The Maryland State Education Association (MSEA) has authorized the following District 39 mailer praising Senator Nancy King, one of its endorsees, and attacking challenger Saqib Ali.
The teachers are justified in endorsing King. She is a former two-term School Board Member, occupies a critical seat on the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee and has almost always supported them. (Her 2008 co-sponsorship and vote for the private-school-financing BOAST bill was a rare exception.) But Ali was a 2006 teachers’ endorsee and, to our knowledge, has never voted against public education. If he had, such a vote would surely be listed in their literature. Is Ali really an appropriate target for an attack mailer?
Furthermore, one of MSEA’s criticisms of Ali in the mailer is that he voted for slots in 2007. (They inaccurately claim that he voted for the slots referendum when he actually voted only for the implementation bill.) Ali has been taken to task for that by an anti-slots lobbyist on this blog, but MSEA is in no position to do that. Under heavy pressure from Senator King’s slate teammate, Senate President Mike “Big Daddy” Miller, MSEA decided to support slots. They still have a lengthy page on their website devoted to defending slot machines. So in this mailer, they are actually blasting Ali for voting with them.
Here is the message that the state teachers are sending politicians across the state. You can be great on our issues but we will still go negative on you. And if you give us a tough vote, we will criticize you for that in a mailer to your constituents.
What a way to deal with politicians!
Friday, September 10, 2010
State Teachers Attack Saqib Ali
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Ali Calls Out King on Slate Issue
District 39 Senate challenger Saqib Ali has called on Senator Nancy King to return all campaign money she has collected from the alcohol, tobacco and gambling industries. He is also urging her to leave a slate controlled by Senate President Mike Miller that we believe funded a push poll against Ali with tobacco money. King's campaign tried to rebut that allegation this afternoon. In the meantime, King has signed on to support an alcohol tax increase after Ali and his supporters have criticized her over alcohol-related issues for months. Following is Ali's press release.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 19, 2010
ALI CONTINUES GRASSROOTS FUNDRAISING PUSH, CALLS ON KING TO RETURN TAINTED CAMPAIGN FUNDS
State Senate Challenger Speaks Out Against Special Interest Involvement in District 39 Race
(Gaithersburg, MD)- State Delegate Saqib Ali reported that 77% of his campaign funds have come from individuals in his most recent campaign finance report. By contrast, his opponent Nancy King reported that only 24% of her funds were donated by individuals.
“I am proud that the vast majority of my funds come from ordinary people,” said Ali. “If elected to the State Senate I will be responsive to my constituents and not beholden to the alcohol, tobacco, or gambling industries.”
King also accepted $6,750 from alcohol and gambling interests in the past fundraising period alone, while a slate she is a member of took $3,000 from the tobacco behemoth Phillip Morris Corporation.* This slate also paid for a "push-poll" that spread verifiably false information about Ali.
“I have never taken a dime from the alcohol or gambling industries” said Ali. “We already knew that Nancy King had taken $8,500 from gambling mogul William Rickman through the notorious LLC campaign finance loophole. These new revelations further underscore just how beholden Nancy is to the special interests that control Annapolis and undermine the safety of our children. No real Democrat would ever rely so completely on dirty money."
Ali went on to say,"I urge Nancy to immediately return all the money that her campaign has directly or indirectly received from the gambling, alcohol and tobacco industries. She should also withdraw from the incumbent Senate slate which is funded by Phillip Morris Corporation. These actions must be taken in a public and independently verifiable way."
Ali, who lives in Gaithersburg, was elected to the Maryland House of Delegates in 2006 and represents Maryland’s 39th Legislative District, which includes Washington Grove and parts of Gaithersburg, Germantown, North Potomac, Montgomery Village and Derwood. In the private sector, he works as a software engineer. Ali received a Bachelors and Masters Degree from University of Maryland College Park in computer science. Ali and his wife Susan are proud parents of two young daughters, Sofia and Sascha. You can learn more about Ali and his campaign by visiting www.Ali4Senate.com.
###
* http://maryland-politics.blogspot.com/2010/08/big-daddy-smokes-saqib-ali.html
Friends of Nancy King Contributions from Alcohol and Gambling Interests (Source: Maryland BOE):
Maryland Jockey Club, $500, 6/28/2010
Arundel Amusements, Inc. T/A Bingo World, $1,000, 6/02/2010
Delta Bingo Holdings, Inc., $1,000, 6/01/2010
Donald Wayson Bingo Account, $1,000, 5/27/2010
Maryland Beer Wholesalers Association PAC, $250, 6/19/2010
MD-DE-DC Beverage Association, $1,000, 7/28/2010
Thoroughbred Horseman's PAC, $1,000, 6/04/2010
Blake Cordish (of Cordish Cos.), $1,000, 7/29/2010
Friday, August 13, 2010
Saturday, August 07, 2010
Ali vs. King on Gambling, Alcohol
This is a YouTube clip released by Saqib Ali from his August 5 debate with Senator Nancy King on News Channel 8.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Ali and Slots
Delegate Saqib Ali (D-39) has submitted the following reply to anti-slots advocate Minor Carter's guest blog criticizing him for a vote on slots in the 2007 special session.
