By Paul Gordon.
With the primary election over, I would like to thank those candidates who have removed their campaign signs from highway medians and other public spaces around the county. I would also like to ask those candidates who have not yet removed their signs to please do so. In my neighborhood, the Georgia Avenue median between Forest Glen and August Drive is still littered with signs, almost unchanged from Election Day. For thousands of families, Georgia Avenue is the front door to our communities. But wherever in the county we live, I think we'd all like our neighborhoods to be kept free of litter and illegally posted signs.
The primary is over. Please help us keep our neighborhoods clean by taking your signs down now. Thanks.
Showing posts with label Paul Gordon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul Gordon. Show all posts
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Candidates, Please Take Down Your Campaign Signs
Monday, August 30, 2010
Vanessa Atterbeary's Misleading Flier
By Paul Gordon.
Remember the sleazy “Ehrlich Steele Democrats” flier that was used in 2006 to mislead African American voters in Prince Georges County into thinking that the two Republican candidates had both been endorsed by Democrats Wayne Curry, Kweisi Mfume, and Jack Johnson?
I came back from vacation Sunday and found a campaign mailing from Vanessa Atterbeary that reminded me of that notorious flier from 2006. In the center is a photo of Atterbeary with popular Democratic officials including Chris Van Hollen, Ike Leggett, and Barbara Mikulski, with the caption “We all agree that Vanessa Atterbeary is the one.”
So have these leading Democrats endorsed Atterbeary, as her mailing implies?
Hardly. Van Hollen and Leggett have endorsed the District 18 Slate of Al Carr, Ana Sol Gutierrez, and Jeff Waldstreicher. So has Valerie Ervin, whose photo also appears on Atterbeary’s flier.
I happen to be paying sufficient attention to this campaign to know this. But I suspect that most voters receiving Atterbeary’s flier will conclude that the officials pictured in it have endorsed her.
As a District 18 voter, I am conducting an extended job interview for who is going to represent me in Annapolis for the next four years. Endorsements from people and organizations I trust are important factors in my research.
So when one of the job applicants seems to be trying to mislead me, I ask myself: What kind of person is this? Can I trust anything she says? And what must she think of me to send me something like this?
Disclosure: Paul Gordon hosted a fundraiser for the District 18 Democratic Team earlier this summer.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Maryland Transit Administration Wants to Record Our Conversations
By Paul Gordon.
Imagine you’re sitting on the MARC train, having a conversation with someone you’re close to – your husband, maybe, or a close friend. You’re hardly talking about classified material, but you still don’t want people listening in to your private conversation. So you keep your voices down. You look around to make sure you have some space around you and as much privacy as you could reasonably expect in a public area. It’s the sort of thing that happens every day.
Except this time, without your knowledge, someone is listening in. Someone from the government. Because the state is recording your conversation on the train.
Personally, I find the idea of the state recording people’s conversations on public transportation creepy, something I would expect from the old Soviet Union.
But that’s exactly the scenario that came to mind when I read the Maryland Transit Administration’s request for the opinion of the Attorney General. Last Friday, the MTA submitted a letter asking for an opinion of the Attorney General on the following questions:
1. Can MTA lawfully make audio recordings of the conversations of passengers and employees on board public transit vehicles operated by or under contract to the MTA?
2. Does the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act,§§10-401 through 10-403 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, require MTA, when using audio recording devices on board transit vehicles operated by or under contract to it, to obtain the consent of passengers and employees before recording their conversations?
3. If the answer to Question 2, above is in the affirmative, through what means can consent be obtained, e.g. can MTA obtain passengers’ and employees’ consent by posting signage on board its vehicles containing words such as, “This car (or bus) is subject to video and audio surveillance?”
Now I am no expert on Maryland state law in this area. But I am an expert at being an American citizen living in a society where I don’t expect the government to be recording my every word. And from that perspective, I find the MTA letter alarming. The fact that a state agency wants to record passenger conversations – and is even asking if there’s a way to do it without our consent – makes my blood run cold.
Yes, it may help the government detect or prevent crimes. Who knows, it might even stop a terrorist. But that is not the only issue. If it were, we would not need the Bill of Rights. Putting limits on government power has always meant that not every crime will be stopped, and not every guilty person will be punished. That is the price of liberty.
Of course, the Attorney General can only address whether the MTA can record passenger conversations. Whether the MTA should do this is a matter for our elected officials in Annapolis to address.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
John McCain's Trash Talk Express
If I were John McCain …
If I had voted to launch a completely unnecessary war on bogus evidence, a war that led to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of servicemen and women, an unnecessary war that was destroying our nation’s economy, an unnecessary war that was stretching our armed forces to the limit and leaving us unable to exercise military force where needed ...
If I’d spent the last eight years cheerleading the president who had the man responsible for 9//11 cornered like a rat in Afghanistan, but then chose to divert our forces to Iraq and let the real enemy get away ...
If I’d supported tax policies that for the past generation had so starved the federal and state governments that our bridges, roads, and levies were crumbling ...
If I’d supported an administration that left the poor of New Orleans to drown when some of those levies finally collapsed ...
