you will not give an "answer" similar to the one provided by Delegate Rice!
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
How to Persuade the Working Class to Vote for Obama
United Mine Workers President Cecil Roberts puts on a textbook demonstration of how to talk about the presidential race with working class voters in Virginia. (If the feed doesn't work, the video is here.)
This is a whole lot more convincing than the arguments made by the other side.
Show Us the Money That Slots Will Bring
by Wayne Goldstein, Montgomery County Civic Federation Immediate Past President.
People are starting to pay close attention to the slots referendum on the November ballot. It is one of the most complicated and most manipulated issues ever to confront this state. I've done some research on the subject and recently testified on five points: 1) Maryland had slots from 1947-1969 but banned them; 2) Gambling revenue was considered recession-proof for decades, but is now down across the nation; 3) Gambling is incredibly addictive to a small percentage of the public who end up providing one-third of the profits to the gambling industry; 4) Maryland has one of the worst records in the nation for helping to treat gambling addiction; 5) Studies claim that gambling costs states 2 to 3 times what it brings in due to violent and economic crime, harm to families, and lost productivity.
This week, I will focus on the economics of gambling. Slots referendum supporters now claim that slots will net at least $660 million a year for the state. Currently, Maryland has the eighth oldest lottery in the nation, which netted it $529 million in the last fiscal year. A study in August 2007 titled: “Slot machines and the Racing Industry: A Review of Existing Data in Maryland and Neighboring States”, claims that Maryland residents spend about $375 million on slots in West Virginia and Delaware, netting $150 million to those states’ treasuries. The author argues that this net revenue can be kept in Maryland if slots are legalized again. However, since this equals only 23% of the $660 million in promised slots revenue, where will the other $510 million come from? Is it expected to come from the residents of other states, from Maryland residents, or diverted from the Maryland lottery? There are numerous stories this year about how Pennsylvania slots are taking much income from Atlantic City casinos. New Jersey will do something about this just as the states that count on Maryland gamblers will want to keep or reclaim their gambling dollars that they might lose to Maryland slots.
Maryland currently ranks 11th in the nation for lottery sales per family, 14th in the nation for lottery revenue, 18th in the nation for all gambling revenue, and 19th in the nation for gambling revenue per resident. Maryland residents spend more per family on lottery sales than Pennsylvania residents, and not much less than Pennsylvanians in overall gambling revenue per resident. While gambling revenue per resident is three to four times higher in Delaware and West Virginia, these states, with their much smaller populations, count on visitors from other states for the bulk of their gambling revenue, just as Nevada has done for 75 years. In 2004, it was reported that more than 70% of Delaware's slots players came from outside Delaware. Marylanders already spend heavily on gambling just from playing the state lottery.
In 2007, Maryland was the richest state in the U.S. based on median family income. Delaware was 15th, Nevada was 19th, Pennsylvania was 23rd, and West Virginia was 50th. Maryland ranked 6th in per capita income in the nation. Delaware was 13th, Nevada was 14th, Pennsylvania was 20th, West Virginia was 50th. In 2005, Maryland ranked 3rd in the nation for income tax rates. Delaware was 13th, Nevada was 44th, Pennsylvania was 17th, and West Virginia was 26th. Maryland ranks 29th in the nation for its median real estate tax rate. Delaware is 47th, Nevada is 43rd, Pennsylvania is 9th, and West Virginia is 46th. Pennsylvania uses much of its gambling profits to give real estate tax rebates to its home-owning seniors. States like Delaware, Nevada and West Virginia, with high levels of gambling revenue per resident, also have some of the lowest income tax or property tax rates, or both. Out-of-state gamblers help make this possible.
A state like Maryland, generating so much wealth from the highest median income, based on one of the highest per capita incomes in the nation, also has among the highest income tax rates in the nation, although its state property taxes are closer to the middle. It was reported in 2004 that a 1998 tax cut: “costs Maryland upward of $500 million each year in lost revenue.” By returning to the 5% state tax rate that existed prior to 1998, up from the current 4.75% rate - a 5.3% increase – Maryland could more reliably receive most of the revenue that slots would allegedly bring. State income taxes could also be made more progressive, in line with a much smaller income tax increase in 2007 for the wealthiest state taxpayers, thus sparing those earning much lower incomes. A progressive tax on income, unlike property taxes, is a tax based on one’s actual ability to pay. When one considers the significant federal income tax and capital gains tax cuts of recent years, most Marylanders would still have an overall lower combined income tax bill as a percentage of income, compared to a decade ago, if the 5% state rate were restored.
Maryland has a competitive, growing economy with the 14th largest gross domestic product (GDP) among states, although it ranks 18th in population. Delaware’s GDP ranks 39th, Pennsylvania’s is 5th in GDP and population (but 20th in per capita income), and West Virginia ranks 40th. Maryland’s poverty rate is 9.2% of the population, compared with Delaware at 9.6%, Pennsylvania at 11.2%, and West Virginia at 16.2%. If claims are true that those in poverty are among the most vulnerable to gambling addiction, perhaps it is also true that those states with higher poverty rates are also most vulnerable to the seemingly easy way to balance budgets with gambling revenue.
These various sets of meaningful numbers show that Maryland is economically stronger and thus different from its neighbors. So why must it mimic its neighbors by chasing after a relatively few gambling dollars that will really only add one more participant to a gambling arms race where ever greater spending will yield ever diminishing returns? Some of our less prosperous neighbors will believe that they need the revenue far more than us and they will work much, much harder to get it and keep it.
Those of us who managed to sit out the inflating and bursting of the dot com and real estate bubbles of the last eight years continue to feel lucky to have avoided yielding to the relentless pressure to do what seemed inevitable in those years based solely on the large number of confident participants. Could we now be in the midst of the last stages of inflating a gambling bubble?
Next week I will look at the debate over gambling addiction and how gambling interests have infiltrated one of the most prestigious institutions in the nation in their bid to rig research results for their benefit.
Note: An edited version of this column is also appearing in the Montgomery Sentinel.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Who Really Opposes Slots? (Revisited)
Back in May, we commented on the fact that very few "anti-slots" politicians were stepping up to support the campaign against the referendum. After seeing the financial contributions reported by Marylanders United to Stop Slots, it appears that the number of genuine "anti-slots" politicians is very small indeed.
Following are the campaign accounts that donated to Marylanders United to Stop Slots:
Friends of Peter Franchot: $6,000
Friends for Delegate J.W. Hubbard (D-23A, Prince George’s): $1,000
Citizens for Josh Cohen (Anne Arundel County Council): $1,000
Friends of George Leventhal (Montgomery County Council): $1,000
Citizens for Paul Pinsky (Senate D-22, Prince George’s): $600
Citizens for Karen Montgomery (D14, Montgomery): $500
And as the Baltimore Sun noted, the Comptroller donated an extra $500 of his own money.
Now how much would you like to bet that the overwhelming majority of the non-contributing "anti-slots" politicians secretly hope the referendum passes?
MoCo’s Great Crash, Part Two
In Part One, we made the case that Montgomery County’s real estate and construction industries together might account for one-fifth or more of the county’s private sector economic activity. And we charted how residential sales volume had fallen from $1.1 billion in June 2005 to $210 million in January 2008. Today we look at the residential construction market and find the news there to be no better.
The early parts of this decade saw significant growth in Montgomery County’s residential market. Developers were driven to build by rising home prices. According to Zillow.com, the average MoCo home value rose from under $200,000 in 1999 to over $500,000 in mid-2006. By the latter part of that period, builders were constructing several hundred residential units per month. Total construction volume averaged in the tens of millions of dollars per month and sometimes even more.
The Census Bureau data above shows that in most months, MoCo residential construction volume averages $20-40 million. But in a few months in a year, usually in the spring and/or summer, permitted volume spikes as large projects start. In 2005, residential construction volume exceeded $80 million in four months. In 2006 and 2007, residential construction volume exceeded $80 million in only two months in each year. So far in 2008, residential construction volume has not broken $80 million in any month.
Here’s another way to look at the data. In the first eight months of 2005, $527 million of residential construction was permitted by the county. In the first eight months of 2008, only $246 million was permitted – a decline of 53%. Half of the county’s residential construction market has simply disappeared.
The mass destruction of the county’s residential construction industry has no doubt contributed to the one-third decline in the county’s real property transfer taxes that we chronicled in Part One. But that is not the limit of the damage. The multiplier effects of the shutdown in construction will spread through reduced real estate agent commissions, falling settlement fees, collapsing contractor revenues and declining capital gains. All of these factors will damage income tax receipts, which account for one-third of the county’s revenues.
Worst of all, the statistics we cite in this series terminate in August 2008. The credit crisis erupted in full-blown fashion only last month. We have not seen the effect of a mass credit shortage affecting buyers, sellers, contractors and ancillary real estate businesses all at the same time since 1929.
All of the actors in Montgomery County – the politicians, the business community, the public employee unions and the taxpayers – are going to have to face this reality. There is no other choice. And for the moment, there may be no way out.
Monday, October 13, 2008
MoCo’s Great Crash, Part One
There is a lot of talk about a Great Crash: that of America’s stock market. And there is a lot of talk about another Great Crash: that of America’s economy. And there is also talk about yet another Great Crash: Maryland’s budget. But there is very little talk about what may be the most locally relevant Great Crash of all: the collapse of Montgomery County’s residential real estate market. Today, the readers of MPW will see the ugly truth.
In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that the construction and real estate industries (including concrete manufacturing, materials wholesalers and retailers, real estate firms and architectural and engineering firms) accounted for 14.5% of Montgomery’s private-sector employment, 15.0% of its total private-sector payroll and 17.6% of its private-sector establishments. Those industries together rank second behind only professional, technical and scientific services in Montgomery. But those figures understate their impact on the economy. Construction and real estate activities spill over into the legal, financial, insurance and furniture retailing sectors too. The cumulative impact of all related spending could account for one-fifth or more of the county’s entire private-sector economy. And according to Montgomery County’s Department of Finance, 53% of total construction volume in the county since 2005 has occurred in the residential sector. Any way you measure it, construction and real estate – especially the residential part of those industries – is a huge part of the county’s economy.
It is huge. And it is hugely suffering.