Minor, Hi!
Actually, I think you have badly misread the legislative record regarding this issue. Any neutral observer who was there during the 2007 special session knows the truth is otherwise.
You fail to mention that I voted against HB 4. Why is that? This was the constitutional amendment. And this was the very contentious vote. And this was the last major hurdle to overcome to send the issue to referendum.
You also fail to mention that SB 3 was completely contingent on the passage of HB 4. Just read it for yourself:
"AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That, subject to the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 10 and 11 of this Act, this Act shall take effect on the proclamation of the Governor that the constitutional amendment, having received a majority of the votes cast at the general election, has been adopted by the people of Maryland."
SB 3 setup the parameters of the Maryland Slot Machine program in case the constitutional amendment was ratified by the voters. Everyone knows that if the voters rejected HB 4 (which I voted against in the Assembly and at the ballot box), the passage of SB 3 would be completely irrelevant. There is absolutely nothing in SB 3 that actually allows/disallows slots. It's all about how, not if. And if there is language in the bill that you think proves otherwise, I would welcome you to point it out.
In any case, this issue seems to be settled. In my district 60% of the population voted in favor of slot machines. I happened to disagree with them. However they prevailed. It seems to be settled.
Slots and Ali
By W. Minor Carter.
I served as the lobbyist for StopSlotsMD, the grassroots anti-slots coalition, from the time the slots debate started in earnest in 2003, through the time the legislature passed slots legislation in 2007, until the voters approved the slots referendum in 2008.
In the battle against slots, I developed a list of legislators who opposed bringing slots to Maryland. Delegate Saqib Ali was one of the “good guys” on that list. He ran for the House as a fervently anti-slots candidate. He vowed to oppose slots at all costs because they are immoral and they destroy families. On his campaign website, he wrote: “I pledge to be a guaranteed vote against slot machines.”
Imagine my surprise when he cast the deciding vote in favor of slot machine gambling in Maryland.
During the 2007 special session, the legislature passed two slots bills. The first bill (HB 4) proposed an amendment to the Maryland constitution to authorize slot machine gambling in the State. On the floor, Delegate Ali voted with pro-slots legislators on several amendments before voting against the bill.
The second bill (SB 3) authorized 15,000 slot machines at five sites, created licensing fees, and directed how slots revenue would be spent. Anti-slots lawmakers – including Montgomery County Delegates Charlie Barkley, Kathleen Dumais, Ben Kramer, Jane Lawton, Heather Mizeur, Luiz Simmons and Jeff Waldstreicher – stood with the anti-slots movement and voted against this bill.
Delegate Ali abandoned us and voted for it.
His vote was especially disappointing because the bill received just 71 votes – the bare minimum required for passage. If Delegate Ali had kept his “pledge” to be a “guaranteed vote against slot machines,” the bill would have failed. In other words, if Delegate Ali had kept his word, he could have prevented slots in Maryland. To this day, he has never explained to anti-slots activists why he abandoned his pledge to oppose slots.
Imagine my surprise – again – when I read that Delegate Ali is telling voters that he never voted in favor of slot machine gambling in Maryland.
Most citizens understand the competing pressures surrounding controversial legislation, and the difficulty of voting against bills supported by the Governor and the legislative leadership. However, once a legislator casts a vote, he should have the integrity to defend his position – and not attempt to obscure or misrepresent it.
Good legislators gain the respect of their constituents and their colleagues by defending the difficult decisions they make in Annapolis. Those like Delegate Ali – who vote one way and try to rewrite history on the campaign trail – lose respect. Unfortunately, at least on this issue, Delegate Ali is not being honest with his constituents.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
MoCo General Election 2008: Slots Amendment
Click on the image below for a closer view of the 2008 general election slots amendment vote in Montgomery County by Congressional District, state legislative district, council district and local area.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Is Slots Job Fair Pressure, or Desperation?
By Rob Annicelli.
Simon Corporation, Cordish Cos., and Anne Arundel County Executive John R. Leopold are now engaging in a full scale public relations blitz to try and rescue their collective proposal to place a slots casino in a shopping center. With less than three weeks to go until what would appear to be the final hearing on zoning legislation which would permit a slots parlor in the county, these three amigos are making claims such as placing slots at Arundel Mills was the will of the voter during the 2008 slots referendum. But even worse, they are now looking to recruit prospective job seekers to come out to the Arundel Mills food court on Thursday, November 19th for a job fair they will host despite not have a slots license nor the county zoning approval in place.
