In Part Three, we recommended that Montgomery County’s state legislators do three things together to begin building clout in Annapolis: get organized, control the county’s campaign funding and limit new legislation. Today we finish the plan.
4. Jam the Committees
Most of the action in the state legislature happens in the committees. Prodded and spurred by leadership, the committee chairmen try to steer the Governor’s and the leaders’ priorities through their committees along with those of individual legislators and important groups. Most bills never make it out of committees. Montgomery’s legislators only chair one committee in each chamber, far less than the delegations from Baltimore City and Prince George’s County. But because of sheer numbers, Montgomery’s legislators have the most Democratic members of many of these committees. And through that membership comes power.
When the committee chair and the leaders begin polling committee members for their support on the leadership's priority bills, Montgomery’s legislators should not say yes or no. Instead, they should say something like, “I’m studying it.” “I’m talking to my colleagues about it.” “I’m undecided.” The Republicans can be counted on to oppose anything desired by the Governor or the Democratic leadership, so hesitation on the part of Montgomery’s legislators will throw the fate of more than a few bills into doubt.
This will make some of these committees very difficult for their chairs to manage. Consider the all-important Senate Budget and Taxation Committee. It has 15 members, of whom three are from Montgomery and four are Republicans. If all the Montgomery members and all the Republicans did not support a measure, Chairman Ulysses Currie would have a remaining margin of just one vote. That is awfully tight.
Consider the House Judiciary Committee. It has 22 members, of whom five are from Montgomery and six are Republicans. If all of the Montgomery and Republican delegates did not support a bill, it could not pass through the committee.
Here’s how the ten standing committees of the two chambers break down:
Senate Budget and Taxation: 15 members, 3 from Montgomery, 4 Republicans. Remaining margin: 1 vote.
Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs: 9 members, 1 from Montgomery, 3 Republicans. Remaining margin: 1 vote.
Senate Finance: 11 members, 1 from Montgomery, 3 Republicans. Remaining margin: 3 votes.
Senate Judicial Proceedings: 11 members, 3 from Montgomery (including the Chair), 4 Republicans. Remaining margin: Negative 3 votes.
House Appropriations: 26 members, 4 from Montgomery, 6 Republicans. Remaining margin: 6 votes.
House Economic Matters: 23 members, 3 from Montgomery, 6 Republicans. Remaining margin: 5 votes.
House Environmental Matters: 23 members, 3 from Montgomery, 6 Republicans. Remaining margin: 5 votes.
House Health and Government Operations: 24 members, 3 from Montgomery, 7 Republicans. Remaining margin: 2 votes.
House Judiciary: 22 members, 5 from Montgomery, 6 Republicans. Remaining margin: Zero votes.
House Ways and Means: 21 members, 6 from Montgomery (including the Chair), 5 Republicans. Remaining margin: Negative 1 vote.
By sticking together, the Montgomery delegation can make many of these committees difficult (or even impossible) to control. This is a gigantic opportunity for leverage over the leadership that can only be exploited through cooperation and discipline.
5. String it Out Until the End
Everyone knows that little happens in Annapolis until the last two weeks of the general session. Consider the order of battle if the prior four steps are followed. Montgomery’s legislators have agreed on a common program to protect their county. A few rogues have strayed, been chastised, and been brought back into compliance. Prior to the session, many political contributors in the county have mysteriously slowed down their rate of giving to anti-Montgomery politicians. Montgomery’s legislators have introduced an unusually low number of bills. Few of the Governor’s and the leadership’s priorities have moved out of the committees because of a lack of support from the Montgomery delegation. And now the end of the session is approaching.
Suddenly, Big Daddy and the Governor will be ready to deal. What is Montgomery’s price? At this point, the concessions demanded by the newly-empowered Montgomery delegation could be significant: no transfer of teacher pensions, more education money, more transportation money. And they will get most of it if they stick to our plan because the Governor and the leaders will have no other choice.
Organization defeats disorganization, willpower defeats weakness and leadership defeats fecklessness. Every single time. So what are you waiting for, Montgomery legislators? It's time to take charge in Annapolis!
Showing posts with label mike miller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mike miller. Show all posts
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
How to Get Clout in Annapolis, Part Three
In Part Two, we heard from a Montgomery County budget official that a possible state shifting of teacher pension funding down to the counties would result in a fiscal “nuclear explosion.” Montgomery’s statehouse delegation successfully resisted that fate in 2008, but it may happen next year. If not, Governor O’Malley, Senate President Mike Miller and the other statehouse leaders will find some other way to extract money from “the state’s piggy bank.” It is time for our state legislators to fight back. They can do it successfully if they implement the following five steps:
1. Get Organized
When Senator Rona Kramer (D-14) revolted against the special session tax package because she believed it drew too much on Montgomery County, no other Montgomery Senator joined her and she was demoted by Mike Miller. When Senators Kramer and Rich Madaleno (D-18) revolted against the millionaire tax, again because they believed it would damage their county, only a minority of the county’s delegation supported them. Lonely rebellions fail. Organized revolts can succeed.
Montgomery’s state legislators have a county delegation structure, as do many other counties in the state. This delegation structure does not function as a hierarchical, authority-wielding organization, but rather as a clearinghouse to develop and focus the priorities of the legislators. So far, it has proven insufficient to unite and direct the delegation. That must change. Unless the delegation agrees on a common list of priorities, a strategic plan to enhance the county’s clout and an accompanying internal enforcement mechanism, it will never out-Miller Big Daddy.
In the next four steps we will suggest the elements of such a plan. But organization and discipline are key prerequisites. Once a plan is agreed to, there must be consequences for renegades. Possible punishments range from defeat of an offender’s local bills (bills that apply to the county and must be approved by the delegation) all the way up to bans from district campaign slates. Without punishment, Montgomery’s legislators will strike out on their own and the delegation will not hold together – a situation that critics allege happens all too often right now.
2. Control the Campaign Funding
Many state politicians rely on Montgomery County for one thing: campaign money. Even when they act against the county’s interests, Mike Miller and his co-conspirators will periodically swoop in here for cash. But most of the contributors who live here depend on our state legislators for one thing or another. That gives our legislators leverage over who gets that money and who does not.
Our delegation needs to send a message to all major contributors who live in Montgomery and rely on them for help: do not give money to state politicians who damage the county. Any contributors who break this rule will fall into disfavor with the delegation. This message will be doubly effective if it is also delivered by county politicians. It is bad enough for a major contributor to cross the state legislators; it is even worse to run afoul of the county’s power-brokers at the same time. When Big Daddy’s allies begin to see their private campaign spigots go dry, they will understand that a new day is coming.
3. For Now, Limit New Legislation
Montgomery’s eager, idealistic legislators introduce lots of bills and many of them work hard to get them passed. That is perfectly understandable: the best legislators have clear policy goals and do their best to get them implemented. Over the long run, that is great for both the legislators and the people. But in the short run, there is a cost.
Simply put, getting a bill passed requires an expenditure of political capital. Any legislator who convinces someone else to vote for their bill – or especially, someone in the leadership to support it – is in their debt. Now a favor is owed. When the leader returns to that legislator asking for repayment, the legislator has to seriously consider the request, even if it goes against his or her hometown interest. And so some Montgomery legislators may find themselves pressured to go against the county’s interests to support their public policy goals.
The solution to this is to stop introducing lots of bills. Now the relationship is reversed. A legislator who supports other legislators’ bills accumulates political capital and owes less of it to anyone else. At the appropriate moment, those debts can be cashed in. If the Montgomery delegation followed a common policy to limit introduction of bills, its members would gradually build up a treasure trove of favors by helping others. This will prove valuable later.
We will finish our plan in Part Four.
1. Get Organized
When Senator Rona Kramer (D-14) revolted against the special session tax package because she believed it drew too much on Montgomery County, no other Montgomery Senator joined her and she was demoted by Mike Miller. When Senators Kramer and Rich Madaleno (D-18) revolted against the millionaire tax, again because they believed it would damage their county, only a minority of the county’s delegation supported them. Lonely rebellions fail. Organized revolts can succeed.
Montgomery’s state legislators have a county delegation structure, as do many other counties in the state. This delegation structure does not function as a hierarchical, authority-wielding organization, but rather as a clearinghouse to develop and focus the priorities of the legislators. So far, it has proven insufficient to unite and direct the delegation. That must change. Unless the delegation agrees on a common list of priorities, a strategic plan to enhance the county’s clout and an accompanying internal enforcement mechanism, it will never out-Miller Big Daddy.
In the next four steps we will suggest the elements of such a plan. But organization and discipline are key prerequisites. Once a plan is agreed to, there must be consequences for renegades. Possible punishments range from defeat of an offender’s local bills (bills that apply to the county and must be approved by the delegation) all the way up to bans from district campaign slates. Without punishment, Montgomery’s legislators will strike out on their own and the delegation will not hold together – a situation that critics allege happens all too often right now.
2. Control the Campaign Funding
Many state politicians rely on Montgomery County for one thing: campaign money. Even when they act against the county’s interests, Mike Miller and his co-conspirators will periodically swoop in here for cash. But most of the contributors who live here depend on our state legislators for one thing or another. That gives our legislators leverage over who gets that money and who does not.
Our delegation needs to send a message to all major contributors who live in Montgomery and rely on them for help: do not give money to state politicians who damage the county. Any contributors who break this rule will fall into disfavor with the delegation. This message will be doubly effective if it is also delivered by county politicians. It is bad enough for a major contributor to cross the state legislators; it is even worse to run afoul of the county’s power-brokers at the same time. When Big Daddy’s allies begin to see their private campaign spigots go dry, they will understand that a new day is coming.
3. For Now, Limit New Legislation
Montgomery’s eager, idealistic legislators introduce lots of bills and many of them work hard to get them passed. That is perfectly understandable: the best legislators have clear policy goals and do their best to get them implemented. Over the long run, that is great for both the legislators and the people. But in the short run, there is a cost.
Simply put, getting a bill passed requires an expenditure of political capital. Any legislator who convinces someone else to vote for their bill – or especially, someone in the leadership to support it – is in their debt. Now a favor is owed. When the leader returns to that legislator asking for repayment, the legislator has to seriously consider the request, even if it goes against his or her hometown interest. And so some Montgomery legislators may find themselves pressured to go against the county’s interests to support their public policy goals.
The solution to this is to stop introducing lots of bills. Now the relationship is reversed. A legislator who supports other legislators’ bills accumulates political capital and owes less of it to anyone else. At the appropriate moment, those debts can be cashed in. If the Montgomery delegation followed a common policy to limit introduction of bills, its members would gradually build up a treasure trove of favors by helping others. This will prove valuable later.
We will finish our plan in Part Four.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
How to Get Clout in Annapolis, Part Two
In Part One, we covered the prevailing opinion of many about our county’s state legislators: they need to improve their effectiveness in protecting Montgomery’s interests in Annapolis. Step one in doing that is examining the incentives of the opponents.