Today, we look at residential sales volume in Montgomery County. In the 24 months between September 2004 and August 2006, 1,000 residential units or more were sold in every month except three. In the 24 months since then, the 1,000 mark was only broken four times. Let’s put it another way. In the first eight months of 2005, 11,838 residential units were traded. In the first eight months of 2008, only 5,495 units were traded – a decline of 54%. But the pain does not end there.
Montgomery County’s residential real estate market peaked in June 2005, when sales volume totaled $1.1 billion. By late 2006, sales volume had fallen to $400-500 million per month. The market tanked in January 2008 when just $210 million in volume was recorded. Monthly market volume has remained under $500 million in seven out of eight months since then.
This collapse has clearly devastated a large sector of Montgomery County’s economy. But of even more relevance for the county’s politicians is its direct impact on the county’s budget. Transfer and recordation taxes were estimated to account for $149 million (or 4%) of the county’s $4 billion in revenues this fiscal year. While these taxes are a small percentage of the county’s budget, they are a very volatile slice of it. Last year, real property transfer taxes were estimated to produce $121 million in revenues but only brought in $80 million – a gigantic 33% shortfall.
This summer, the county’s residential market began to recover a little bit. Volume rose from $210 million in January to $510 million in June, and then fell to $402 million in August. A slow recovery certainly seemed possible. But then the global credit crisis struck. Will buyers, sellers and builders find credit difficult or impossible to access? If so, will the residential market tank again? And if that happens, what will happen to the county’s budget (not to mention its employment base)?
As bad as all this might seem, there is more. Come back tomorrow for Part Two.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Presidential Campaign Debate: Feldman vs Shalleck
Campaign Debate
UMBC at Shady Grove, Political Science and History Programs and
Montgomery College History & Political Science Department
Brian Feldman (D), Maryland State Delegate, MoCo D15 (Representing Obama)
Jim Shalleck (R), Chairman, MoCo Republican Party (Representing McCain)
Will present their candidates' views and answer their questions.
October 13th at 2:30 PM
Universities at Shady Grove, Building III, Room 3241
For more information, please contact Prof. Pete Melcavage at 301-738-6313.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Mr. Cool vs. the Prowler
By Sharon Dooley.
Tuesday's debate featured Senators Barack Obama and John McCain in a so-called Town Hall Meeting. This event was far more structured than the ones in previous years, as the moderator, Tom Brokaw, screened all questions and questioners in advance. He determined the order of the questions and chose who was to answer first on each one. Internet viewers also sent in a few questions. Politico's John Harris has called it the "worst debate ever"; while I am not certain I would echo that label, it was odd – a debate that had no interactions between the two candidates. Although this was supposed to be the realm in which McCain was most comfortable, he frequently seemed anxious for it to end. As the debate went on, the body language of the two candidates seemed to say a lot. Obama appeared relaxed and comfortable with the format; McCain prowled the stage, frequently charging toward the seated audience and rarely smiled.
As for content, there was little new that was said or learned as the candidates kept to the standard lines they have been expressing on the stump. The questions were not exactly breaking new ground, either, as the few chosen topics were along familiar subjects such as the economy, taxes and health care. McCain came out with an initiative about home mortgage assistance that was poorly described and not adequately explored. Both candidates were being careful to speak with cautious, measured words that would not make negative headlines the next day. There was also some discussion about Russia and other foreign policy areas as well as energy sources and options for the future. One of Obama's best moments came when he discussed health care and the problems his dying mother had experienced with insurance companies. McCain did appear more confident when he answered questions about foreign affairs
Tom Brokaw did not encourage discussion, follow-up questions or answers between the candidates and was flexible about the allotted times for answers, which sometimes led to confusion. (Much of this was attributed to the draconian rules that were extensively negotiated by the campaigns' pre-debate teams.) The lack of follow-up questions and inability to query previous statements made much of the spontaneity and exchange of ideas, usually seen in such forums, impossible. Brokaw did get some interesting responses to his question about health care asking if it was a responsibility, a privilege or a right. McCain asserted that it was a responsibility that the government held; Obama stated that it was a right that should be fulfilled for all. This again shows the differences in long- range philosophies between the two. In a strange conversation, when asked who his candidates for Treasury Secretary might be, McCain first said, "Well, not you Tom!" to the moderator, who would indeed have been an odd selection. Neither candidate voiced a firm solution for the financial recovery of the nation, nor for the looming problem of entitlements, which were mentioned but not addressed in any depth.
Again in this outing as before, McCain did not show respect for his opponent, once pointing and referring to him derisively as "that one". He rarely looked at him. He again tried to make it seem that Barack Obama was not ready to assume the office of the Presidency, when the viewer saw much the opposite in tone and manner. In his attempt to appear forceful and decisive, McCain actually acted out the role of the underdog, and instead appeared to be grumpy and angry. Planned jokes fell flat; McCain's' own laughter seemed forced. The Washington Post called this a better performance by McCain and it was, by a bit – but his best was not good enough. This debate was not a draw in any aspect. Repetitive uses of his talisman phrase - "my friends" -seemed almost pejorative near the end of the time when he did not appear at all friendly. John McCain's' best moment came at the end when a fellow Navy veteran asked a question – he related, touched the man's shoulder and shook his hand, making that human connection that had eluded him all evening. Barack was at his most relaxed when asked a Zen like question about his faults near the end of the evening and laughingly indicated that his wife – who was in the audience - was probably the best source for that information. After the debate ended, their wives joined the candidates on stage. John and Cindy McCain briefly greeted Barack Obama and some in the audience then left abruptly. Barack and Michelle Obama stayed and talked at length with members of the studio audience.
What was leaned from this evening? Well, the pundits have spoken and given the evening to Obama. The polled voters, also by a wide margin, selected Obama as the winner. Was any new ground broken, any new initiative revealed, any major gaffe expressed – no. Did the country get another chance to watch the candidates think and speak on their feet? Yes. Was there an overt appeal to the woman voter – a known swing factor? None were obvious on the surface of the discussions; no particular topic relating to family issues was even asked, so possibly an opportunity was missed. When looking under the words of the stump speeches, were we able to see the candidate beneath the rhetoric? Perhaps. If there were truly any undecided voters out there, would this discussion have been the tipping point for any one? In my opinion, if the undecided voters thought about who looked Presidential, who seemed knowledgeable, who acted as if he could handle any crises with a focused and calm demeanor, the only answer could be Barack Obama.
Is the race going to get ugly - it already has - so hold onto your hats! With every point up in the polls by Obama, the negatives on the stump have increased. NPR announced that in most markets now, McCain is running 100% negative ads. Supposedly they are an effective tool and turn out the base, but they also can turn away independents from the candidate who supports this negativity. We have less than 4 weeks to go and a lot can happen in that time, so while my crystal ball is not currently being consulted, my fingers remain crossed.
Note from Adam: Here's an example of how incredibly ugly this race is getting. We knew some of the GOP faithful was capable of this behavior, but to actually see it is chilling.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Shameless Plug
Once Delegate Saqib Ali introduced us to the joys of Facebook, it was only a matter of time before I set up a Facebook page for this blog. For those people who sign up as MPW Fans, we will offer a special service: previews of content for the next week. Some of our posts are spontaneous, but others are planned days or even weeks in advance. Now you can find out what's coming up before anyone else does!
Reaction to MoCo’s Most Influential People
If we can take a break from Saqib-Mania for a moment, let’s return to the biggest story from last week: our series on Montgomery County’s most influential people. We have had quite a bit of reaction to those posts that we would like to address.
Perhaps it is no great surprise that the lists were passed far and wide. Visit counts were 59% above average on Wednesday (when Part Three was posted), 45% above average on Thursday (when Part Four was posted) and 32% above average on Friday. The Washington Post covered Part Three, no doubt generating additional interest. The series came in second in traffic only to our Gazette series, revealing that most people care more about their local news coverage than who’s up and who’s down among the politicians!
The lists have become at least temporarily entrenched in the local political culture. For example, when Senator Rich Madaleno appeared before the Committee for Montgomery on Monday, he was introduced as, “the third-most influential person in the county.” An eye-witness told me that everyone seemed to understand the reference. From now on, we should all refer to Senator Madaleno by his new nickname – “Third.” (Isn’t that a better nickname than “Tied for Nineteenth?”)
Most of the reactions were some variant of the following three statements:
“How on Earth did X make the list?”
“How on Earth did Y not make the list?”
“Z is really mad at YOU because YOU left him off the list!”
Sigh... I spent two straight days explaining my methodology. Fifty-five knowledgeable people voted. It’s not MY list, it’s THEIR list. The only discretion I had was in weeding through the comments. Some of them would have gotten this blog deleted by Blogger.com! Like, for example, the ones about Weast... OK, I won’t go there.
Several readers commented that this list was only a snapshot. I agree. Imagine who would have made it three years ago: Doug Duncan, Steve Silverman, Marilyn Praisner, Bruce Roemer, perhaps Ida Ruben, and more. I would have not been on the list because this blog did not exist back then. As a matter of fact, there would have been no such blog lists at all! How different would a list of this kind look three years from now?
A few people said they thought the series measured visibility rather than influence. That might be true. One example they cited was that of Comptroller Peter Franchot, who tied for 6th with 22 votes. What would Annapolis reporters do without him? The only way Big Daddy will ever get Franchot’s microphone away from him is to pry it from his cold, dead hands!
Here’s an interesting theory from one of our smartest readers. She believes that the lists measure electoral influence, not policy influence. Eighteen of our 55 respondents (about one-third) were elected officials and she thinks that they voted for people who could affect whether they get elected. Serious policy and community people, the kind who are influential leaders but may not directly sway elections, would be less likely to get votes. Is she right?