If I’d supported the deregulation that led inevitably to today’s housing crisis, knowing that countless Americans were losing their homes because of my policies ...
If I were leading a political party that ran the K Street Project, where lobbying firms knew they had to hire Republicans and be Party members in order to have influence on the Hill ...
If I had spent eight years cheerleading a president who so politicized governance that you had to be Party member to get a government job or contract ...
If my policies and those of my party had caused so much damage to the nation I love, you can bet that I would do anything to talk about something else -- anything else.
If I were responsible for such devastation, you can be sure I’d change the topic to Obama and Paris Hilton, Obama not visiting troops, Obama being a flip-flopper, and Obama being an uppity … candidate.
So it is not surprising that the McCain campaign is engaging in a filthy campaign of lies and misdirection.
Because he and his supporters would do anything to change the subject.
And that’s how everyone who cares about our country should respond every time the Republicans change the topic away from their record and hurl some new piece of garbage from the Trash Talk Express:
“If I were responsible for [pick any of the above], I’d be changing the topic to Paris Hilton [or whatever the latest distraction is], too.”
Friday, July 25, 2008
State Police on Spying: Unfortunately, More of the Same
According to the Washington Post, Maryland State Police Superintendent Terrence B. Sheridan has reviewed the circumstances of the political spying that occurred under his predecessor. Sheridan's comments, like so many out of the administration on this issue, sound great ... but any hope of reassurance falls apart upon a closer examination.
But before we get to implications for the current administration's activities, there's the question of 2005-2006. Who ordered the spying that occurred during the Ehrlich administration? According to the Post article, Sheridan reports thatthe commander of the special operations division at the time made the decision to spy after receiving a request from a department preparing to monitor protests related to the scheduled execution of Vernon Lee Evans.
No evidence has been reported that Governor Ehrlich ordered it or even knew about the spying that occurred during his administration.Ehrlich said in an interview on WBAL-AM this week that he was not asked to approve the spying. Sheridan's predecessor, Thomas E. Hutchins, has said Ehrlich was not aware of the program.
I trust that investigations by Congressional committees and the MD Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee will get more information about exactly what happened in 2005-2006, and why.
Now, what about today? What about this administration?
The Post reports Superintendent Sheridan's assertion that "Law enforcement has no right or authority to infringe on citizens' rights to free speech or public assembly." (emphasis mine)
I'd agree with that. In fact, it's in the Constitution.
Nevertheless, Sheridan also says the surveillance was lawful.
That means that, in Sheridan's view, spying by the Free State Stasi on yours and my peaceful political activities without a scintilla of evidence of criminal activity or national security danger is not a violation of our rights to free speech or assembly. That's a pretty damn narrow interpretation of free speech and assembly - one that Comrade Stalin would have heartily agreed with, I'm sure. And unless Governor O'Malley contradicts Sheridan, it would appear that this frighteningly cramped view of our First Amendment freedoms is the official position of the O'Malley administration.
Sheridan's statement has other implications, as well. If the surveillance was lawful, then clearly the State Police does have "the right and the authority" to do exactly what it did. So Sheridan's statement that "law enforcement has no right or authority to infringe on citizens' rights to free speech or public assembly" is a meaningless distractor, obviously referring to something other than the what he's being asked about.
It's a statement meant to fool people into feeling complacent, like the other statements we've heard from the administration over the past week. And the distraction seems to be working, judging from the general lack of interest in the mainstream media or among elected officials to find out what's going on NOW, in the O'Malley administration, and not just during the Ehrlich administration.
The Post reports Sheridan's belief that the spying was simply bad judgment, adding his assurance that "this method will not continue." But given his less than candid use of misdirection make it look like he was saying something he wasn't, his assurance is not enough.
And I find chilling his assertion that we should rely on the judgment of those in power, rather than the force of law, to protect our right - a belief shared by Governor O'Malley.
I will be urging my District 18 legislators to sponsor legislation next session to address this issue. I put my faith in the rule of law, not the kind hearts of governors and police superintendents.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
O'Malley Fails Civics 101
Through a spokesperson, Governor O'Malley assures us that no legislation is needed to prevent a recurrence of the political spying undertaken by the State Police when Bob Ehrlich was governor (and which he says isn't happening under his watch).
Why does he say we don't we need any legislation? Because we can be assured that his administration won't engage in that kind of conduct.
According to the Baltimore Sun:O'Malley spokesman Shaun Adamec said the governor . . . is confident that the state police will not undertake surveillance without evidence of wrongdoing during his administration and that legislation isn't necessary at this point.
Oh, okay.
We don't need to rely on laws to protect our most basic rights when we can instead trust in the good nature of the governor.
What Governor O'Malley seems to have forgotten is that we have the rule of law precisely because we cannot rely on the good will of whoever holds power. Has he learned nothing from history, to say nothing of Civics 101?
Our protection against abuses of our rights is the rule of law, not blind trust that those in power will be good people.
