Inside Ehrlich’s Secret Police: Part Five

Among other things, the state police spying scandal reveals immense differences between Governor O’Malley and former Governor Ehrlich. Voters would be wise to remember their contrasting reactions in 2010.

Governor O’Malley has said that his administration “does not and will not use public resources to target or monitor peaceful activities where Maryland citizens are exercising their First Amendment rights.” Nevertheless, Paul Gordon faults him for not pushing corrective legislation. That could be a mistake because legislation might be an effective way to keep the state police from causing further trouble on the current Governor’s watch. Even so, Governor O’Malley has a powerful incentive to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past: political survival. He has fragile relations with some parts of his base and if he sanctions another police investigation of peaceful protestors – especially after promising not to do it – his relationship with the left will be irreparably damaged.

Former Governor Ehrlich, on the other hand, is unburdened by relationships with the left or any concern for civil liberties. The Baltimore Sun reports:

Friday, Ehrlich said on WJZ-TV that he was “sympathetic” to the principle that police should not spy on groups when there no evidence of wrongdoing.

But he added, “We pay state police to make decisions, and obviously they bring discretion with them to their jobs every day, so their job on a daily basis obviously is to weigh the relative value of intelligence they've received and to make decisions accordingly.”

A governor or police chief risks being blamed for not doing his job if an activist “cell” or organization takes actions that put people at risk, Ehrlich said. People could ask, “‘Why weren't you doing your job? Weren’t you supposed to have intelligence operations out there to monitor this sort of situation?’” he said in the television interview.

Put aside for a moment whether the non-violent death penalty activists were a “cell” that “put people at risk.” Governor Ehrlich could have said what his former State Police Superintendent Thomas E. Hutchins had the decency to say: “Whatever occurred during my tenure I obviously am responsible for.” Instead, the Governor’s statements hint that he would tolerate, and maybe even encourage, these sorts of activities if he were ever re-elected. That provides a compelling rationale for why he should never be allowed to hold elected office again.

No Spoils for MoCo (Reprise)

Back in February, my blog-brother Kevin Gillogly and I put up back-to-back posts on how MoCo was not getting a fair share of state appointments. Trying to be helpful, I promoted beloved Kensington Mayor Pete Fosselman for the Secretary of State vacancy. After all, the mayor was a rare and very early supporter of Martin O'Malley over then-Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan in the Democratic gubernatorial primary.

But illustrating once again that the Governor does not read our blog [sigh...], the administration has decided that the new Secretary of State will be Prince George's County lawyer John McDonough, whose daughter works for Senate President Mike Miller. This is a wasted opportunity because the Governor could use a bit more good will in MoCo at the moment and Mayor Fosselman has many friends here.

Labor and the Governor

At first, I believed that Maryland’s labor movement would be annoyed at the anti-union propaganda on the state’s business development website but would ultimately see it as a blip in an otherwise positive relationship with Governor O’Malley. But after talking to many labor leaders around the state, I am not so sure about that.

MPW readers should know that our original post on this subject that followed Free State Politics’ breaking of the story received more visits than any individual post on our blog for many months. In fact, direct visits to this post alone without going through the site URL accounted for nearly one-quarter of all visits to MPW for two straight days. And yesterday we received more visits than on any other single day in two months. This is all extremely unusual considering that our first post on the issue appeared on a Saturday in July, hardly a prime viewing time for political blogs. We hear that our original post and a follow-up dating some of the rhetoric all the way back to the Glendening administration zoomed across the state’s labor movement and crystallized some of labor’s existing feelings about the current Governor. By Monday morning, the anti-union language on the state’s website had been taken down but the damage remains.

Martin O’Malley was elected with overwhelming support from Maryland’s labor movement. He got off to a good start on labor issues, helping pass a state living wage law in his first year and supporting a bill that allowed public employee unions to charge fees to non-members for representational services. His appointments of former Montgomery County Council Member Tom Perez as the Secretary of Labor, Licensing and Regulation and former Baltimore building trades leader Ron DeJulius as Commissioner of Labor and Industry were widely praised by labor. And the Governor announced that he was restoring and beefing up the labor inspections office after his predecessor virtually killed it.