Some of the more biased Baltimore and Annapolis based news outlets are claiming that this move will put pressure on the council to approve slots. I believe this is a cruel move that will attempt to use those down on their luck in the job market as pawns in a political argument over whether a self proclaimed ‘family friendly’ shopping mall is the best location for a giant slots parlor. This is among one of the most desperate and divisive political ploys attempted in recent memory, and I am sure it will backfire. Remember, Arundel Mills sits two miles away from Ft Meade which has already started to see an influx in BRAC jobs and will host an additional 22,000 jobs. By comparison, there are 18,000 unemployed persons in Anne Arundel County . While full employment should be our goal, low paying gambling jobs should not be used to replace higher paying technology careers.
If you voted against slots like I did you probably do not want to see them anywhere. But if you are among the 60% of Maryland voters who approved slots you probably never imagined that an outlet mall with a brand new Lego store would also one day be home to a casino with twice the number of slots machines as the MGM Grand in Las Vegas . (And, oh by the way, Zed Smith of the Cordish Cos. stated on November 10th before the Greater Severna Park Council that those shoppers at the Arundel Mills Lego store are among their target demographic for slots!) States around Maryland are in the process of expanding gambling types and sites in a race to the bottom, and if the Arundel Mills effort passes as a result of a well financed effort by multi-billion dollar companies, what is going to be there to stop the local shopping center near you from one day hosting slots? Once the precedent is set there will be no going back. Giving local zoning control over slots was intended to prevent this from happening, or so we thought.
On December 7th at 7 p.m. we will once again debate the merits of allowing a slots parlor at Arundel Mills. No matter what Don Fry and the State Video Lottery Location Commissioners say about the revenue potential for such a casino, or if they think it is in the State’s ‘interest,’ the final word on permitting gambling at a family friendly shopping plaza will rest with the Anne Arundel County Council – a body elected by the voters of Anne Arundel County. Slots in shopping centers near residental developmets are not in the interest of the residents and voters of Anne Arundel County, and the zoning legislation should fail.
Rob Annicelli
Stop Slots at Arundel Mills
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Slots and Reality Still Don’t Mix
By Rob Annicelli.
In a desperate attempt to help aid the faltering Cordish bid for slots zoning approval at Arundel Mills, Anne Arundel County Executive John R. Leopold “decried a proposal for a new site for a casino in the county as a de facto ‘prohibition’ on slot machines.”
This is a pretty incredible statement for him to make given that he helped to stop slots legislation as a state delegate for a number of years by opposing former Governor Bob Ehrlich’s attempt to locate slots at racetracks. But he then went on to make the claim that not permitting slots at the Arundel Mills Mall would cost the County $30 million dollars per year, making a flawed assumption that there will be no slots in Anne Arundel County if they are not at Arundel Mills. Well, not quite. For Leopold to be correct, one would have to suspend reality and assume no one would want to bid on the closest slots license to the Washington D.C region simply because Leopold did not get his way and slots were not permitted at his preferred site.
Slots have a long and sordid history in this state. The ‘False Choice’ of Arundel Mills or nothing being presented by some politicians is another example of the corrupting influence of gambling. Leopold was correct for the many years before he became a slots supporter, and should have never switched.
Mr. Leopold, is $30 million per year, or 1.5% of the Anne Arundel County budget, really worth all the harm in the form of increased traffic and crime it will bring to the residents of your County?
Rob Annicelli
Stop Slots at Arundel Mills
Monday, October 05, 2009
Slots and Reality Don’t Mix
By Rob Annicelli.
There is a problem with the proposed slots casino at Arundel Mills which goes beyond just the idea of gambling at a family friendly location. Using free internet-based tools we demonstrated that the photos submitted by Cordish Cos. to the State Video Lottery Facility Location Commission do not reflect current reality. They used these outdated photos to make the claim that the region around Arundel Mills is a “relatively low population” region.
When asked to verify their photo and statistics, they claimed that the photos were accurate, and confirmed to the Washington Post that their photos support their statistics – a photo which when you look at next to the 2007 Google Earth overhead photo (latest one I could find on the internet) you can see it is clearly outdated and taken on an earlier date. You can see this by the development which had occurred since the Cordish photo was taken, and that photo is from 2007! They claimed only 63 “residential units” exist within ½ mile of Arundel Mills – probably based upon that old photo. We have evidence based upon research from Google Earth and calling local developments that over 2100 “residential units” exist today within ½ mile of Arundel Mills, including houses, townhouses, condos, and apartments. In an era of handheld GPS there is no excuse for this. Take a look at the photos of this fast growing region for yourself.