Since the spying story came to light last week, the governor has not clearly said that what the State Police did was illegal. He has not given a pretty good but not completely satisfactory denial that his administration has engaged in similar activities. And now he opposes legislation to put our basic First Amendment protections into state law, so that we can have specific processes in place to prevent these abuses.
Surely the governor knows basic civics. And even if he doesn't, surely he knows that the next governor may not be so gracious toward the people as he apparently is.
O'Malley's "you don't need laws to protect your rights - just trust me" approach to this issue does not indicate a healthy respect for civil liberties. Nor does it make me more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to figuring out what his own administration has been up to.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Ticking Time Bomb: Who Were the Spies?
Who in the Maryland executive branch gave the spying orders in 2005-2006? And who are the undercover police officers who worked so diligently to sabotage our First Amendment rights?
I don’t know their identities. But I do know that they are dangerous. Their actions make that abundantly clear. And if this or a future administration decides to resume the sort of undercover spying that is more characteristic of a police state than a free democracy, we have no reason to think these individuals will do anything but once again collaborate.
I assume that most of the people involved in the bureaucracy of the Free State Stasi were simply following orders. But "I was just following orders" is not an excuse. When a government official tells you to break the law, your obligation is to the law, not to that government official.
When government employees follow that principle — when they refuse to carry out the illegal orders of an overreaching executive — they protect citizens from losing the constitutional rights we cherish. Our freedom relies on civil servants’ refusal to break the law.
It scares me to know that our state police has members who were so willing to spy on people and monitor our constitutionally protected political activities. And it scares me to know that they’d do it again.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
O'Malley Responds to Political Spying
Governor O'Malley's response to the uncovering of the Ehrlich administration's Free State Stasi sounds good upon first read. However, upon closer inspection, it may still leave unanswered just what kind of "intelligence gathering" is permissible under the O'Malley administration.
The Governor's office released a statement consisting of two paragraphs. The first paragraph sounded the right notes:"While these events happened in 2005 and 2006 under the previous administration, the Maryland State Police, under the O'Malley-Brown Administration, does not and will not use public resources to target or monitor peaceful activities where Maryland citizens are exercising their First Amendment rights."
He could have ended his statement there. Unfortunately, there was apparently a need for a second paragraph:"The State Police and other law enforcement agencies have an obligation to take seriously and investigate all potential threats to public safety consistent with state and federal law, including the Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies contained at 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 23. But where there is no evidence of a potential public threat, illegal activity or criminal wrongdoing, all investigatory or intelligence gathering activities shall cease."
This raises questions that I was hoping would have been put to rest.
The first paragraph says that the Maryland State Police does not monitor and target peaceful activities protected by the First Amendment. However, the second paragraph says that the State Police and other law enforcement agencies investigate potential threats etc. That begs the question: Since the first paragraph is explicitly limited to the State Police, is there a part of the state government other than the State Police that "use[s] public resources to target or monitor peaceful activities where Maryland citizens are exercising their First Amendment rights"? Why was the statement written to limit the coverage of the first paragraph to the State Police, while the rest of the statement covers the entire law enforcement and intelligence gathering apparatus of the executive branch?
Another problem raised by the second paragraph is its use of the phrase "consistent with state and federal law." The problem is that the State Police clearly believed the activities they were engaged in were consistent with state and federal law. Without a clear statement that Governor O'Malley believes that the political spying revealed by the ACLU was illegal, the statement his office released might say nothing about the very activities that prompted its release.
This is the same problem that plagued the State Police superintendent's response quoted in the initial Washington Post article.
Over the past several years, especially in response to 9/11, we have seen such an erosion of commitment to the principles of the First Amendment that I find it difficult to simply give the executive the benefit of the doubt.
I look forward to information from the governor's office that would allay my concerns.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Congressional Investigation of Maryland Spying
Reports of Gov. Ehrlich's spy operation have gotten the attention of Congress. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, chair of the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has announced an investigation of the surveillance of Maryland citizens engaged in constitutionally-protected political activities.
According to a press release from Congressman Kucinich's office:
Washington, Jul 18 - “I think that most people would be upset to know that police were spying on lawful citizens and infiltrating peaceful organizations, rather than chasing down real criminals. At a minimum, such police spying is clearly a waste of taxpayer dollars and a diversion from the mission of protecting and serving the people. I want the subcommittee to determine how widespread these activities are and who ordered them,” Kucinich said.
Congressman Kucinich is Chairman of the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Yesterday, it was revealed that Maryland State Police officers infiltrated Maryland peace and justice groups engaged in peaceful, non-violent activities. The documents were made public through a lawsuit.
Mother Jones magazine uncovered evidence of surveillance of environmental groups by Beckett Brown International on behalf of several large corporations. The information and documents were provided by a former investor.
While I am glad someone in Congress is looking at this, I would urge the Maryland General Assembly to take action, as well. The legislature should determine the extent of the Free State Stasi's activities under Governor Ehrlich and whether similar activities are continuing today.
The Free State Stasi
As important as it is to condemn in no uncertain terms the Ehrlich administration's use of secret police to spy on Marylanders engaged in constitutionally protected political activities, our current governor is not off the hook. Nowhere does the Washington Post article say that this odious practice has ceased under the O'Malley administration.