But since then the relationship has cooled. During the special session, labor assisted the Governor in passing his tax package and the slots referendum even though many did not like its regressive elements. Despite its aid to the Governor in his time of need, labor did not achieve many of its priorities in the general session that followed. One angry labor leader told me, “Seven labor bills were introduced before the legislature last year and not one made it out of committee. The administration was essentially AWOL on all of them.” Another labor leader gave O’Malley a grade of “C,” saying, “I understand that politicians make lots of promises and then do a little less, but…” A third labor person described a state of “discontent” with the Governor. “He’s been good to blue-collar families in a general sense, but he hasn’t done a whole lot to help the labor movement grow.” Still another labor veteran challenged the perception that the Governor was responsible for the living wage law, claiming that since the legislature already passed it once but was stymied by former Governor Ehrlich’s veto, all that was necessary was to have a Governor who would not veto the bill again. “What can you point to with O’Malley? On living wage, when he was handed the football on the one-yard line, he got it in… He hasn’t picked up any labor bills as one of his top 3 or 4 priorities in any year. There’s been no initiative, and that’s the sad thing.” This leader also gave the Governor a grade of “C.”

The Governor does have his defenders. One longtime labor pro credited him for the living wage bill since “it would not have passed without him.” This leader also praised the Governor for advocating combined reporting (which would make it harder for corporations to hide their income in other states) and making the income tax system more progressive. “I have nothing but admiration for him for that.”

Among the bills that died in 2008 were ones requiring employers to provide shift breaks, requiring construction contractors on state jobs to participate in state-registered apprenticeship programs, requiring construction contractors on state jobs to provide health insurance, requiring construction projects over $500,000 to have lavatories, prohibiting state agencies from purchasing apparel from sweatshops, requiring any casinos permitted by the slots referendum to negotiate project labor agreements for their construction jobs, establishing a Public School Labor Relations Board, and increasing the maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit.

Perhaps most troubling of all was the death of a bill designed to crack down on misclassification of workers as independent contractors. As I explained last November, employers in many industries, but especially construction, often illegally misclassify employees as contractors to escape responsibility for paying FICA taxes, unemployment insurance premiums, workers compensation premiums and income tax withholding. Several states have found revenue losses from these practices totaling in the hundreds of millions of dollars a year, though no one has studied the issue in Maryland. In a year that the administration supported cuts of $25 million to the newly-established Chesapeake Bay cleanup fund and $50 million to transportation to pay for repeal of the computer tax, the Governor might have been expected to embrace a labor-backed bill that would have raised millions of dollars more for the budget. But the bill died in a House committee and the Board of Public Works voted in favor of more spending cuts last month.

The Governor currently has troubled relationships with some in the immigrant community over the drivers license issue, many in the GLBT community over marriage equality and now some in labor. These are three very important parts of the state’s progressive base. At a time when the Governor’s approval ratings are still low, he needs these groups more than ever.

“What’s the alternative?” asked one labor leader, dismissing out-of-hand any consideration of the still-detested former Governor Robert Ehrlich. That may be a valid point, but here is the problem for Governor O’Malley: how many people in his base are now asking that question?

Update: Kathleen Miller of the Examiner picked up the story and obtained confirmation from the state that the anti-union site went back to the Glendening administration. Further, they admitted “staff researchers had occasionally updated data on the page during O’Malley’s tenure.” Ms. Miller recognized the role played by both Free State Politics and MPW in fixing the problem, a rare acknowledgement by the mainstream media of the blogging community. Thank you Ms. Miller!

State Government Proud that Maryland is Anti-Union (Updated)

When I saw this post on Free State Politics, I could not believe my eyes. But it's true: the state's Department of Business and Economic Development is trying to paint Maryland as an anti-union state to attract new businesses.

I encourage everyone to read the original post on FSP but here is the issue in a nutshell. The state is telling business that even though it does not have a right-to-work law, businesses have nothing to fear because unions here are (in their opinion) weak. Here's a sample of their language:

While not a "right-to-work" (RTW) state, Maryland offers businesses a very favorable labor climate.

A quality workforce supplies a great resource, key to achieving corporate goals.

The percentage of private sector union membership in Maryland is 7.2 percent, which is lower than the national average of 7.5 percent and lower than most northeast and midwest states.

13.8 percent of the state's private sector manufacturing workers are union members, a lower percentage than two of the RTW states, as well as other states including New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

(Source: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.)

An analysis of companies new to Maryland from 1990 to 2001 (excluding firms that were already unionized upon their entry to the state and firms with fewer than 25 workers) reveals that:

Only two percent of the over 3,200 companies were petitioned by unions.

