County Council District 4 Special Election Preview, Part Two

As noted in Part One, Mrs. Praisner’s premature departure has left a large vacuum in Council District 4’s political world. But there are potential aspirants for her seat. The actual and possible candidates in the all-important Democratic primary include:

Board of Education President Nancy Navarro

Navarro, a co-founder of immigrant services non-profit Centro Familia, was originally appointed to the school board in 2004. She quickly formed an alliance with fellow board member (and future County Council Member) Valerie Ervin. When Navarro ran for election in 2006, she appeared on the Apple Ballot and leapfrogged Sharon Cox to become President shortly afterwards. Navarro declared for office on Tuesday and was promptly endorsed by progressive hero Donna Edwards.

Navarro is the early favorite for three reasons. First, her position on the school board gives her substantial district-wide name recognition. Second, she would be a logical choice to once again appear on the Apple Ballot. (Note: MCEA has not disclosed its plans.) Third, there is growing concern among politically-active MoCo women about a recent trend of filling vacancies formerly held by women with men. (The state legislative appointments in Districts 16, 18 and 47 come to mind.) If Navarro is the only female candidate in the field, she will benefit.

Current State Legislators

Of the eight current state legislators in Districts 14 and 19, all but one (District 14 Delegate Karen Montgomery) live in Council District 4. Two of them have run unsuccessfully for County Council before. District 19 Delegate Ben Kramer was the Democratic nominee in District 2 in 1994 and ran at-large in 1998. District 14 Delegate Herman Taylor was the Democratic nominee in District 2 in 1998. (Ironically, both Taylor and Kramer were defeated by Republican Nancy Dacek.) Any of the current state legislators would be plausible contenders for Mrs. Praisner’s seat.

However, not many of them will actually run. First, three of them (District 14 Senator Rona Kramer and Delegates Herman Taylor and Anne Kaiser) are in their second term and District 19 Delegate Henry Heller is in his sixth term. These legislators have or are gaining seniority in the General Assembly, probably making it less tempting to leave. Second, because their state legislative incomes ($43,000 and up) supplement their salaries from regular employment, they would have to make significant financial sacrifices to accept a sole County Council member salary of $89,721. Third, each of them would have to work hard to raise money quickly and make contacts in the portion of Council District 4 that they do not currently represent.

The most likely exception to the above rules is Ben Kramer. Kramer, the son of former County Executive Sidney Kramer and brother of current District 14 Senator Rona Kramer, is a self-employed businessmen who has loaned his delegate campaign $124,450. If he is still interested in following his father into County government, he is more than capable of waging a well-financed campaign aided by name recognition.

Former State Legislators

Former District 19 Delegates Adrienne Mandel and Carol Petzold unsuccessfully ran for Senate in 2006 against Mike Lenett. Either of them may be interested in a council run. But they would face the same problems the current state legislators have: the need to raise money quickly and campaign in the parts of Council District 4 that they did not represent in the statehouse.

Civic Activists

MoCo has hundreds of civic activists who volunteer substantial amounts of time on various causes. When many of these activists broaden their agendas beyond their neighborhood-specific issues, they often focus on limiting development, pursuing accountability in government and restraining government taxes and spending. These sorts of issues interest participants in organizations like the Montgomery County Civic Federation, the Montgomery County Taxpayers League and Neighborspac.

Two District 4 activists have already declared their candidacy.

Steve Kanstoroom, an activist from Ashton, looks a bit like an older Dirk Benedict without the cigar. Among the issues he has worked on in recent years are illegal deforestation, abuses in FEMA’s flood insurance program and the Planning Department’s denial of street addresses to some residents of Sandy Spring. Kanstoroom even exposed an individual who had appeared as an expert witness at Board of Appeals hearings as never having possessed a professional engineer license. The Montgomery County Civic Federation gave him its “Community Hero” award in 2006. But not everyone is a fan of Kanstoroom’s. Council Member George Leventhal was incensed after Kanstoroom picketed his house over the Sandy Spring issue.

Patrick E. Ryan is a management consultant with the Washington Federal Practice of PriceWaterhouseCoopers. He is a co-chair of Action in Montgomery, a multi-purpose activist group affiliated with the Saul Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation. He is also active in the Church of Resurrection Catholic Parish, the National Coalition of Homeless Veterans and the Fairland Master Plan Civic Advisory Committee. Ryan lives in northeastern Silver Spring near Burtonsville.

Civic activists were a natural part of Mrs. Praisner’s base. But a pure civic candidate faces problems of name recognition, raising money and securing endorsements – all of which are exacerbated in a short campaign. The 2006 race in Council District 2 provides an example. Longtime activist and Neighborspac endorsee Sharon Dooley ran against well-funded, endorsement-rich, MCEA-backed incumbent Mike Knapp. Dooley lost the race by 64-36%.

Perhaps the biggest problem Kanstoroom and Ryan have is each other. In a one-seat race, they threaten to split much of Mrs. Praisner’s coalition, thereby allowing another candidate to win. And there may yet be other civic candidates.

Finally, Free State Politics blogger Eric Luedtke lives in Council District 4. Luedtke is an MCEA member and is one of the most-learned, best-researched bloggers in the state. Are we going to see any announcements on FSP, Eric?

Our readers should watch three things going forward. First, who is getting endorsements from organizations with money (like the Chamber of Commerce) and ground operations (like MCEA)? Second, who is raising money? Campaign finance reports are due to the State Board of Elections on March 18, April 4, May 2 and June 3. Third, who is the County Executive, a Burtsonsville resident, going to support? A literature mailout with the Executive’s picture on it will be valuable in a short campaign with low turnout.

Stay tuned for more on this race.

Update: You can read the Post's coverage here. The Post floats one additional name: Cary Lamari, former president of the Montgomery County Civic Federation. Lamari finished 11th out of 13 candidates in the 2006 council at-large race.

Update 2: The Gazette's coverage is here and here.

County Council District 4 Special Election Preview, Part One

The upcoming special election for MoCo’s District 4 County Council seat is important for two reasons. First, it is the first time a council member other than Marilyn Praisner will represent the district. Second, it will decide the close balance of power on the council, especially on issues related to growth. And so we offer special coverage of this race here at Maryland Politics Watch.

Montgomery County Council District 4 was created in 1990, along with the four other council districts. Prior to that time, the council had seven members, all of whom were elected at-large. In 1990, the present system was set up assigning one council member to each of five districts, with four others running at-large. The districts roughly mirror the county’s population distribution with Council District 4 covering East County.

Geography

District 4’s boundaries are (roughly) the county line on the northeast and east, the outskirts of Olney and Brookeville on the north, Rock Creek and Veirs Mill Road on the west and Randolph Road, Four Corners and US-29 on the south. You can view the official district map here.

The district contains two distinct sub-sectors. The western sector includes the neighborhoods between the northern reaches of Wheaton and the southern outskirts of Olney. Much of this sector is accounted for by Aspen Hill. The eastern sector includes the US-29 corridor from White Oak to Burtonsville as well as the areas near the Howard County border. The dividing line between the sectors is New Hampshire Avenue. We make this distinction because these two sectors have very different demographics, as we shall see below.

There are no urbanized downtowns in District 4. The vast majority of the district is covered by single-family neighborhoods with only one Metro station (Glenmont) that is very close to the District 5 border. There are a few commercial strips along Georgia Avenue and Layhill Road in the west, US-29 and Cherry Hill Road in the east, and New Hampshire Avenue. But the lack of density robs the district of any centrally-recognized locations of social, political or civic activity.