To test this idea, I broke out the tallies of elected voters from non-elected voters. Here’s who they picked:
Electeds Voting for Electeds
16 Votes: Ike Leggett, Chris Van Hollen
13 Votes: Rich Madaleno
12 Votes: Brian Frosh, Sheila Hixson
10 Votes: Karen Britto
8 Votes: Peter Franchot, Doug Gansler
6 Votes: Marc Elrich, Brian Feldman
Non-Electeds Voting for Electeds
32 Votes: Ike Leggett
27 Votes: Chris Van Hollen
22 Votes: Rich Madaleno
18 Votes: Brian Frosh
16 Votes: Marc Elrich, Sheila Hixson
15 Votes: Mike Knapp
14 Votes: Valerie Ervin, Peter Franchot
13 Votes: Doug Gansler
Electeds Voting for Non-Electeds
8 Votes: Jerry Weast
7 Votes: Royce Hanson, Adam Pagnucco
5 Votes: Esther Gelman, Tom Perez
4 Votes: Tim Firestine, Jon Gerson, Gino Renne, Karen McManus
3 Votes: Bonnie Cullison
Non-Electeds Voting for Non-Electeds
20 Votes: Royce Hanson
19 Votes: Jerry Weast
16 Votes: Bonnie Cullison, Tim Firestine
12 Votes: Gino Renne
11 Votes: Adam Pagnucco
9 Votes: Blair Lee, Gustavo Torres
5 Votes: Wayne Goldstein, Bill Robertson
Most of the names were similar with one prominent exception: MCDCC Chairwoman Karen Britto. Of her 12 votes, 10 came from elected people and only 2 came from non-electeds. As you can see, more electeds voted for Ms. Britto than for either Peter Franchot or Doug Gansler. This indicates that politicians are much more attuned to MCDCC’s power of legislative appointments than are non-politicians. In fact, a few of the respondents who voted for Ms. Britto believed that she helped arrange the appointments. One even said, “20% of our state delegation is honorable due to her efforts to gain their appointment. Al Carr, Bill Frick, and Kirill Reznik owe her big.”
Lastly, everyone expects me to do this again. Well, maybe next year. In the meantime, one wag suggested doing a new poll identifying “MoCo’s Least Influential.” Lordy guys, aren’t I in enough trouble already?
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Ehrlich Police Chief is Second-Worst Person in the World
When you've made Olbermann's Worst Person list, you really have nothing left in life to achieve!
Now when is Keith going to find out about conservative blogger Mark Newgent, who said the victims of the police spying had a "shady past"?
Proposed Budget Cut – The Maryland Stadium Authority
By Marc Korman.
After I complained about blue-ribbon commissions, a few people asked me what I would do to address Maryland’s budget challenges. Regardless of whether slots passes, Maryland will have a $1 billion budget deficit in 2009 and serious fiscal problems in subsequent years. A few different ideas have been knocking around in my mind, but the one on my mind today is the Maryland Stadium Authority.
The Maryland Stadium Authority (MSA) was established in 1986, essentially to site, build, and operate a new stadium for the Baltimore Orioles, now Camden Yards. MSA went on to be involved in the Comcast Center at College Park, Ripken Stadium in Aberdeen, the Montgomery County Conference Center, and numerous other projects around the state. MSA is also responsible for feasibility studies for proposed projects, including an arena in Montgomery County and a soccer stadium in Prince George’s.
I have previously questioned the need for an arena in Montgomery County and noted some flaws in MSA’s feasibility study. Now I am questioning the need for an independent Maryland Stadium Authority entirely. As best as I can tell, MSA’s current job is to search for new mega projects to build, regardless of their necessity, cost, or practicality. MSA’s current to do list includes a Baltimore City Arena, which would be in addition to the already completed Baltimore Convention Center, Camden Yards, M&T Bank Stadium, Hippodrome Performing Arts Center, and so on. And I do not mean to just pick on Baltimore. Prince George’s is currently furloughing employees and is still putting the finishing touches on the National Harbor. Breaking ground on a new soccer stadium there, as some have advocated, does not sound like an efficient use of tax dollars.
I am not the first to raise the issue. In 2007, Gazette columnist Barry Roscovar discussed MSA’s need for a mission. MSA is authorized for 95 staffers next year and a budget of $65 million. Eliminating MSA will not balance the budget, but it will be a small step in the right direction. If any small part of MSA’s mission is deemed truly necessary, it can be carried out in the Maryland Department of Business & Economic Development (DBED).
MSA also has a debt service mission that must be continued. For example, MSA issued $23 million in bonds for the construction of the Montgomery County Conference Center. The continuing mission to service that debt can be carried out by the Maryland Treasurer in cooperation with DBED. It does not require its own independent administrative staff and support. The exact nature of that new arrangement would have to be worked out by the legislature in such a way so as not to harm Maryland’s AAA bond rating.
Some will make the argument that MSA contributes to the state’s economic development. When the Montgomery County arena or Prince George’s soccer stadium are discussed, that is always the major point of proponents. In response, I have two thoughts.
First, there is no budget cut that will not have opponents and arguments against it. Any cut or revenue increase going forward will be difficult.
Second, regardless of MSA projects’ long term benefits, in the short term they cost lots of money and require substantial investment. In tight budget times and with so many other needs, we do not need an independent authority whose purpose is to create work.
Instead, of finding unnecessary new venues to build, we should try to improve visitation at the sites we already have. Camden Yards’ attendance was the lowest ever in 2008. If we really want to build new infrastructure for economic development purposes in the coming years, I am certain that transit supporters will be happy to oblige.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Saqib Ali Facebook Poll
Here we have another hot potato (or perhaps a burning ember) on this blog. How do you feel about this?
Election Fever . . . in Ghana
Campaign Billboard in Kumasi, Ghana
The Perfect Gift
Before I left for Africa, I raced around looking for a place to buy Obama buttons to give as small tokens of thanks. They’re an enormous hit. I felt bad when I didn’t have enough for all of the students at the University of Ghana who wanted one.
Will the U.S. Election Results Influence Ghana’s Elections?
Ghana is holding its presidential and parliamentary elections simultaneously just one month after we vote in the United States. The two dominant parties are the New Patriotic Party (NPP), concluding its second four-year term in power, and the National Democratic Congress (NDC), which governed from 1992-2000 and badly want to return to power. President John K.A. Kufuor must step down as he is concluding his second term.
President Kufuor of the NPP recently paid a state visit to Washington—President Bush held one of his few state dinners in his honor. Some think that Ghana’s voters will return the NPP to power if the Republicans triumph in November but turn to the NDC if the Democrats win the presidency in the U.S. The NDC flagbearer—Ghanaian for leader or presidential candidates is Professor John Atta Mills. He is set to become the Williams Jennings Bryan of Ghana if he loses. This is his third consecutive bid for the presidency.
Ethnicity and Elections in Ghana
The plague of African democracy is that elections often resemble an ethnic census with voters from each group supporting one candidate or party en masse. The recent elections in Kenya which led to fierce interethnic violence are a classic example. Escaping the ethnic trap has been difficult in many divided societies but perhaps been an especially difficult challenge for African democracies.
Ghana is not an exception in terms of the importance of language and ethnicity. Like most sub-Saharan Africa states, Ghana contains many different groups who often speak different languages. In Ghana, the Ewe of the Volta Region in the East vote at very high rates for the NDC. In contrast, the Ashanti in the Ashanti Region vote lopsidedly for the NPP.
Ghana may have managed to establish an increasingly stable democracy despite the continuing salience of ethnicity. For starters, not all Ashanti vote for the NPP despite that region being the party’s base and home to a welter of safe NPP parliamentary seats. Moreover, neither the Ewe nor the Ashanti are populous enough to win the elections alone and much reach out to other regions of the country.
Neither party is able to build a firm majority based on consolidating support from related ethnic groups. The Akan include a variety of groups, including the Ashanti, which speak closely related languages—as close as British and American English according to people I met here—but the NPP has not been able to get nearly as consistent or high support from non-Ashanti Akan. For example, the Fante who live in Western and Central regions along Ghana’s coast are swing voters.
The election system may encourage parties to move beyond their ethnic base. Ghana uses the same single-member district system as the U.S. While parties can win lots of seats in their home region based on an ethnic majority, they need to attract support in a variety of regions to gain a parliamentary majority and to win the presidency.
The result is unique within Africa. In many other African democracies, there is a dominant party. In Ghana, there are two major parties in addition to a number of smaller parties. In 2000, the NDC lost and had to turn power over the NPP. Both the NPP and the NDC are highly competitive and have a reasonable shot at winning the upcoming elections. Many think that there will have to be a runoff in the presidential election as the Convention People’s Party (CPP) candidate is attracting some support.
Ghana’s success at holding a series of democratic elections—this is the fifth since the last military government—with a successful transfer of power needs to be examined more. Why has democracy taken root here? Is it the electoral system? Does Ghana have a stronger sense of being a nation than other African states despite ethnic divisions? Regardless of its answers, Ghana’s success is once again making the country a leader in Africa.
Beware of Facebook (Multiple Updates)
Now I have nothing against Delegate Saqib Ali (D-39). He has a pro-labor, pro-environment voting record. He was supported by numerous progressive organizations in his incumbent-toppling run in 2006. And I chuckled when he took on MCDCC over its secretive vacancy appointment process.
But, you see, I just joined Facebook. And Delegate Ali’s page gave me a welcome that I will never forget!
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Facebook, it is probably the premier social networking site on the Internet. Everyone who joins maintains their own page. Anyone can establish links to “Friends.” Friends share comments, news and photos, and can write on each other’s pages in forums called “Walls.” Facebook participants can choose to make the contents of their Wall visible only to their Friends, Friends of Friends or broader communities called Networks. Now here is where it gets interesting.
When “real” friends sit down for a brew or two, many things are said. For the most part, they continue to exist only in semi-fogged minds or in the memories of jaded bartenders. But in Facebook, written Wall contents are visible to all with access. And a LOT of people can have access. That does not stop some people from saying whatever they wish without a care in the world. Delegate Ali is one of these people.
Below are a few excerpts from Delegate Ali’s Wall. Bear in mind that I have not connected with him as a Friend (and now I am certain he will forbid it!) but nevertheless I and MANY thousands of others have access. Here the Delegate states, “Saqib’s advice for single guys: Lots of needy women at NKOTB [New Kids on the Block] concerts.” He also says he is selling Free O.J. T-shirts “out of the trunk of his car.”
“Saqib’s barber shop offers bizarre conversations from an alternative reality.”
“Saqib loves Fridays like a fat kid loves cake.”
“Saqib feels strange confusing emotions when Sarah Palin winks at him.”
“Saqib wants to see [former NFL star] Warren Sapp crush that skinny blond woman.”
“Saqib asks his constituents What can Brown do for you?” (One of them says, “You can start by replying to my emails.”)
“Saqib just bought several cans of Ax bodyspray to attract the ladies.”
“Saqib is Superwoman. Yes I am.”