Half of Maryland's counties experienced no petitions for union elections.

Unions won representation rights for only one percent of the total new firms during the period analyzed.

Although petitions were filed most frequently in the services and manufacturing industries, unions won representation rights in just four percent of new Maryland manufacturing firms.

Now Governor O'Malley has been fairly pro-labor. I am sure that he had no knowledge of this vile propaganda spewed by underlings scurrying within the bowels of the state bureaucracy. But as I write this, outraged emails are flying across the state's entire labor movement. We cannot believe that rhetoric typical of Georgia and Oklahoma would be sanctioned at any level inside the O'Malley administration.

FSP's Eric Luedtke is asking blog readers to register their protests with the state's leadership. I agree with him and I refer you to his post for the relevant email addresses. If the Governor acts swiftly to revoke the state's anti-union pandering, most reasonable people will probably view it as a mistake and be willing to move on. But quick action is in order.

Update: The state's union-bashing is based partly on National Labor Relations Board election data from 2006. That data would not have been available until well into 2007, after Governor O'Malley assumed office. That proves that the propaganda was at least partially drafted during the O'Malley administration and cannot be blamed entirely - or perhaps not at all - on his predecessor.

How to Get Clout in Annapolis, Part Four

In Part Three, we recommended that Montgomery County’s state legislators do three things together to begin building clout in Annapolis: get organized, control the county’s campaign funding and limit new legislation. Today we finish the plan.

4. Jam the Committees

Most of the action in the state legislature happens in the committees. Prodded and spurred by leadership, the committee chairmen try to steer the Governor’s and the leaders’ priorities through their committees along with those of individual legislators and important groups. Most bills never make it out of committees. Montgomery’s legislators only chair one committee in each chamber, far less than the delegations from Baltimore City and Prince George’s County. But because of sheer numbers, Montgomery’s legislators have the most Democratic members of many of these committees. And through that membership comes power.

When the committee chair and the leaders begin polling committee members for their support on the leadership's priority bills, Montgomery’s legislators should not say yes or no. Instead, they should say something like, “I’m studying it.” “I’m talking to my colleagues about it.” “I’m undecided.” The Republicans can be counted on to oppose anything desired by the Governor or the Democratic leadership, so hesitation on the part of Montgomery’s legislators will throw the fate of more than a few bills into doubt.

This will make some of these committees very difficult for their chairs to manage. Consider the all-important Senate Budget and Taxation Committee. It has 15 members, of whom three are from Montgomery and four are Republicans. If all the Montgomery members and all the Republicans did not support a measure, Chairman Ulysses Currie would have a remaining margin of just one vote. That is awfully tight.

Consider the House Judiciary Committee. It has 22 members, of whom five are from Montgomery and six are Republicans. If all of the Montgomery and Republican delegates did not support a bill, it could not pass through the committee.

Here’s how the ten standing committees of the two chambers break down:

Senate Budget and Taxation: 15 members, 3 from Montgomery, 4 Republicans. Remaining margin: 1 vote.
Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs: 9 members, 1 from Montgomery, 3 Republicans. Remaining margin: 1 vote.
Senate Finance: 11 members, 1 from Montgomery, 3 Republicans. Remaining margin: 3 votes.
Senate Judicial Proceedings: 11 members, 3 from Montgomery (including the Chair), 4 Republicans. Remaining margin: Negative 3 votes.

House Appropriations: 26 members, 4 from Montgomery, 6 Republicans. Remaining margin: 6 votes.
House Economic Matters: 23 members, 3 from Montgomery, 6 Republicans. Remaining margin: 5 votes.
House Environmental Matters: 23 members, 3 from Montgomery, 6 Republicans. Remaining margin: 5 votes.
House Health and Government Operations: 24 members, 3 from Montgomery, 7 Republicans. Remaining margin: 2 votes.
House Judiciary: 22 members, 5 from Montgomery, 6 Republicans. Remaining margin: Zero votes.
House Ways and Means: 21 members, 6 from Montgomery (including the Chair), 5 Republicans. Remaining margin: Negative 1 vote.

By sticking together, the Montgomery delegation can make many of these committees difficult (or even impossible) to control. This is a gigantic opportunity for leverage over the leadership that can only be exploited through cooperation and discipline.