One of the biggest obstacles to Montgomery’s clout in Annapolis is Senate President Mike Miller. Back in May, we offered this description of Miller’s practice of power:
House Speaker Mike Busch has similar incentives as the Senate President, but he has a larger margin in his chamber and is generally more subtle than Miller. As for the Governor, he is focused on winning Baltimore County in his re-election campaign. So the three most powerful politicians in the state are united in one objective: directing state funding to just about anywhere else other than Montgomery County. Why? Because it does no good to them to shore up an area that is supposedly wealthy enough to take care of itself and liberal enough to vote Democratic no matter what. This is a severe problem for every Montgomery County politician, state and local.
Montgomery has carried this burden for a long time but now things are coming to a head. As we have previously chronicled, the tax hikes of the 2007 special session and the spending cuts of the 2008 general session have not eliminated the state’s long-run budget deficit. Since the legislature will not implement any more major tax increases prior to the next election year and many significant spending cuts have already been made, only two options remain: revenue from the slots referendum and sending teacher pension obligations, which are now mostly paid by the state, down to the counties. Montgomery budget officials tell me that if pension funding is shifted down from the state, the county would face an extra $120 million per year in costs or more. Putting that in perspective, each percentage point of the county’s 5% public employee union pay increase equals about $20 million. That means Montgomery County could cancel the entire pay increase for all of its unionized employees and still be unable to pay the cost of assuming state-funded teacher pensions. One high-ranking budget official described the fiscal impact of a state handoff of pension funding as “a nuclear explosion.”
Will Montgomery County be spared this fate if the slots referendum passes? Not necessarily, for three reasons. First, it will take several years for any casinos to be up and running. Second, slots revenues may not be as high as projected (currently estimated at over $500 million per year). Third, an election year is coming in 2010. The Governor and the legislative leaders will be looking to spend some serious money to get votes. If slots money is not enough, pension obligations may have to be shed. And that means a state-sponsored fiscal nuke will annihilate Montgomery County’s budget.
But our delegation can fight back. We’ll learn how in Part Three.
One of the biggest obstacles to Montgomery’s clout in Annapolis is Senate President Mike Miller. Back in May, we offered this description of Miller’s practice of power:
Better than anyone, Mike Miller understands the volatile and fragile mix of ego, fear, hope, insecurity and the needy desire to be loved that defines most politicians. He knows how to push every one of those buttons. He praises obedient Senators as courageous. He predicts dire consequences for the wayward. He shuffles subcomittee chairmanships and vice-chairmanships like cards in an ever-winning hand. He elevates junior Senators above senior ones when they stick with the boss. A longtime Annapolis player told me, “We call him Big Daddy. When people screw up, he doesn’t get mad at them. Instead, he tells them he's ‘disappointed.’ No one wants to let Dad down.”Big Daddy is a formidable opponent for anyone seeking more power in state politics, including Governors. Mike Miller wants two things: first, as many Democratic seats in the Senate as he can get, and second, making the holders of those seats dependent on him for money and support. Those two goals go together. As the Democratic Party pushes out into conservative areas (like the Baltimore suburbs, the Eastern Shore and Western Maryland) and increases its Senate ranks, the Democrats who hold those outlying seats are vulnerable. Both Miller and Governor O’Malley have an obvious incentive to direct as much campaign money and state funding to those districts as possible. If Miller can help those vulnerable Senators survive, they will be grateful – and obedient – to the boss. This will increase Miller’s stranglehold on power. But the strategy is only feasible if the resources controlled by Miller and O’Malley are directed to these fragile districts. That means they cannot be tied up in Montgomery County, especially if the delegations in Baltimore City and Prince George’s County are restive.
House Speaker Mike Busch has similar incentives as the Senate President, but he has a larger margin in his chamber and is generally more subtle than Miller. As for the Governor, he is focused on winning Baltimore County in his re-election campaign. So the three most powerful politicians in the state are united in one objective: directing state funding to just about anywhere else other than Montgomery County. Why? Because it does no good to them to shore up an area that is supposedly wealthy enough to take care of itself and liberal enough to vote Democratic no matter what. This is a severe problem for every Montgomery County politician, state and local.
Montgomery has carried this burden for a long time but now things are coming to a head. As we have previously chronicled, the tax hikes of the 2007 special session and the spending cuts of the 2008 general session have not eliminated the state’s long-run budget deficit. Since the legislature will not implement any more major tax increases prior to the next election year and many significant spending cuts have already been made, only two options remain: revenue from the slots referendum and sending teacher pension obligations, which are now mostly paid by the state, down to the counties. Montgomery budget officials tell me that if pension funding is shifted down from the state, the county would face an extra $120 million per year in costs or more. Putting that in perspective, each percentage point of the county’s 5% public employee union pay increase equals about $20 million. That means Montgomery County could cancel the entire pay increase for all of its unionized employees and still be unable to pay the cost of assuming state-funded teacher pensions. One high-ranking budget official described the fiscal impact of a state handoff of pension funding as “a nuclear explosion.”
Will Montgomery County be spared this fate if the slots referendum passes? Not necessarily, for three reasons. First, it will take several years for any casinos to be up and running. Second, slots revenues may not be as high as projected (currently estimated at over $500 million per year). Third, an election year is coming in 2010. The Governor and the legislative leaders will be looking to spend some serious money to get votes. If slots money is not enough, pension obligations may have to be shed. And that means a state-sponsored fiscal nuke will annihilate Montgomery County’s budget.
But our delegation can fight back. We’ll learn how in Part Three.
Friday, June 13, 2008
The Good List and the Bad List
I suppose it was inevitable that the Clintons are keeping an enemies list. After all, someone has to show Richard Nixon’s fans how this is really done. Well, I’ve got two lists: the people who make me happy and the ones who don’t.
The Good List
Mike Miller
Big Daddy’s decision to conquer, err, run again is the best news of the month. He is a blogger’s dream and has given us a lot of great material over the years. I am so pleased that he is coming back that I am even willing to forgive him for proposing that dreadful blogger tax.
Dana Beyer
Another politician that just keeps on giving back to bloggers. Whether it’s chasing away shower nuts, taunting right-wing zealots with campaign announcements or running amok on Teach the Facts Vigilance blog, Dana just can’t stop herself from raising Hell regardless of whether it’s good for her politically. If Robin Ficker had joined the County Council staff, I would be sitting in the council lobby with a video-camera every day to watch him go at it with Dana.
Rich Madaleno
He is my State Senator and will one day build us a new Forest Glen Metro entrance, so he has to be on this list. Hmmm… I guess that came across the wrong way. No Rich, you are here because we really, really like you!
Marc Korman, Bob Fustero, Sharon Dooley, Alan Banov, Eric Luedtke, Joe Davidson, Dana and the Rest of You
We really appreciate everyone who regularly reads and comments on this blog. It is both encouraging and necessary that we get feedback, good and bad, on our posts.
The Bad List
Planning Department Transportation Managers
Knowingly relying on a congestion measurement system that their own research proves is flawed is really intolerable. The new Planning Board members, whoever they are, must deal with this issue.
Montgomery County Council Member Marc Elrich
I like Marc and he should not be on this list. But Marc is not happy unless someone is mad at him, so here he is. I’ll come up with a reason for his inclusion later.
MCDCC
They haven’t done anything lately and that’s the point. They used to give us tons of great stuff in the good old days. But recently they have been so quiet and even constructive that I have been reduced to the sad fate of actually praising them. Come on, Central Committee Members, go back to your old ways and help a blogger in need!
And the Worst of the Worst…
My Blog Brothers
David has re-appeared, but what about the rest of you? Why are you making me do all the work?
The Good List
Mike Miller
Big Daddy’s decision to conquer, err, run again is the best news of the month. He is a blogger’s dream and has given us a lot of great material over the years. I am so pleased that he is coming back that I am even willing to forgive him for proposing that dreadful blogger tax.
Dana Beyer
Another politician that just keeps on giving back to bloggers. Whether it’s chasing away shower nuts, taunting right-wing zealots with campaign announcements or running amok on Teach the Facts Vigilance blog, Dana just can’t stop herself from raising Hell regardless of whether it’s good for her politically. If Robin Ficker had joined the County Council staff, I would be sitting in the council lobby with a video-camera every day to watch him go at it with Dana.
Rich Madaleno
He is my State Senator and will one day build us a new Forest Glen Metro entrance, so he has to be on this list. Hmmm… I guess that came across the wrong way. No Rich, you are here because we really, really like you!
Marc Korman, Bob Fustero, Sharon Dooley, Alan Banov, Eric Luedtke, Joe Davidson, Dana and the Rest of You
We really appreciate everyone who regularly reads and comments on this blog. It is both encouraging and necessary that we get feedback, good and bad, on our posts.
The Bad List
Planning Department Transportation Managers
Knowingly relying on a congestion measurement system that their own research proves is flawed is really intolerable. The new Planning Board members, whoever they are, must deal with this issue.
Montgomery County Council Member Marc Elrich
I like Marc and he should not be on this list. But Marc is not happy unless someone is mad at him, so here he is. I’ll come up with a reason for his inclusion later.
MCDCC
They haven’t done anything lately and that’s the point. They used to give us tons of great stuff in the good old days. But recently they have been so quiet and even constructive that I have been reduced to the sad fate of actually praising them. Come on, Central Committee Members, go back to your old ways and help a blogger in need!
And the Worst of the Worst…
My Blog Brothers
David has re-appeared, but what about the rest of you? Why are you making me do all the work?
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mike Miller is Not Going Anywhere
Recently, there has been a lot of speculation as to whether Senate President Mike Miller would stick to his earlier pledge to retire. We are putting this conjecture to rest with one bold prediction: Mike Miller is not going anywhere.
Have you ever met the Senate President? We did, back in January. The white-maned, snorting old bull stomps into any room he enters and instantly dominates it. But he does not radiate pomp or arrogance like many politicians. He instead relies on good-old-boy, Free State charm, delivered with a bellowing laugh and a rough handshake. Miller would be equally at home entertaining foreign dignitaries at the statehouse or slamming boilermakers down at the shipyard.
The Senate President regaled our group with tales of his dealings with the media. He expressed hope that the blogs could provide a bit of balance to right-wing radio “even though I know some of you are with me and some of you are against me.” And then he cast a long, baleful look around the room. Now I have heard from multiple sources that Miller is a blog reader. “Hmmm,” I thought, “Is he trying to figure out who wrote this?” Miller seemed a wee bit hurt, perhaps let down, that he could be so misunderstood by any of us. And that’s when it hit me: this is part of his bag of tricks.
Better than anyone, Mike Miller understands the volatile and fragile mix of ego, fear, hope, insecurity and the needy desire to be loved that defines most politicians. He knows how to push every one of those buttons. He praises obedient Senators as courageous. He predicts dire consequences for the wayward. He shuffles subcomittee chairmanships and vice-chairmanships like cards in an ever-winning hand. He elevates junior Senators above senior ones when they stick with the boss. A longtime Annapolis player told me, “We call him Big Daddy. When people screw up, he doesn’t get mad at them. Instead, he tells them he's ‘disappointed.’ No one wants to let Dad down.”