Demographics

District 4 conforms fairly closely to the Census Bureau’s Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) 01005 and 01006. (Those areas, however, include part of Kensington and exclude part of the area along the Howard County border, so they are not a perfect fit.) According to Census, the two PUMAs had a population of 236,844 in 2006. The population was 44% white non-Hispanic, 26% black non-Hispanic, 17% Hispanic and 11% Asian non-Hispanic. Two-thirds of the population is native-born while one-third is foreign-born. Of the 33% foreign-born, almost two-thirds (19%) are non-citizens. Forty percent of the district’s population speaks a language other than English at home. Median household income is $74,656, lower than the county’s average ($87,624). Forty-one percent of MoCo’s black population lives in this district.

There are significant demographic differences between the two sub-sectors. On the western side, which includes Georgia Avenue, Aspen Hill and most of Layhill Road, the population was 51% white non-Hispanic, 17% black non-Hispanic, 21% Hispanic and 8% Asian non-Hispanic. The median household income was $70,170. On the eastern side, which includes the US-29 corridor along with Colesville, the population was 37% white non-Hispanic, 35% black non-Hispanic, 11% Hispanic and 14% Asian non-Hispanic. The median household income was $80,043. So the western part of the district is whiter, more Latino, and relatively poorer than the eastern side. On the eastern side, the black population almost equals the white population, Latinos are not as numerous and the residents are nearly as wealthy as the county average.

Politics

The natural breeding grounds of politicians are municipalities and civic associations. District 4 does not have any municipalities and its civic associations are generally not as well-organized as those closer to Downtown Silver Spring and the I-270 corridor though there are a few exceptions). Those factors combined with the lack of urban density and the long dominance by Mrs. Praisner have created something of a political vacuum in the district. Mrs. Praisner had no real rivals and no designated successors.

The population’s racial diversity is not well reflected by its politicians. State Legislative District 14, which accounts for much of the eastern side of the district, is represented by three white women and one black man. State Legislative District 19, which accounts for much of the western side, is represented by four white men. Mrs. Praisner was the only County Council Member who lived in County District 4. However, there is one important exception to the above rule: County Executive Ike Leggett, who served four terms as an at-large member of the council, is a Burtonsville resident.

Dan Reed’s outstanding East County blog Just Up the Pike provides a good feel for East County. Dan paints a picture of a community handicapped by lack of transit, car-oriented neighborhood design and a general lack of commercial amenities. His series on the Briggs Chaney area provides one example. Dan’s interview with Mrs. Praisner also touches on these issues.

But East County’s large and diverse population and its links to both Wheaton and Silver Spring tie it firmly into the rest of the county. Mrs. Praisner, an unusual thinker who could handle both big-picture concepts and excruciatingly minute details, understood this very well. She was a capable defender of the area’s priorities but also a serious player on countywide issues. Whoever follows her will require quite some time to match her stature.

In Part Two, we’ll look more closely at the district’s political playing field.

More on Special Election Dates in MoCo Council D4

Here's a tidbit sure to interest all of you MoCo political junkies.

The County Council staff memo written by Senior Legislative Attorney Mike Faden confirms the dates reported by Kevin (4/15 for the primary, 5/13 for the general). But it then says the following:

Although neither date falls during a school break, Council President Knapp confirmed with Superintendent Weast that the school system could handle continuing to use schools as polling places on these dates. Of the 46 polling places used this year in District 4, 43 are public schools. County Elections staff indicated that they expect to consolidate some polling places for this special election. In any case, voters in District 4 will be officially notified at least twice of the election dates and their polling place.

Two questions:

1. What will this "consolidation" of polling places do to turnout?

2. If the teachers are working, who is going to distribute the Apple Ballots?

Is MoCo Getting its Share of the Spoils?

Believe it or not, there are a few people in MoCo who believe that we are getting the short end of the gubernatorial stick from our ex-Mayor of Baltimore. The latest list of the Governor’s appointments will give them a bit of ammo.

Last Friday, Governor O’Malley released this year’s “green bag” nominations, a list of appointments to many of the state’s boards and commissions that require Senate approval. There are 165 nominees on the list, which you can view here. Obsessed as we are with numbers, we counted the nominees by county of residence. The leaders were Baltimore County (35), Baltimore City (26), Prince George’s County (18), Anne Arundel County (15), Montgomery County (15) and Howard County (11). No other county had more than five appointees. Caroline, Kent, Queen Anne’s and Somerset Counties, all of which are located on the Eastern Shore, had no nominees. Mysteriously, two "non-residents" appear on the list instead.

Let’s consider the populations in these counties. Baltimore County accounted for 14% of the state’s population in 2006. It accounted for 21% of the Governor’s green bag list. Baltimore City accounted for 11% of the state’s population and 16% of the nominees. MoCo, on the other hand, accounted for 17% of the state’s population and 9% of the nominees. Prince George’s fared a bit better than MoCo (15% of population, 11% of nominees).

Now we are all good Democrats on this blog and big supporters of Governor O’Malley. So I have an idea for how the Governor could rectify this unfortunate appointment deficit. How about appointing Kensington Mayor Pete Fosselman as our next Secretary of State? He would be a nice D18 counterbalance to all of the people from Takoma Park who seem to be taking over the state government these days.

Just a suggestion from a blogger who’s trying to be helpful, Governor!

New Committee Assignments on MoCo Council

Mrs. Praisner's passing has left vacancies on the Planning, Housing & Economic Development (PHED) Committee, which she chaired, and the Management & Fiscal Policy (MFP) Committee, which she chaired for many years. Those vacancies have now been filled by Mike Knapp (PHED) and Phil Andrews (MFP). Marc Elrich is the new PHED Chair. But these committee assignments are temporary pending the special election for Mrs. Praisner's seat in District 4. After that election, all of this (and more) could change.

You can view the new committee structure here.

Heavy Metal Makeup

If you’re a knuckle-dragging Cro-Magnon like me, you’ve probably waited impatiently for your wife or girlfriend to finish getting ready before you both head out to dinner. You’ve growled at the bathroom door, thinking, “What on Earth is she doing in there? What’s taking so long?”

Well, Mr. Caveman, she’s going through her checklist. Foundation and powder, check. Mascara, check. Eye shadow, check. Lipstick, check. Mercury, check.

Waitaminnit – MERCURY?! That’s right, MERCURY.

Mercury is sometimes used as a preservative and germ-killer in a wide range of cosmetics, including soap, mascara, eye-liner and creams. It is the active ingredient in some foreign-made skin-whitening creams. Back in 1995 and 1996, skin creams containing mercury were found to have poisoned three people in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. In 2002, women in Hong Kong panicked after a skin-whitening cream was found to contain 9,000-65,000 times the maximum allowed mercury dosage. A 2005 study by the Mercury Policy Project found that mercury frequently appeared in cosmetics used in Africa, and a quarter to a third of women used those cosmetics in several countries. Shockingly, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration actually allows mercury in eye-area cosmetics so long as its levels do not exceed 65 parts per million.

Last month, Minnesota became the first state in the U.S. to ban all cosmetic products containing mercury. And Maryland could follow suit. New District 18 Delegate Al Carr has introduced House Bill 587 (co-sponsored by Delegates Braveboy, Gutierrez, Howard, Hucker, Krysiak, Kullen, Lee, Manno, Mizeur, Montgomery, Stukes and Waldstreicher), which would ban the sale, offer for sale or distribution of all cosmetic products containing any mercury in the state.

Come on you guys, is it really worth it? If we can’t eat it, can’t drink it, can’t inhale it, can’t use it in our thermometers, then is it OK to spread it all over our bodies? This bill is a total no-brainer and it has to pass on the first go.