5. String it Out Until the End

Everyone knows that little happens in Annapolis until the last two weeks of the general session. Consider the order of battle if the prior four steps are followed. Montgomery’s legislators have agreed on a common program to protect their county. A few rogues have strayed, been chastised, and been brought back into compliance. Prior to the session, many political contributors in the county have mysteriously slowed down their rate of giving to anti-Montgomery politicians. Montgomery’s legislators have introduced an unusually low number of bills. Few of the Governor’s and the leadership’s priorities have moved out of the committees because of a lack of support from the Montgomery delegation. And now the end of the session is approaching.

Suddenly, Big Daddy and the Governor will be ready to deal. What is Montgomery’s price? At this point, the concessions demanded by the newly-empowered Montgomery delegation could be significant: no transfer of teacher pensions, more education money, more transportation money. And they will get most of it if they stick to our plan because the Governor and the leaders will have no other choice.

Organization defeats disorganization, willpower defeats weakness and leadership defeats fecklessness. Every single time. So what are you waiting for, Montgomery legislators? It's time to take charge in Annapolis!

How to Get Clout in Annapolis, Part Two

In Part One, we covered the prevailing opinion of many about our county’s state legislators: they need to improve their effectiveness in protecting Montgomery’s interests in Annapolis. Step one in doing that is examining the incentives of the opponents.

One of the biggest obstacles to Montgomery’s clout in Annapolis is Senate President Mike Miller. Back in May, we offered this description of Miller’s practice of power:

Better than anyone, Mike Miller understands the volatile and fragile mix of ego, fear, hope, insecurity and the needy desire to be loved that defines most politicians. He knows how to push every one of those buttons. He praises obedient Senators as courageous. He predicts dire consequences for the wayward. He shuffles subcomittee chairmanships and vice-chairmanships like cards in an ever-winning hand. He elevates junior Senators above senior ones when they stick with the boss. A longtime Annapolis player told me, “We call him Big Daddy. When people screw up, he doesn’t get mad at them. Instead, he tells them he's ‘disappointed.’ No one wants to let Dad down.”

Big Daddy is a formidable opponent for anyone seeking more power in state politics, including Governors. Mike Miller wants two things: first, as many Democratic seats in the Senate as he can get, and second, making the holders of those seats dependent on him for money and support. Those two goals go together. As the Democratic Party pushes out into conservative areas (like the Baltimore suburbs, the Eastern Shore and Western Maryland) and increases its Senate ranks, the Democrats who hold those outlying seats are vulnerable. Both Miller and Governor O’Malley have an obvious incentive to direct as much campaign money and state funding to those districts as possible. If Miller can help those vulnerable Senators survive, they will be grateful – and obedient – to the boss. This will increase Miller’s stranglehold on power. But the strategy is only feasible if the resources controlled by Miller and O’Malley are directed to these fragile districts. That means they cannot be tied up in Montgomery County, especially if the delegations in Baltimore City and Prince George’s County are restive.

House Speaker Mike Busch has similar incentives as the Senate President, but he has a larger margin in his chamber and is generally more subtle than Miller. As for the Governor, he is focused on winning Baltimore County in his re-election campaign. So the three most powerful politicians in the state are united in one objective: directing state funding to just about anywhere else other than Montgomery County. Why? Because it does no good to them to shore up an area that is supposedly wealthy enough to take care of itself and liberal enough to vote Democratic no matter what. This is a severe problem for every Montgomery County politician, state and local.

Montgomery has carried this burden for a long time but now things are coming to a head. As we have previously chronicled, the tax hikes of the 2007 special session and the spending cuts of the 2008 general session have not eliminated the state’s long-run budget deficit. Since the legislature will not implement any more major tax increases prior to the next election year and many significant spending cuts have already been made, only two options remain: revenue from the slots referendum and sending teacher pension obligations, which are now mostly paid by the state, down to the counties. Montgomery budget officials tell me that if pension funding is shifted down from the state, the county would face an extra $120 million per year in costs or more. Putting that in perspective, each percentage point of the county’s 5% public employee union pay increase equals about $20 million. That means Montgomery County could cancel the entire pay increase for all of its unionized employees and still be unable to pay the cost of assuming state-funded teacher pensions. One high-ranking budget official described the fiscal impact of a state handoff of pension funding as “a nuclear explosion.”