“Saqib wonders how creepy he seems if he asks job applicants to first add him as their Friend on Facebook.”
“Saqib gets it from his Momma!”
“Saqib requests other men not to make idle chit-chat with him in the locker room if you are naked. I’m just sayin’.”
“Saqib thought today was Halloween and wore a cute Little Red Riding Hood outfit to work.”
“Saqib feels the need to sneeze obnoxiously loudly to affirm his manhood.”
“Saqib is considering changing his FaceBook relationship status to single just to see what would happen.” (The Delegate is married.)
“Saqib: If a woman’s work is never done, I must be a woman… a really, really hot woman!” (One of the Delegate’s Friends replies, “Saqib, be responsible.”)
“Saqib takes his cell phone into the shower with him. Is that wierd? [sic]”
Sigh... Let’s give Delegate Ali some credit here. With a few exceptions (like Big Daddy and Delegate Luiz Simmons), most politicians try to bury their personalities for fear of offending voters. Just check out their pitifully boring “blogs.” But following in the footsteps of blind superhero Daredevil, Delegate Ali is a man without fear! Shouldn’t we appreciate a politician who bares all (assuming we do not approach too closely in the locker room)?
Some will question whether I am invading the Delegate’s privacy by posting the above. The fact is that Facebook is private only to the extent that a participant wants it to be private. First, I was able to view this content even though I am not the Delegate’s Friend. That means, at a minimum, his privacy setting allows Friends of Friends to access it. The Delegate has over 900 Friends. If each of them has, on average, 50 Friends, that means tens of thousands of people can see his Wall. Second, the Delegate himself invites his constituents to become his Facebook Friends on his campaign website (see below). As of this writing, the above content is about as public as it gets.
So if you are a politician – or an aspiring politician – is this how you want to appear before constituents? If so, then get on that Little Red Riding Hood outfit and crush that skinny blond woman! If not, then BEWARE of Facebook.
Update: I wrote the first draft of this post last weekend, long before Delegate Ali's amazingly well-timed comment complaining that this blog is "bland." You just can't make this stuff up, folks!
Update 2: We have offended many politicians on this blog in the past, but not Delegate Ali! He seems to be enjoying the attention as he says, "Saqib is flattered to have Adam Pagnucco stalking him."
Update 3: At one point early this afternoon, 36% of all traffic to the site came in directly to this post without going through the home page. The home page itself only received 34% of the traffic. That level of interest in a single post is almost unprecedented in the history of this blog. Total traffic averaged one visit per minute around lunchtime, probably the second-highest rate of intensity behind the day when we ran Crisis at the Gazette Part Two. Saqib Ali is a lot more famous today than he was yesterday.
Update 4: Don't forget to vote in our Saqib Ali poll!
Update 5: Direct visits to this post now account for 38% of all visits to this blog. I don't recall having seen that before, but then again, we've never had a post quite like this one. Thanks, Delegate!
Update 6: It's at 40%. How come you guys don't react like this when I put up budget stuff?
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
On Political Pulse
Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley will be on the 'Political Pulse' talk show on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County on:
Thursday, October 9th at 9:00 p.m.;
Tuesday, October 14th at 9:30 p.m.;
Thursday, October 16th at 9:00 p.m.; and
Tuesday, October 21st at 9:30 p.m.
Topics that will be discussed include:
-- The financial bailout of Wall Street;
-- The Governor's position on the slots referendum on the November 4th ballot;
-- Comptroller Peter Franchot's idea to have a "Blue Ribbon Committee" study spending in Maryland;
-- The Governor's plans to have Maryland be more energy efficient; and
-- Fiscal issues that Maryland and other states are facing.
Peter Franchot: Crazy Like a Fox
Very few politicians are more unpopular in Annapolis than Comptroller Peter Franchot. Put aside for a moment his raging feud with Big Daddy and his baiting of the Governor over the sensitive Montgomery County school construction issue (among MANY other things). I have asked quite a few state legislators about the Comptroller and, so far, only one has defended him. The Comptroller is so controversial that his anti-slots allies have tried to distance themselves from him and his enemies have tried to make him the face of slots opposition.
But the truth is that from a purely political perspective, Peter Franchot has placed himself in a no-lose situation. Whether the slots referendum passes or fails, the Comptroller will come out on top. Here’s how.
If the Slots Referendum Passes...
Franchot will benefit. Slots opponents are driven by strong moral views and have long memories. (Ask any of them about Big Daddy.) If the referendum passes, the opponents will still give the Comptroller credit for fighting the good fight. And he will carry with him his new relationships with the African American community as well as his old relationships with anti-slots Democratic activists.
Furthermore, even if the referendum passes, its implementation may not proceed smoothly. Racetrack owner Magna Entertainment could go bankrupt and several jurisdictions could see grass-roots battles to deny zoning for casinos. The Comptroller will almost certainly get into the middle of all these fights, thereby gaining even more friends and keeping his name in the news.
If the Slots Referendum Fails...
Franchot will benefit. The Governor and the General Assembly will have to plug out-year deficits reaching into the hundreds of millions of dollars. But the Comptroller will not have to participate. He can sit on the outside, call for Blue-Ribbon commissions and criticize whatever the other politicians eventually do. Peter Franchot can then run in 2010 with no taint from tax hikes or spending cuts, chiding his rivals for ignoring the potential of the life sciences industry as a revenue source.
Is this responsible governance? Hell no, but it’s great politics. And in their hearts of hearts, even the Comptroller's enemies know it.
Update: And here is the Comptroller telling the Governor to "call off the attack dogs, stop the negative campaigning and return the foreign gambling money." Is anyone in the state better at political jiu-jitsu than Peter Franchot?
A Joint Statement Against Anonymous Attack Blogs
By Adam Pagnucco, Eric Luedtke and Dan Reed.
Recently, an anonymous blog appeared targeting Montgomery County Council Member Mike Knapp. The sole purpose of this blog was to attack Mr. Knapp's character in an effort to discourage him from running for County Executive. We will not do the author a favor by linking to his work. The issue for us is not Mr. Knapp or his fitness for office. Rather, the creation of this blog, which is neither the first nor the last of its kind, calls a question of vital importance to Maryland's blogosphere. And this is our response.
All of us blog under our own names. We do it because we believe what we say. We do it because we are willing to stand behind our words. And we do it because we do not fear accountability from our readers. In fact, transparency and accountability are good for the blogosphere. They are the primary tools by which our still young, and occasionally unruly, medium can be improved.
Unfortunately, our medium is subject to abuse by those who attempt to destroy the reputation of others while hiding behind a veil of anonymity. By spreading incorrect and possibly libelous information, anonymous attack bloggers do a disservice to legitimate bloggers and to the community as a whole.
While we may disagree on some matters, we agree on the fact that these anonymous attackers discredit the blogosphere and political activism as a whole. For the good of our craft, our readers and the public discourse, we the undersigned stand against them and condemn their work. Specifically, the creator of the anonymous blog attacking Mike Knapp should either have the courage to identify himself or herself or have the decency to delete the blog.
Dan Reed is the author of Just Up the Pike. Eric Luedtke is a contributor to Free State Politics. Adam Pagnucco is a contributor to Maryland Politics Watch. As measured by Sitemeter, Just Up the Pike, Free State Politics and Maryland Politics Watch are three of the five most-read blogs in the state of Maryland.
Monday, October 06, 2008
Community Foreclosure Forum
The District 39 Delegation invites you to join them for:
Community Foreclosure Forum
Saturday, October 11, 2008
10:00 a.m. – noon
Location:
Lake Marion Community Center
8821 East Village Avenue, Montgomery Village, MD 20886
• Confidential, discussions with professional counselors who can help you work through the foreclosure process.
• Learn from Maryland Secretary Tom Perez your rights and protections under Governor O'Malley’s new homeowner laws.
• Find out how the federal, state and local government can help you and neighbors.
• Meet with nonprofit representatives and find out what programs are locally available.
• There will be a limited number of Spanish-speaking housing counselors and rescue scam investigators on hand.
• Pre-registration guarantees free legal consult. Pre-register for the workshop by calling 301-858-3039 or sending an email to District39Event@gmail.com.
Please be sure to bring the following:
o All paperwork related to your current and former mortgages including loan application, settlement paperwork, and lender statements.
o Information about their monthly household budget (income/expenses).
o All foreclosure notices or threats of foreclosure, if any, received.
Admission is free and open to the public, please invite your friends and neighbors.
Please RSVP to District39Event@gmail.com or call 301-858-3039.
Pro-Slots Group Targets Franchot
Following is the text of a memo sent by pro-slots For Maryland, For Our Future to elected leaders concerning Comptroller Peter Franchot. (It's not as if the Comptroller isn't attracting any other letters these days, right?)
TO: MARYLAND ELECTED OFFICIALS
RE: Question 2 Is Clear Choice
DT: Monday, October 06, 2008
Question 2 has been endorsed by the Maryland Chamber of Commerce, Maryland Retailers Association, Maryland State Teachers Association, Fraternal Order of Police, Professional Firefighters of Maryland, State Law Enforcement Labor Alliance and Maryland Association of Counties.
The opposition to Question 2 is led by Peter Franchot, who has spent the past year trying to run away from his “pro” record on slots. It should be noted that Franchot’s 1998 pro-slots legislation gave a much larger percentage to slots operators than Question 2 does – and Franchot’s 1998 bill also dedicated less money to education. Don’t take our word for it, go read the bills for yourself.
· In 1998, Franchot was a cosponsor of HB 678, a constitutional amendment that would have created 10 slot facilities with 11,250 machines. A hearing was held on February 26, 1998. Click here to read fiscal analysis of Franchot's 1998 pro-slots bill. Click here to read Franchot's 1998 pro-slots bill.
· In 2001, Franchot was a cosponsor of HB 1170, a constitutional amendment that would have created four slot facilities with 10,000 machines. A hearing was held on March 12, 2001. Click here to read fiscal analysis of Franchot's 2001 pro-slots bill. Click here to read Franchot's 2001 pro-slots bill.
Slots opponents favor raising taxes to fix the deficit. In May 2008, Hillary Spence, the treasurer of Marylanders United to Stop Slots, endorsed raising taxes instead of passing slots, saying, “I think people need to tighten their belts or unfortunately raise taxes.” And in September 2008, anti-slots elected officials from Montgomery County proposed raising taxes as their alternative to slots, including an increase to the liquor tax, a new tax on legal and consulting services and a 10% income tax hike. One newspaper’s headline told the whole story: “County Leaders Favor Taxes Over Slot Machines at Rally.”