But if it doesn’t, at least all that mercury should cut down on those pesky botox fees.

(We would like to thank District 18 Breakfast Goddess Susan Heltemes for sharing this with us. Susan doesn’t need mercury to look her best at our breakfasts!)

Freak of the Week

Anyone who can prove the following statement wrong gets a case of Dogfish Head 90 IPA and a no-prize.

Never before in the history of Maryland have two incumbent Congressmen and a MoCo Apple Ballot school board candidate gone down in the same primary night. Go ahead, start doing the research to prove me wrong!

And here is the strangest question you will ever see on a political blog: what do MCEA-backed school board candidate Alies Muskin and my tailbone have in common? Answer: both of them were done in by an ice storm.

MCEA's Apple Ballot, the WMD of county politics, relies on mass volunteering for distribution. Back in 2006, the Teachers fielded at least six Apple Ballot ladies in shifts at my precinct. Yesterday, only one Apple Ballot lady showed up. She left when the flurries started at 11 and no one replaced her. The rain started falling around 2, and a couple hours later, a thin sheet of ice covered every hard surface. I found this out the hard way when I fell down my front steps, ba-BUMP ba-BUMP ba-BUMP. Thus the considerable sympathy in my bruised tailbone for Ms. Muskin's plight. (Worry not, D18 legislators: I can still handle a shovel.) Philip Kauffman and Tommy Le, each of whom had run for school board before, edged out Muskin probably on name recognition alone.

I tell you, people, you can't get election analysis like this on CNN!

PFA Statement on First Amendment Rights on Ellsworth Drive

In the summer of 2007, a controversy occurred concerning First Amendment rights on Ellsworth Drive in Silver Spring. Ellsworth, part of the Downtown Silver Spring retail center developed by PFA (a partnership of Peterson Companies, Foulger Pratt and Argo Investment), is a publicly-owned street that is privately leased. After a demonstration on July 4, the County Executive and County Attorney determined that First Amendment rights applied to Ellsworth Drive. At the time, management spokesman I. J. Hudson said:

"We’re reviewing the [county attorney’s] opinion and generally have no arguments with the general principles that First Amendment rights apply to parts of downtown Silver Spring, including Ellsworth Drive."

Last week, Chip Py, who led last year's demonstration, told Just Up the Pike and the Silver Spring Penguin that he was recently prevented from distributing political literature on Ellsworth. PFA issued the following statement on the incident:

STATEMENT OF DOWNTOWN SILVER SPRING

The management of Downtown Silver Spring recognizes and supports the public’s First Amendment rights along Ellsworth Drive.

On February 8th, a gentleman was distributing political pamphlets on Ellsworth Drive, as is his right. He was asked by DSS courtesy officers to come to the management office, at which time the management reviewed the DSS property policies and determined that he and any other individuals would be well within their rights to distribute the pamphlets. This was immediately communicated to this person by management. In fact, this person was specifically advised that he was free to continue distributing the political pamphlets on Ellsworth Drive and we believe he did so.

As the result of community concerns about Downtown Silver Spring's policies last year, DSS property management, Montgomery County government and other concerned parties began an exhaustive review of first amendment rights along Ellsworth Drive. Given the unique public-private nature of DSS, all stakeholders wanted to ensure the rights of the public were understood and honored, at the same time respecting the rights of the property owners to protect the activities of their tenants and the public at large.

This review was completed and new rules were issued protecting First Amendment rights and providing for other applicable DSS property policies. We are also in the process of further communicating our new policies to the public, tenants and security and support staff.

In the daily business of maintaining and monitoring activities at DSS, and providing for the needs of our patrons and its businesses, from time to time visitors are asked to visit management offices to review policies and procedures. It is never our intention to keep people from expressing their First Amendment or any other rights.

We apologize to the community if anyone felt that our precautions were inappropriate, however briefly they may have occurred. We would like to emphasize that individuals are free to distribute political materials and exercise their other First Amendment rights along Ellsworth Drive.

We respect the rights of all our guests and other visitors to DSS. It is our hope that the public understands, once again, that any rules and regulations are painstakingly considered and then enacted only with the rights and needs of the public, our tenants and the community at large in mind.

What a Way to Seek an Endorsement

Did you read the Post’s article on the Montgomery County school board candidates the other day? Did you see at-large candidate Tommy Le’s comments on the Montgomery County Education Association?

Le, by contrast, opposes the [teachers’] raises and the influence wielded by the teachers association, which he referred to as the "Montgomery County Extortion Association" during a telephone interview. He said labor support has packed the school board with people who "owe their allegiance to anything that benefits the union."

So Le is a principled objector who’s going to stand up to the “extortionists,” right? Wrong.

It turns out that Le actively sought the Teachers’ endorsement, sending in a questionnaire last December and sitting for an interview with them. In that questionnaire, Le described the current collective bargaining agreement as “a win-win situation for all concerns.” When the Teachers asked him, “Would you support honoring negotiated agreements, especially in tight fiscal times,” Le replied, “Yes.” Le also supported continued inclusion of MCEA on the schools’ Executive Leadership Team and Deputies’ Operating Budget Committee (a sure mechanism for “influence”). It was only after the Teachers endorsed Alies Muskin that Le went on the warpath.

Stranger still, Connection Newspapers reported the following during Le’s last school board run in October 2006:

Le said that he has not sought the endorsement of any organization because he does not want to be “subjected to their interests in the future.” “I want [to be able] to put the interests of the students first over the teachers’ union in case of financial crisis,” he said.

So first he doesn’t want an endorsement. Then he does. Then when he doesn’t get it, the Teachers are “extortionists.” What’s that old rule about getting out of the way of a politician who’s blowing himself up?

So here’s my idea: let’s get Kevin Gillogly to endorse him. That’ll put this campaign to bed for sure.

More on the Politburos

Today's Post contains a few tidbits about the Montgomery and Prince George's County Politburos... err, excuse me, Democratic Central Committees.

First, the Post reports that PGCDCC used an open roll call vote in selecting District 47 Senator Gwendolyn Britt's replacement. Hmmm, very interesting. Does anyone know how long PGCDCC has been using open votes for appointments? Delegate Saqib Ali had to threaten MCDCC with state legislation before they agreed to open voting.

Second, the same article supplies even more details about County Executive Jack Johnson's maneuvers to thwart his enemy, former Delegate Rushern Baker, from getting the appointment. Apparently, Johnson employed an eyeball-to-eyeball staredown (probably in addition to other tactics) to reverse a vote that was previously pledged to Baker. Now do you think Johnson could have personally stared down the thousands of voters who would have participated in a special election to fill the vacancy? I think not.

Third, in an article chronicling County Council Member Marilyn Praisner's long and distinguished career, the Post notes her support for special elections:

In an ironic twist, Praisner and former council member Betty Ann Krahnke, who died in 2002, were the driving forces behind a measure that in 1999 created the mandatory special election for replacing council members. They didn't want to leave those decisions to the political activists on the Democratic and Republican committees.

Actually, I believe the County Council appointed its own replacements prior to 1999 and MCDCC had no role. But Mrs. Praisner favored special elections for vacancies and worked to pass them at the county level. And unlike MCDCC spokesman Milton Minneman, Mrs. Praisner believed in the capacity of voters to choose their own leaders. Remember Minneman's infamous quote in the Examiner?

...The county’s Democratic Central Committee spokesman Milton Minneman believes his team is best equipped to make the selections. Because the group’s purpose is to get Democrats in office, and because it spends time interviewing potential replacements and hosting public forums, it is far more knowledgeable than average voters of each candidate’s suitability.