Undated Cordish Cos. Photo of Region Submitted to State.
Feb 28, 2007 Google Earth Photo of Region.
July 13th, 2009 Photo from airplane leaving BWI. (View would be looking from top-right of other images – casino site would be about where the white X is next to the Mall building.)
They also should have known of this error given the fact the Mr. Weinberg and crew attended a community meeting on February 25th 2009 in a building not shown in their overhead photo. On April 2nd 2009 he told the County Council he thought the area is “Urban” in nature, but later said the area has “relatively low population.” Their partner Simon Corp., owner of the mall, has been long aware of all of the surrounding homes by virtue of the recorded restrictive covenants entered into with the neighboring developers about 10 years ago. I am sure they also occasionally drive by the homes on their way to work.
Cordish also initially submitted traffic studies to the State Commission which did not account for projected BRAC traffic at nearby Ft Meade, and claimed Saturday at noon to be peak traffic on the local roadways. The State Commission told them to “try again” and resubmit the traffic study to show the real peak traffic time. Again, all you need to do is drive the roads in the area at 5pm on most weekdays to see their peak traffic assumptions were incorrect. But somehow these companies which claim to know the area seem to be displaying their ignorance of the region with every study or report they make public.
It seems as if their proposal submitted on February 3rd to the State was slapped together without concern for neighboring communities, or the restrictive covenants Arundel Mills is bound by. The County Council has looked out for the resident’s best interests by doing their due diligence on the zoning change request. Now it is time for either the State or the County Council to step up and say enough is enough and dismiss the proposal.
Rob Annicelli is President of Stop Slots at Arundel Mills.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
False Choice Generates Big Interest
Right now, 36% of all visits to this blog are direct entries to the guest post "False Choice on Slots," written by the President of Stop Slots at Arundel Mills. The post is not receiving any external links but is instead spreading virally through emails all over Anne Arundel County and beyond. If County Executive John Leopold has a response to the post's contention that slots revenues can only be used for local impact grants and not general revenues, he had better publish it. Otherwise, slots opponents are going to run wild.
Monday, August 31, 2009
False Choice on Slots
By Rob Annicelli.
On August 28th County Executive John R. Leopold issued a press release announcing a Countywide hiring freeze. He also used this press release to try and tie the current County’s fiscal woes to the need to pass a slots zoning bill for Arundel Mills.
County Executive Leopold is incorrect in his assertion that slots revenue will significantly alleviate this County’s fiscal woes being experienced under his leadership as County Executive. If the proposed Arundel Mills Casino were to generate the full $30 million in annual local impact grants that has been promised, these funds would represent 0.15% of the total $2 billion Anne Arundel County budget. Further, Section 9–1A–31 of Senate Bill 3, which governs how any slots revenue is to be spent, limits the expenditure of funds to the “COMMUNITIES IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY TO THE VIDEO LOTTERY FACILITIES.” 12,000 plus additional daily visitors to the county in an already densely developed residential area will have a substantial cost by requiring additional public services from the county, including police, fire, and traffic enhancements. To date those cost figures have not been discussed publicly by the supporters of slots at Arundel Mills, including Leopold.
Local Impact Grants are not a panacea to the County’s financial woes. But framing the public debate as having slots at Arundel Mills or no slots at all is a false choice. Adding community protections like a 1/4 mile buffer between residential areas and a slots casino, which was given to the residents of Baltimore City, would not drive down any potential revenue which might be generated for the County. That is unless you believe you absolutely must have a Casino next to the Mall's food court, Gymboree Outlet, and The Children’s Place to maximize revenue.
Executive Leopold, why won't you provide at least the same real protections to residents of Anne Arundel County as provided to the residents of Baltimore City? You might just pass a slots zoning bill if you did.
Visit www.stopslotsatamm.com for more information.
Rob Annicelli
President, Stop Slots at Arundel Mills
Hanover, MD
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Why We Oppose Slots at Arundel Mills
By Rob Annicelli.
Slots supporters like Anne Arundel County Executive John R. Leopold cite “local impact grants” as the reason for their support in a trying financial environment. He is right when he states that times are tough. Times will get better, but a casino will not go away when they do. The area around Arundel Mills was specifically planned and zoned for residential development. Many of the surrounding neighbors pay a special tax for the infrastructure which was part of this plan which supports the region. The basic question which many of the residents of Anne Arundel County ask themselves when they see this proposal and an attempt to change previously established plans through a text amendment zoning bill to benefit one corporate interest is, “Could this happen to my neighborhood?”