Miller is resented by many Montgomery County liberals because he is rabidly pro-slots and lukewarm at best on gay rights. But Miller is actually to the left of most of the county’s allegedly liberal delegation on progressive taxation. He also expressed his opposition to Virginia’s harsh immigration measures in our interview. Many liberals tend to forget that Miller has to balance a diverse group ranging from anti-tax Baltimore County Senator (and former Miller aide) James Brochin to left-wingers like Senators Paul Pinsky, Jamie Raskin and Rich Madaleno. Brochin and Madaleno are both in Miller’s doghouse now for different reasons, but they will get out eventually if they stop making trouble for the boss. That is part of Miller’s way.
What would a Miller-less Senate look like? For a preview, look at the Montgomery County Council’s current deliberations on its budget. Only a few days out from the first vote on the next budget’s outline, there was still no public agreement on how to cut the county’s $297 million deficit. The late Marilyn Praisner, the most feared head-breaker in Rockville, would have had none of that. Would this sort of thing happen to Maryland’s Senate without its fearsome overlord?
Mike Miller is surrounded by a huge group of Senate allies, aides, former aides, lobbyists, former aides who are now lobbyists and many others who are commonly referred to as his “family.” They depend on him and cannot imagine Annapolis without him. They are undoubtedly urging him to stay on because, after all, no one can do the job of Senate President as well as their Dad (or Grand-dad) can. If you were in Miller’s position, how could you say no to your entire family?
The fact is that Big Daddy is the most powerful politician in Maryland's nearly 400-year history to never occupy the Governor's chair. And whatever you may think of him, Mike Miller is not going anywhere.
Have you ever met the Senate President? We did, back in January. The white-maned, snorting old bull stomps into any room he enters and instantly dominates it. But he does not radiate pomp or arrogance like many politicians. He instead relies on good-old-boy, Free State charm, delivered with a bellowing laugh and a rough handshake. Miller would be equally at home entertaining foreign dignitaries at the statehouse or slamming boilermakers down at the shipyard.
The Senate President regaled our group with tales of his dealings with the media. He expressed hope that the blogs could provide a bit of balance to right-wing radio “even though I know some of you are with me and some of you are against me.” And then he cast a long, baleful look around the room. Now I have heard from multiple sources that Miller is a blog reader. “Hmmm,” I thought, “Is he trying to figure out who wrote this?” Miller seemed a wee bit hurt, perhaps let down, that he could be so misunderstood by any of us. And that’s when it hit me: this is part of his bag of tricks.
Better than anyone, Mike Miller understands the volatile and fragile mix of ego, fear, hope, insecurity and the needy desire to be loved that defines most politicians. He knows how to push every one of those buttons. He praises obedient Senators as courageous. He predicts dire consequences for the wayward. He shuffles subcomittee chairmanships and vice-chairmanships like cards in an ever-winning hand. He elevates junior Senators above senior ones when they stick with the boss. A longtime Annapolis player told me, “We call him Big Daddy. When people screw up, he doesn’t get mad at them. Instead, he tells them he's ‘disappointed.’ No one wants to let Dad down.”
Miller is resented by many Montgomery County liberals because he is rabidly pro-slots and lukewarm at best on gay rights. But Miller is actually to the left of most of the county’s allegedly liberal delegation on progressive taxation. He also expressed his opposition to Virginia’s harsh immigration measures in our interview. Many liberals tend to forget that Miller has to balance a diverse group ranging from anti-tax Baltimore County Senator (and former Miller aide) James Brochin to left-wingers like Senators Paul Pinsky, Jamie Raskin and Rich Madaleno. Brochin and Madaleno are both in Miller’s doghouse now for different reasons, but they will get out eventually if they stop making trouble for the boss. That is part of Miller’s way.
What would a Miller-less Senate look like? For a preview, look at the Montgomery County Council’s current deliberations on its budget. Only a few days out from the first vote on the next budget’s outline, there was still no public agreement on how to cut the county’s $297 million deficit. The late Marilyn Praisner, the most feared head-breaker in Rockville, would have had none of that. Would this sort of thing happen to Maryland’s Senate without its fearsome overlord?
Mike Miller is surrounded by a huge group of Senate allies, aides, former aides, lobbyists, former aides who are now lobbyists and many others who are commonly referred to as his “family.” They depend on him and cannot imagine Annapolis without him. They are undoubtedly urging him to stay on because, after all, no one can do the job of Senate President as well as their Dad (or Grand-dad) can. If you were in Miller’s position, how could you say no to your entire family?
The fact is that Big Daddy is the most powerful politician in Maryland's nearly 400-year history to never occupy the Governor's chair. And whatever you may think of him, Mike Miller is not going anywhere.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
MPW Banned by Federal Agency
One of our long-time readers has reported that a federal agency, the reader's employer, has blocked Maryland Politics Watch blog. The reader has asked us not to publicly name the agency for fear of potential waterboarding.
When the reader attempted to access our site, the following message came up:
Which post got MPW banned? Was it our account of Itchy and Scratchy's appearance at a recent fundraiser? Those two are definitely violent enough to get banned. Was it our lampoon of Mike Miller's blogger tax? The Senate President is certainly powerful, but maybe not powerful enough to control a federal agency's Internet security team. The same goes for County Executive Ike Leggett, who probably can't wait for people to stop discussing his new bathroom. Or perhaps the feds saw Dana Beyer's hell-raising escapades outside the Bethesda Giant and judged us to be a national security threat.
I can't shake the feeling that MCDCC had something to do with this. Any comment from Alan Banov or Marc Korman?
When the reader attempted to access our site, the following message came up:
SITE BLOCKEDHmmm... pornography, sexual content, gambling, hate propaganda, violence... Now Mr. Gillogly, have you been posting and deleting things in the middle of the night for your degenerate friends?
This site has been blocked by the security team because it is listed by the vendor of our Web-blocking software as having one or more of the following among its content:
Web Chat Service
Web-Based E-mail Service
Pornography / Sexual Content
Gambling or Games
Illegal Activity / Drugs / Hate Propaganda / Violence
RealAudio or RealVideo Services
Which post got MPW banned? Was it our account of Itchy and Scratchy's appearance at a recent fundraiser? Those two are definitely violent enough to get banned. Was it our lampoon of Mike Miller's blogger tax? The Senate President is certainly powerful, but maybe not powerful enough to control a federal agency's Internet security team. The same goes for County Executive Ike Leggett, who probably can't wait for people to stop discussing his new bathroom. Or perhaps the feds saw Dana Beyer's hell-raising escapades outside the Bethesda Giant and judged us to be a national security threat.
I can't shake the feeling that MCDCC had something to do with this. Any comment from Alan Banov or Marc Korman?
Friday, April 18, 2008
The Problem with Peter Franchot
The war of words between Governor Martin O’Malley and Comptroller Peter Franchot escalated yesterday. The Governor branded the Comptroller as a hypocrite for crusading against slots after voting for them in 2001. The Comptroller’s spokesman then referred to the Governor’s “attack” as “unusual” and “regrettable.” But what is truly regrettable is the nature of the Comptroller’s engagement in the state’s political debates.
From the start, Peter Franchot said he was not going to be your grandfather’s sort of Comptroller. He was going to be an activist, independent spokesman for Maryland taxpayers. Boy, I thought, this was going to be great. After all, activist independent spokespeople provide great fodder for bloggers!
Soon enough, the Comptroller proved good on his word. He questioned the need to hold a special session last year. He opposed the computer tax as soon as it was suggested. Senate President Mike Miller criticized Franchot and his staff for being “missing in action this entire year in terms of helping the state solve the budget crisis. ... Certainly, during the entire [22] days of the special session he was gone.” Soon after, Franchot became embroiled in an ugly battle with the Senate over his staffing practices and conduct in office. And that’s to say nothing about his opinions on slots!
Now we try to follow a tradition of constructive criticism on this blog. After our rip-roaring romps against MCDCC last year over its legislative appointment process, Paul Gordon suggested holding mid-term special elections and using a variety of ways to incorporate district resident input into MCDCC votes. When I found the Governor’s original special session package to be regressive, I laid out how to seize tax revenues from cheating employers who were costing the state millions. And when I opposed the computer tax, I suggested a package containing the Governor’s original upper-income tax rates, combined reporting and a corporate tax hike as a replacement.
It is very, very easy to criticize someone else’s ideas. It can be very, very challenging to craft a viable alternative. Franchot’s problem is not that he is an anti-slots liberal or that he butts heads with the Senate President. (After all, someone has to fight with Miller!) It’s that he does not supply us with a better way to deal with our problems. What does a progressive alternative to the things he criticizes look like? I’d really like to know, but he never tells us.
And the slots issue is becoming an excruciatingly difficult one. The latest state budget information holds that if the slots referendum is not passed, the state will face $600 million annual budget deficits forever. Regular readers know that I’m not a fan of slots. But after the legislature’s regressive special session tax package, the most likely alternative to slots money will be more sales tax increases or horrendous budget cuts, possibly to education, health care and transportation. These are really tough choices and any honest person who cares about both preventing slots and pursuing progressive economic policy is going to wrestle with them.
So what is the Comptroller’s recommendation? According to the Post:
From the start, Peter Franchot said he was not going to be your grandfather’s sort of Comptroller. He was going to be an activist, independent spokesman for Maryland taxpayers. Boy, I thought, this was going to be great. After all, activist independent spokespeople provide great fodder for bloggers!
Soon enough, the Comptroller proved good on his word. He questioned the need to hold a special session last year. He opposed the computer tax as soon as it was suggested. Senate President Mike Miller criticized Franchot and his staff for being “missing in action this entire year in terms of helping the state solve the budget crisis. ... Certainly, during the entire [22] days of the special session he was gone.” Soon after, Franchot became embroiled in an ugly battle with the Senate over his staffing practices and conduct in office. And that’s to say nothing about his opinions on slots!
Now we try to follow a tradition of constructive criticism on this blog. After our rip-roaring romps against MCDCC last year over its legislative appointment process, Paul Gordon suggested holding mid-term special elections and using a variety of ways to incorporate district resident input into MCDCC votes. When I found the Governor’s original special session package to be regressive, I laid out how to seize tax revenues from cheating employers who were costing the state millions. And when I opposed the computer tax, I suggested a package containing the Governor’s original upper-income tax rates, combined reporting and a corporate tax hike as a replacement.
It is very, very easy to criticize someone else’s ideas. It can be very, very challenging to craft a viable alternative. Franchot’s problem is not that he is an anti-slots liberal or that he butts heads with the Senate President. (After all, someone has to fight with Miller!) It’s that he does not supply us with a better way to deal with our problems. What does a progressive alternative to the things he criticizes look like? I’d really like to know, but he never tells us.
And the slots issue is becoming an excruciatingly difficult one. The latest state budget information holds that if the slots referendum is not passed, the state will face $600 million annual budget deficits forever. Regular readers know that I’m not a fan of slots. But after the legislature’s regressive special session tax package, the most likely alternative to slots money will be more sales tax increases or horrendous budget cuts, possibly to education, health care and transportation. These are really tough choices and any honest person who cares about both preventing slots and pursuing progressive economic policy is going to wrestle with them.