“Special elections are often held rapidly, and voters don’t have time to get to know the candidates,” Minneman said. “We think we’re more representative.”

That's right, I thought you remembered that.

MoCo/PG State Legislators for Wynn

Maryland Moment's Rosalind Helderman covered a rally in Annapolis for District 4 Congressman Albert Wynn. I encourage everyone to read her piece as it contains details of the remarks made by Senators Mike Miller, Ulysses Currie and Rob Garagiola, all of whom have endorsed Wynn. As part of that coverage, Helderman provided a list of the Montgomery and Prince George's County state legislators who turned out at that rally and we reproduce it here.

Montgomery County State Legislators for Wynn
District 14: Senator Rona Kramer, Delegate Karen Montgomery
District 15: Entire Delegation
District 17: Senator Jennie Forehand
District 19: Senator Mike Lenett, Delegate Ben Kramer
District 39: Entire Delegation
Note: Districts 16 and 17 do not overlap with CD4. District 18 only shares two precincts with CD4.

Prince George's County State Legislators for Wynn
District 21: Senator James Rosapepe, Delegates Ben Barnes and Barbara Frush
District 22: Delegates Anne Healey and Justin Ross
District 23: Delegate Marvin Holmes (23B)
District 24: Senator Nathaniel Exum, Delegate Michael Vaughn
District 25: Senator Ulysses Currie, Delegates Melony Griffith and Dereck Davis
District 26: Senator C. Anthony Muse, Delegate Jay Walker
District 47: Delegate Victor Ramirez

In addition, Helderman noted attendance at the rally by Prince George's County Council Member Will Campos, Former District 39 Senator P.J. Hogan and Betty Weller from the state teachers union, which endorsed Wynn.

Edwards responded by announcing endorsements from Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez (D18), Delegate Joseline Pena-Melnyk (D21) and Edmonston Mayor Adam Ortiz. But this is far from a complete list of her elected supporters.

Notably absent from the Wynn camp are Delegates Herman Taylor (D14, who briefly considered challenging him), Kumar Barve (D17, the House Majority Leader), Luiz Simmons (D17), Senator Paul Pinsky (D22, a staffer of MCEA) and everyone from District 20 (Silver Spring-Takoma Park).

Congressman Wynn is known for his long memory. So are MoCo progressives. That's what makes the above list so interesting.

It's Just Not That Strange, George

The Washington Post just carried an article in which Montgomery County Council Member George Leventhal complained about a school fundraiser at McDonald's. I've got news for you, George: given what's already going on, it's just not that strange!

According to the Post, the "McTeachers Night" fundraisers feature teachers serving students at McDonald's with the schools getting a cut of the proceeds. Upon hearing about this at a council meeting, Leventhal reacted with disbelief:

"Teachers are enlisted by McDonald's to work behind the cash register at McDonald's, and students are recruited to go to McDonald's that night to see their teacher dishing out the Big Macs?" he asked with horror. "I never heard of that."

About 20 minutes later, Leventhal spoke up again. "The McDonald's thing really bothers me a lot," he said, his sentiment partly fueled by a concern about childhood obesity. "I mean, I don't know if we'd have a fundraiser at the local cigarette store."

Now look, George. It's seventy degrees out and it's February, and that's causing some odd behavior. Governor O'Malley and State Superintendent of Schools Nancy Grasmick kissed and made up. Immigrant-baiting Republicans are voting for John McCain for President. And even you and Marc Elrich are cooperating(!) on a bill to protect domestic workers. So maybe it's not so strange that among these oddball alliances, the teachers are teaming up with McDonald's.

And that's not all! Looking through my inbox, I see a lot more weird things going on. Hmmm, let's go through the list of upcoming events:

March 8
Fundraiser for County Council Member Marc Elrich, Federal Realty Headquarters, Rockville, MD. Special guests: Neighborspac Executive Director Drew Powell and Doug Duncan.

March 29
Fundraiser for _______________ at Georgia Avenue/Forest Glen Road intersection, Silver Spring. (Errr, one problem with this. We can't get any politicians to appear for fear of endangering their lives at the Intersection of Death.)

April 17
Casa de Maryland hosts rally for County Executive Candidate Chuck Floyd, Wheaton. Special guests: District 18 Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez and Help Save Maryland Founder Brad Botwin. Start of petition drive calling for removal of MCPD Chief Tom Manger.

April 26
Joint Fundraiser, District 39 Senator Nancy King and Delegate Saqib Ali, Montgomery Village. Special guests: Governor O'Malley and Comptroller Franchot. Also appearing: Abraham Van Helsing and Dracula.

May 10
Reverend Donald Wildmon hosts fundraiser for District 18 Delegate Candidate Dana Beyer, Chevy Chase. Special guests: District 31 Delegate Donald Dwyer and District 18 Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher. Also appearing: Itchy and Scratchy.

It’s Time to Protect Domestic Workers

Back in 2006, the Montgomery County Council commissioned a study by researchers at George Washington University about conditions faced by the county’s domestic workers. The study found that domestic workers were frequently paid less than minimum wage, often did not receive overtime pay, rarely had written employment contracts, did not know their rights under U.S. labor laws and did not have enough contact with their peers to facilitate unionization. On that basis, Casa de Maryland and other groups called for a “domestic workers bill of rights” to protect these workers from employment abuses.

The council did not implement the broad-ranging bill of rights, but Council Members George Leventhal and Marc Elrich recently introduced Bill No. 2-08 mandating employment contracts for domestic workers. Under the bill, any employer of a domestic worker must negotiate a written employment contract with that worker. The contract must specify days and hours of work, wages, paid and unpaid time off, and many other conditions of work. Furthermore, live-in domestic workers must have a private room for sleeping with a lock as well as reasonable access to a kitchen, bathroom and laundry facilities. Employers are forbidden to retaliate against workers requesting such an agreement. Any worker who suffers an agreement violation can file a complaint with the County’s Office of Consumer Protection.

On its face, this is a strong system of protection for a very vulnerable class of workers. But as David Lublin has noted, the bill has its critics – even among progressives. Among other things, they question whether employment contracts with domestic workers who are illegal immigrants are binding, whether an illegal immigrant would have to acknowledge his or her immigration status during the contracting process, and whether increased education would be a more appropriate alternative than contracts.

As I’ve probably told our readers before, I have spent my entire adult career in the building trades section of the labor movement. We have to deal with the anarchic intersection of illegal immigration, sometimes murky tax and employment laws and predatory employers on a daily basis. Believe me that these are not easy issues. The critics’ questions are legitimate and deserve to be answered.

1. Is an employment contract with an illegal immigrant binding?

Contrary to popular opinion, it is not illegal for an employer to hire an illegal immigrant. Under the Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), an employer may not knowingly hire an illegal immigrant. An employer has a duty to ask for a list of documents from any job applicant but has no duty to verify them with the federal government. When prosecutors go after an employer for hiring illegals, they must prove knowledge of their illegal status in court, which is not an easy task. (That’s why there are so few prosecutions.)

Illegal immigrants execute all manner of contracts in the U.S., including car purchases, business agreements and even mortgages. These contracts are enforceable in court. Labor unions and other organizations routinely recover wages owed to illegals who have been cheated by their employers. Many illegal immigrants are covered by employment agreements, including union-negotiated collective bargaining agreements. So employment agreements involving illegals do not inherently violate the law.

2. Would an illegal immigrant be forced to acknowledge his or her status by this bill?

Bill No. 2-08 is silent on whether the worker is to be classified as an employee or a contractor. That is a meaningful distinction, but not necessarily for immigration status.