Hanover, where Arundel Mills is located, is currently doing its part to solve Anne Arundel County’s financial crisis without these impact grants. Located about 2 miles from Fort Meade and NSA, Hanover has recently seen an explosion of new homes and businesses in our town despite the recession. Every time one of these homes is built or these businesses are opened more money goes into the County’s tax base. While I have been critical of County Executive John R. Leopold’s support for slots, he has done a good job in helping to attract new non-BRAC businesses to Hanover. We will see even more new neighbors when we experience the full effects of the Fort Meade BRAC, unless a slots casino at Arundel Mills acts as a deterrent to those high-tech businesses, and the families of the people who work at them. Traffic is already an issue here without a slots casino. A recent State Highway Administration traffic study published in January of 2009 found multiple intersections next to the mall are failing. Meanwhile, the state continues to cut BRAC related funding for traffic improvements. And worse, the traffic study which Mr. Zed Smith from Cordish Co. briefed us on, which is the basis of their statements that we have adequate infrastructure near the mall, assumed that peak traffic in the area is at noon and not at rush hour! If you drive on Route 295 or Route 100 at rush hour you know this assumption is flawed.
The recent Anne Arundel County bills were also flawed because they did not provide adequate protections. Residents of Baltimore City were granted a ¼ mile buffer zone between them and a slots casino; Anne Arundel County residents were not. However, Article XIX of the Maryland Constitution granted local planning zoning over a casino so local jurisdictions could correct inequities such as this and protect their citizens. The previous bills submitted by the County Executive not only did not include this buffer, but it would have prevented us from challenging the above mentioned flawed traffic study to the County Planning and Zoning office by making the bill a “conditional use” and not a “special exception” use. His idea of protection was to prevent glare from lights in the parking lot, which does not merit a statement that he is doing “everything possible” to protect the communities.
When Arundel Mills was first developed, there were a number of agreements with the local neighbors to help guide how the property would be developed. At that time the previous owner of the Mall agreed never to use the site for gambling. Later recorded restrictive covenants were agreed to between the previous owner of the mall and the developers of two of the larger neighboring subdivisions which still are in effect. There is no mention of a casino or gambling in these documents which describe how the properties are to have been developed. We believe we would be able to enforce these covenants if need be.
Arundel Mills Mall is financially successful and a major source of tax revenue to the County. As a neighbor I am glad they are successful. But should there not be a limit to how much traffic and how much crime one property is allowed to generate when we have traffic and crime problems like we do today? Maryland collects local income taxes based on where people live. Does Anne Arundel County want to create a traffic calamity at Arundel Mills, about two miles from Fort Meade, which in conjunction with additional crime will deter well-paid employees who work at stable BRAC-related jobs in the County from living here and forgo that income tax revenue? So far the voters of Anne Arundel County in poll after poll have said NO! (A March 2009 poll found only 16% of all Anne Arundel County voters want slots at Arundel Mills.)
We have heard about $30 million in local revenue, but we have not heard about the lost business opportunity costs and lost income tax revenue all of Anne Arundel County will not see in exchange for local impact grants for a slots casino. And if the past is any predictor of the future, that $30 million figure based upon proprietary projections is likely overoptimistic, just like the revenue projections at Indiana Live were before they asked the State of Indiana for a tax break. (Indiana Live is Cordish Company’s Racino located at Indiana Downs.) Remember, whatever the amount of those local impact grants are, they can not be used throughout the county like tax revenue can be used.
Bottom line, the previous bills did not go far enough to protect residents. This County is unwilling or unable to make the changes required to protect its residents. Therefore, this proposal must be defeated.
Rob Annicelli
Hanover, MD
President of “Stop Slots at Arundel Mills”
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Campaign Finance Loophole Case Study: William Rickman
Maryland is notorious for its lax campaign finance laws. The state’s infamous “LLC loophole” allows a business owner to found an unlimited number of limited liability companies and have them direct huge amounts of money to candidate accounts. Today we look at one individual who has made good use of that loophole: race track owner William Rickman.
William M. Rickman, Jr. owns Ocean Downs Racetrack in Berlin, MD and Delaware Park in Wilmington, DE. Both tracks feature horse racing; the latter track has slots. Rickman also owns W. M. Rickman Construction Company LLC, a family construction business based in Shady Grove, MD.
Rickman has been working for many years to gain permission to operate slot machines at his Ocean Downs site. He has been a prolific campaign contributor. But he does not contribute merely as an individual – he has an array of business entities that steer cash to politicians. We have identified three individuals and eight firms operating from his business and home addresses that have collectively given $344,320 to state and local politicians since 1999:
The state’s contribution limit for individuals is $4,000 per cycle. But Rickman’s use of multiple corporate entities for campaign contributions is perfectly legal under state law. Below are all candidate accounts that have received at least $4,000 from Rickman’s network since 1999:
In the 2007 Special Session, the General Assembly passed HB 4, the constitutional amendment for slots that was later approved by voters. The amendment authorizes a “video lottery operation license” at five sites, including “Worcester County, within 1 mile of the intersection of Route 50 and Route 589.” Below is a satellite map of that area roughly corresponding to a 1-mile range:
See the rounded object to the northeast of the intersection? That’s Ocean Downs racetrack. How fortunate for Rickman!