The key paragraph from the article:
"No illegal actions by State Police have ever been taken against any citizens or groups who have exercised their right to free speech and assembly in a lawful manner," Col. Terrence B. Sheridan, the state police superintendent appointed last year by Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), said in a statement. "Only when information regarding criminal activity is alleged will police continue to investigate leads to ensure the public safety."
The first quote, clearly designed to make people think it is a denial, in fact tells us absolutely nothing. If O'Malley officials believe that Stasi-like spying on us is legal, then the phrase "no illegal actions by State Police" tells us nothing about whether the activities are still going on under O'Malley.
Unfortunately, we do not know if the State Police or anyone else in the O'Malley administration considers spying on legal, constitutionally-protected political activity to be illegal. After all, the Ehrlich folks thought it was legal. So the first quote is the classic non-denial denial.
The other part of the quote is equally misleading: "Only when information regarding criminal activity is alleged will police continue to investigate leads to ensure the public safety." (emphasis mine)
"Continue to investigate ... " That means that the police have already begun what they consider "investigating leads to ensure the public safety."
In other words, spying.
Regardless of the legality of this spying, it is reprehensible, frightening, and simply unacceptable in a free country.
We need answers from Governor O'Malley, and we need them now.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Anti-Union Bragging: How Far Back?
How long has Maryland been spouting anti-union propaganda to businesses on its web site (a story broken by Free State Politics)? Is this something that the O'Malley administration began, or did they simply update a web page they inherited from Gov. Ehrlich? Surprisingly, the answer is neither: This seems to go back at least as far as the Glendening administration.
As Adam Pagnucco points out, the statistics used on the website became available only after O'Malley took office, putting his administration's fingerprints on the deed.
However, a search of old, cached versions of the choosemaryland.org website shows that both the Ehrlich and Glendening administrations were using pretty much the same anti-union approach to business solicitation.
In the summer of 2005, the Ehrlich version of the web page was exactly the same except for the specific years' statistics being cited. No surprise, really.
What about during the Glendening administration?
In the fall of 2002, the Glendening version of the web page had pretty much the same tone and much of the same text as the Ehrlich and O'Malley versions, although it did not include quite as many anti-union stats as its two successors. But it was still pretty bad in its anti-union spin.While not a "right-to-work" state, Maryland offers businesses a very favorable labor climate.
* A quality work force supplies a great resource, key to achieving corporate goals.
* The percentage of private sector union membership in Maryland is 7.8 percent, which is below the national average of 9.0 percent and lower than half of the other states. (Source: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.)
Right-to-work laws are not guarantees of a good management/labor climate
A comparison of Maryland and the 21 RTW states dispels some misconceptions about RTW and depicts the state's favorable labor climate.
Right-to-work does not prevent unions from waging aggressive organizational campaigns and winning union certification elections. It does not prevent them from maintaining a stronghold or from striking to achieve their goals.
* Unions won 42 percent of the union representation elections held in Maryland from 1990 to 2000, which is a lower percentage of union wins than in all but three of the 21 RTW states.
Right-to-work does not prevent employees from joining unions voluntarily.
* From 1990 to 2000, only 28 percent of Maryland's eligible employees joined unions. The RTW states climbed as high as 54 percent, averaging 38 percent of eligible employees joining unions during this period.
(They followed this with a state-by-state chart comparing Maryland to Right to Work states)
If anyone out there wants to pinpoint exactly when particular changes were made to the choosemaryland.org site, you can use the so-called Internet Archive Wayback Machine as a resource. It goes back to 2000.
So it would appear that the O'Malley administration inherited and decided to maintain and update an anti-union sales pitch on the state website, just as the Ehrlich administration had done when it took over.
Looks like all three administrations get a black eye here.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Lurching Rightward
In our state in 2006, a Democratic challenger managed to defeat a Republican incumbent governor, while Democrats enlarged their already ridiculously large legislative majorities. The partisan (im)balance in the Senate is 33-14, while in the House it is even more lopsided: 104-37.
So with a Democratic governor and huge Democratic majorities that give the party the best opportunity they will ever have to pass laws responsive to the ideals of the Democratic Party, what did they do this year?
Take a political right turn, of course!
During the 2008 session of the General Assembly, our state’s Democratic leaders repeatedly abandoned principle in a shameless attempt to woo the right wing. They left their liberal base — the party’s most fervent members and most active foot soldiers — wondering what it was we fought so hard for in 2006.
The DNA bill that David blogged about is a perfect example.
The suspension of the Fourth Amendment pushed by O’Malley and party leaders in both houses was a shameful betrayal of the United States Constitution. If the state can take DNA samples from a person simply because he was arrested, without waiting for a conviction, then where is the limit? After all, even someone who is arrested and awaiting trial is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Like David, I have to agree with Alex Mooney on this one.