Generally speaking, employers may classify workers as independent contractors if they face substantial business risk from their operations, control their own performance and hours of work and own their equipment and capital. When employers set schedules, control work conditions, closely supervise performance and own the relevant equipment and tools, they are supposed to classify workers as employees. Employees are eligible for social security, workers compensation and unemployment benefits while contractors are not. (Because of the immense costs at stake, this distinction is often abused.)

If a worker is classified as an employee, they will be expected to supply a social security number (SSN) and a number of documents establishing legal residency. The employer has no duty to verify them. Illegal immigrants can and do use false SSNs to establish employment (and credit). I have personally audited construction jobsites on which three-quarters of the SSNs used were false. IRCA’s document requirements have spawned a massive phony documentation industry, but that is an inevitable byproduct of a large number of illegal immigrants and a large number of employers willing to hire them.

The consequences of using false SSNs are usually minimal. When a false SSN is used for social security withholding, the Social Security Administration sends “no-match” letters to employers requesting that they provide corrected SSN information. But there is no requirement that the workers be fired, much less deported. (If workers were frequently terminated over no-match letters, half the construction jobsites in America would shut down tomorrow. Trust me on that.) A recent attempt by the Bush Administration to require employers to fire workers with false SSNs was recently turned back by a federal court. It seems unlikely that a President McCain, a President Clinton or a President Obama would seek to institute such a requirement.

It’s much more likely that employers of domestic workers will instead classify them as independent contractors. In that case, the employer would issue a Form 1099 to each worker reporting their compensation for tax purposes. The Form 1099 reports the recipient’s “identification number.” That could be an SSN or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), which is available to anyone regardless of immigration status.

The IRS is generally forbidden to share taxpayer information with other federal agencies and is delighted to issue ITINs. As IRS Commissioner Mark W. Emerson told the New York Times last year, “We want your money whether you are here legally or not and whether you earned it legally or not.” In 2006, 1.4 million people used ITINs to file income tax returns and many of them were undoubtedly illegal immigrants.

So under either of the above arrangements, a worker would not have to confess his or her immigration status and any possibility of deportation is extremely unlikely. If the bill really did threaten to cause deportations, Casa de Maryland would not be supporting it.

In any case, while the above issues raise some questions, the workers are not better off working “off-the-books.” In my experience, off-the-books arrangements lead to cheating, abuse and exploitation far, far more than the employment contracts proposed in the Leventhal/Elrich bill.

3. Would greater education be sufficient to protect these workers?

The key determinant of whether a worker’s rights under the law are protected is not the worker’s knowledge of them. It’s the available enforcement mechanisms. I have worked on many organizing campaigns in which education of the workers is an important, early component. But even when workers knew their rights, the employers could and did decide to ignore and violate them. Whether the workers were ultimately able to get their rights respected depended on the vigorousness of government enforcement (which was usually weak), the financial strength of the company and the success of the union’s tactics in countering the law-breaking employer. This is a harsh, HARSH country for workers – even those who are citizens, know their rights and have strong unions.

In the case of domestic workers, education in and of itself would be a challenge. How can the government reach them, especially those who live with their employers? How many languages must the government use? How can the government persuade the employers to respect those rights? And exactly what are the workers supposed to do when their rights are violated? Individual domestic workers have almost no power in their workplaces. That’s why they’re so vulnerable. That’s why they’re in need of real protection.

The way I read it, the Leventhal/Elrich bill will not cause mass firings or deportations of domestic workers. And it may very well bring them up out of the working poverty they currently inhabit. It gives them something almost all union members have: an enforceable, written contract that protects them. It’s a good bill. All progressives should line up to support it, perhaps discuss improvements to it, and ultimately pass it.

Marilyn Praisner: Passing of a Titan

Perhaps you have heard about the recent passing of Montgomery County Council Member Marilyn Praisner. I write this post in praise of a legend of county politics, a true titan of public service who will never be forgotten.

Mrs. Praisner has represented District 4 (East County) since 1990. She is the longest-serving woman in the history of the County Council. But she was far, far more than that. She was a former member of the school board, a long-time chair of the council’s Management & Fiscal Policy Committee and a long-time member (and recent chair) of the critical Planning, Housing & Economic Development Committee. Those positions and her long tenure made her one of the county’s most influential voices on budget issues, cable policy, technology, education and land use.

But one of the things I always remembered when dealing with her was her long service in the Central Intelligence Agency, starting as an analyst and moving into the senior ranks. That gave her an unusual skill set for a politician. Mrs. Praisner was the one policymaker who read every page of every report and grasped every single detail. Nothing got past her. She could not be fooled or bluffed. If you were going to see her about an issue, you had better do your homework! Because chances are, she would know your subject better than you did.

Time and again, I saw her use that encyclopedic mind and relentless style to grill the unprepared. I’ll never forget her interrogating State Highway officials at the annual Road Show meetings. The purpose of those meetings was to allow the state officials to brag about all of the road construction work they were doing in the county. But Mrs. Praisner would have none of that. She stood up, armed with a bookful of documents, and flayed the bureaucrats about every project in her district. She wanted to know about every lane design, every curb, every paint line and every traffic cone and exactly when each step was going to be completed. And woe to the hapless bureaucrat who didn’t know the answers to those questions!

But there was another side to Mrs. Praisner. She was a civil and courteous public servant who enjoyed intelligent debate. She insisted on decorum but she liked ideas. She responded diligently to communications and requests. I did not live in Mrs. Praisner’s district but that did not stop her from answering my emails and considering my proposals. If you treated her with respect, knew your facts, did your best to answer her questions and told the truth, Mrs. Praisner was your friend.

She was a woman of incredible intelligence, great fairness, and most of all, unquestioned honor. Nobody was smarter, tougher, harder-working or more honest. She was a towering figure in our county. There will be other people who follow in her position as the District 4 County Council member. But no one – no one – will do a better job than Marilyn Praisner.

Thank God for MCDCC (Updated)

Now I know you're shocked to read that statement from me. But I mean it, I really do!

Yes, we didn't know who the Frick was Bill. Yes, we got a bit ticked at them. Yes, we think they eat too many bon-bons in that castle of theirs. Yes, the House Majority Leader made fun of them in a roomful of bloggers. And now MCDCC Member Marc Korman wants to jack up my gas tax. But things could be worse. We could have the Prince George's County Democratic Central Committee.

Consider the silky-smooth job they did in selecting Senator Gwendolyn Britt's successor. Their pick, County Council Member David Harrington, endorsed Michael Steele for Senate in 2006. The runner-up, former Delegate Rushern Baker, refused to rule out running for County Executive. (The reigning County Executive, whom Baker ran against last time, cheered his defeat.) The only female candidate, Delegate Jolene Ivey, received no votes. Another losing candidate, Delegate Victor Ramirez, immediately vowed to run against the winner for Senate. (He told the crowd, "I’m going to ask for this seat the way I should. I’m going to come to you for your vote." So why was he running for appointment?)

But the line of the night belonged to the former Senator's husband, Travis Britt, who was also running for the seat. According to the Gazette:

Britt, [county substitute teacher Kenniss Odetta] Henry and Ramirez withdrew their names from consideration early in the meeting, with Britt citing the vicious politics – he claimed backroom deals and mudslinging were rampant – for the succession race.

"These demons are after me, but I’m going to dispel these evil spirits. I am withdrawing," Britt said to the crowd, who gave him a standing ovation.

OK, I promise here and now to never call the MCDCC evil spirits. That is, unless you select someone who endorsed Michael Steele to fill one of our seats!