William Rickman is no better or worse than any other business or special interest in Maryland. Everyone with an issue before state or local governments has an irresistible incentive to use every legal measure possible to gain maximum political leverage. The politicians may never get rid of the LLC loophole because incumbents and parties receive so much money from it. But unless they take action against it, the above history will repeat itself... forever.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Massachusetts Considering Slots Parlors
The Boston Globe is reporting a push by Massachusetts Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill to open slots parlors in his state. According to the Globe:
Cahill has argued that slot machine parlors would not generate any more social problems than the resort casinos proposed last year by Governor Deval Patrick; both have a revenue model that relies heavily on slot machines. And, he says, people are gambling in other states anyway - Rhode Island has slots emporiums, and Connecticut has casinos - and bringing slots to Massachusetts would allow the state to establish a fund to treat gambling addictions.Sound familiar?
"All we're saying is to let Massachusetts people do what they want with their money in their state, as opposed to having to drive out of state," Cahill told reporters this week. "We're not looking to exacerbate the problem, just try to capture it here in the state."
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Horse Breeders or Kids?
A recent Examiner article on a proposal by Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) to strip a $100 million subsidy from slots to the horse-racing industry raises an interesting question: should slots money go to horse breeders or kids?
Delegate Simmons, perhaps second only to Comptroller Peter Franchot in his fire-breathing opposition to slots, believes that slots money should not be given to the horse-racing industry in a time of billion-dollar state budget deficits. He tells the Examiner, “I can’t stomach giving $100 million each year to bail out a dying business.” Simmons would rather use the money for education, health care and transportation.
Shaun Adamec, a spokesman for Governor Martin O’Malley, responded, “Slots, including the revenue generated by them, is an issue that has been debated for many years, and was ultimately decided by the voters in November.” Adamec’s implication is that Marylanders voted to give the horse racing industry $100 million a year. That, of course, is dead wrong.
HB 4 of the Special Session, which was the constitutional amendment providing for slots, authorizes them for “the primary purpose” of funding prekindergarten through 12th grade education as well as public school and higher education capital projects. It says nothing about horse racing. Neither does the actual ballot language, which only mentions education. Horse racing and other uses of slots money appear in SB 3, the authorizing bill, which was approved by the legislature but not by the voters.
It turns out that education, which is after all the “primary purpose” for slot machines, could be a casualty of the state’s budget crisis. In a recent Gazette article, Senate President Mike Miller said, “I don't intend to support any cuts in education,” but pointedly excluded teacher pensions and the Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI) from his definition of cuts. We have discussed teacher pensions before, but the GCEI issue warrants further discussion.
GCEI was part of the 2002 Thornton plan that authorized billions of dollars in new state spending on education aid. The purpose of GCEI was to steer additional aid to jurisdictions where the cost of education was particularly expensive. Former Governor Bob Ehrlich never funded GCEI, but Governor Martin O’Malley initiated a partial phase-in during the special session. The largest recipients of GCEI aid in this fiscal year are Prince George’s County ($23.6 million), Montgomery County ($18.4 million) and Baltimore City ($13.0 million). Thirteen of Maryland’s twenty-four jurisdictions receive at least some GCEI funding and the total amount this year is $75.8 million. (See page 16 of this document for the full distribution.)
In the aftermath of the recent cost-of-living concessions by Montgomery County’s school unions, I asked one of my labor friends what would happen if GCEI were eliminated. “We’ve given everything up,” my source told me. “It would go straight to the classrooms.” That is a calamitous scenario that few politicians would willingly embrace. But according to the Post, the state may now eliminate at least half of this funding.
While slots money will not be available in time for this year’s state budget, it will be rolling in soon enough. If GCEI is zeroed out this year, it may never come back. But if slots money is re-allocated away from the horse industry and towards education – which is of course the “primary purpose” for slot machines – then GCEI could be restored. So this creates one very important question for our state legislators:
Who’s more important? Horse breeders or kids?
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Election 2008 by Legislative District
Straight from the Board of Elections, here are the votes for President, the slots referendum and the Ficker Amendment by legislative district. We also report how each state legislator voted on the slots referendum during the 2007 special session.
District 14
President
Obama 35,107 (64.7%)
McCain 18,531 (34.1%)
Slots
For 29,199 (56.2%)
Against 22,754 (43.8%)
Ficker
For 25,812 (53.3%)
Against 22,591 (46.7%)
Senator Rona Kramer and Delegate Anne Kaiser voted for the slots referendum. Delegate Herman Taylor voted against. Delegate Karen Montgomery was excused from the vote.