Will Montgomery County be spared this fate if the slots referendum passes? Not necessarily, for three reasons. First, it will take several years for any casinos to be up and running. Second, slots revenues may not be as high as projected (currently estimated at over $500 million per year). Third, an election year is coming in 2010. The Governor and the legislative leaders will be looking to spend some serious money to get votes. If slots money is not enough, pension obligations may have to be shed. And that means a state-sponsored fiscal nuke will annihilate Montgomery County’s budget.

But our delegation can fight back. We’ll learn how in Part Three.

Governor, Leave it Alone (Updated)

One month ago, I criticized Governor O’Malley for allocating $46.3 million for school construction in Montgomery County instead of the $55 million he promised our state delegation in the special session. After that, I was willing to let it lie. I know how tight the state budget is. But the Governor will just not let this go.

According to Maryland Moment’s John Wagner, the Governor went after Montgomery County school construction director Joe Lavorgna at a recent Board of Public Works meeting. The Governor claimed, correctly, that his administration had allocated $98 million for school construction in its first two years – much more than Governor Ehrlich’s $19.6 million. Wagner reports this exchange:

“Was there another county that got as much as $98 million?” O’Malley asked Joe Lavorgna, who oversees school construction in Montgomery County and attended the board’s meeting.

Lavorgna had been invited to the lectern by Franchot, a former Montgomery delegate, to explain the ramifications of receiving less funding than Montgomery officials had anticipated based on closed-door conversations during the special session. During that session, lawmakers took tough votes on tax increases and slot machines.

Lavorgna said that some local money would be used to close the shortfall in construction funding and that some projects could be pushed back.

O’Malley asked Lavorgna to give a copy of a chart showing a comparison to the Ehrlich years to his boss, Montgomery Schools Superintendent Jerry D. Weast. O’Malley said spoke recently with Weast by phone.

Lavorgna appeared taken aback by the exchange.

“I’m not here to complain about the state aid,” he said.

The Governor should have let this drop. Instead, he is putting this issue back in our faces. And he is badly misreading the political mood in this county.

1. Montgomery County residents have just suffered twin hits from state and county tax hikes. No one, not the richest nor the poorest, has escaped them. And on top of that, we are being reminded that our state aid is less than our legislators were promised.

2. The school construction fight exacerbates a long-held perception that the county does not get its fair due from the state. In last week’s apocalyptic budget sessions, County Council President Mike Knapp said from the dais that the state regarded Montgomery County as its “piggy bank.” None of his colleagues disagreed with him. More people are beginning to remark on the statistic that Montgomery gets only 15 cents of every dollar it pays in state taxes back in the form of direct state grants. The state average is 35 cents.

3. School construction is a big issue in this county. Frustration about over-crowded schools was a factor in electing several slow-growth County Council Members in 2006. Last year’s growth policy doubled development impact taxes in an effort to pay for more school capacity. And delays on school improvements have been a hot topic for many county parents over the last several months.

4. Opposition to disparate impacts on Montgomery County drove many of our state legislators to vote against the Governor’s proposed millionaire tax. Now that the Governor is resurrecting the school construction dispute, he is encouraging our delegation to act more parochially. This is unhealthy for his remaining agenda.

Politicians, of all people, are hardly surprised when other politicians break their promises. (It is always entertaining to hear one of them complain about how politicians in general can't be trusted!) The wise thing for the Governor to do would have been to let this lie and move on to other matters likely to attract our state legislators’ support. But instead he is throwing the school issue back at us and inviting discontent. Governor, for your own sake, leave it alone.

Update: The Baltimore Sun has more here. It seems the event was instigated by Comptroller Peter Franchot and that makes the Governor's reaction slightly more understandable. However, the Governor should have known better than to fall into the Comptroller's trap.

Governor, It’s Up to You

In a comment on my previous post calling for Maryland’s uncommitted super delegates to jointly announce their support for Senator Barack Obama, District 39 Delegate Saqib Ali said the following:

Adam, Why do you only put the responsibility on the 9 unpledged Super-Delegates?

I agree that all the uncommitted Super Delegates should immediately endorse Senator Obama.

However the 11 Super Delegates who have previously pledged to Senator Clinton should also SWITCH to Senator Obama post-haste. It is their responsibility to heal the party every bit as much as the uncommitted SuperDs.

In fact if "The Clinton 11" switch, it would have a net effect of +22 for Obama. It would be a crushing blow. It would have a huge mathematical and psychological effect. It might end the nomination battle today.

So yes, the 9 uncommitted should join the Obama train. But even more important, The Clinton 11 should join too!