Of course, the DNA collection system pushed by O’Malley and Democratic legislative leaders unquestionably makes it much easier to catch bad guys. But that’s really not the point. Our society made a fundamental decision when we ratified the Bill of Rights that we would limit the power of the state to intrude into our homes, our bodies, and our lives. Our freedom comes at a cost: some crimes won’t be prevented, and some crimes won’t get solved. On the other hand, we have privacy, and our liberties are much safer from a potentially oppressive government. Personally, I think that our nation’s founders made the right choice.
Clearly, O’Malley and other Democratic leaders disagree. For them, safety from crime trumps liberty. Or, perhaps more accurately, political pandering trumps the Constitution. Designed to appeal to the right and make people forget the tax increases of the special session, this bill was an anathema.
It’s not like this bill was a surprise. When the state’s liberal bloggers met with Senate President Mike Miller back in January, he told us outright that the Democratic Party was going to be pushing conservative bills in order to jack the governor’s sagging popularity back up. And this one was the first one he mentioned.
On the flip side of the coin, party leaders did what they could to squash much-needed progressive legislation. Marriage equality and even separate-and-unequal civil unions were met with hostility or, at best, stony indifference. Even bills granting very limited domestic partnership rights got little if any help from the governor.
In an overwhelmingly pro-choice state like Maryland, a bill to require “crisis pregnancy centers” (anti-abortion fronts that provide misinformation to vulnerable women who need help) to inform their clients that they are not medical facilities should have passed easily. But Democratic leaders kept it in committee, fearful of angering the Catholic Church.
And there are other examples. Of course, there’s always a lot to complain about when session is over. In that respect, this year is hardly unique. No one ever gets everything they want.
But what really angers me is how much of the bad stuff was planned at the top by a governor I voted for and volunteered for in 2006.
Like that DNA bill. It really takes the cake.
Speaking of which, the bill designating Smith Island cake as the official state dessert passed. We may not have our constitutional rights, but we have an official dessert.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Andy Harris: Wrong Again
As the Senate headed toward the witching hour (that is, tonight's midnight end of the 2008 session), they were again debating the bill to give domestic partners the same exemption as other family members get from the taxes associated with modifying the title of their home. Sen. Andy Harris was spouting his usual nonsense to block gays and lesbians from equality, and the basic factual premise of his argument against this bill was just plain wrong.
As he did when the Senate debated the bill a couple of weeks ago, Harris expressed concern about how easy it would be to pretend to be DPs just to avoid tax payments. According to Harris, all the other family relationships protected by the existing exemption are based on a public government document: a marriage license that is a matter of public record. Because DPs have no such public document (a problem, by the way, that persists because of people like Harris), it would be easy to fake the relationship just to get the tax exemption.
But Harris is wrong on that score. Although spouses and ex-spouses have family relationships that have such a publicly available document, the other family relationships do not. The only government documents to prove generational relationships (parental or grandparental) are birth certificates, which are not open to the public. How exactly would a grandparent and grandchild go about proving their relationship with marriage documents, as Harris claims they can?
Of course, were someone to point out that Harris is wrong, he would not change his mind on the issue. He is simply grasping for excuses to hurt innocent gay and lesbian people.
Fortunately, tonight Harris failed. The Senate passed the bill, and it is headed toward the governor's office for a signature. Kudos to House sponsor Ann Kaiser and Senate sponsor Rona Kramer for getting the bill passed this year.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Madaleno Surprises Many (Part II)
(See here for Part I). How are Senator Madaleno’s votes and statements playing in District 18? Is he in serious trouble at home?
As a constituent of Madaleno’s, I have been completely surprised by his votes and his statements on this issue. Like many others in District 18, I am a strong supporter of progressive taxation and of paying the taxes that are necessary to meet our societal needs (including transportation). I imagine that if I were in Annapolis, I would have been pushing hard for the millionaire-tax increase.
Not only that, but I am past president of the Forest Estates Community Association, whose Crossing Georgia committee has been lobbying hard for our own little transportation project at the Intersection of Death (formerly known as the intersection of Georgia Avenue and Forest Glen Road). We’ve been pushing that since 2003. The governor’s budget did not fund this project, but Madaleno got the Department of Transportation to cover it as part of another project. But a massive cut in transportation funding doesn’t exactly bode well for our project, at least in the short term.
So I’m none too pleased at this turn of events. And I’m probably not the only one in District 18 feeling this way.
Nevertheless, I seriously doubt that Madaleno is in serious political trouble at home. He certainly isn’t in trouble in my home.
In the five years that I’ve known him, I have seen that Sen. Madaleno is one of the strongest advocates Annapolis has for progressive taxation. During the months leading up to the special session, he pored over the budget numbers and tried to come up with a tax package that didn’t rely so much on raising the sales tax. He worked with a small group of other liberal Democrats in the legislature to push a far more progressive program long before the special session began. Unfortunately, the rest of Maryland isn’t like District 18, and his efforts were not successful.
But they were noticed - by me, and by other people who want a more progressive tax structure. I have no doubt as to his commitment to progressive taxes. His entire political history is one of someone who is in government not to help the wealthiest who need it the least, but to help those who need it the most.