District 15
President
Obama 36,829 (64.5%)
McCain 19,486 (34.1%)
Slots
For 30,534 (55.8%)
Against 24,153 (44.2%)
Ficker
For 28,587 (55.9%)
Against 22,545 (44.1%)
The entire District 15 Delegation voted for the slots referendum. This district had the lowest vote for Obama and the highest vote for Ficker.
District 16
President
Obama 38,106 (73.7%)
McCain 12,893 (24.9%)
Slots
For 22,393 (44.8%)
Against 27,586 (55.2%)
Ficker
For 20,697 (45.2%)
Against 25,083 (54.8%)
Senator Brian Frosh voted against the referendum. Delegates Bill Bronrott, Susan Lee and Bill Frick voted for it. This district had the lowest vote for slots.
District 17
President
Obama 32,252 (70.9%)
McCain 12,552 (27.8%)
Slots
For 23,397 (53.7%)
Against 20,190 (46.3%)
Ficker
For 20,221 (50.1%)
Against 20,126 (49.9%)
Senator Jennie Forehand and Delegates Kumar Barve and Jim Gilchrist voted for the referendum. Delegate Luiz Simmons voted against.
District 18
President
Obama 34,380 (76.0%)
McCain 10,187 (22.5%)
Slots
For 21,049 (48.5%)
Against 22,318 (51.5%)
Ficker
For 18,442 (45.8%)
Against 21,785 (54.2%)
Senator Rich Madaleno and Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez voted for the referendum. Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher voted against. Delegate Al Carr was not in office during the special session.
District 19
President
Obama 32,409 (68.1%)
McCain 14,472 (30.4%)
Slots
For 24,888 (55.1%)
Against 20,320 (45.0%)
Ficker
For 21,742 (51.9%)
Against 20,147 (48.1%)
Senator Mike Lenett and Delegates Henry Heller and Roger Manno voted for the referendum. Delegate Ben Kramer voted against.
District 20
President
Obama 32,888 (84.6%)
McCain 5,460 (14.0%)
Slots
For 16,727 (45.8%)
Against 19,813 (54.2%)
Ficker
For 14,389 (42.1%)
Against 19,782 (57.9%)
Senator Jamie Raskin and Delegate Heather Mizeur voted against the slots referendum. Delegates Sheila Hixson and Tom Hucker voted for it. This district had the highest vote for Obama and the lowest vote for Ficker.
District 39
President
Obama 29,872 (70.5%)
McCain 11,799 (27.9%)
Slots
For 23,203 (57.4%)
Against 17,213 (42.6%)
Ficker
For 20,326 (53.7%)
Against 17,544 (46.3%)
Senator Nancy King and Delegate Kirill Reznik voted for the slots referendum. Delegates Charles Barkely and Saqib Ali voted against. This district had the highest vote for slots.
Generally speaking, districts in the inner suburbs voted more liberally than those far from the Beltway.
Which politicians were most out of step with their districts? In District 39, slots passed by 14.8% but Delegates Barkley and Ali voted against the referendum. In District 14, slots passed by 12.4% but Delegate Taylor voted against the referendum. In District 16, slots failed by 10.4% but Delegates Bronrott, Lee and Frick voted for the referendum. And in District 19, slots passed by 10.1% but Delegate Kramer voted against the referendum.
In the future, we will calculate votes by County Council district and locality for the SERIOUS junkies out there!
Thursday, November 06, 2008
The Great Maryland Tax Revolt
Free State conservatives may have experienced a miserable election night with the victory of Barack Obama and Democratic pickups in the House and Senate. But they should take comfort from one development in Maryland: voters have made clear their intolerance for new taxes.
The most obvious sign is the wild success of the slots referendum. The pundits predicted a close contest. So of course, preliminary totals show the referendum passing by 58.6-41.4%, a margin of 17.3 points. But that number conceals the staggering totality of the sweep. Fourteen of Maryland’s twenty-four jurisdictions recorded 20-point-plus pro-slots margins. And what of the five jurisdictions (Baltimore City, Allegany, Anne Arundel, Cecil and Worcester) that will actually receive a casino? They recorded a combined 59.2-40.8% vote for slots, a margin of 18.4 points.
The most overused line by politicians during this campaign has been, “I’m not a fan of slots.” Of course not. Few people are. But few voters are fans of taxes either. And slots proponents won because voters believed their core argument: slots are preferable to taxes. The regressive nature of the 2007 special session tax package undoubtedly brought that point home to a very large number of Marylanders.