Delegate Ali makes a fair point. Maryland’s pro-Clinton super delegates are:

Governor Martin O’Malley
Senator Barbara Mikulski
Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger
State Treasurer Nancy Kopp
Former Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend
Alvaro Cifuentes, Former Chair, DNC Hispanic Caucus
Maria Cordone, Director of Community Services, International Association of Machinists
Richard Michalski, Vice President, International Association of Machinists
Glenard Middleton, President, AFSCME Council 67
Carol Pensky, Founder, DNC Women’s Forum
Michael Steed, Managing Director, Paladin Capital Group

We should note that both AFSCME and the Machinists have endorsed Senator Clinton. Since the Clinton Administration fought hard to pass NAFTA, which has devastated the Machinists, many of the rest of us in labor have been scratching our heads over their endorsement for many months.

The key figure in the above list is Governor O’Malley. He alone has the power to deliver most if not all of Maryland’s super delegates as a group, as Delegate Ali suggests. Some believe that the Governor has national ambitions. What better way to enter the national stage as a bold deliverer of the party from a continuing bloody primary fight?

There are more parochial reasons for the Governor to intervene. Maryland badly needs federal funding for its BRAC transportation projects, its three proposed transit projects (Baltimore’s Red Line and the Washington suburbs’ Purple Line and Corridor Cities Transitway) and further cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay. How would the Governor be better positioned in pursuing those funds? By sticking with a furious, increasingly ugly Clinton campaign to the bitter, losing end? Or by delivering victory in the primary to future President Obama?

Governor, it’s up to you. We are watching.

Gays vs. the Governor

The Sun reported yesterday on growing dissatisfaction among gays against Governor O’Malley. But in fact, resentment towards the Governor has been building inside the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community for at least eight months.

Last September, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that state law forbids same-sex marriage. While the Governor did not have a hand in the ruling itself, he released this statement to the Washington Blade:

I look forward to reading the Court's full opinion, but as we move forward, those of us with the responsibility of passing and enforcing laws have an obligation to protect the rights of all individuals equally, without telling any faith how to define its sacraments… I respect the Court's decision.

Gays across the state immediately took this as a betrayal. What did the court’s decision on civil marriage have to do with any religion’s sacraments? And why did the Governor fail to include a right to marriage as one of the rights that should be protected for “all individuals equally?” The plaintiffs in the marriage lawsuit immediately unveiled emails sent to them by the Governor expressing his support for marriage rights as recently as August 2005. Blade editor and blogger Kevin Naff fumed:

As gay Marylanders were reeling from the high court decision upholding the state’s marriage ban – shedding tears and canceling wedding plans – the governor released a statement that didn’t offer sympathy or condolences. Instead, he said he respected the court’s decision – an opinion unparalleled in its gratuitously offensive language – and that lawmakers shouldn’t tell religions how to define the sacraments.

With that statement, O’Malley kicked us all at a time when we were down and we should not forget it. No more gay money. No more gay votes. No more door-to-door gay support or green bumper stickers or yard signs. After distinguishing himself as a brash young politician of a new generation, he has revealed himself to be a typical climber, so blinded by national ambition that he would break any promise to pad his resume and preserve his power.

Neither marriage nor civil unions passed in the 2008 general session, but bills providing gay partners the right to visit each other in the hospital and limited exemptions from some property taxes did pass. One sticking point was on partnership benefits for state employees. The Governor says the state cannot afford them despite the fact that their cost – about $3 million per year – equals approximately 0.02% of the state’s general fund. That helped to prompt this comment from one of the state’s most prominent gay rights leaders:

“There's just not a lot to be enthusiastic about, because the governor hasn't done much to help us move forward,” said Dan Furmansky, director of Equality Maryland, a leading gay rights group. “Why did the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community work so hard to elect this person? What do we have to show for it at this point?”

Make no mistake: marriage equality is inevitable, regardless of O’Malley’s calculations and vacillations. Perhaps it will come to pass under Governor Doug Gansler.

Put Your Finger in the Wind

A couple weeks ago, Governor O’Malley declared that wind turbines could not be constructed on state-owned land. While the Governor’s desire to protect forest land in Western Maryland is understandable, the simple truth is that his ambitious goals on limiting greenhouse gas emissions cannot be met without wind power.