So what is the Comptroller’s recommendation? According to the Post:
Asked by a reporter how he would replace the revenue if the referendum is defeated, Franchot offered no specifics. He said the state should be nurturing the life sciences sector, industries that would presumably contribute more to the tax base upon its growth.I’m sorry, Mr. Franchot. If you are going to earn my loyalty, you have to do better than that.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
General Assembly Announces Blogger Tax
Following is the exclusive transcript of the press conference called by Senate President Mike Miller.
Senate President Miller: Ladies and gentlemen of the press – the real press – I am announcing today a solution for the state’s financial crisis. Delegates Bill Frick and Kirill Reznik are introducing The Blogger Taxation Act of 2008. For too long, a growing group of rogue bloggers have been enriching themselves by impugning the integrity of your state’s noble public servants. It’s time that the people received a share of their ill-gotten gains!
Under the provisions of the bill, each blog post would be taxed $1,000. Any post mentioning a state legislator would be taxed $5,000. And any post that mentions me – well, don’t bother, because you don’t have the money!
Reporter: What about a companion bill in the Senate?
Senator Rich Madaleno: I will introduce the Senate version of the bill. It will of course be amended to exempt sitting office-holders.
Miller: I can’t stress enough what a high priority this is for the state. Your legislators work hard every day and these bloggers don’t understand that. Our folks get more emails than God, have to put up with crazy constituents at home and are forced to stay up until 2 in the morning listening to boring speeches by assembly leadership!
Reporter: But Mr. Miller, you are the Senate President.
Miller: Errr, well yes, strike that remark from the record. Anyway, support for the legislation is coming in faster than we can track it. Already, we have letters from the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee, Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett, Montgomery County Council Members Nancy Floreen, George Leventhal and Marc Elrich and famous television personalities Itchy & Scratchy complaining of defamation on these blogs. Even one of the bloggers themselves is calling for a halt to the nonsense! And poor Don Dwyer is still apologizing to his constituents after those bloggers caught him raising money for Dana Beyer!
[Unidentified delegate shouting from back]: Why are you blogging about the CARR bill? I’ve got five bills that are better. Where’s my blog coverage you little punks?!
Miller: Enough of that! These bloggers are getting rich – I mean, some of them live in Chevy Chase for heaven’s sake! It’s time for them to pay up!
[Just then, a stretch limo arrives with a license plate number of “CH CH 1.” Preceded by four tuxedo-wearing servants, world-famous blogger David Lublin steps out carrying his chihuahua, Muffitt.]
Lublin: This blogger tax is unfair, Mr. President! The Blogger.com fees are already killing me, my advertisers are asking for lower rates and now you want to tax me. I might have to move to Virginia! As it is, I can only afford to feed caviar to Muffitt three times a week. [Yap! Yap!] Look, you’re disturbing Muffitt! [Yap-yap! Yap!]
Miller: Now now, Muffitt, I meant no offense. [Kisses chihuahua on head] We certainly can’t have you rich people moving to Virginia. After all, we need the campaign contributions! So maybe we can work something out. But can you bloggers at least just tell the truth the way your public servants do?
Senate President Miller: Ladies and gentlemen of the press – the real press – I am announcing today a solution for the state’s financial crisis. Delegates Bill Frick and Kirill Reznik are introducing The Blogger Taxation Act of 2008. For too long, a growing group of rogue bloggers have been enriching themselves by impugning the integrity of your state’s noble public servants. It’s time that the people received a share of their ill-gotten gains!
Under the provisions of the bill, each blog post would be taxed $1,000. Any post mentioning a state legislator would be taxed $5,000. And any post that mentions me – well, don’t bother, because you don’t have the money!
Reporter: What about a companion bill in the Senate?
Senator Rich Madaleno: I will introduce the Senate version of the bill. It will of course be amended to exempt sitting office-holders.
Miller: I can’t stress enough what a high priority this is for the state. Your legislators work hard every day and these bloggers don’t understand that. Our folks get more emails than God, have to put up with crazy constituents at home and are forced to stay up until 2 in the morning listening to boring speeches by assembly leadership!
Reporter: But Mr. Miller, you are the Senate President.
Miller: Errr, well yes, strike that remark from the record. Anyway, support for the legislation is coming in faster than we can track it. Already, we have letters from the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee, Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett, Montgomery County Council Members Nancy Floreen, George Leventhal and Marc Elrich and famous television personalities Itchy & Scratchy complaining of defamation on these blogs. Even one of the bloggers themselves is calling for a halt to the nonsense! And poor Don Dwyer is still apologizing to his constituents after those bloggers caught him raising money for Dana Beyer!
[Unidentified delegate shouting from back]: Why are you blogging about the CARR bill? I’ve got five bills that are better. Where’s my blog coverage you little punks?!
Miller: Enough of that! These bloggers are getting rich – I mean, some of them live in Chevy Chase for heaven’s sake! It’s time for them to pay up!
[Just then, a stretch limo arrives with a license plate number of “CH CH 1.” Preceded by four tuxedo-wearing servants, world-famous blogger David Lublin steps out carrying his chihuahua, Muffitt.]
Lublin: This blogger tax is unfair, Mr. President! The Blogger.com fees are already killing me, my advertisers are asking for lower rates and now you want to tax me. I might have to move to Virginia! As it is, I can only afford to feed caviar to Muffitt three times a week. [Yap! Yap!] Look, you’re disturbing Muffitt! [Yap-yap! Yap!]
Miller: Now now, Muffitt, I meant no offense. [Kisses chihuahua on head] We certainly can’t have you rich people moving to Virginia. After all, we need the campaign contributions! So maybe we can work something out. But can you bloggers at least just tell the truth the way your public servants do?
Monday, March 31, 2008
In Defense of Taxing Millionaires
The current battle over whether to replace the hated computer services tax with an income tax surcharge on millionaires has become a defining ideological struggle among Maryland state legislators, especially those from Montgomery County. Many MoCo Democrats, including a few really good ones, argue that millionaires pay enough. Today I take up the banner for the rest of us.
The best case for the other side has been presented by David Lublin, founder and owner of this blog. His central arguments are budgetary and geographic. David points out that millionaires pay a lot of taxes. He does not want them to move out because if they do it will hurt our capacity to fund programs we need. He also describes both the computer tax and the millionaire surcharge as targeting MoCo because both affect lots of people who live in the county. “You're replacing one tax which targets Montgomery County with another that does exactly the same,” he writes.
David’s argument is logical and pragmatic, and I respect it. But a millionaire surcharge is a worthy alternative to the computer tax for three reasons.
First, let’s examine how people who earn a million dollars in a year get their money. I will bet that the majority of them do not earn a million dollars every single year. Rather, many of them will earn in the mid-to-upper-six digits in most years but then obtain an occasional spike. That spike may be from a payout in a lucrative lawsuit settlement, a capital gain or an inheritance. Would people in this category really move out of the state because they had to pay a couple extra thousand dollars in a year when they got lucky?
As for the super-rich, those who do earn a million dollars in every single year, they already can park their compensation in tax-deferred vehicles like 1031 exchanges or establish part-year residency in no-income-tax states like Florida and Nevada.
The Washington Post reports that 6,150 Maryland residents reported at least one million dollars in income in 2005 and 2,535 lived in MoCo. How many of those residents earned a million dollars in every single year over the last five years and would therefore be really tempted to move? Possibly several hundred, but only the Comptroller’s office would know for sure. Are these several hundred people really worth the colossal amount of political capital that MoCo’s state legislators are expending on their behalf?
Second, anyone who believes that the economic well-being of our county is a linear function of the number of millionaires who live here does not understand the source of our prosperity. Montgomery County’s vitality comes from its excellent schools, the entrepreneurialism of its small businesses (including those in the tech sector), its highly-educated and diverse population, its attractive neighborhoods and, of course, federal spending. Millionaires live here for those reasons just like the rest of us do. If tax rates were the sole determinant of their residency, they would all have moved to Virginia long ago.
Third, Maryland’s working and middle classes have already paid their share. Just last fall the legislature’s special session passed a regressive tax package. Last October, I calculated that the Governor’s original $1.7 billion proposal derived 61% of its revenues from regressive sources like the sales tax hike. The package that was ultimately passed was worse. The Maryland Budget and Policy Institute analyzed the session’s product and found:
Isn’t relieving traffic congestion also a high priority for this county? If the rest of MoCo’s residents sit in gridlock to protect the rich from paying more taxes, isn’t that an example of replacing one measure that targets Montgomery with another, as David says? MoCo Democrats rightly criticized Governor Ehrlich when he diverted transportation funding to avoid raising taxes. And we should not forget how Virginia has suffered for its inability to finance its transportation infrastructure.
Furthermore, let’s recall the unholy moment in which the computer tax was spawned. The creature was conjured from the abyss by the Maryland Senate for the sole purpose of not raising taxes on millionaires to the extent that the Governor originally recommended. Interestingly, no member of the Senate’s Budget and Taxation Committee will admit to fathering the wailing beast in whatever dark corner of the Senate chamber such acts are usually committed. If the Senate had adopted the Governor’s admittedly imperfect proposal, we would never have the computer tax or the current row over the millionaire surcharge.
I once blamed Senate President Mike Miller for the computer tax and the regressive special session tax package, but he proved me wrong. Back in January, I reported the following from our now-legendary blogger interview with him:
The best case for the other side has been presented by David Lublin, founder and owner of this blog. His central arguments are budgetary and geographic. David points out that millionaires pay a lot of taxes. He does not want them to move out because if they do it will hurt our capacity to fund programs we need. He also describes both the computer tax and the millionaire surcharge as targeting MoCo because both affect lots of people who live in the county. “You're replacing one tax which targets Montgomery County with another that does exactly the same,” he writes.
David’s argument is logical and pragmatic, and I respect it. But a millionaire surcharge is a worthy alternative to the computer tax for three reasons.
First, let’s examine how people who earn a million dollars in a year get their money. I will bet that the majority of them do not earn a million dollars every single year. Rather, many of them will earn in the mid-to-upper-six digits in most years but then obtain an occasional spike. That spike may be from a payout in a lucrative lawsuit settlement, a capital gain or an inheritance. Would people in this category really move out of the state because they had to pay a couple extra thousand dollars in a year when they got lucky?
As for the super-rich, those who do earn a million dollars in every single year, they already can park their compensation in tax-deferred vehicles like 1031 exchanges or establish part-year residency in no-income-tax states like Florida and Nevada.
The Washington Post reports that 6,150 Maryland residents reported at least one million dollars in income in 2005 and 2,535 lived in MoCo. How many of those residents earned a million dollars in every single year over the last five years and would therefore be really tempted to move? Possibly several hundred, but only the Comptroller’s office would know for sure. Are these several hundred people really worth the colossal amount of political capital that MoCo’s state legislators are expending on their behalf?