At a time of national economic crisis – possibly the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s – we cannot afford to raise taxes any more on working families and struggling businesses. And we cannot afford to cut education, health care, transportation and other vital services.
Despite what Peter Franchot says, we cannot afford to ignore this budget crisis. Already, local jurisdictions have made cuts in vital services due to the slumping national economy. Allowing slots will generate additional revenue to help local governments avoid making more cuts.
For more information on our campaign – including our most recent TV ad correcting the record after Franchot’s year-long effort to mislead Maryland voters -- please go to our web site, www.ForMaryland.org. We look forward to hearing from you and your constituents.
Obama Pulling Away in Virginia
Many of our readers are door-knocking or calling voters in Virginia. The following data suggests that your efforts are paying off.
According to Real Clear Politics, Senator Obama is building a substantial lead in Virginia. Here are the poll averages by week from the start of September.
September 1 - September 7
Two polls, Obama 47%, McCain 49%, Margin -2.0
September 8 - September 14
Six polls, Obama 45.3%, McCain 47.7%, Margin -2.4
September 15 - September 21
Five polls, Obama 47.6%, McCain 47.2%, Margin +0.4
September 22 - September 28
Three polls, Obama 48.7%, McCain 47%, Margin +1.7
September 29 - October 5
Five polls, Obama 50.6%, McCain 43.8%, Margin +6.8
It's hard to imagine something more encouraging for Obama volunteers (or more demoralizing for Senator McCain's supporters).
Magna: Slots or Bust
Magna Entertainment Corporation, owner of Laurel Park and Pimlico Race Course, is on the verge of bankruptcy. That fact drives its desperate push for slots at its two Maryland race tracks and makes the state’s gambling referendum even riskier than is commonly believed.
Magna, founded in 1998 and based in Aurora, Ontario, owns horsetracks in California, Florida, Maryland, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Ebreichsdorf, Austria. It also operates a track in Pennsylvania on behalf of a third party. Over its formative period of 1998-2002, the company acquired its tracks through aggressively leveraged purchases – in other words, massive debt. A key part of its strategy was to make the properties more profitable through lobbying for gambling.
Magna succeeded in getting the State of Oklahoma to pass a slots referendum in November 2004. The number of slot machines allowed at Magna’s Remington Park started at 650 and rose in steps to 750. In March 2005, Broward County, Florida passed a referendum allowing slot machines at Magna’s Gulfstream Park. But the referendum is now tied up in court over whether its supporters gathered enough signatures to warrant placement on the ballot. And of course, Magna is a major supporter of the Maryland referendum that would allow slots at its tracks.
Data from Magna’s latest annual report suggests that failure to pass the Maryland referendum may break the back of the company. In the eleven fiscal years the company has been in existence, it has only earned positive net income in two ($441,000 in 2000 and $13.5 million in 2001). Over the last three years, Magna lost $105 million (2005), $87 million (2006) and $114 million (2007), the latter being the worst year in the company’s history. While the firm’s racing properties come somewhat close to breaking even on operating income (losing just $17 million before income, taxes, depreciation and amortization in 2007), the company’s $50 million+ annual interest payments swamp its performance. Why are Magna’s interest payments so high? Because as of 6/30/08, it was carrying $867 million in total debt, of which $396 million was in current liabilities.
Magna needs cash now, a fact the company acknowledged when it laid out its “Plan for Debt Elimination.” The plan involves a combination of asset sales and equity issuances, the latter of course requiring some new revenue source to justify them. But as of earlier this year, the plan was going very badly. The company admitted the following in this year’s annual report:Although we continue to implement our Plan, real estate and credit markets have continued to demonstrate weakness in the first part of 2008. This has reduced the likelihood that we will be able to complete asset sales at acceptable prices as quickly as originally contemplated. In light of these adverse developments, combined with our upcoming debt maturities and operational funding requirements, we will likely need to seek extensions or additional funds in the short-term from one or more possible sources. The availability of such extensions or additional funds from existing lenders, including MID [their controlling shareholder], or from other sources is not assured and, if available, the terms thereof are not determinable at this time. We expect that we will enter into negotiations with such existing lenders, including MID, with a view to extending, restructuring or refinancing such facilities. There is no assurance that such negotiations, if any, will result in a favorable outcome for MEC [Magna Entertainment]. If we are unable to repay our obligations when due, other current and long-term debt will also become due on demand as a result of cross-default provisions within loan agreements, unless we are able to obtain waivers or extensions. Unless we are successful in our efforts, we could be required to liquidate assets in the fastest manner possible to raise funds, seek protection from our creditors in one or more ways or be unable to continue as a going concern. [Bold added]
Those words were written in March, long before the credit crisis fell into its current abyss. And now things are much, much worse for Magna. The company recently announced that it had to renegotiate its credit arrangements after paying $900,000 in fees to its lenders. Investors understand the company’s instability: Magna’s stock value has fallen from nearly $60 a share a year ago to less than $2 today.
At the moment, Magna’s financial problems are so severe that it could conceivably fail prior to the installation of any slot machines in Maryland even if the referendum is passed.
Is this the sort of firm to whom the Free State should be entrusting its financial future?
Disclosure: The author has been a corporate researcher in the labor movement since 1994.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Palin Swift-Boats Obama
This is the first step in what the Washington Post describes as a "fiercer strategy" by the McCain campaign against Barack Obama. Even the Associated Press says this tactic carries a "racial tinge." Apparently, Senator McCain and Governor Palin have nothing left to say to the American people other than these kinds of statements. Are we going to let them get away with it?
Update: Red Maryland blogger Mark Newgent says that the Obama-Ayers relationship is "a legitimate concern." It's going to be a wild month, people!
Washington Post Covers MPW Most Influential List
The Washington Post's Lisa Rein covered MPW's most influential elected officials list, even using one of our sources' quotes on Senator Brian Frosh. These lists have already had massive circulation and the Post's interest guarantees even more exposure. Thank you, Ms. Rein!
Sounding Off on Slots in Fells Point
Stop Slots Maryland activists went to the Fells Point Festival to talk to Marylanders about slots. Here is what they had to say.
Guest Blog: Maryland’s "Bridge to Nowhere"
By Frank Anastasi.
The State of Maryland is about to take a definitive move on the planned Rockville District Courthouse on October 15 when the Department of General Services (DGS) presents the Board of Public Works (BPW) with the contract for demolishing the former Rockville Library where the courthouse is to be built. A local citizen group, Move the Courthouse, wrote to the Governor and the BPW on October 2 calling on the Board to stop the project immediately, and conduct a full investigation of what MTC called DGS’ malfeasance in selecting the site and planning the project.
MTC obtained DGS documents that it says clearly show that DGS “failed to exercise budgetary control, allowing the estimated cost of the project to skyrocket to more than $81 million” and failed to “meet its statutory responsibilities to protect historical resources and evaluate potential environmental impacts.”
The group provided the Board with summary tables that identify specific documents containing the incriminating information, as well as copies of the actual documents it obtained from DGS files under a Maryland Public Information Act request. MTC asked in April that DGS disclose information related to how DGS complied with Maryland’s Environmental Policy Act and Historical Preservation Act in selecting the location and planning the courthouse, and how it became so large and so costly. MTC got access to select DGS files in September.
MTC found that State Senator Ida Ruben dictated a particular type and color of limestone and specific windows for the building. Getting these details exactly right for Senator Ruben was a design-process imperative, as e-mails between the DGS project manager and its architectural design contractors show. “I care about a front façade rendering being the same color limestone that Ida likes. I want that stone to look like the color Ida likes,” the project manager informed his contractor, or “you and I will be answering her questions for hours…and then she will want another rendering, that’s when the new rendering becomes a gift to DGS from my friends at DMJM.”
A value engineering study identified tens of millions of dollars that could have been shaved from the project, such as foregoing the limestone and reducing the height of the building by cutting out wasted air space between each floor. The cost of the project has continued to escalate, however, from around $50 million in late-2005, to $76 million in 2007, now to $81.4 million according to the District 17 Delegation’s just released Annapolis Report.
MTC found letters between DGS and the City of Rockville that show while the City raised concerns as early as 2001, and asked specifically in 2004 to be involved in the early design process, DGS “kept Rockville in the dark” and “snuck its design through”, getting approval from the State Architectural Review Board (ARB) before it showed Rockville the design, without even informing Rockville that it was ready to go before the ARB.
Rockville’s Mayors and Councils and citizens have been opposed to the courthouse since learning of the plan in 2001. Concerns are its massive size, and its incompatibility with the local Master Plan, surrounding Historic Districts (and adjacent structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places), adjacent Pre-K to 8th grade Christ Episcopal School and Church, and the surrounding residential neighborhood. Also, only 20 parking spaces are planned (for judges). The building does not meet zoning code for the site, either.
While MTC has always agreed that a new courthouse is needed in Rockville, it says now that the project as planned is a waste of taxpayers’ money. “We always asked, why can’t we build a better courthouse, at a better location, where adequate parking could be included? Until now, we didn’t realize that we could save money in the process,” says Bridget Newton, an MTC member, and Chair of Rockville’s Town Center Action Team for many years. MTC says that DGS data show the 171,200 square-foot Rockville courthouse as planned would cost $475 per square foot, fifty-four percent more per square foot than it cost to build the new Silver Spring Courthouse. That building was completed a few years ago for $27 million (about $309 per square foot).
The legislature appropriated around $50 million for construction of the project in April. MTC had lobbied the legislature and Governor O’Malley, who agrees with them, and called building the courthouse at the former library site a very bad case of “Urban Planning Malfeasance.” But the District 17 Delegation’s stubborn insistence led by Senator Jennie Forehand prevailed. At one point, the City of Rockville came up with a plan to purchase the site from the State, and contribute money and improvements for an alternative site (the vacant, former Giant grocery store site on N. Washington St. a couple blocks away). But Montgomery County spoiled that deal, saying it would exercise its right to buy the site back from the State for $5 million plus 6% interest over the time since it sold it to the State (also for $5 million).