The end of the last general session saw the defeat of a bill backed by the Governor that would have mandated a 25% emission reduction by 2020. At the same time, the Governor worked hard to secure a deal with Constellation Energy to recover rebates for customers and protect them from liabilities associated with shutting down the Calvert Cliffs nuclear reactor. And the Governor has a long-standing goal of limiting electricity rate increases for consumers. The only way to reduce emissions, restrain the cost of electric power for Maryland ratepayers and retire Calvert Cliffs simultaneously is to combine conservation with lots of new green power sources. That means windmills.

Longtime readers will recall the love affair some of my union members have for nuclear plants. My account may be true, but it is sometimes more complicated than that. The major problem with nuclear energy is the storage and disposal of radioactive waste. The national building trades unions have long favored construction of a waste storage site at Yucca Mountain, an hour’s drive outside of Las Vegas, but the issue strained the Southern Nevada Building Trades. Over ten years ago, at a chair-throwing, fist-brandishing meeting, the local trades voted to support the storage plan after much anguished debate. Balancing millions of man-hours against creating a nearby radioactive dump in the desert was a tough call for them.

The building trades have no ambivalence about wind power. My union pursues it with unrestrained eagerness and assigns international representatives to hunt it down. We have worked for most of the biggest wind generators in the country, including Florida Power & Light and Invenergy. Windmill construction involves laying power cables, pouring concrete pads, erecting and installing turbines and performing endless maintenance work. In Maryland, our total package is over $30 per hour, including payments for training, health and welfare and pension benefits. These jobs are as good as gold for the state.

Unfortunately, Maryland is not moving fast enough to realize this promise. In 1991, the state generated 39.9 million megawatt-hours (MWH) of electric power, of which 57% came from coal, 23% came from nuclear, 10% came from petroleum and 4% came from natural gas. Only 1.2% came from non-hydro renewables. In 2006, the state generated 49.0 million MWH of electric power, of which 60% came from coal, 28% came from nuclear, 1% came from petroleum and 4% came from natural gas. Only 1.3% came from non-hydro renewables. We are as dependent on fossil fuels and nuclear energy as we have ever been. What will happen when Calvert Cliffs, the state’s sole nuclear plant, is retired?

Wind power is becoming a more versatile source of energy with each passing year. Offshore developments are gaining traction, including this huge one planned for the British coast. Farmers are using them to supplement agricultural incomes. Some firms are even proposing roof-top windmills. But for the most part, windmills still have an important drawback: they require lots of land to produce modest amounts of power. A typical industrial wind turbine can put out anywhere from one-half to two megawatts (MW) of power, with a megawatt representing enough capacity to power 600-1,000 homes. So a development of 25 windmills on 100 acres could produce 12-50 MW. A fossil facility on a site of similar size could produce hundreds, even thousands, of megawatts. We do need land to build windmills and the Governor’s blanket prohibition does not help.

The United Steelworkers Union played a significant role in defeating the emissions bill. Their concern was that emissions restrictions would kill employment in their industries. The key to winning labor support for green energy is to tie it to the creation of lots of high-paying jobs. One way to do that would be to offer tax breaks to windmill owners (including small owners like farmers) that would only apply to windmills constructed by contractors with benefit plans and registered apprenticeship programs. The industrial facilities that employ the Steelworkers could use a cap-and-trade system to buy clean power credits from windmill owners. The state would get clean energy, residential and business consumers would have abundant electricity and less upward pressure on rates, power companies could avoid blackout risks and hundreds, maybe even thousands of Marylanders would have access to middle class jobs with training and benefits. Yes, it is possible for environmentalists and building trades guys to sit down at the same table, eating tofu and slamming cold ones, together.

So come on, Governor, stop shooting the breeze! Let’s get to work.

Governor to MoCo: Build Your Own Schools! (Updated)

The Post is reporting that the O’Malley administration plans to allocate $46.3 million in school construction aid to Montgomery County, less than the $55 million he promised in last year’s special session. The amount of money in dispute is small. But the symbolic value of the Governor’s action is huge.

Simply put, the Governor needs Montgomery County. He needs our tax revenues. He needs our 32 votes in the legislature. He needs our votes and campaign contributions at election time. Without any of the above, his administration will fail.