Second, anyone who believes that the economic well-being of our county is a linear function of the number of millionaires who live here does not understand the source of our prosperity. Montgomery County’s vitality comes from its excellent schools, the entrepreneurialism of its small businesses (including those in the tech sector), its highly-educated and diverse population, its attractive neighborhoods and, of course, federal spending. Millionaires live here for those reasons just like the rest of us do. If tax rates were the sole determinant of their residency, they would all have moved to Virginia long ago.
Third, Maryland’s working and middle classes have already paid their share. Just last fall the legislature’s special session passed a regressive tax package. Last October, I calculated that the Governor’s original $1.7 billion proposal derived 61% of its revenues from regressive sources like the sales tax hike. The package that was ultimately passed was worse. The Maryland Budget and Policy Institute analyzed the session’s product and found:
The poorest 1/5 of taxpayers will pay nearly 0.8% more of their income in taxes. The middle 1/5 will pay half that percentage: just over 0.4%. The wealthiest 1/5 will pay between 0.3% and 0.5% of their incomes in increased taxes. This overall regressive distribution occurs because the regressive nature of the sales tax increase overwhelms the progressive features of the income tax changes.Now I am not opposing all regressive taxes. The cigarette tax, for example, saves lives. The gas tax encourages mass transit use and fuel efficiency. But when a billion-dollar-plus tax package is comprised primarily of regressive measures, that sends a message about the legislature’s priorities. And the principal reason for relying on regressive taxes like the sales tax was the desire by some legislators – including some from MoCo – to limit income tax increases for the rich. Now some of these legislators are talking about cutting transportation funding as an alternative to the surcharge.
Isn’t relieving traffic congestion also a high priority for this county? If the rest of MoCo’s residents sit in gridlock to protect the rich from paying more taxes, isn’t that an example of replacing one measure that targets Montgomery with another, as David says? MoCo Democrats rightly criticized Governor Ehrlich when he diverted transportation funding to avoid raising taxes. And we should not forget how Virginia has suffered for its inability to finance its transportation infrastructure.
Furthermore, let’s recall the unholy moment in which the computer tax was spawned. The creature was conjured from the abyss by the Maryland Senate for the sole purpose of not raising taxes on millionaires to the extent that the Governor originally recommended. Interestingly, no member of the Senate’s Budget and Taxation Committee will admit to fathering the wailing beast in whatever dark corner of the Senate chamber such acts are usually committed. If the Senate had adopted the Governor’s admittedly imperfect proposal, we would never have the computer tax or the current row over the millionaire surcharge.
I once blamed Senate President Mike Miller for the computer tax and the regressive special session tax package, but he proved me wrong. Back in January, I reported the following from our now-legendary blogger interview with him:
Regular readers will recall how I criticized the Senate President for the regressive character of the special session tax package. Leaping into the jaws of the lion, I asked him the following question:And so Mike Miller is actually to the left of a good part of the MoCo statehouse delegation on this issue. That’s right readers, print those bumper stickers: MIKE MILLER: TOO LIBERAL FOR MOCO.
“The tax package that was passed by the special session collected the majority of its revenues from raising the regressive sales tax. If you could have that one back and do it over, would you have taxed the rich a bit more to give the working people a break?”
Miller did not back down from the sales tax. He described it as “the most regressive but also the most acceptable” of the taxes, claiming that he received little protest on it. “But I wish I could have had more from the income tax.” Miller noted, accurately, that part of the Montgomery County delegation, backed by their County Executive, pushed back against the Governor’s rate increase for the top income tax brackets, thereby limiting the legislature’s ability to raise them. “You need 24 votes to pass something through the Senate and I didn’t have the votes to spare!”
Friday, March 14, 2008
Putting a Gun to the Heads of Maryland’s Teachers (Updated)
The Baltimore Sun is reporting that Senate President Mike Miller is threatening education and teachers’ pension funding in an effort to get the Maryland State Teachers Association to support slots. This proves Eric Luedtke’s worries about this issue correct.
According to the Sun:
Slots are now being marketed as a magical solution to the state’s budget problems. Some politicians are now telling us that if we pass them, we can pay for education, repeal the computer tax and pay for virtually any other kind of program that we want. But in fact, as surrounding jurisdictions increase their gambling programs in a mad, dice-and-whiskey-fueled gaming arms race, our revenue take will be far from certain. The only certainty is that license-holding corporations will be enriched beyond their executives’ wildest dreams, including those that are now teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.
The Senate President is a recognized master of politics and has survived as long as he has by knowing the sentiments in his chamber better than anyone – ever. He is pressuring the teachers by threatening education funding and holding up their grievance arbitration bill because he knows that voters respect them. Apple Ballots with one-armed bandits on them are almost as valuable as penthouse comps. But there is a price to this tactic.
First, the teachers waged a relentless four-year campaign to get their pension benefits increased, a fight that ended in 2006. By threatening to subject those benefits to county financing, Mr. Miller is signaling his willingness to endanger the teachers’ top legislative achievement of the decade.
Second, he is pressuring the state organization’s board to make a decision without input from a closely-divided membership. This does not take into account the internal realities of a union, which is in fact a political organization. No political organization likes dealing with divisive issues – for example, look at the General Assembly’s contortions on gay marriage, illegal immigration, the death penalty and, of course, slots. As any political organization works it way through a tough issue, it needs time, delicate negotiations and ways to assuage those who come up short. Putting a gun to the heads of the leadership, as Mr. Miller is doing, may earn him a temporary victory but is sure to create fury in the ranks and a desire for revenge against the Senate President, his pro-slots colleagues and even some of the state union leaders themselves.
In Montgomery County, we call MCEA the 800-pound gorilla. Don’t make it angry, Mr. Miller, because this gorilla has a long memory.
Update: MSTA's board voted last night to support the slots referendum. The Post has the story here. MSTA President Clara Floyd released this statement:
According to the Sun:
“They've got to help us either get some type of revenue, either taxes or the video lottery terminals, so we can continue funding public education at the rate I want it funded,” Miller said. "There's nothing more I want than to fund public education, but the beneficiaries of public education have got to respond in kind.”But there is more:
The Senate president has also told union leaders that their failure to back the measure could force the General Assembly to seek another funding source for teacher pensions, including asking counties and school boards to foot the bill, a move that would almost certainly force severe cuts on the local level.I have disagreed with the Senate President on slots in the past. But even more than that, I disagree with his approach to the relationship of slots and education funding. A common-sense, pro-education approach to this issue is to say, “I’m committed to education, now let’s go find the money.” Instead, Mr. Miller seems to be saying, “I’m committed to slots, now let’s figure out how to pass them.” This is not the kind of pro-education behavior I expect from my party in Annapolis.
Slots are now being marketed as a magical solution to the state’s budget problems. Some politicians are now telling us that if we pass them, we can pay for education, repeal the computer tax and pay for virtually any other kind of program that we want. But in fact, as surrounding jurisdictions increase their gambling programs in a mad, dice-and-whiskey-fueled gaming arms race, our revenue take will be far from certain. The only certainty is that license-holding corporations will be enriched beyond their executives’ wildest dreams, including those that are now teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.
The Senate President is a recognized master of politics and has survived as long as he has by knowing the sentiments in his chamber better than anyone – ever. He is pressuring the teachers by threatening education funding and holding up their grievance arbitration bill because he knows that voters respect them. Apple Ballots with one-armed bandits on them are almost as valuable as penthouse comps. But there is a price to this tactic.
First, the teachers waged a relentless four-year campaign to get their pension benefits increased, a fight that ended in 2006. By threatening to subject those benefits to county financing, Mr. Miller is signaling his willingness to endanger the teachers’ top legislative achievement of the decade.
Second, he is pressuring the state organization’s board to make a decision without input from a closely-divided membership. This does not take into account the internal realities of a union, which is in fact a political organization. No political organization likes dealing with divisive issues – for example, look at the General Assembly’s contortions on gay marriage, illegal immigration, the death penalty and, of course, slots. As any political organization works it way through a tough issue, it needs time, delicate negotiations and ways to assuage those who come up short. Putting a gun to the heads of the leadership, as Mr. Miller is doing, may earn him a temporary victory but is sure to create fury in the ranks and a desire for revenge against the Senate President, his pro-slots colleagues and even some of the state union leaders themselves.
In Montgomery County, we call MCEA the 800-pound gorilla. Don’t make it angry, Mr. Miller, because this gorilla has a long memory.
Update: MSTA's board voted last night to support the slots referendum. The Post has the story here. MSTA President Clara Floyd released this statement:
Today the MSTA Board of Directors voted to support passage of the November slots referendum.Despite the state board's endorsement, readers should not assume that all local affiliates will now do everything in their power to support slots. Judging from the controversial nature of the decision and, especially, the way in which it was made, some local affiliates are bound to work harder for the referendum than others.
Thanks to Thornton funding, we are making clear progress in raising student achievement across the state. Our greatest moral responsibility is to continue this progress by ensuring that educators and schools have the resources they need to give every child access to great public schools.
The referendum establishes an Education Trust Fund and dedicates half of future proceeds to our public schools. It provides Maryland with an additional source of funding, beginning with licensing fees in early 2009.
Because of our state’s precarious fiscal outlook, if this referendum fails, students, teachers and support staff will be left with outdated facilities, larger classes, outdated textbooks and shortages of materials. School systems will be left with fewer resources to recruit and retain the best teachers and support staff.
Although this referendum is a necessary component to curing our state’s long-term fiscal woes, it is not sufficient. MSTA will continue to advocate strongly for other progressive and sustainable revenue alternatives to provide adequate funding for public education.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Is the Computer Tax Here to Stay? (Updated)
The Washington Post reports that Maryland’s Senate has not reached a consensus on how, or whether, to replace the much-despised computer sales tax. But Maryland Politics Watch readers have seen this coming.
Remember the now-legendary blogger interview of Senate President Mike Miller back in January? When we asked him about the computer tax, the Senate President answered, "The computer tax is not a good tax, but it’s $200 million and I’m going to fight to keep it... No one can agree on a replacement." And here’s our report on House Majority Leader Kumar Barve's comments:
The tragedy is that it didn’t have to be this way. Governor O’Malley never proposed this tax. The House of Delegates did not propose it. And there were other ways to raise the money. An extra point hike in the corporate income tax could have raised at least $100 million and Maryland’s rate would still have been lower than Pennsylvania and D.C., equal to New Jersey and barely higher than West Virginia and Delaware. Combined reporting on corporate income taxes could have raised $25 million. Progressive Maryland believes it could have been worth $100 million. The legislature could have kept the Governor’s original higher income tax rates on individuals making $150,000, raising perhaps tens of millions more. And the legislature could have aggressively gone after tax-cheating employers but so far has not done so.
Instead, we are left with a looming, devastating tax on a knowledge-based industry critical to the state’s future. Everyone hates it. But no one has figured out how to get rid of it. Surely the Democrats in Annapolis can do better than this.
Update: The Sun reports that a surtax on millionaires is gaining ground. Democratic Senator Verna Jones's (D44-Baltimore City) proposal would raise $230 million by instituting a surcharge rate of 6% on incomes between $750,000 and $1 million and 6.5% on incomes above $1 million. But Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett has written in opposition to the plan.