MTC suggested to the Board, “… in this time of billion dollar budget deficits, the State can do better than spending more than $81 million on this ill-conceived, extravagant, monument to wasteful government spending.” It asked the Board to deny approval of the contract to demolish the old Rockville Library, which it says could save around $3 million. Another $7 million would come back to the State because Montgomery County would by the site back if the courthouse is not built there. The City of Rockville had offered to buy the site previously.
MTC believes that “tens of millions of dollars more could be saved by building a courthouse with a functional design and adequate facilities, at one of several nearby, available, and more-suitable sites.” The former Giant grocery site, and 255 Rockville Pike, located just outside the Circuit Court’s eastern doors, were two sites mentioned.
MTC’s letter to the Board, summary tables of key documents, and copies of all the documents, are available at Rockville’s local blog, Rockville Central. Numerous posts by all sides in the debate over the past year or so can be found at Rockville Central.
Frank Anastasi is a member of the Move the Courthouse Steering Committee.
Opposing views are welcome on Maryland Politics Watch.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Pom-Poms for Palin
By Sharon Dooley.
Sarah Palin was perky and folksy during the VP debate and, as she has said: “comin’ at cha!” Maybe the gray heads running McCain’s campaign found that substantive, but I was unconvinced. She smiled, she looked professional – and she winked at us – more than once!! Can anyone imagine the uproar if Hillary Clinton ever winked at her audience during one of those debates with all of the guys running for the Democratic nomination? Would any Marylander dream of our intrepid ‘Senator Barb’ ever looking as if she was thinking about a wink?
The debate was more a series of separate questions and answers than any repartee between candidates or the moderator. They did not really communicate, although they did posture. Biden also overcame diminished expectations and was more concise and engaged than he has been in previous debates. He appeared to be addressing the questions asked, in most cases, and pretty much ignored the chipper chatter coming from his opponent. He did not come across as heavy-handed or sexist, both characteristics attributed to him in anticipation of this event. He pretty much kept to his script about looking for the differences between Obama and McCain and creating the parallels. He made some precise statements regarding health care and the office of the Vice-Presidency. He went back and forth about the Middle East and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But to me – sounding almost boring here reinforces a feeling of stability.
Let’s get serious – can anyone believe that a candidate who could not answer questions about nuclear nations needs to be close to absolute power? Her support for following in Cheney’s path and claiming additional fiat for the reach of the vice – presidential office is alarming to anyone who has watched the secretive veep and his forays toward a subterranean branch of the federal government outside the executive confines. Does any voter – aside from Palin support this hidden and expanded role for a VP?
Disdaining the agreed upon rules of debate and following her own script – even reading her lines at several points – Ms. Palin announced her plan to answer the questions she wanted to explore, not the ones which were actually asked and did so. Gwen Ifill, whom the McCain operatives hoped to replace or intimidate with charges of favoritism, did not repeat the questions or chide Ms. Palin in any attempts to get her to answer the questions asked, which might have returned some sense of reality to the stage. Returning to energy at almost every turn with colloquialisms flooding every sentence, she provided little light on most questions. In her many repetitions of comments already made on the campaign trail and proven to be inaccurate such as Obama’s stance on taxes and budget support for the troops, Sarah charged ahead disregarding facts in play. Her tentative use of the term mandate appeared to indicate that she was uncertain what the term actually meant.
Did she do better than her recent interviews with Katie Couric? Certainly. Can Katie ever be fairly charged with gotcha journalism? I think not; but here again the press was attacked for asking questions she should have known how to answer. (I do assume that most of us could easily recall the newspapers and magazines we usually read.) Is the national stage a hard and tough one? Of course. When anyone steps on up and embraces the role – that choice has been accepted. That process is part of our democracy and it should be defended. But Palin’s handlers couldn’t or wouldn’t let her hold a press conference. If she is not ready for prime time interviews, why select her in the first place? How has wrapping the candidate up and making her unreachable added any transparency to this campaign? Is she better or worse than she appears? We may never know.
Soon, the debates will all be over – the yard signs will be put away, the electorate will have spoken. Will the voters “shout out for substance” or bow to the soap opera power of the gal with the pom-poms and the quirky nature? Will we vote for the campaign promising hope and change or the one that claims straight talk?
Friday, October 03, 2008
C&O National Historical Park Damage
By Marc Korman.
The Gazette recently reported that the popular towpath at the C&O National Historical Park suffered major damage as a result of Tropical Storm Hanna. As a result, the National Park Service has closed over a mile of the trail between Anglers Inn and Stoplock, in the Montgomery County portion of the park. This is bad news for our region and the towpath’s many users.
Montgomery County is home to a few National Park Service sites. Glen Echo Park, which is technically part of the George Washington Parkway, and the Clara Barton House, a National Historic Site managed by the National Park Service, are wonderful places to visit. But when we think of National Parks in our community, we think of the impressive Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park.
Last year, C&O Canal had over 2.8 million visitors who enjoyed its hiking trails, biked or walked along the towpath, or explored one of the 1,300 historical sites along the towpath. C&O Canal is geographically the longest National Park in the country, stretching 184.5 miles from Cumberland to Georgetown. Among the most popular sites in the Park is the Billy Goat Trail, a three section trail in the Montgomery County section of the Park. When I was a student at Montgomery County Public Schools, we took field trips to the Park to learn about the Canal’s history and the lock system that made it work.
The Park has a fascinating history. The canal itself was outdated from almost the moment it opened due to the increase in affordable rail transportation. In the 1950s, planning was underway to convert the derelict canal into a roadway. Supreme Court Justice William Douglas, an avid hiker around the canal, joined with other community advocates to torpedo the road and have C&O declared a National Park. It took years of public advocacy, but in 1971 the Park was finally established.
The heavy damage along the towpath could not come at a worse time for the C&O Canal or the parks in general. According to the National Parks Conservation Association, the National Park Service has an annual $750 million operational shortfall nationwide, meaning just to continue doing what it is already doing it needs three quarters of a billion dollars more each year.
C&O Canal’s budget of approximately $9.8 million for operations last year is 37% of what the Park’s assessed needs are based on a business plan analysis conducted by parks advocates. In the past decade, the Park’s staffing has dropped by a quarter. The Park also has over $40 million in flood damage awaiting repairs, excluding the towpath damage. There are also continued pressures from adjacent development. For example, back in 2004 Dan Snyder created a controversy when he removed trees bordering the Park, altering the landscape.
The primary response in recent years to the degradation of our National Parks has been to promote the work of important organizations like the C&O Canal Trust and C&O Canal Association. These organizations, and others like them supporting National Parks across the country, are invaluable. They will likely provide many of the resources to fix the recent storm damage.
But ad hoc private group efforts are no solution to our parks’ needs. The Bush Administration, in honor of the National Park Service’s forthcoming 100th Anniversary in 2016, has proposed a Centennial Initiative to leverage private donations with matching federal funds to renew the parks. C&O Canal’s specific Centennial plan has multiple goals, including trail rehabilitation, historic building restoration among the 1,300 historical sites, and making the park “green” by encouraging park vendors to use alternative fuels. So far, the proposal has not received much traction in Congress.
The broader National Parks issues should be addressed, but what needs to happen now is our community, led by private organizations and our local Congressman, need to come together to repair the towpath and allow unhindered access to the C&O Canal National Historical Park in Montgomery County. And if you have the time, you should go visit and enjoy the Park. But try not to go all at once, it can get pretty crowded on nice weekend afternoons.
Ike, We Need You at Home
Ike Leggett is a good man and I have written favorably about him in the past. But someone is seriously leading him astray in advising him that now is a good time for a two-week trade trip to Asia. Ike, don’t listen to them – we need you here!
Put aside the $38,346 cost of the trip, which only accounts for 0.0009% of the county's operating budget. A much more important fact is that many important issues are brewing at the moment. Here is what the County Executive will be missing over the next two weeks:
1. The County Executive’s signature project, the Live Nation deal in Silver Spring, is nearing a critical point. The County Council is considering whether to relax the Planning Board’s approval authority over nearby properties owned by the Lee family, and according to the Post, is a bit conflicted. Planning Board Chairman Royce Hanson is doing everything in his power to kill this project. Now is the time for the County Executive to bring the Council Members over to Gordon Biersch, put a few Marzens in them, and explain why he believes Hanson is wrong. But now that can’t happen.
2. County budget issues are hot at the moment, especially around personnel costs. Council Members and other interested parties are talking about them. The County Executive should be a player, but that is difficult to accomplish from China.
3. The County Executive took a difficult step in trying to avoid Montgomery-targeted state budget cuts by supporting slots. But the Governor and Big Daddy will not be satisfied with a mere statement – they would like him to be a consistently vocal supporter of slots in the referendum’s homestretch. That will not happen over the next two weeks.
4. A state handoff of teacher pensions to the counties is a distinct possibility. County Executives Jim Smith, Ken Ulman, Jack Johnson and Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon should be formulating a joint strategy with Mr. Leggett to combat this common threat. But the County Executive representing the largest jurisdiction in the state will be on the other side of the world for awhile.
And on top of all that, County Council President Mike Knapp offers this: Council President Michael Knapp (D-Upcounty) said that given the timing of Leggett's trip, “there should be some raised eyebrows.”
This brings to mind Thaksin Shinawatra. Do you remember him? He was the Prime Minister of Thailand who was overthrown by a military coup while visiting New York. Now I don’t think the Gentle Giant of Germantown would go that far, but bad things happen when important events are underway and the boss is out of town.
“I would be rethinking going given where we are right now,” Knapp said of the budget constraints. “I think there's an awful lot we can do with economic development right here with the assets we have in our back yard as opposed to traveling around the world.”
And so the County Executive should order the pilot to stop the jet, run out onto the tarmac and declare, “Everyone back to their desks – I’m breaking heads and taking charge!” If anyone can get the video clip, I’ll run it on the blog.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Montgomery County’s Most Influential People, Part Four
Our respondents collectively nominated 171 individuals as the most influential non-elected people in Montgomery County. Of these people, 108 received just one vote and 22 received two. To make it onto the upper reaches of our list, it was not enough for a person to be well-known in one local area or in one sector of the community. A person needed wide recognition across multiple segments of our sample to get near the top. Here are the leaders, along with some commentary from myself and our voters.
1 (tie). Royce Hanson, M-NCPPC Chairman
27 Votes
Respondent: “All development starts here.”