And on the Intersection of Death, Madaleno has been an amazing advocate on this issue since 2003, when I first met him and my community association first proposed the idea. He regularly raised the issue with officials in the Ehrlich administration when no one else was paying attention to this issue. Many other pols have joined this cause in the last 18 months, but Madaleno was there at the beginning.
For this and many other reasons, I have no doubt at all to Madaleno’s commitment to the Forest Glen project specifically, and to transportation funding in general.
So when a legislator who is so clearly in agreement with me on these basic issues and who has such a sterling record of service takes a turn I don’t expect, I highly doubt that he’s doing this to protect millionaires. And he’s not doing this out of hostility to transportation (or any other) government spending. This isn’t some 60s sitcom where someone gets hit on the head and suddenly changes personality. Rich Madaleno has not gone over to the political dark side any more than he thinks he’s King Tut out to kill Batman.
More than any other legislator I've ever had, Rich Madaleno has earned the right not to be accused of bad motives, but to instead be given the benefit of the doubt.
One of the other things I know about Madaleno is that he is one smart cookie. He understands budget and tax issues in a way that I know I never will. So that, combined with the things I know about his politics, makes me feel quite comfortable that he knows what he’s doing. He has the same goals that I do, and he feels that the position he is taking is the best way to reach those goals.
After the session is over, I plan to sit down with him and ask him to explain it all to me. Maybe I’ll agree with him. Maybe I won’t. And maybe I won’t even understand. But whatever the case, I know that he is honestly doing what he thinks is best to achieve the goals that we both share. I find myself in much the same situation as when he voted for slots in the fall.
It’s a rare politician who can earn that kind of respect from me. And I have seen evidence that others feel the same way. After all, it’s not every politician who could have run unopposed in a primary for an open senate seat.
So I expect that most of the constituents who are upset by Madaleno’s actions this week will nevertheless judge him not by the actions of one week, but by the greater backdrop of five years.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Madaleno Surprises Many (Part I)
Among the tiny slice of people living in District 18 who follow the politics of the General Assembly, the big news this week has been Rich Madaleno’s position relating to the much-hated computer services tax. Under a plan pushed hard by Gov. O’Malley and Sen. President Miller, that tax would be replaced by (1) an increase in the income tax rate for millionaires, and (2) a cut in the transportation budget. Madaleno would prefer ditching the millionaire-tax increase and cutting the budget even more - not a position one might have expected, and one that has clearly displeased the powers that be in Annapolis.
Madaleno bucked the governor, the president, and possibly a number of people in his district by opposing the plan. As reported in places such as the Baltimore Sun:Some members of the Senate's tax committee argued for using budget cuts alone to compensate for its repeal, saying that the millionaires levy was effectively a tax against hundreds of small business owners who file personal income taxes rather than corporate income taxes.
"I just don't see how, at a time when we're unwilling or unable to move forward with the computer services tax, that we should move forward with another tax on small businesses," said Sen. Richard Madaleno, a Montgomery County Democrat who voted against the bill.
So, with his typical “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature” attitude, Miller was quick to publicly threaten Madaleno. According to the Washington Times, “Miller said Mr. Madaleno endangered his political future by voting against the tax increase.”
Lest there be any doubt as to Miller's intentions, the Sun makes it clear:After the hearing, Miller said he was "disappointed" in Madaleno and attributed the freshman senator's refusal to fall in line with the governor's proposal to being "young" and "probably nervous."
Miller hinted darkly that Madaleno, a freshman senator and fiscal expert, was "pegged for leadership" but had let down the boss, who is known for rewarding loyal senators with coveted committee leadership slots.
Let’s not forget that Miller only recently promoted Madaleno, a freshman senator, to a subcommittee vice-chairmanship. He is quite comfortable using his position to reward his allies and to punish others.
But is Madaleno really in trouble with Miller and O’Malley? While I don’t know for certain, I suspect not. First, the committee vote that Madaleno lost was 10-5; this was going to easily pass out of committee with or without Madaleno’s support.
Second, Madaleno worked long and hard during the special session to push reluctant colleagues on Miller and O’Malley’s tax package. The bill passed the Senate with zero votes to spare; Madaleno made the difference, and both Miller and O’Malley knew it. With his encyclopedic knowledge of budget and tax issues, he was able to make very persuasive arguments to nervous colleagues. Were it not for Madaleno, the special session could very easily have failed, making the governor look foolish for having called it.
In return, both Democratic leaders gave Madaleno the back of their hands on the gay-rights issues that are so important to him. Miller, in fact, was actively hostile not only to marriage but even to civil unions, and he even voted against a small bill to give domestic partners the same tax exemption rights as other families when they make changes to the title of their homes.
And when it came time to directly fund research into the transportation project at the Intersection of Death, a project that Madaleno has said is one of his top priorities, O'Malley's Department of Transportation said no.
Also, as Madaleno told the Sun, this is the first tax increase he hasn't supported in the six years he’s been in the General Assembly (the first four as a delegate). We’re not talking about someone who routinely defies senior members of his party when tax increases are on the table.