Update 2: The Governor has come out in favor of replacing the computer tax with the surcharge. However, Democratic Senator Robert Zirkin (D11-Baltimore County) has proposed to repeal the computer tax if the slots referendum passes. He also favors cutting transportation projects.
Senator Zirkin, I know my Montgomery County delegation is split on taxing the wealthy. But I would hope that all of them would stick together on opposing transportation cuts. All they hear is how horrible traffic congestion is from both their constituents and our County Council. Good luck in getting our eight State Senators to cut State Highway and transit projects in our county.
Remember the now-legendary blogger interview of Senate President Mike Miller back in January? When we asked him about the computer tax, the Senate President answered, "The computer tax is not a good tax, but it’s $200 million and I’m going to fight to keep it... No one can agree on a replacement." And here’s our report on House Majority Leader Kumar Barve's comments:
"The House got rid of the computer sales tax but it came back. It’s bad public policy. It’s unwise to tax businesses that are mobile," Barve stated. "But unless we’re willing to find $200 million in extra revenues, it will be very difficult to get rid of." And why was the computer industry vulnerable? "In politics, when something unpleasant has to be done, it’s usually done to whoever squirms around the least!" Barve noted that Senator Rob Garagiola (D-15, MoCo) had a proposal to replace it with a gas tax, "but that is a non-starter." Added to Mike Miller’s comments, Barve’s opinion indicates that the computer tax is not going anywhere because there is no other way to raise the money.Mr. Miller’s and Mr. Barve’s political predictions have been proven correct. When the Republicans proposed spending cuts and tapping "unallocated funds" to pay for a repeal, the Senate rejected it. When Senate Democrats proposed an income tax surcharge on the rich, Montgomery County officials opposed it. Time is running out: the current session has less than a month left and the computer tax is due to take effect this summer.
The tragedy is that it didn’t have to be this way. Governor O’Malley never proposed this tax. The House of Delegates did not propose it. And there were other ways to raise the money. An extra point hike in the corporate income tax could have raised at least $100 million and Maryland’s rate would still have been lower than Pennsylvania and D.C., equal to New Jersey and barely higher than West Virginia and Delaware. Combined reporting on corporate income taxes could have raised $25 million. Progressive Maryland believes it could have been worth $100 million. The legislature could have kept the Governor’s original higher income tax rates on individuals making $150,000, raising perhaps tens of millions more. And the legislature could have aggressively gone after tax-cheating employers but so far has not done so.
Instead, we are left with a looming, devastating tax on a knowledge-based industry critical to the state’s future. Everyone hates it. But no one has figured out how to get rid of it. Surely the Democrats in Annapolis can do better than this.
Update: The Sun reports that a surtax on millionaires is gaining ground. Democratic Senator Verna Jones's (D44-Baltimore City) proposal would raise $230 million by instituting a surcharge rate of 6% on incomes between $750,000 and $1 million and 6.5% on incomes above $1 million. But Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett has written in opposition to the plan.
Update 2: The Governor has come out in favor of replacing the computer tax with the surcharge. However, Democratic Senator Robert Zirkin (D11-Baltimore County) has proposed to repeal the computer tax if the slots referendum passes. He also favors cutting transportation projects.
Senator Zirkin, I know my Montgomery County delegation is split on taxing the wealthy. But I would hope that all of them would stick together on opposing transportation cuts. All they hear is how horrible traffic congestion is from both their constituents and our County Council. Good luck in getting our eight State Senators to cut State Highway and transit projects in our county.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Mike Miller (and Kumar Barve) Meet the Bloggers: Part Three
In Part Two, I recounted the Senate President’s remarks to our rag-tag band of bloggers. In this part, let’s find out what the number two leader in the House had to say.
Kumar Barve, the House Majority Leader from District 17 (Rockville), is a fluid and intelligent speaker. His low-key style reflects the cool, technocratic politics still practiced in some parts of Montgomery County. While he is not as flamboyant a character as the belly-laughing, fist-pounding Miller, he has a tack-sharp mind, a dry wit and ample patience for blogger grillings.
Here’s what Delegate Barve had to say, as best as my scrawling hand could record:
On Governor O’Malley
“Martin O’Malley is a gambler. He likes to take calculated risks. He sealed 188 people in a pressure cooker and said, ‘Take as long as you want in there!’ And the special session produced a very good product.”
On Taxes and Spending
Barve described the last couple decades of state fiscal management as a “roller coaster,” noting that the state had swung between tax hikes and tax cuts. “I wish we could find a level of taxation we’re comfortable with and stick with that, but that would probably violate human behavior!” As Barve correctly observes, it’s too tempting to dispense tax cuts in good times, making tax hikes in bad times more necessary.
On Embattled State Superintendent of Schools Nancy Grasmick
“The Governor and the leaders want her to go. I assume that’s going to happen.”
On the Computer Services Tax
“The House got rid of the computer sales tax but it came back. It’s bad public policy. It’s unwise to tax businesses that are mobile,” Barve stated. “But unless we’re willing to find $200 million in extra revenues, it will be very difficult to get rid of.” And why was the computer industry vulnerable? “In politics, when something unpleasant has to be done, it’s usually done to whoever squirms around the least!” Barve noted that Senator Rob Garagiola (D-15, MoCo) had a proposal to replace it with a gas tax, “but that is a non-starter.” Added to Mike Miller’s comments, Barve’s opinion indicates that the computer tax is not going anywhere because there is no other way to raise the money.
On Marriage Equality
“I personally don’t think marriage equality is going to happen in the way we’ve sponsored the bill. But domestic partnerships will pass.” Senator Madaleno, the prime backer of marriage equality in his chamber, chimed in, “You start with what you want, and you fight for what you can get.”
On Filling Legislative Vacancies
I asked the House Majority Leader whether he would favor a bill allowing special elections to fill vacancies in MoCo and forbidding the practice of Central Committee members appointing themselves to state legislative office. The latter point actually made him laugh. “My goodness, if you took that away from them, no one would serve on the Central Committee!” Barve snickered. “We’d have to pay them to serve!” Barve indicated that he would vote for special elections on a statewide basis, but not for MoCo alone. He favors having every county use the same system for filling vacancies.
The Majority Leader’s sardonic suggestion that Central Committee members have to be paid to abstain from appointing themselves may be cynical, but it also may be true. The fact that the highest-ranking state legislator in MoCo holds this opinion of MCDCC should make them think long and hard about how they conduct their vacancy selections.
On the Democrats’ Relationship with Latinos
“I don’t think the Democratic Party is in danger of losing the Latino community. One of the problems from a strategic perspective is that many of the groups we support have the lowest turnout rate. But things are changing. People of color are noticing how bad things are under Republican rule.”
On Whether the Delegation is Bringing the Bacon Back to MoCo
I asked Barve this question: “The Gazette recently reported that of every dollar paid by MoCo residents to the state, only 15 cents came back to the county. The state average is 30 cents. When county officials and residents accuse the delegation of not bringing the bacon back to MoCo, how do you respond?”
Barve answered by pointing out the geographic income disparities of the state. “We generate an enormous amount of income. Eighty-five percent of the richest people in the state live in Montgomery County. And if you earn $200,000, no matter where you live, you are going to be taxed. A lot of social programs go to where poor people are living, like in Baltimore City. And it’s the job of government to help people who desperately need the help, wherever they live.”
I understand this argument but only up to a point. MoCo may be wealthier than the state average, but it is not universally wealthy. There are pockets of poverty even here. There are lots of needs for school aid, school construction and transportation. Our state transportation priorities list is full of projects that have sat in limbo for many, many years. The BRAC projects alone will likely demand hundreds of millions of dollars to be effectively implemented. I for one would like to see my MoCo state legislators throw their weight around a bit more than they currently are.
And now we get to David Lublin’s Big Question, which was asked of both Senate President Miller and House Majority Leader Barve. Correct me if I’m wrong, David, but the Big Question went something like this:
“In 2006, the Democrats had as good a year as it gets. George Bush was President. We were fighting an unpopular war in Iraq. The Republicans had hopelessly mismanaged the response to Hurricane Katrina. So the Democrats won a lot of extra seats. In 2010, those things will not repeat themselves. Bush will be gone and the Democrats will be held responsible for whatever is going on. You are more likely to lose seats than gain them. So how can you motivate Maryland’s progressive voters for the next election?”
Uncharacteristically, Mike Miller dodged this one. He flatly disagreed that the party would lose any seats and contended that Governor O’Malley’s progressive record would serve the Democrats well. Kumar Barve also refused to concede that the party would lose any seats. He responded, “In Maryland, we have modest taxation and very low poverty. Maybe we should point out how bad things are in other states that are run by the Republicans.”
Is this really a winning message for 2010? We may have raised your taxes, but the other guys are worse? Is that going to motivate liberals to turn out to save Democratic seats in purple districts? I hope we’ll have a better message than that, but I guess we’ll see.
Until then, let’s credit Senate President Mike Miller and House Majority Leader Kumar Barve for willingly sitting in the Bloggers’ Hot Seat. They were good sports and did their best to deal with an unlikely gathering unseen since the Mos Eisley Cantina. Let’s see if any more politicians have the mettle to do the same.
Kumar Barve, the House Majority Leader from District 17 (Rockville), is a fluid and intelligent speaker. His low-key style reflects the cool, technocratic politics still practiced in some parts of Montgomery County. While he is not as flamboyant a character as the belly-laughing, fist-pounding Miller, he has a tack-sharp mind, a dry wit and ample patience for blogger grillings.
Here’s what Delegate Barve had to say, as best as my scrawling hand could record:
On Governor O’Malley
“Martin O’Malley is a gambler. He likes to take calculated risks. He sealed 188 people in a pressure cooker and said, ‘Take as long as you want in there!’ And the special session produced a very good product.”
On Taxes and Spending
Barve described the last couple decades of state fiscal management as a “roller coaster,” noting that the state had swung between tax hikes and tax cuts. “I wish we could find a level of taxation we’re comfortable with and stick with that, but that would probably violate human behavior!” As Barve correctly observes, it’s too tempting to dispense tax cuts in good times, making tax hikes in bad times more necessary.
On Embattled State Superintendent of Schools Nancy Grasmick
“The Governor and the leaders want her to go. I assume that’s going to happen.”
On the Computer Services Tax
“The House got rid of the computer sales tax but it came back. It’s bad public policy. It’s unwise to tax businesses that are mobile,” Barve stated. “But unless we’re willing to find $200 million in extra revenues, it will be very difficult to get rid of.” And why was the computer industry vulnerable? “In politics, when something unpleasant has to be done, it’s usually done to whoever squirms around the least!” Barve noted that Senator Rob Garagiola (D-15, MoCo) had a proposal to replace it with a gas tax, “but that is a non-starter.” Added to Mike Miller’s comments, Barve’s opinion indicates that the computer tax is not going anywhere because there is no other way to raise the money.
On Marriage Equality
“I personally don’t think marriage equality is going to happen in the way we’ve sponsored the bill. But domestic partnerships will pass.” Senator Madaleno, the prime backer of marriage equality in his chamber, chimed in, “You start with what you want, and you fight for what you can get.”