Update:
The Washington Post's story makes clear that Prince George's County Executive Jack Johnson lobbied hard to defeat Baker and possibly even decided the outcome. Now that's understandable: many politicians will go to great lengths to punish enemies. But the thought of how easily the District 47 appointment process was manipulated makes my skin crawl. It requires much more effort for politicians or political power brokers to manipulate thousands of real, live voters than a handful of Central Committee members. That's why so many politicians are so comfortable with the status quo. The District 47 case makes at least as good of an argument for special elections as anything MCDCC has done.

More on the Great Maryland Drivers License Feud

As David Lublin noted, Marc Fisher’s January 27 column carried news of alleged broken promises by the O’Malley administration over the issue of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. But this is merely the latest incident in an escalating, internal Democratic Party feud over the issue.

The drivers license issue has a bit of history worth recalling. Maryland is one of seven states (the others being Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington) that do not require license applicants to prove legal U.S. status. On September 11, 2001, 19 hijackers, all of whom were admitted to the country legally, were able to obtain a combined 13 drivers licenses and 21 other ID cards and use them to board and commandeer airplanes. Several of these documents were obtained with fraudulent records. Among the hijackers was Hani Hanjour, who fraudulently obtained a Maryland ID card from the Motor Vehicle Administration and used it to pilot a plane into the Pentagon. Later, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission called for strong national standards applying to ID documents including drivers licenses and birth certificates to prevent terrorists from acquiring them. In 2005, the Congress passed the Real ID Act, which among other things required that states not issue licenses to individuals illegally present in the U.S. The original date established for compliance was 5/11/08 but that has since been pushed back to 2010.

It is commonly believed that the 9/11 Commission recommended denying drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. But as the commission’s successor organization, the 9/11 Public Disclosure Project, makes clear on its website, that is untrue. The project authors state:

Specifically, we did not make any recommendation about licenses for undocumented aliens. That issue did not arise in our investigation, as all hijackers entered the United States with documentation (often fraudulent) that appeared lawful to immigration inspectors. They were therefore “legal immigrants” at the time they received their driver’s licenses… Whether illegal aliens should be able to get driver’s licenses is a valid question for debate.

But President Bush and the Republican Congress explicitly set up Real ID requirements to block licenses for illegals anyway. Soon enough, the states began calculating the costs of bringing their license systems into compliance with Real ID requirements and began to balk. Maryland estimates its costs at $60-80 million. Seventeen states and counting have passed legislation and/or resolutions opposing Real ID, including Maryland. But the federal requirements remain and that is causing political turmoil.

Maryland Secretary of Transportation John Porcari originally proposed installing a two-tier license system to deal with Real ID. Legal residents could obtain Real ID-compliant licenses while illegal immigrants could obtain non-compliant licenses that still conferred in-state driving rights. But Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez (District 18) rejected this approach, telling the Washington Post, “In this climate, that's a scarlet letter… Any policeman could call [federal] authorities.”

Delegate Gutierrez need not have worried about Porcari’s proposal because Governor O’Malley swiftly killed it. The Governor declared, “We should not allow Maryland to become an island virtually alone on the East Coast” by issuing drivers licenses to illegals. He called instead for one license program that was completely Real ID-compliant. O’Malley was no doubt paying heed to the painful experience of another blue-state governor who proposed, then backed down from, a plan to license illegals.

Gutierrez responded by accusing the Governor of “betrayal” and even told Post columnist Marc Fisher, “The governor did not keep his promise… This is what he promised me when he was begging for my vote for the slots referendum, which I gave him. And that is the last time I do that.” That should make for interesting reading for the many anti-slots voters in District 18.

This issue is turning into a significant internal feud within the Maryland Democratic Party. Each side has something important to lose.

On one side is the Democratic establishment. Over the long term, the state party benefits by strengthening its ties to immigrant voters, especially Latinos. These voters are often socially conservative and will require economic reasons to vote Democratic. It would be wise for politicians to remember that immigrants often belong to large, mixed households that include legal immigrants, illegal immigrants and citizens. Measures that target illegal immigrants tend to antagonize their entire families, and many members of these families are citizens who vote.

On the other side is the state’s Latino leadership. As mentioned above, Delegate Gutierrez has used terms like “scarlet letter” and “betrayal” in describing the administration’s policies. (One can only imagine what is being said in Spanish-language media.) This sort of hot rhetoric, flung about in the newspapers like searing frying pans, may very well earn the enmity of both the Governor and the Secretary of Transportation. And that may prevent the District 18 delegation from obtaining movement on its urgent transportation priorities. In fact, many of Delegate Gutierrez’s constituents are undoubtedly viewing the growing rift with unease, if not dismay.

And so the two sides have a strong incentive to compromise, perhaps using something resembling MDOT’s original proposal as a starting point. But neither side is showing much inclination at the moment. Happy memories of a new state-financed immigrant services center in Langley Park are rapidly fading. Should the feud escalate, it will create bad consequences for state Democrats, immigrants, and quite possibly, District 18 residents.

Should State Legislators Hand Over Their Salaries?

According to the Baltimore Sun, Senator Bryan W. Simonaire, Republican of Anne Arundel, is proposing to give the legislature the option to reduce its own pay. Currently, legislators’ pay is determined by a state commission, and the legislature can vote their recommendation up or down. Simonaire would like to allow the legislature to cut their own pay if the state’s finances suffer (as is currently happening). But is this such a good idea?

I’m not convinced that it is. I know quite a few politicians pretty well. They may be motivated by a lot of things, but pay is not one of them. After all, the typical state legislator makes just over $43,000 per year for a 90-day session and endless nights of putting up with crazed civic activists (like me). They would get a whole lot more money (and less aggravation) from continuous non-legislative employment, believe me. And the savings available from eliminating their salaries altogether amount to only $8 million out of a $15 billion general fund.

But the compensation question is an interesting one. In my industry – unionized construction – we have fixed scales for journey workers. But on certain jobs, we negotiate shared bonuses for the workers that are tied to targets. So if we meet our schedule dates, the workers would get a bonus. If we meet our safety goals, we would get another bonus. And if we keep absenteeism below a certain specified level, we’d be paid even more. Because the profitability of the contractors increases in line with our performance, they are more than happy to make these kinds of deals with us. In our case, bonus payments are made to groups of workers because construction is a team industry. So too is politics.

So why not have a bonus system for politicians? If all the legislators within a particular district get something important done for their constituents, let’s throw ‘em a bit of extra dough! So here’s my bonus schedule for my beloved District 18 delegation:

Install new sidewalk on west side of Connecticut Avenue in Kensington: $10,000 bonus

Bury power lines in Montgomery Hills: $20,000 bonus

End evil train horn noise in Kensington and Forest Glen: $30,000 bonus

Get special elections for legislative vacancies in MoCo: $40,000 bonus ($20,000 more for banning MCDCC members from appointing themselves)

Get funding for underground, deep-tunnel Purple Line: $50,000 bonus

Get new Metro entrance at Intersection of Death: $100,000 bonus plus Adam agrees to not send any email for a year.

So what are you waiting for? Come on guys!! Let’s get cracking!!!

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.

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.

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.

“Oh NOOOO! It’s a BAIT CAR!!!”

Have you ever had someone ransack your car? If so, did you say something like, “If I could ever get my hands on that punk, I’d…” Well, how about watching a video of that punk getting busted by the police? That’s exactly what the citizens of British Columbia can do and MoCo citizens should be entitled to the same pleasure.