I have no doubt that Mike Miller is mad. O’Malley may be, as well. But Madaleno's actions this week have not done them any harm, and he has helped them immensely in his short time in the Senate. I suspect they know that they’re stronger with him than without him.
Only time will tell if I’m right on this score.
And what about outside of Annapolis? How are Madaleno’s votes and statements playing in District 18? Is he in serious trouble at home?
That is the subject of part II of this post.
(Hey, if I don't break it up, then no one will read it all the way through)
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Special Election to Replace Al Wynn
The Post is reporting that there will be a special election to fill the seat that will be vacated when Rep. Al Wynn steps down in a couple of months.
To save money, there will be only a general election, without a primary. This will require the passage of a law to allow a primariless congressional election - a statute that will have to be introduced and go through the entire legisltive process between now and midnight Monday, when the 2008 session of the General Assembly ends.
Should Donna Edwards win the special election and then subsequent November election, she will have higher seniority next year than other freshmen representatives in the House.
While this is an unusual situation, I think it can serve as a precedent for filling state legislative vacancies. One of the arguments made against midterm elections to fill vacancies in the General Assembly is that the primary would be held early in the election year, while the General Assembly is in session and the appointed replacement (who would presumably be running in the midterm election) would be both too busy to campaign and prohibited by law from fundraising.
While the current situation is not identical, it does create a precedent for bypassing the primary to fill a legislative vacancy.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Del. Dwyer Terrorizes Committee Witnesses
Del. Don Dwyer (R - Anne Arundel) has found a new way to simultaneously silence those who disagree with him and strike terror into a community whom he seems to despise: Threaten to have them arrested when they come to Annapolis to testify on a bill.
According to the Annapolis newspaper The Capital, Dwyer's latest over-the-top conduct occurred at a March 20 hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, which he is a member of. The subject was a bill that would require proof of citizenship or legal residency to get a driver's license. One of the organizations opposed to the legislation and bringing people to testify against it was Casa de Maryland.
According to The Capital:Casa de Maryland provides services to immigrants regardless of their status, and representatives at past rallies have refused to say whether their supporters were in the country legally. ...
"This is a building of law and order," [Dwyer] said. "I think we ought to maintain it."
So during the hearing, Dwyer announced that he had called the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (formerly INS) to come and arrest anyone there who was not in the country legally.ICE agents declined to come to the hearing because they cannot inquire about someone's immigration status unless they see a law being broken, according to Mr. Dwyer's staff. ...
Mr. Dwyer said he was not trying to stop people from testifying, but he was wondering what rights an illegal immigrant would have before the committee.
"If they are here illegally, I'm not sure they have any rights," he said.
"I'm not sure they have any rights." It scares me that a legislator actually believes that there are people in our society who have no rights.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Domestic Partnerships: Mike Miller's Extended Dance Mix
As I said in my comment to David’s post below about the domestic partner home ownership bill, Andy Harris was in top form during the debate. But so was Mike Miller.
How this debate ends up will determine whether thousands of innocent people will be allowed to own their own home. It will determine whether thousands of people will continue to live in fear of losing their home if their partner dies.
Friday morning, as debate on one round of consideration of the bill wound down, after attacks against innocent gay people by Andy Harris and Alex Mooney, the Senate bell seemed to be malfunctioning. So, while waiting for it to ring, he started to sing the gay disco classic "Ring My Bell." I laughed, but my partner was furious. As he pointed out, for us and many others, this bill matters. It's about people’s lives. But Miller acts like it's all a game.
Sorry, Mike, but our lives aren't a game.
This comes after Miller told the press last year that he thinks that same-sex couples don’t need the legal rights that come with marriage (or even those lesser rights that would come with civil unions).
Now, it would be one thing to say that gay people are evil marriage-hating child-molesting monsters who shouldn’t have rights as couples. In that case it doesn’t matter that we need them – it’s a simple issue of not deserving them.
But as far as I know, Miller has never sided with the Christian Right (or its political arm, the modern Republican Party) on the “gays are out to destroy society” canard.
So maybe it was just a stupid, thoughtless comment based on complete ignorance. But I don’t think so – Miller is not stupid, and what he says is based on careful thought and crafty political strategy. That’s why he’s been able to remain Senate president almost since the colonial era.
But when he makes flip comments that couples like me and my partner don’t need rights – or when he sings gay disco classics as his fellow senators work to deprive us of our rights and our homes - he needs to know how he comes across to people who lives are affected by the bills he shepherds through the Senate chamber.
Some of us were listening to the floor debate barely able to breathe, waiting for the outcome.
Flip brush-offs and 70s flashbacks are fine when you’re considering bills to designate walking as the official state exercise or Smith Island Cake as the official state dessert.
But not here.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Legislative Vacancies: Annapolis Update
Last Friday, the Senate Education Health and Environmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on a bill to reform how legislative vacancies are filled in the General Assembly.
It got a cool reception.
The current system to fill state legislative vacancies is … well, it has problems. For some background, check out this December 13 post of mine, or this dramatic tale of Adam’s, based on a true story.