Anti-tax sentiment extended even into the state’s bluest Democratic strongholds. Prince George’s County is infamous for its underachieving schools. Yet, voters rejected a mere $17 million tax hike targeted for the schools by a 71-29% margin. And Montgomery County, perhaps the most liberal place in the state, is on the verge of approving Robin Ficker’s anti-tax charter amendment.
All of this leads me to recall the considerable number of liberal politicians who have suggested an alcohol tax increase. Their argument begins with the fact that liquor taxes in Maryland are relatively low. And since everyone knows that low taxes are bad, basic common sense dictates that this tax be raised. Forget about the fact that few Bud-drinking people I know would agree with this philosophy. The truth is that we are entering a recession. Bad times warrant a comforting nip (or two) from the bottle. I would ask these politicians if they really want to tax my unemployed union members into involuntary sobriety. If they try, they may find how creative a construction worker with a two-by-four can really be.
Given the above developments, there is no safe place for a tax-hiking politician to hide in the Free State right about now. Not in Kingsville, Kettering, Kensington or the Kentlands. My advice to our political friends is to tolerate the spending cuts, keep your heads down and check back in with us after the next election.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Slots Passes, Bartlett Wins (Updated)
Based on county results as of 11 PM, we're calling both these contests. We are not yet calling Harris-Kratovil because too many of the Eastern Shore counties are not reporting yet.
Slots
Allegany: 22 of 36 precincts, approve 63-37
Baltimore City: 46,311 votes for, 30,511 against (approve 60-40)
Baltimore County: 111 of 219 precincts, approve 58-42
Calvert: 23 of 26 precincts, approve 63-37
Carroll: 16 of 49 precincts, approve 59-41
Frederick: 56 of 65 precincts, approve 62-38
Harford: 72 of 75 precincts, approve 60-40
Howard: 29 of 110 precincts, approve 56-44
Montgomery: 163 of 243 precincts, approve 52-48
Prince George's: 103 of 218 precincts, approve 59-41
Queen Anne's: 17 of 17 precincts, approve 61-39
Saint Mary's: 31 of 31 precincts, approve 63-37
Washington: 35 of 50 precincts, approve 67-33
Wicomico: 38 of 38 precincts, approve 67-33
Congress District 1
Baltimore County: 15 of 24 precincts, Harris 8,686-Kratovil 5,591 (61-39)
Harford: 35 of 38 precincts, Harris 21,323-Kratovil 15,539 (58-42)
Queen Anne's: 17 of 17 precincts, Kratovil 11,545-Harris 9,457 (55-45)
Wicomico: 38 of 38 precincts, Kratovil 20,591-Harris 15,487 (57-43)
Congress District 6
Allegany: 22 of 36 precincts, Bartlett 9,465-Dougherty 6,004 (61-39)
Carroll: 16 of 49 precincts, Bartlett 14,351-Dougherty 7,063 (67-33)
Frederick: 56 of 65 precincts, Bartlett 41,476-Dougherty 34,213 (55-45)
Harford: 9 of 12 precincts, Bartlett 6,506-Dougherty 3,200 (67-33)
Washington: 35 of 50 precincts, Bartlett 19,008-Dougherty 14,866 (56-44)
Update: CNN reports that with 81% of precincts reporting, Kratovil leads Harris by 128,143 to 124,241 (50-48%).
Update 2: With 89% of precincts reporting, Kratovil's lead is down to 1,721 (135,640 to 133,919, or 49-49%).
Update 3: With 93% of precincts reporting, Kratovil now leads by 3,866 votes (145,163 to 141,297, or 50-48%). Andy Harris may not concede this race quickly because of absentee ballots, but Kratovil is in the driver's seat.
Slots Results Thread
Here's the latest on slots.
At 9:40 PM, here's how a few counties are going.
Baltimore City: 19,264 votes for, 11,758 against (approve 62-38)
Baltimore County: 59 of 219 precincts, approve 58-42
Frederick: 12 of 65 precincts, approve 62-38
Harford: 72 of 75 precincts, approve 60-40
Montgomery: 59 of 243 precincts, approve 54-46
Prince George's: 60 of 218 precincts, approve 60-40
Washington: 15 of 50 precincts, approve 67-33
Wicomico: 10 of 38 precincts, approve 65-35
Note: At the moment, Baltimore County is voting for Harris over Kratovil by 58-39%. Wicomico County is voting for Harris over Kratovil by 49.16%-48.52%. Harford County is voting for Harris over Kratovil by 56-40%. Frederick County is voting for Bartlett over Dougherty by 52-44%. Washington County is voting for Bartlett over Dougherty by 53-43%.
The Baltimore County precincts in Congress District 1 are some of the most conservative in the district and are much needed by Andy Harris. Jennifer Dougherty cannot win Congress District 6 if she loses Frederick County.