Thefts from vehicles are a huge problem in MoCo. According to the Washington Post, between 1/1/07 and 10/15/07, there were 5,092 break-ins in MoCo, up 19% from the levels of the year before. In Police District 2, which includes Bethesda, Chevy Chase and Kensington, break-ins jumped from 577 to 1,062 over the same period. In my own neighborhood, car break-ins rose by 60% and car thefts rose by 56% over last year. And when my neighbor’s car, parked right across the street from mine, was stolen – that was the final straw for me.

Rising outrage over repeated crimes led us to identify a solution: bait cars. Used in dozens of jurisdictions across North America, bait cars are rigged with cameras, GPS devices and sensors linked to police headquarters. When a thief breaks in, the devices are triggered, the police are alerted and the cameras begin recording. If the thief tries to escape, police can remotely shut off the bait car engine and lock the doors. The trapped crook then bounces around the car like a panicked ping-pong ball as the long arm of the law reaches down to drag him off to jail.

Many of these bait car videos wind up on the Internet. You can find a lot of them on British Columbia’s marvelous baitcar.com website and on YouTube. Go ahead and watch these hilarious videos! You will quickly learn who these thieves really are. They are hardly hulking mastodons of the underworld. Rather, they are sniveling, larcenous weasels, so craven that they would likely flee in terror from the raised cane of an old woman. They scurry in packs like twitching, squeaking rats through parking lots, garages and neighborhoods looking for tasty morsels to grab. While certainly greedy, many are barely intelligent enough to figure out how to pick their noses with one finger.

Here’s a video from British Columbia. Note the teeth-chattering paranoia of the car thieves as they whine, “I hope this isn’t another f***’in bait car, man!”



And here’s another sorry miscreant on his way to jail. As the cops approach with police dogs, watch the crying wretch beg, “Please don’t let the dog chew on me!”



So do these programs really work? Absolutely, but only if done in tandem with aggressive marketing campaigns that inform criminals, “Steal a bait car and go to jail!” Minneapolis started the first comprehensive bait car program in the U.S. in 1997 and has seen a 30% drop in car thefts. Stanislaus County, California saw a 40% drop in two years. British Columbia has seen 10% annual drops since implementing their program in 2004. And in Arlington County, Virginia, their bait car program has helped cut auto thefts to their lowest level since 1965. Best of all, insurance companies often donate the cars and finance the marketing programs because reduced crime cuts down on claims. Upon learning these facts, nine civic associations in Forest Glen, Silver Spring and Kensington promptly asked that the MoCo police implement a comparable program.

So how could MoCo refuse a program that can draw on private funding to cut down on auto crime by double digits? Given its current budget problems, isn’t it time for the county to get creative? One thing is for sure: the car thieves aren’t going to take next summer off just because the county is cutting funding for police. So when they steal that next car, why not make these gibbering curs scream, “Oh NOOOO! It’s a BAIT CAR!!!”

A Former Nevada Resident Reflects on the Democratic Caucuses

I'll bet you guys didn't know that I once lived in Nevada. Yes, it's true and I have the cheesy Las Vegas souvenirs to prove it. And as a former resident, I have a few things to say about Hillary Clinton's victory there.

Nearly a decade before I became acquainted with the joys of crossing the Intersection of Death, I was assigned to work a building trades organizing campaign in Las Vegas. Once I had unpacked my Van Halen CDs in my apartment, I went to see the Kings of Sinville - Culinary Workers Local Union 226. What I found was quite simply one of the most remarkable labor organizations that North America had ever seen. They had a savvy, battle-hardened leadership. They had the best research operation of any local union anywhere. They had an excellent organizing program. They had a hard-hitting political program. And best of all, they had a strong relationship with their members. Culinary was known for launching strikes against law-breaking casinos that went on for decades. That's right - their members walked on picket lines old enough to be mentioned in the Bible. As a young labor union researcher, I was in awe of them.

Culinary's political power in Las Vegas compares to MCEA's power in Montgomery County. But unlike MCEA, Culinary faces a state right-to-work law, a vigorous state Republican Party and giant, politically-connected gambling megacorporations that employ its members and occasionally run afoul of its contracts. Few unions can succeed in such a climate. Culinary does so through a ruthless blend of brains and brawn, mating its sophisticated staff with its militant, picket-sign-carrying membership.

That's why I'm as surprised as anyone that Culinary did not deliver the Democratic caucuses to its endorsed candidate, Senator Barack Obama. The Washington Post would have us believe that Culinary's power in Nevada is overrated. But I don't think that's a fair assessment for two reasons:

1. Culinary only announced its endorsement of Obama eight days before the primary. This did not give the union much time to educate its membership about its choice. All good unions know that members need to be persuaded, not instructed, to support their endorsed candidates at election time, and Culinary is no exception. Culinary's late endorsement was a miscalculation by its normally astute leadership, but it is not a sign of weakness.

2. Senator Hillary Clinton clearly has more name recognition and popular support than the Clark County Commissioners that Culinary usually beats up on.

So I'm not completely sure what this result says about Culinary, Nevada politics or Senator Clinton's campaign. But I'm pretty sure what it says about Senator Obama. The fact that one of North America's greatest local unions could not bring home a win for him in its stronghold is not a good sign for the junior Senator from Illinois.

A Note on Labor Endorsements in CD4

Here's a quick observation from a labor guy on union endorsements in the Wynn-Edwards race.

The labor movement has been unusually divided between the top two contenders in CD 4: Al Wynn, the incumbent and Donna Edwards, the returning challenger. Wynn's biggest labor endorsers are the MSTA/NEA funds (the state teachers), the Washington Metro AFL-CIO, the Maryland-DC AFL-CIO, SEIU Local 400 (Prince George's local schools employees), AFSCME Local 2250 (Prince George's government employees) and the Washington DC Building Trades. Edwards' endorsers include the national SEIU, the national UNITE-HERE, UFCW Local 400 (grocery workers) and Progressive Maryland. She has also earned important non-labor endorsements from NOW, the Sierra Club and Emily's List.

When labor unions endorse, they bring either money, people power or both. In the Wynn-Edwards race, both of the leading candidates have enough money to compete. And both of them already have lots of name recognition in the district. So the labor endorsements that will matter the most will come from unions that 1. have lots of members in the district, 2. can get their members to turn out, and 3. have volunteers that can handle other tasks on behalf of the campaigns, including communication with non-members.

On the Wynn side, the most meaningful endorsements come from the Teachers. Both MCEA and PGCEA use Apple Ballots in their campaigns. But there are real questions as to whether either Apple Ballot will be used for a federal race and whether either affiliate will truly work hard for Wynn. On the Edwards side, the most meaningful endorsements come from UFCW Local 400 (grocery workers), the national SEIU and especially Progressive Maryland. PM has a large email list and engages in plenty of door-to-door work. But it will have to be just as active in Prince George's as it usually is in Montgomery to maximize its impact for Edwards.

So my best guess is that if the Teachers go all-out for Wynn, he'll have the edge. If they don't, PM will give the edge to Donna Edwards. But labor support is only one small dimension in this race. The overriding factors will be the level of satisfaction with Wynn inside the district and the relative skill each side shows in getting turnout. And the minor candidates could drain a few votes from Edwards, though none has yet demonstrated real strength in the district.

Two other interesting facts stand out. First, the 7000-member UFCW Local 1994 (the MoCo government employees) has not endorsed either candidate. Second, it is extremely unusual for a local union (SEIU Local 400) to take an opposite position from its parent. I cannot recall this happening inside my union, where the international and the regional councils closely align. It is probably a sign of the unusual volatility and strong feelings in this particular race.