But the county is not in terrible need of the Governor. No one remembers the last time the state had a governor from Montgomery County. (If you know, report it in the comments!) In administration after administration, Montgomery has received far, far less in tax dollars from the state than it has contributed. That has remained the case under Governors Ehrlich (who came from the Baltimore suburbs), Glendening (from Prince George’s), Schaefer (Baltimore City), Hughes (Eastern Shore), Mandel (Baltimore City) and possibly every other governor in the 20th Century. We would fare just as badly under another non-MoCo Democratic governor as we are under O’Malley – in truth, it would make little difference.

Our state legislators delivered tough, agonizing votes on taxes and slots in the special session for the good of the state, the good of the party and the good of Governor O’Malley. Many of them were pilloried for the tax hikes and the slots votes. Many of them are still getting hammered, one way or the other, about the millionaire tax. And as payment we are left to haggle over pennies.

For those who do not know us, we are a diverse lot in Montgomery County. Our ranks include entrepreneurs, tree huggers, union members, government employees, immigrants, the working poor and many, many more. But every single one of us agrees on one thing: WE DEMAND TO BE TREATED FAIRLY BY OUR STATE.

Governor, if you want an all-out torch-burning, pitchfork-waving revolt in this county, you are well on your way to getting one.

Update:
The Gazette is now carrying the story as well. When reading the two articles, it's important to keep in mind the sources of quotes from Montgomery County officials. County Executive Ike Leggett, County Council President Mike Knapp, Senators Rona Kramer, Rich Madaleno and Nancy King, Delegate Brian Feldman and MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast's Chief of Staff do not universally agree on many things, but they are all frustrated with the Governor. While few would dare say it in the way I did, I will bet that the vast majority of Montgomery County's politicians are saying privately what I said publicly.

The Problem with Peter Franchot

The war of words between Governor Martin O’Malley and Comptroller Peter Franchot escalated yesterday. The Governor branded the Comptroller as a hypocrite for crusading against slots after voting for them in 2001. The Comptroller’s spokesman then referred to the Governor’s “attack” as “unusual” and “regrettable.” But what is truly regrettable is the nature of the Comptroller’s engagement in the state’s political debates.

From the start, Peter Franchot said he was not going to be your grandfather’s sort of Comptroller. He was going to be an activist, independent spokesman for Maryland taxpayers. Boy, I thought, this was going to be great. After all, activist independent spokespeople provide great fodder for bloggers!

Soon enough, the Comptroller proved good on his word. He questioned the need to hold a special session last year. He opposed the computer tax as soon as it was suggested. Senate President Mike Miller criticized Franchot and his staff for being “missing in action this entire year in terms of helping the state solve the budget crisis. ... Certainly, during the entire [22] days of the special session he was gone.” Soon after, Franchot became embroiled in an ugly battle with the Senate over his staffing practices and conduct in office. And that’s to say nothing about his opinions on slots!

Now we try to follow a tradition of constructive criticism on this blog. After our rip-roaring romps against MCDCC last year over its legislative appointment process, Paul Gordon suggested holding mid-term special elections and using a variety of ways to incorporate district resident input into MCDCC votes. When I found the Governor’s original special session package to be regressive, I laid out how to seize tax revenues from cheating employers who were costing the state millions. And when I opposed the computer tax, I suggested a package containing the Governor’s original upper-income tax rates, combined reporting and a corporate tax hike as a replacement.

It is very, very easy to criticize someone else’s ideas. It can be very, very challenging to craft a viable alternative. Franchot’s problem is not that he is an anti-slots liberal or that he butts heads with the Senate President. (After all, someone has to fight with Miller!) It’s that he does not supply us with a better way to deal with our problems. What does a progressive alternative to the things he criticizes look like? I’d really like to know, but he never tells us.

And the slots issue is becoming an excruciatingly difficult one. The latest state budget information holds that if the slots referendum is not passed, the state will face $600 million annual budget deficits forever. Regular readers know that I’m not a fan of slots. But after the legislature’s regressive special session tax package, the most likely alternative to slots money will be more sales tax increases or horrendous budget cuts, possibly to education, health care and transportation. These are really tough choices and any honest person who cares about both preventing slots and pursuing progressive economic policy is going to wrestle with them.

So what is the Comptroller’s recommendation? According to the Post:

Asked by a reporter how he would replace the revenue if the referendum is defeated, Franchot offered no specifics. He said the state should be nurturing the life sciences sector, industries that would presumably contribute more to the tax base upon its growth.

I’m sorry, Mr. Franchot. If you are going to earn my loyalty, you have to do better than that.

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!

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.

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.