Sen. Rich Madaleno is sponsoring a constitutional amendment to reform the system, with the wise counsel of people like our resident blogger and political scientist David Lublin. The proposed amendment wouldn’t overhaul the current system; party central committees would still make legislative replacements. But under the amendment, if the vacancy occurs during the first two years of the four-year term, then the committee-selected replacements would be temporary. Voters would elect a permanent replacement during the midterm election (which, in Maryland, is the same as presidential election years) to serve until the end of the term.
So when Madaleno offered his testimony in support of the bill last Friday, did anyone speak out against it? Nope.
But the committee’s reaction was cool at best. It would seem unlikely that the bill will be going anywhere this session. It may be for the same reasons that Madaleno had predicted back in December. Legislators just don't see this as a problem. The rapid loss of so many Montgomery County state legislators within a year of the 2006 election is not the norm, and many delegates and senators may see it as "just" a Montgomery County problem.
I also suspect that few, if any, constituents or lobbyists talk to delegates and senators about this issue. So the only thing that many legislators would get for supporting this bill would be a group of angry Central Committee members.
Interestingly enough, and previously unbeknownst to me, a similar bill was introduced back in 2003 by Del. Elizabeth Bobo (D - Howard County). It got a committee hearing and was never heard from again. My guess is that we'll see a replay of that fizzle this year.
But that's okay. Even if the amendment were passed tomorrow and approved by the voters in November, the first midterm where it could come into play would not be until 2012. So there is no rush: We’ll get the same result even if the amendment doesn’t pass until 2010.
So Madaleno will have to talk it up among his colleagues in the Senate over the next couple of years. Perhaps he’ll have a House ally in Bobo. Whatever he does, certain bloggers certainly won't be quiet about this issue until it is resolved.
For those of you who keep track of these things, here's a transcript of Madaleno's committee testimony:SB693 is a constitutional amendment that would require vacancies in the General Assembly that occur during the first half of the four-year term to be filled by a special election to coincide with the presidential election. The relevant party central committee would still nominate a replacement to serve until the results of the special election are certified.
Unfortunately, both chambers of our General Assembly have lost members this past year due to a variety of circumstances. We have had three vacancies in the Senate and five in the House of Delegates. The remainder of these terms will be filled by a person who was appointed, not elected. Current law provides that the county central committee of the vacating member’s party to nominate someone to the Governor to fill the remainder of the term. This system has served us well for many years, but the recent spate of reshuffling in our legislature so early after an election has left many of us reviewing this process. Our constituents are troubled by the idea that a person could be appointed to a position so early in a term without any input or say from the majority of the people they represent.
In Montgomery County, the overwhelming majority of those on the parties’ central committees do not live in the district whose Delegate or Senator they are choosing. Although central committee members are elected, most voters are unfamiliar as to what a party central committee does and who the candidates are when they see them on an election ballot. In addition, citizens who are not registered to the same party as the legislator being replaced have no voice at all in electing the body that is making the selection for them.
While these flaws might be acceptable for someone filling a vacancy on a short-term basis - and even that is a debatable proposition - they are not acceptable for selecting a replacement who could serve out the remaining three or even four years of a term, not when there is an opportunity for the voters to cast a ballot in the midterm elections. To deny voters this opportunity is inconsistent with the basic principles of electoral democracy. I urge you to give SB693 a favorable report.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Maryland's "Crisis Pregnancy Centers"
Although Maryland is a safely pro-choice state, that does not mean that the war against reproductive choice is not being waged here. A major front in that war is the "crisis pregnancy center" (CPC).
The NARAL Pro Choice Maryland Fund has researched a number of these facilities throughout the state, sending volunteers in to find out if these are really reliable resource centers for pregnant women. Their extremely troubling published report, released in January, demonstrates the opposite.
According to the report:Our investigation of 11 Crisis Pregnancy Centers in Maryland found consistent use of false and misleading information, biased and manipulative counseling, and delay tactics to deter and prevent women from exercising their right to choose. ...
Sen. Rich Madaleno and Del. Roger Manno are sponsoring a bill that would require CPCs to disclose that they are not medical facilities. CPCs would be required to give clients and potential clients disclaimers stating that:
[Women] are given wildly inaccurate information about the physical and mental health risks associated with abortion, and informed only about the joys of parenting and adoption. If a client continues to consider abortion, she is given false information about abortion service availability and encouraged to delay her decision. CPCs that offer ultrasounds and STI testing are able to delay clients further through appointment wait times, while also gaining a sense of authority and credibility in their client’s eyes as a medical service provider. However, CPCs are not medical centers. They are operated by volunteers who are, in general, poorly trained in women’s reproductive health issues and well trained in anti-choice propaganda.
- the information provided by the center is not intended to be medical advice or to establish a doctor-patient relationship;
- the client or potential client should consult with a health care provider prior to proceeding on any course of action regarding the pregnancy; and
- the center is not required to provide factually accurate information to clients.
Should this bill pass, will Gov. O'Malley sign it? How would this affect the state Democratic Party's strategy of using its hold of the governorship and its overwhelming majorities in both houses of the General Assembly to appease conservatives by passing Republican-like and Republican-lite bills?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