On Filling Legislative Vacancies
I asked the House Majority Leader whether he would favor a bill allowing special elections to fill vacancies in MoCo and forbidding the practice of Central Committee members appointing themselves to state legislative office. The latter point actually made him laugh. “My goodness, if you took that away from them, no one would serve on the Central Committee!” Barve snickered. “We’d have to pay them to serve!” Barve indicated that he would vote for special elections on a statewide basis, but not for MoCo alone. He favors having every county use the same system for filling vacancies.
The Majority Leader’s sardonic suggestion that Central Committee members have to be paid to abstain from appointing themselves may be cynical, but it also may be true. The fact that the highest-ranking state legislator in MoCo holds this opinion of MCDCC should make them think long and hard about how they conduct their vacancy selections.
On the Democrats’ Relationship with Latinos
“I don’t think the Democratic Party is in danger of losing the Latino community. One of the problems from a strategic perspective is that many of the groups we support have the lowest turnout rate. But things are changing. People of color are noticing how bad things are under Republican rule.”
On Whether the Delegation is Bringing the Bacon Back to MoCo
I asked Barve this question: “The Gazette recently reported that of every dollar paid by MoCo residents to the state, only 15 cents came back to the county. The state average is 30 cents. When county officials and residents accuse the delegation of not bringing the bacon back to MoCo, how do you respond?”
Barve answered by pointing out the geographic income disparities of the state. “We generate an enormous amount of income. Eighty-five percent of the richest people in the state live in Montgomery County. And if you earn $200,000, no matter where you live, you are going to be taxed. A lot of social programs go to where poor people are living, like in Baltimore City. And it’s the job of government to help people who desperately need the help, wherever they live.”
I understand this argument but only up to a point. MoCo may be wealthier than the state average, but it is not universally wealthy. There are pockets of poverty even here. There are lots of needs for school aid, school construction and transportation. Our state transportation priorities list is full of projects that have sat in limbo for many, many years. The BRAC projects alone will likely demand hundreds of millions of dollars to be effectively implemented. I for one would like to see my MoCo state legislators throw their weight around a bit more than they currently are.
And now we get to David Lublin’s Big Question, which was asked of both Senate President Miller and House Majority Leader Barve. Correct me if I’m wrong, David, but the Big Question went something like this:
“In 2006, the Democrats had as good a year as it gets. George Bush was President. We were fighting an unpopular war in Iraq. The Republicans had hopelessly mismanaged the response to Hurricane Katrina. So the Democrats won a lot of extra seats. In 2010, those things will not repeat themselves. Bush will be gone and the Democrats will be held responsible for whatever is going on. You are more likely to lose seats than gain them. So how can you motivate Maryland’s progressive voters for the next election?”
Uncharacteristically, Mike Miller dodged this one. He flatly disagreed that the party would lose any seats and contended that Governor O’Malley’s progressive record would serve the Democrats well. Kumar Barve also refused to concede that the party would lose any seats. He responded, “In Maryland, we have modest taxation and very low poverty. Maybe we should point out how bad things are in other states that are run by the Republicans.”
Is this really a winning message for 2010? We may have raised your taxes, but the other guys are worse? Is that going to motivate liberals to turn out to save Democratic seats in purple districts? I hope we’ll have a better message than that, but I guess we’ll see.
Until then, let’s credit Senate President Mike Miller and House Majority Leader Kumar Barve for willingly sitting in the Bloggers’ Hot Seat. They were good sports and did their best to deal with an unlikely gathering unseen since the Mos Eisley Cantina. Let’s see if any more politicians have the mettle to do the same.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Mike Miller Meets the Bloggers: Part Two
In Part One, we laid the scene for you: on one side of the table sat the fearsome, powerful old bull, the indomitable Senate President Mike Miller. On the other side sat a gangly, geeky band of bloggers, united only by their common desire for a post-meeting trip to Ram’s Head Tavern.
A few comments on the Senate President. For more than twenty years, Mike Miller has reigned over the Senate with a gregarious combination of ego, fear and patronage. His personal magnetism is so overwhelming that he could likely charm a bird out of its nest and onto his open palm. But if the bird voted the wrong way on a must-have bill, the hapless creature would be quickly crushed and tossed to the back of the Senate chamber. This demonstrates the Miller Rule, which is a simple one: “Work with me and prosper. Work against me and suffer.” Most Democratic Senators respond to this rule predictably, although there have been exceptions.
We asked Miller a lot of questions, and he gave us a lot of answers. For the benefit of our readers, I did my best to keep up with the exchange. Following are the Senate President’s responses to a few of our prods and pokings. If anyone else in the room recollects it differently, please comment and we’ll adjust the record.
On Governor Ehrlich
A few people remember that at the beginning of Governor Ehrlich’s term, Miller was ready to establish a pragmatic working relationship with him. But that approach ran into problems. “Ehrlich was a nice guy, but he didn’t work, and the state suffered,” Miller grumbled. He was “surrounded by yes-men” and rarely came out of his office. “All he did was put bandages on things!” The old warhorse was clearly relieved to see him gone.
On Governor O’Malley
Miller gave O’Malley lavish credit for moving to act on a deficit that he inherited, even if it cost him politically. “O’Malley knew his numbers would go in the toilet no matter what he did, so he did the right thing.” Miller attacked some of the Governor’s opponents, criticizing them for being “mean-spirited” and spreading rumors. “The Governor is a very progressive person,” Miller insisted. But he warned, “This Governor, in order to get his numbers up, will have to do some things you won’t like.” As an example, he mentioned a new emphasis on crime prevention, not always the highest priority of liberals.
On Slots
As perhaps the greatest champion of slots in the state, Miller’s views are well-known. “We have got to have that money!” he cried. The Senate President predicted that a possible recession would hurt tax revenues, thereby making slots money all the more necessary. “We need to get the slots bill passed whether you like it or you don’t like it!” Miller thundered. So in case you were wondering if Mike Miller had changed his mind on slots, the answer is NOPE!
On Transit
I asked Miller if he had a choice to fund the Washington suburbs’ Purple Line or Baltimore’s Red Line, but not both, which of the two he would pick. I was sure he would dodge this one, but to his credit, he did not. “The Purple Line!” he declared. “You know, I was a University of Maryland – College Park graduate.” Miller pointed out that he proposed a 12-cent gas tax last year but he could not round up enough votes for it. “We need to move forward as quickly as we can on mass transit.”
On Illegal Immigration
“There aren’t more than 2% of the people that understand immigration,” Miller snorted. “If you crack down on illegal immigrants too much, they’ll just bring their families over here.” The Senate President does not support the draconian measures implemented in parts of Virginia, saying, “John McCain tells the truth on this issue.” As for drivers licenses, Miller says, “The Governor has spoken on this. He considers this a national security matter. It’s a tough issue.” Miller did not contest the Governor’s decision to abide by the federal RealID law and end the state’s practice of issuing drivers licenses to illegals.
On the Regressive Nature of the Special Session Tax Package
Regular readers will recall how I criticized the Senate President for the regressive character of the special session tax package. Leaping into the jaws of the lion, I asked him the following question:
“The tax package that was passed by the special session collected the majority of its revenues from raising the regressive sales tax. If you could have that one back and do it over, would you have taxed the rich a bit more to give the working people a break?”
Miller did not back down from the sales tax. He described it as “the most regressive but also the most acceptable” of the taxes, claiming that he received little protest on it. “But I wish I could have had more from the income tax.” Miller noted, accurately, that part of the Montgomery County delegation, backed by their County Executive, pushed back against the Governor’s rate increase for the top income tax brackets, thereby limiting the legislature’s ability to raise them. “You need 24 votes to pass something through the Senate and I didn’t have the votes to spare!” For the record, let’s stipulate that nobody – absolutely nobody – knows more about getting 24 votes in the Maryland Senate than Mike Miller.
The Senate President has a point and perhaps I was unfair with him. It is true that a substantial portion of MoCo legislators pushed back against the top income tax rate hikes but did not criticize the sales tax. If that part of the MoCo delegation did not protest the tax hikes on the rich, there would have been less need to rely on the more regressive elements of the package. And who knows? Perhaps there would have been less pressure to resort to the much-hated computer services tax.
So while I don’t agree with Miller’s assertion that the sales tax increase is in any way “acceptable,” I will no longer criticize him as primarily responsible for encouraging regressivity in the tax package. There’s plenty of responsibility to go around for that.
On the Computer Services Tax
“The computer tax is not a good tax, but it’s $200 million and I’m going to fight to keep it!” The principal reason for keeping it? “No one can agree on a replacement.”
So other than David Lublin’s Big Question, which I’ll address in Part Three, that’s what I have from Mike Miller. Even though many liberals occasionally disagree with the Senate President, let’s give him his due. He implemented a tough agenda of deficit reduction on the Governor’s behalf. He is more straightforward in answering questions than most politicians. And he keeps a lid on the natural parochialism that might otherwise prevail in the Senate through a hardened mix of guile, intimidation and pragmatism. With a weaker Senate leader, the special session may very well have failed and the need to raise taxes this year would be much greater. So you may not like Mike Miller. But you should respect him.
Even though Senator Jamie Raskin of District 20 (Silver Spring/Takoma Park) attended our blogger fest, we did not flay him as we did his colleagues. In Part Three, you’ll hear from House Majority Leader Kumar Barve.
A few comments on the Senate President. For more than twenty years, Mike Miller has reigned over the Senate with a gregarious combination of ego, fear and patronage. His personal magnetism is so overwhelming that he could likely charm a bird out of its nest and onto his open palm. But if the bird voted the wrong way on a must-have bill, the hapless creature would be quickly crushed and tossed to the back of the Senate chamber. This demonstrates the Miller Rule, which is a simple one: “Work with me and prosper. Work against me and suffer.” Most Democratic Senators respond to this rule predictably, although there have been exceptions.
We asked Miller a lot of questions, and he gave us a lot of answers. For the benefit of our readers, I did my best to keep up with the exchange. Following are the Senate President’s responses to a few of our prods and pokings. If anyone else in the room recollects it differently, please comment and we’ll adjust the record.
On Governor Ehrlich
A few people remember that at the beginning of Governor Ehrlich’s term, Miller was ready to establish a pragmatic working relationship with him. But that approach ran into problems. “Ehrlich was a nice guy, but he didn’t work, and the state suffered,” Miller grumbled. He was “surrounded by yes-men” and rarely came out of his office. “All he did was put bandages on things!” The old warhorse was clearly relieved to see him gone.
On Governor O’Malley
Miller gave O’Malley lavish credit for moving to act on a deficit that he inherited, even if it cost him politically. “O’Malley knew his numbers would go in the toilet no matter what he did, so he did the right thing.” Miller attacked some of the Governor’s opponents, criticizing them for being “mean-spirited” and spreading rumors. “The Governor is a very progressive person,” Miller insisted. But he warned, “This Governor, in order to get his numbers up, will have to do some things you won’t like.” As an example, he mentioned a new emphasis on crime prevention, not always the highest priority of liberals.