Respondent: “In a county obsessed with development politics, Hanson has his hands in most of the heated debates in the county.”
Adam: “Royce Hanson was a player in this county decades before many of today’s politicians came on the scene. His institutional knowledge is unsurpassed and his stature is far greater than his predecessors.”
1 (tie). Jerry Weast, MCPS Superintendent
27 Votes
Respondent: “Education still rules in Montgomery.”
Respondent: “He controls the largest part of the county budget and a huge number of employees. The school system's impact on the community is enormous. It is our one single civic entity countywide. In a community that so values education, he is shaping the future with his curriculum decisions.”
Adam: “Jerry Weast has transcended the superintendent role and become a true power broker whether people like it or not.”
3. Tim Firestine, Montgomery County Chief Administrative Officer
20 Votes
Adam: “Ike Leggett’s right-hand man. A supremely confident, supremely competent master of MoCo’s bureaucracy. Check out this post I wrote about him last year.”
4. Bonnie Cullison, President, Montgomery County Education Association
19 Votes
Respondent: “For all of the talk of their waning influence (ie: some of their endorsed candidates lost) - they are not a group you want to get on the wrong side of.”
Respondent: “As President of MCEA, she’s extremely effective at using MCEA’s power to influence elected officials.”
Adam: “It’s not merely that Ms. Cullison is the head zookeeper of the county’s 800-pound gorilla. She is also a former chair of the Committee for Montgomery and is known in many circles throughout the county.”
5. Adam Pagnucco, Assistant to the General President, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
18 Votes
Adam: “I know what all of you cynical people are thinking. No, I did not rig this vote and no, I did not vote for myself! Let’s be honest about this, folks. The only reason I occupy this position is because the vast majority of our survey respondents are regular readers of this blog. With a different survey group and/or methodology, I might not be on this list at all. But political blogs are growing in influence, and not just this one. Politicians beware!”
6. Gino Renne, President, UFCW Local 1994, Municipal & County Government Employees Organization (MCGEO)
16 Votes
Adam: “MCGEO is a force and Gino Renne is their founder and leader. Check out how his radioactive yellow-clad legions dominated the budget sessions in the last cycle.”
Respondent: “While I may not like his tactics, he has the ability to turn out his members when needed and that increases his influence.”
Respondent: “As president of MCGEO, he will be the other major party at the table during budget negotiations. MCGEO and MCEA could destroy Ike and the council over the next year. They could also undermine their own power.”
7 (tie). Blair Lee, Chief Executive Officer, Lee Development Group and Gazette columnist
11 Votes
Respondent: “The development king with more money than God.”
Adam: “Blair Lee’s balancing of his public writings and private interests is a very difficult feat, but he has been doing it successfully for a long time.”
7 (tie). Gustavo Torres, Executive Director, Casa de Maryland
11 Votes
Respondent: “The Godfather of the Latino community.”
Adam: “Gustavo Torres built up Casa from a church basement refugee group into a major factor in every local politician’s thinking. His influence is growing steadily inside and outside the county.”
9. Tom Perez, Maryland Labor Secretary
9 Votes
Respondent: “Leading the administration's education efforts about slots and an insider in certain national Democratic circles.”
Respondent: “As Labor Secretary, he has earned respect due to his intelligence and hard work. Many people, both advocates and businesspeople, were impressed with him (and Gansler) as they worked out the foreclosure assistance plan last year. He is also winning friends outside MoCo by working for slots. Should Mikulski retire in 2010 and Anthony Brown jump off the ticket for that opportunity, Perez could be an attractive Lieutenant Governor selection.”
Adam: “A superstar in waiting.”
10. Esther Gelman, Former Montgomery County Council Member
8 Votes
Respondent: “Esther Gelman is an informal advisor to nearly all MoCo electeds and her wisdom is unprecedented. She is a practical activist who will not abandon the good in pursuit of the perfect.”
11. Wayne Goldstein, Past President, Montgomery County Civic Federation
7 Votes
Respondent: “You don't want Wayne on the opposite side of an issue from you. If he's taken a position, he usually has facts. He loves facts. He doesn't let go. He's persuasive and has a great sense of humor.”
Adam: “Lives up to his nickname: the Great Civic Grand-daddy. Anyone who has a problem, does a lot of research, makes a bunch of noise and won’t go away is following in his footsteps.”
12 (tie). Jon Gerson, Director of Community Outreach, Montgomery County Education Association
6 Votes
Adam: “MCEA’s super-smart political strategist has been a player for a long, long time. May be the best political handicapper in the county.”
12 (tie). William G. Robertson, President and CEO, Adventist Health Care
6 Votes
Respondent: “Bill Robertson is hands down one of the most universally liked and respected CEOs in Montgomery County. This, of course, is because Bill himself is genuinely nice, respectful and caring of others. He understands that being a CEO is not contrary to his mission as a faith driven community business. The respect that he has gained from members of the community, both elected and non-elected, as well as the time and money he has dedicated to this community will ultimately give him a significant leg up on the other hospitals jockeying for places to grow in Montgomery County.”
14 (tie). Tom Israel, Executive Director, MCEA
5 Votes
Respondent: “The executive director of MCEA who keeps the organization running through various officers. He is very intelligent and skilled in many areas. He is both political and hard working. He will play an important role in what happens with our local budget problems. As MCEA transitions to new leadership in a year, he will be an important inside player in setting the agenda for the organization.”
14 (tie). Terry Lierman, Chief of Staff, U.S. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
5 Votes
Respondent: “Former party chair, D08 congressional candidate and now Steny Hoyer's chief of staff. Need I say more?”
14 (tie). Karen McManus, Aide to Chris Van Hollen
5 Votes
Adam: “Van Hollen could not have a better representative in the community.”
14 (tie). Amy Presley, Clarksburg Activist and Planning Board Member
5 Votes
Respondent: “Well known, popular for a Republican, in fact has managed to lose the label of being a Republican. Been very effective in motivating people.”
Adam: “Butt-kicking super-activist is a role model for other troublemakers.”
14 (tie). Bob Stewart, Executive Director, MCGEO
5 Votes
Adam: “Tough-talking labor leader would fit right in with the Teamsters or the Building Trades.”
Honorable Mention (4 Votes), in Alphabetical Order
Ed Asher, President and COO, Chevy Chase Land Company
Stewart Bainum, Chairman of the Board, Choice Hotels
Doug Duncan, Former Montgomery County Executive
Jim Humphrey, Planning and Land Use Committee Chairman, Montgomery County Civic Federation
Glenn Orlin, Deputy Staff Director, Montgomery County Council (known as “The tenth Council Member”)
Susan Turnbull, Vice Chair, Democratic National Committee
Rebecca Wagner, Executive Director, Community Ministry of Montgomery County
Final Notes: Three of our top four vote-getters may all be leaving their current positions over the next few years, making the top of this list extremely fluid. I will be writing a reaction post next week, so if you want to put in your two cents, call me.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Why We Should Vote to Stop Slots
This is a speech made by longtime Democratic activist and County Council member, Esther Gelman, on September 24 against slots (Question 2) at the meeting of the precinct officials of the Democratic party. Ms. Gelman was one of seventeen members of the Ballot Advisory Committee to review all of the ballot questions in advance of the vote of the precinct officials. For details on the votes for all questions go to Marc Korman's posting from last week.
PRESENTATION TO PRECINCT CHAIRS MEETING, SEPTEMBER. 24, 2008 – By Esther P. Gelman, Former President of Montgomery County Council
Thanks to Elliot Chabot for his excellent job in chairing the Ballot Questions Committee through long and arduous struggles.
Let's examine who we are in Maryland.
We are counted among the top 3 wealthiest states in the United States. Our workforce is, per capita, the most highly, educated, skilled in the nation – number 1. We have the most Ph.Ds, MDs, attorneys and other highly educated professionals in our state. And we, like all states in the USA today, have a deficit.
But who has largest deficit? Nevada where gambling is King. The Sands Casino has a normal income of $28 million per year. This year, they will take in less than $8 million. In an effort to raise more revenue, Las Vegas has approved the opening of Male Houses of Prostitution. In Atlantic City, 2 of Donald Trump’s gambling palaces are in bankruptcy.
By the time the gambling industry revives, the entire economy will revive!
The Ballot wording emphasizes only Education. But if the inflated figures of the Proponents are true, the Horse Industry would take in over $100 million per year. While the Slots Owners would take in over $400 million per year. So it is no surprise that the Slots industry is pouring millions into this referendum.
Esther Gelman speaking against slots; Chair Eliot Chabot is in front of her.
Impact on the Eastern Shore
Forty years ago, we outlawed slots in Maryland. We turned the shore into a thriving family vacation mecca. No wonder the business owners and the Ocean City Chamber are fighting Slots. One proposed site is 4 miles from Ocean City. They understand that every dollar put into the slot machine is one dollar less to be spent at restaurants and amusement parks in Ocean City.
Why would we return to an industry we cleaned out 40 years ago?
The Social Costs of Slots
Studies by major universities prove that social costs are $3 for every $1 taken in from slots. Addiction, destitute families and individuals, destroyed lives and careers take a terrible toll because of gambling. Proximity to slots adds to addicted individuals.
In Montgomery County, the finest organizations which deal with individuals and families in dire conditions are all opposed to Slots.
Among these organizations, to name a few:
Interfaith (formerly names Community Ministries) made up of 141 religious organizations.
NAACP
Black Ministers of Prince George’s County
And civic groups:
League of Women Voters
Civic Federation
Please join me in stopping slots from coming to Maryland.
Democratic precinct officials voting against slots (No on Question 2)
Montgomery County’s Most Influential People, Part Three
Our respondents collectively nominated 51 elected officials as the most influential leaders in Montgomery County. Here are the leaders, along with some commentary from myself and our voters.
1. Ike Leggett, Montgomery County Executive
48 Votes
Respondent: “Ike Leggett, despite difficult fiscal times, still enjoys a loyal following and his consensus-building style plays well with Gov. O'Malley's One Maryland approach to government.”
Respondent: “He can have more day to day impact on county residents than anyone else.”
Respondent: “While he may not have a group of loyalists around him in other elected positions like Duncan, he seems to be personally liked by all. Although he faces an incredibly difficult budget problem much like Neal Potter, he seems to be a smarter politician more willing to use the advantages of his office. Thanks to the county government, he has the largest PR machine of anyone on this list. The tough decisions ahead could lead to a similar fate as Potter.”
