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.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The Final Debate
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.