House of Delegates Remembers Jane Lawton

The Washington Post carried a short story on the Maryland House of Delegates' memorial for Delegate Jane Lawton. As usual, the best memories of Jane are the funny ones. The Governor had this to say:

Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) told an anecdote from last fall's frantic special legislative session, when he called Lawton at her desk on the House floor to discuss the votes they needed to pass a particular bill.

"I said, 'Delegate Lawton, this is your governor,' and she said, 'Oh, no!'," O'Malley said, adding that Lawton was a strong backer of his policies.

"I said, 'Jane, how does that make me feel?'

"She said, 'I know if you're calling me, we're in trouble.' "

Can't you just hear her saying that?

Special Report: Why Are We Talking About Rent Control in MoCo?

Last month, the Gazette reported that County Executive Ike Leggett told a meeting of 50 tenants in Silver Spring that he would sign a rent control bill if the County Council passed it. This no doubt pleased fellow attendee and County Council Member Marc Elrich, who was one of the prime supporters of rent control in Takoma Park when he served on its City Council. But other county council members may not be so happy with this hot-potato Christmas present from their executive.

So why are we talking about rent control?

Rent control is one approach to the issue of affordable housing, long one of the most intractable problems in Montgomery County (and the entire Washington region). No one from any side of the debate believes that Montgomery County has enough affordable housing. There is plenty of evidence for that view, including:

1. The Census Bureau reports that 46% of the county’s rental units required rents of 30% or more of the occupants’ income in 2006.

2. In that same report, the Census Bureau finds that 36% of the county’s owner-occupied units with a mortgage required payments of 30% or more of the occupants’ income.

3. Impact Silver Spring found that 47% of renters in Silver Spring were paying rents of 30% or more of their income in 2005. Silver Spring has long been thought to be one of the more affordable areas in Montgomery County.

4. The Montgomery County Planning Department reports that the median price of a new detached single-family home reached $1.1 million in the first quarter of 2007. That means half the new homes were sold above that price.

While the county has acknowledged affordable housing problems since at least the 1970’s, its recent difficulties occur in the context of two market realities: rising prices and slow population growth.

Rising Prices
The Montgomery County Planning Department reported that between 2002 and 2007’s first quarter, prices for new single family homes rose by 138%. Huge price hikes also occurred for new townhouses (91%), existing townhouses (105%) and existing single family homes (69%). These hikes may be tapering off, but no one believes that all the price gains of recent years will disappear.

Slow Growth
Since 1990, the county’s population has grown by a meager annual average 11,873 people, or 1.4% per year. In 2006, the county added only 5,000 people – its slowest population growth since 1983. These numbers mockingly lash the back of every wild-eyed MoCo activist who has ever used the term “hyper-growth.”

In fact, rising prices and slow growth may be related. Montgomery County has long been praised for its excellent schools, attractive parks, nice downtowns and quality government services. It is one of the most desirable places to live in the nation. So why does its population grow so slowly? The county simply does not have enough housing to accommodate everyone who wants to move in. Picture a giant bucket pouring endless numbers of people into a shiny, but small bottle. Not everyone will get in. Increasingly, it seems that those who do get in fall into two groups: those who are wealthy enough to afford high-price housing on their own, and those who are willing to tolerate overcrowded, substandard conditions. (The social tensions between these two groups, who sometimes live on the same block, are rising.)

And so when limited supply meets insatiable demand, home prices and rents rise. This is the experience of Montgomery County, most jurisdictions in the Washington area, and many parts of the country.

The county’s primary tool for encouraging the construction of affordable housing is its Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) program. Created in 1973, the MPDU program is based on a simple trade: developers are ordered to construct below-market-rate units in return for permission to increase housing density. Currently, the law applies to developments of 20 or more units. It mandates that 12.5-15% of the new units be affordable for families earning up to 70% of the area’s median income. In return, the developer may build up to 22% more units than called for in a parcel’s zoning. A new workforce housing program based on similar principles was approved in 2006 but has not yet begun operation.

There are three problems with the MPDU program. First, developers are allowed to “buy out” from the MPDU requirements by paying into the county’s Housing Initiative Fund. Second, the program depends on new construction. When the economy slows down and residential development declines, so does MPDU construction. Finally, the program has actually created very little affordable housing. Since the first MPDU’s were constructed in 1976, only 8,527 owner-occupied units and 3,520 rented units have been built. The county’s total stock of housing units in 2006 consisted of 241,108 owner-occupied units and 100,330 rented units. So after 30 years of the MPDU program, only 3.5% of the county’s owner-occupied and rented units are MPDU’s – a depressingly low total.

In a recent Gazette column, four County Council members claimed that 31,616 housing units were currently approved for development with a projected buildout of 6 years. But how many of those units are MPDU’s? If we were charitable and assumed that 10% were to be MPDU’s and that all of them would be built, the MPDU percentage of the county’s housing stock would rise to a grand total of 4.1%. Even if every single one of these units was an MPDU, the MPDU percentage would only rise to 11.7%. Of course, this would never happen, but it would be a nice start.

There are other tools the county has to affect residential development, including master plans, Planning Board and planning staff reviews, rezoning decisions on individual parcels and zoning text amendments. But the provision of housing is only one factor affecting these decisions. Other factors including resident sentiment, environmental considerations, traffic tests, school capacity and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods are also weighed. Inevitably, the number of units ultimately approved is less than would be built in a pure free market. And while the county offers rental and homeowner assistance through its Housing Opportunities Commission, these programs have not solved the affordable housing problem.

Deep in the long-lost regions of my mind that remember my college microeconomics coursework, a neoclassical voice cries out, “The government restricts supply, then micromanages construction and now is talking about fixing prices. Of course the housing market is broken!” But that view is too simple. Residential construction creates significant external costs that are not adequately priced in private buyer-seller transactions, such as pollution, school crowding and traffic. And these costs are not fully recovered by the county’s impact tax system. Some development limits are necessary to protect the county’s Agricultural Reserve, preserve the character of existing neighborhoods and prevent the county from resembling overdeveloped Rings of Hell like Phoenix and Las Vegas. But the cost of pursuing these worthwhile objectives may be to limit the provision of affordable housing, both owner-occupied and rental.

The two paradigms of development politics in this county do not have the answers for this problem. The affordable housing issue nicely demonstrates the critical flaws of each side of the ever-lasting development debate. Anti-growth people will not admit that limits on development tend to put upwards pressure on prices and rents over the long term. Pro-growth people will not admit that a true market solution to housing – allowing supply to meet demand – could necessitate massive new residential construction. No one knows the number of new units required to meet the true demand for Montgomery County housing – 50,000 or 100,000 or even more? – but that number is likely to be much greater than a strained county capital budget and a traffic-choked citizenry can accept.

And so we have market failure for affordable housing. And that’s why we are talking about rent control.

Former District 39 Delegate Slams Tax Hikes

Joan F. Stern of North Potomac, a Democrat who served in the House of Delegates from 1999 to 2007, attacked the state's recently-passed tax package in a letter to the Gazette.

In the letter, Stern rages against her former Democratic colleagues, thundering, "County and state officials need to rethink their philosophy and understand that most people are no longer willing to put up with elected officials who keep increasing their taxes, especially when services are being cut. I have seen the light. How about the rest of you?"

After complaining about "expensive new mandates in a declining economy," Stern concludes, "No wonder Maryland had a net loss of 35,000 people to other states. It is time for a reality check."

Stern was not included on District 39's incumbent slate in the 2006 election. Nor did she make the Montgomery County Education Association's Apple Ballot. As a result, newcomer and MCEA-backed Saqib Ali defeated her by 1,238 votes. Are Stern's complaints about taxes a prelude to an attempted comeback?

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.