On Slots
As perhaps the greatest champion of slots in the state, Miller’s views are well-known. “We have got to have that money!” he cried. The Senate President predicted that a possible recession would hurt tax revenues, thereby making slots money all the more necessary. “We need to get the slots bill passed whether you like it or you don’t like it!” Miller thundered. So in case you were wondering if Mike Miller had changed his mind on slots, the answer is NOPE!
On Transit
I asked Miller if he had a choice to fund the Washington suburbs’ Purple Line or Baltimore’s Red Line, but not both, which of the two he would pick. I was sure he would dodge this one, but to his credit, he did not. “The Purple Line!” he declared. “You know, I was a University of Maryland – College Park graduate.” Miller pointed out that he proposed a 12-cent gas tax last year but he could not round up enough votes for it. “We need to move forward as quickly as we can on mass transit.”
On Illegal Immigration
“There aren’t more than 2% of the people that understand immigration,” Miller snorted. “If you crack down on illegal immigrants too much, they’ll just bring their families over here.” The Senate President does not support the draconian measures implemented in parts of Virginia, saying, “John McCain tells the truth on this issue.” As for drivers licenses, Miller says, “The Governor has spoken on this. He considers this a national security matter. It’s a tough issue.” Miller did not contest the Governor’s decision to abide by the federal RealID law and end the state’s practice of issuing drivers licenses to illegals.
On the Regressive Nature of the Special Session Tax Package
Regular readers will recall how I criticized the Senate President for the regressive character of the special session tax package. Leaping into the jaws of the lion, I asked him the following question:
“The tax package that was passed by the special session collected the majority of its revenues from raising the regressive sales tax. If you could have that one back and do it over, would you have taxed the rich a bit more to give the working people a break?”
Miller did not back down from the sales tax. He described it as “the most regressive but also the most acceptable” of the taxes, claiming that he received little protest on it. “But I wish I could have had more from the income tax.” Miller noted, accurately, that part of the Montgomery County delegation, backed by their County Executive, pushed back against the Governor’s rate increase for the top income tax brackets, thereby limiting the legislature’s ability to raise them. “You need 24 votes to pass something through the Senate and I didn’t have the votes to spare!” For the record, let’s stipulate that nobody – absolutely nobody – knows more about getting 24 votes in the Maryland Senate than Mike Miller.
The Senate President has a point and perhaps I was unfair with him. It is true that a substantial portion of MoCo legislators pushed back against the top income tax rate hikes but did not criticize the sales tax. If that part of the MoCo delegation did not protest the tax hikes on the rich, there would have been less need to rely on the more regressive elements of the package. And who knows? Perhaps there would have been less pressure to resort to the much-hated computer services tax.
So while I don’t agree with Miller’s assertion that the sales tax increase is in any way “acceptable,” I will no longer criticize him as primarily responsible for encouraging regressivity in the tax package. There’s plenty of responsibility to go around for that.
On the Computer Services Tax
“The computer tax is not a good tax, but it’s $200 million and I’m going to fight to keep it!” The principal reason for keeping it? “No one can agree on a replacement.”
So other than David Lublin’s Big Question, which I’ll address in Part Three, that’s what I have from Mike Miller. Even though many liberals occasionally disagree with the Senate President, let’s give him his due. He implemented a tough agenda of deficit reduction on the Governor’s behalf. He is more straightforward in answering questions than most politicians. And he keeps a lid on the natural parochialism that might otherwise prevail in the Senate through a hardened mix of guile, intimidation and pragmatism. With a weaker Senate leader, the special session may very well have failed and the need to raise taxes this year would be much greater. So you may not like Mike Miller. But you should respect him.
Even though Senator Jamie Raskin of District 20 (Silver Spring/Takoma Park) attended our blogger fest, we did not flay him as we did his colleagues. In Part Three, you’ll hear from House Majority Leader Kumar Barve.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Mike Miller Meets the Bloggers: Part One
It had to happen. Superman met Muhammad Ali. The King met Nixon. Alien met Predator. And last night, Maryland Senate President Mike Miller met the Bloggers.
How on Earth did this epochal event occur? Senator Rich Madaleno, political patron of the left-wing blogosphere, summoned us to Annapolis for an audience with the most powerful man in Maryland history to never serve as Governor. And so nine of us came from every corner of the state, some emerging from filthy basements, some crawling from cigarette-strewn alleys and others reluctantly shuffling out of comic book shops. None of us knew how the greatest culture clash since cream cheese Sushi was going to turn out.
A note on the bloggers. This may shock you, but they tend to be on the dorky side. Really. A white kid from Baltimore walked in with bright green earrings and a furry Afro. Following him was a middle-aged MoCo liberal with gray hair screaming down his back to be let loose from its unkempt pony tail. One blogger ranted about Massachusetts transportation policy to a glassy-eyed Senate President. Another earnestly pressed his essay on “Green Rail” into the hand of every legislator who would take it. The middle school teacher seemed fairly normal until he began reciting long-lost Industrial Workers of the World leaders unknown to even this former labor history instructor. Look, I’m not naming you guys, but I know you’re reading this and you know who you are.
Golly Wally, we’re a bunch of cross-eyed geeks! So why would Mike Miller and fellow attendees Madaleno, Senator Jamie Raskin and House Majority Leader Kumar Barve want to talk to a raggedy crew like us?
The answer lies with Senator Madaleno. As an occasional blogger himself, Madaleno understands that blog readers are becoming a critical niche in the state’s political scene. Blog readership may never exceed the levels achieved by MSM outlets. But Madaleno knows that blog readers tend to be better-informed, more inclined to civic activism, and more likely to volunteer and contribute to political campaigns than the average MSM readers. That makes you, dear readers, a valuable political constituency. And the Maryland Democrats are starting to realize this.
So by talking to us, Senators Miller, Madaleno, and Raskin and Delegate Barve are really talking to you. What is it that they want to tell you? You’ll just have to keep chewing on that towel and wait until Part Two to find out.
How on Earth did this epochal event occur? Senator Rich Madaleno, political patron of the left-wing blogosphere, summoned us to Annapolis for an audience with the most powerful man in Maryland history to never serve as Governor. And so nine of us came from every corner of the state, some emerging from filthy basements, some crawling from cigarette-strewn alleys and others reluctantly shuffling out of comic book shops. None of us knew how the greatest culture clash since cream cheese Sushi was going to turn out.
A note on the bloggers. This may shock you, but they tend to be on the dorky side. Really. A white kid from Baltimore walked in with bright green earrings and a furry Afro. Following him was a middle-aged MoCo liberal with gray hair screaming down his back to be let loose from its unkempt pony tail. One blogger ranted about Massachusetts transportation policy to a glassy-eyed Senate President. Another earnestly pressed his essay on “Green Rail” into the hand of every legislator who would take it. The middle school teacher seemed fairly normal until he began reciting long-lost Industrial Workers of the World leaders unknown to even this former labor history instructor. Look, I’m not naming you guys, but I know you’re reading this and you know who you are.
Golly Wally, we’re a bunch of cross-eyed geeks! So why would Mike Miller and fellow attendees Madaleno, Senator Jamie Raskin and House Majority Leader Kumar Barve want to talk to a raggedy crew like us?
The answer lies with Senator Madaleno. As an occasional blogger himself, Madaleno understands that blog readers are becoming a critical niche in the state’s political scene. Blog readership may never exceed the levels achieved by MSM outlets. But Madaleno knows that blog readers tend to be better-informed, more inclined to civic activism, and more likely to volunteer and contribute to political campaigns than the average MSM readers. That makes you, dear readers, a valuable political constituency. And the Maryland Democrats are starting to realize this.
So by talking to us, Senators Miller, Madaleno, and Raskin and Delegate Barve are really talking to you. What is it that they want to tell you? You’ll just have to keep chewing on that towel and wait until Part Two to find out.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
The Governor Pays the Price for Miller's Advice
According to the Baltimore Sun, Governor O’Malley now suffers a 35% approval rating, the lowest since the end of the Glendening administration. Why? Two words: tax hikes. And another two words: Mike Miller.
Reacting to the state’s $1.7 billion general fund deficit, the Governor proposed a tax hike and spending cut plan prior to last fall’s special session. While, as David Lublin points out, no one enjoys either tax hikes or spending cuts, some parts of the plan were more unpopular than others. The features enjoying the most voter support were tobacco tax hikes (69% in a 9/28/07 Washington Post poll), slots (68%), corporate income tax hikes (66%) and income tax increases on the rich (62%). The feature with the least support was the sales tax hike (29%). The Governor tried to soften the tax hikes with a property tax cut.
But Senate President Mike Miller had other ideas. The Senate junked combined reporting, a corporate tax reform that would have made it more difficult for corporations to reduce Maryland taxable income by assigning it to other states. The Senate reduced the top rates in the Governor’s income tax proposal, thereby making it less progressive. And the Senate eliminated the Governor’s property tax cut. So three of the Governor’s most popular reforms were reduced or taken off the table. While the final package was a compromise with the House that restored some of the top income tax rate increases, the contribution of the Senate ensured that the outcome was less progressive than it otherwise could have been.
The result? The hugely unpopular sales tax increase accounted for more than $700 million of the final $1.3 billion tax package, the primary reason cited by the Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute in labeling it regressive. And Baltimore Sun poll respondents labeled the tax package “unfair” by a margin of 51-33%.
Now I was not a big fan of the Governor’s original proposal but in retrospect, it was far superior to the Senate's proposal. Unfortunately for the well-meaning but embattled Governor, the price of following Mr. Miller’s advice is the good will of the Maryland voter.
Reacting to the state’s $1.7 billion general fund deficit, the Governor proposed a tax hike and spending cut plan prior to last fall’s special session. While, as David Lublin points out, no one enjoys either tax hikes or spending cuts, some parts of the plan were more unpopular than others. The features enjoying the most voter support were tobacco tax hikes (69% in a 9/28/07 Washington Post poll), slots (68%), corporate income tax hikes (66%) and income tax increases on the rich (62%). The feature with the least support was the sales tax hike (29%). The Governor tried to soften the tax hikes with a property tax cut.
But Senate President Mike Miller had other ideas. The Senate junked combined reporting, a corporate tax reform that would have made it more difficult for corporations to reduce Maryland taxable income by assigning it to other states. The Senate reduced the top rates in the Governor’s income tax proposal, thereby making it less progressive. And the Senate eliminated the Governor’s property tax cut. So three of the Governor’s most popular reforms were reduced or taken off the table. While the final package was a compromise with the House that restored some of the top income tax rate increases, the contribution of the Senate ensured that the outcome was less progressive than it otherwise could have been.
The result? The hugely unpopular sales tax increase accounted for more than $700 million of the final $1.3 billion tax package, the primary reason cited by the Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute in labeling it regressive. And Baltimore Sun poll respondents labeled the tax package “unfair” by a margin of 51-33%.
Now I was not a big fan of the Governor’s original proposal but in retrospect, it was far superior to the Senate's proposal. Unfortunately for the well-meaning but embattled Governor, the price of following Mr. Miller’s advice is the good will of the Maryland voter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