Respondent: “He has a soft style but is a scrappy survivor.”
Adam: “The next county budget will be the biggest challenge of the great chess master’s career. Every segment of the county’s establishment will be scrutinizing his performance and weighing any signs of vulnerability.”
2. Chris Van Hollen, U.S. House of Representatives
43 Votes
Respondent: “He doesn't get involved in local stuff, though he'd be influential if he did. He's probably more universally respected than any other local politico.”
Respondent: “He is the main go-to guy for most things federal, and is the most accessible of the lot, and the nicest, too.”
Respondent: “He controls the purse strings for Dems in the House and has direct influence on Democratic gains in this election. He's done this by keeping a low profile, but a new class of freshman representatives will have him to thank if they're elected in November.”
Respondent: “He is extremely well-liked in the county and incredibly talented. I never hear a critical word about him. Now, he has risen in the ranks of the US House. He may lead DCCC to biggest win in a generation while Congress has poor ratings. This will give him clout on the Hill. His endorsement locally may now be more important than MCEA or the Post. He has replaced Duncan as the kingmaker. However, he uses this power very sparingly. As he becomes more powerful/entrenched, will he use it more to build a machine?”
Adam: “Amazingly, he is just now entering his political prime. No one can predict at this point how high he will go.”
3. Rich Madaleno, State Senator (D-18)
35 Votes
Respondent: “Sen. Rich Madaleno has a bright future ahead of him. If Van Hollen ever gives up his spot, Rich - along with at least 5 other colleagues from the General Assembly - is the odds on favorite to keep the seat blue. Look for Madaleno to build a national name in that case, though, with national support from GLBT organizations. His ability to stand up to Mike Miller during special session without facing punishment or the back bench proves his political skill and his influence with the Montgomery Delegation.”
Respondent: “He's respected by the Senate President and everyone goes to him for information. If he wants to get something passed, he can get it passed. He's on the all important Budget and Tax Committee.”
Respondent: “No one understands the budget better than him. Smart and tactical. If there is ever going to be change in Annapolis, it will have to fly with the members of the Senate Budget & Tax Committee.”
Respondent: “Nobody knows the state budget better, and few have the level of political skills he has to make things happen.”
Adam: “One of the smartest people in Annapolis, period.”
4. Brian Frosh, State Senator (D-16)
30 Votes
Respondent: “Oft-talked about successor to Mike Miller, without the Dr. Evil thing going on.”
Respondent: “Highly respected, considered very knowledgeable and, like Van Hollen, his integrity is widely recognized.”
Respondent: “He's a low key legislator and has learned to play the Annapolis game without abandoning his liberal principles.”
Respondent: “I think he is the second most powerful senator in Annapolis only behind Miller. He quietly moves many bills thru the Judicial Proceedings Committee and is great in debate. With Currie's ethical problems, he seems to now be the likely successor to Miller.”
Adam: “Brian Frosh could be the next Senate President, but the legend of Big Daddy will live on!”
5. Sheila Hixson, Delegate (D-20)
28 Votes
Respondent: “As the only Montgomery chair in the House, she has great influence with Busch. She is also the only strong MoCo candidate for speaker, should a vacancy occur in 2011. She will play a critical role in the budget debate since almost all funding formulas go through her committee. She is the de facto chair of the house delegation as Busch turns to her for MoCo matters.”
Respondent: “Ways and means, hello? Will she retire next term though? I doubt it. If Ida Ruben and Barbara Mikulski are trendsetters, our grand dames seem to like to hang around.”
Respondent: “Her power and her weakness are one and the same--she is so tied into the leadership in Annapolis. That can be great for some issues, but can mean she can’t do much for you on others. She can make money move, but always took second chair to Peter Franchot who preferred to be out front. She is also accessible.”
6 (tie). Marc Elrich, Montgomery County Council Member
22 Votes
Respondent: “Love him or hate him, he seems to be able to steer a council coalition. Whether this lasts beyond 2010 is another matter. I think he's taken one too many aggressive moves.”
Respondent: “While we frequently disagree, to his credit he’s been a successful power broker.”
Respondent: “He is proving to be very effective behind the scenes. Talks with everyone, and is surprising many in the development world with his willingness to come up with practical long-term solutions. Doesn't want to be Council President – just wants to make effective changes.”
Adam: “Scary smart. Sometimes just plain scary! More of an intellectual than a politician, Elrich digs down deep into details. He is also the patron saint of little guys who take on big business or big government. Chief of Staff Dale Tibbitts is one of the brainiest people in Rockville.”
6 (tie). Peter Franchot, Maryland Comptroller
22 Votes
Respondent: “Making some serious waves (and enemies!) in Baltimore and Annapolis.”
Respondent: “While he is not making lots of friends, he is driving a lot of the discussion in Annapolis. His feud with Miller is legendary and entertaining. His vote on the Board of Public Works is quite important. He has made many connections in the state by going around the establishment. Ehrlich may have cost his own reelection by focusing energy and attention early on Franchot. Could the same happen to O'Malley if he too bothers with Franchot's election?”
Respondent: “Whatever those in the politically savvy elite may think, he is great for a sound bite, they never seem to end, and thousands watch the noon news and see his mug on it.”
8 (tie). Doug Gansler, Maryland Attorney General
21 Votes
Respondent: “Doug Gansler's star is rising. He surprised most insiders by keeping a low profile and expanding his political base to include Baltimore and its suburbs.”
Respondent: “He is making lots of friends. He ran a textbook campaign to win the AG race when little known outside of Montgomery. He has been able to get several initiatives through the General Assembly and earned respect as a hard working and thoughtful person. He has not been the media hog he seemed to be in MoCo. Who remembers the sniper trial now? I would expect either Doug or Chris to be the first Montgomery based governor or senator in living memory and longer - Civil War maybe. He could also get something big from Obama. His early and active support could be repaid handsomely by President Obama. He made the right bet unlike O'Malley. He does seem to be building toward advancement in 2014.”
Respondent: “Finally, the chicken farmers have to curb their damn manure!”
8 (tie). Mike Knapp, Montgomery County Council Member
21 Votes
Respondent: “He has emerged as the counter balance to Ike on the council. He seems best situated to reassemble the Duncan coalition if Ike fails. However, he may also be saddled with the cost of fixing the budget problems as a member of the council. Duncan marched to victory in 1994 from Rockville City government over the incumbent council president.”
Respondent: “He was central to the council vote to uphold the labor contracts.”
Adam: “It is unclear how many votes were cast for the Gentle Giant of Germantown primarily because he is this year’s Council President. Next year, he will still be head of the Council’s Planning, Housing & Economic Development Committee – of course, provided that future Council President Phil Andrews will allow it.”
10 (tie). Valerie Ervin, Montgomery County Council Member
18 Votes
Respondent: “Strong voice on the council. Fights for what she believes in. Lets others know what she thinks. This may make her somewhat less effective, but no less influential.”
Adam: “Has lots of supporters in business, labor and outside District 5. Relentless, tough, smart and fearless. Excellent staff, top to bottom, led by Rockville Hall of Famer Sonya Healy. During the District 4 special election, Ervin went up against the County Executive and four other County Council Members and came within five points of helping Nancy Navarro get elected. Don’t mess with Valerie Ervin!”
10 (tie). Jamie Raskin, State Senator (D-20)
18 Votes
Respondent: “Constitutional and progressive thought leader with an amazing grassroots base.”
Respondent: “Outspoken and inspiring to a lot of people. He can fire up the grass roots.”
Respondent: “If Obama wins in November, Jamie could be one of the few State Senators in Maryland to have the President on speed dial. Both are former editors of Harvard Law Review and Raskin has been a vocal champion of Barack's campaign. I don't know if this will give him any more or less influence than he already has, but in a county as wealthy and large as Montgomery, there are few shining lights of influence in Annapolis.”
Respondent: “One of the smartest people in Maryland politics today. As progressive as they come. But has also proven himself very effective at moving legislation.”
Adam: “On a short list to succeed Chris Van Hollen in Congress.”
12. Kumar Barve, House Majority Leader (D-17)
13 Votes
Respondent: “He could be speaker and certainly is in a position of power.”
Respondent: “As majority leader, he speaks more on the floor than any other member. He is quick, articulate, and witty. He is effective in helping Busch move his agenda. Barve has been less effective at shaping that agenda which is why I ranked him down on the list.”
Adam: “The House Majority Leader gets points for giving us one of the naughtiest quotes to ever appear on this blog on the sensitive subject of MCDCC’s legislative appointments.”
13 (tie). Karen Britto, Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee Chairwoman
12 Votes
Respondent: “She has been a big part of making the county entirely blue and determining three new delegates and a senator in this four year cycle alone.”
Respondent: “She asks for little but people jump when she does. 20% of our state delegation is honorable due to her efforts to gain their appointment. Al Carr, Bill Frick, and Kirill Reznik owe her big. The state party should listen to her more.”
13 (tie). Heather Mizeur, Delegate (D-20)
12 Votes
Respondent: “A triple threat - member of the General Assembly, staffer for Sen. John Kerry, and member of the DNC.”
Respondent: “While many may think she's so focused on herself and moving up, she does know how to work the system and play the game to get things passed in Annapolis. She's extremely effective in that way.”
Respondent: “Health policy queen, DNC rep and rising star.”
15. Brian Feldman, Delegate (D-15)
11 Votes
Respondent: “Despite your recent blog posts, my view is that he has done a lot to turn the Montgomery delegation into more of a team.”
Adam: “As Chairman of Montgomery’s House Delegation, Brian Feldman has a thankless job. A few respondents who did not vote for him still went out of their way to praise his patience and hard work.”
Honorable Mention (8-10 Votes), in Alphabetical Order
Nancy Floreen, Montgomery County Council Member
Rob Garagiola, State Senator (D-15)
George Leventhal, Montgomery County Council Member
Nancy Navarro, Board of Education President
In Part Four, we will unveil our list of the most influential non-elected people in Montgomery County.
Photo from Ghana
I'm visiting Ghana and paired with a Republican to speak about our elections for the State Department. I took this photo on my first day in Kumasi, Ghana's second-largest city and the capital of the Ashanti region.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
