Enough is Enough

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is tough, smart and a hell of a campaigner. But after her crushing loss in North Carolina and narrow win in Indiana yesterday, it is clear that she will not be the Democratic nominee for President. To maximize the chances of beating Senator John McCain, it is time for the Democratic race to end. And the following nine Maryland residents can make that happen.

Now that 93% of the pledged delegates have been selected in the state primaries, the winner will be decided by the party’s super delegates. For the most part, they are sitting or former Senators, Congressmen, state and local elected leaders and state and national Democratic National Committee members. As of this writing, there are 795 super-delegates, of whom 271 are pledged to Hillary Clinton and 257 are pledged to Barack Obama. If the super delegates decide to support Senator Clinton, they will be overturning their own party’s popular vote. That is incomprehensible for a party that calls itself “Democratic.” Out of respect for their own voters and in the interest of taking the fight to the formidable Senator McCain, the party’s super delegates must state their support for Senator Obama. And they must do it now, before another Democrat-on-Democrat attack ad is broadcast or another self-inflicted wound to the party appears in the papers, the cable channels or YouTube.

Maryland has 29 super delegates, of whom 11 are pledged to Senator Clinton, 8 are pledged to Senator Obama and 10 are undecided. The 10 undecided super delegates are:

Senator Ben Cardin
Congressman John Sarbanes
Congressman Steny Hoyer
Congressman Chris Van Hollen
Susan Turnbull, Vice Chairwoman of the National DNC, Bethesda
John Gage, President, American Federation of Government Employees
Belkis Leong-Hong, President, Knowledge Advantage Inc., Gaithersburg
Heather Mizeur, State Delegate from District 20, Takoma Park
Gregory Pecoraro, City Council Member in Westminster
John Sweeney, President, AFL-CIO

Ms. Turnbull is unable to commit to a candidate because she is an officer of the national DNC, but the other nine are free to vote their conscience. It should not be a difficult choice. Maryland Democrats voted for Senator Obama by 60-36.5%. Senator Obama won 55% of the vote in both Congressman Sarbanes’ and Congressman Van Hollen’s districts and claimed a whopping 66% in Congressman Hoyer’s district. Delegate Mizeur’s State District 20 voted for Senator Obama by 64-35%.

Senator Clinton cannot win unless she convinces the party establishment to ignore its own rank and file – an unthinkable prospect that reminds us of George W. Bush’s “victory” in 2000. How many more attack ads, pot shots, innuendos and whisperings must we endure before marching into the real battle against the Republicans?

If the nine uncommitted Maryland super delegates above declare for Senator Obama on the same day, that could strike the final blow in the Democratic contest. Ladies and gentlemen, please do it – NOW. And then onward to victory in November.

Who Really Opposes Slots? (Updated)

Marylanders United to Stop Slots recently released a list of 102 state leaders serving on its steering committee. Of the 15 State Senators and 52 Delegates who voted against last year’s slots referendum, only 12 have signed on for the anti-slots campaign.

The elected leaders on the steering committee are:

Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R MD-1)

Comptroller Peter Franchot
Senator C. Anthony Muse (D-26, Prince George’s)
Senator Paul Pinsky (D-22, Prince George’s)
Delegate Curt Anderson (D-43, Baltimore City)
Delegate Joanne Benson (D-24, Prince George’s)
Delegate Elizabeth Bobo (D-12B, Howard)
Delegate Aisha Braveboy (D-25, Prince George’s)
Delegate Bill Bronrott (D-16, Montgomery)
Delegate Jill Carter (D-41, Baltimore City)
Delegate Marvin Holmes (D-23B, Prince George’s)
Delegate James Hubbard (D-23A, Prince George’s)
Delegate Tom Hucker (D-20, Montgomery)
Delegate Jolene Ivey (D-47, Prince George’s)
Delegate Gerron Levi (D-23A, Prince George’s)
Delegate Anthony McConkey (R-33A, Anne Arundel)
Delegate Karen Montgomery (D-14, Montgomery)
Delegate Victor Ramirez (D-47, Prince George’s)
Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17, Montgomery)
Delegate Herman Taylor (D-14, Montgomery)
Delegate Michael Vaughn (D-24, Prince George’s)

G. James Benoit, Anne Arundel County Council Member
Will Campos, Prince George’s County Council Member
Joshua Cohen, Anne Arundel County Council Member
Nancy Howard, Ocean City Councilwoman
Glenn Ivey, State’s Attorney, Prince George’s County
George Leventhal, Montgomery County Council Member
Eric Olson, Prince George’s County Council Member
Ryan Spiegel, Gaithersburg City Councilmember
Bruce Williams, Takoma Park Mayor

Of the above state legislators, Delegates Bronrott, Hubbard, Hucker, Ivey, Ramirez and Vaughn voted in favor of the referendum and Delegate Montgomery was excused from the vote. That means that only 12 of 67 legislators who voted against the referendum, or 18% of the no-votes, have joined the anti-slots coalition.

Also notable is the fact that 13 of the 30 elected steering committee members are from Prince George’s County. Montgomery County, which is often described as a stronghold of slots opposition, only has nine members (counting the Comptroller). Absent from the list are all of the state’s County Executives.

The following state legislators voted against the slots referendum but have not joined the anti-slots campaign:

Senator David Brinkley (R-4, Frederick/Carroll)
Senator George Della (D-46, Baltimore City)
Senator Brian Frosh (D-16, Montgomery)
Senator Barry Glassman (R-35, Harford – a delegate at the time of the vote)
Senator Janet Greenip (R-33, Anne Arundel)
Senator Larry Haines (R-5, Baltimore County/Carroll)
Senator Andrew Harris (R-Baltimore County/Harford)
Senator Nancy Jacobs (R-34, Cecil/Harford)
Senator Allan Kittleman (R-9, Carroll/Howard)
Senator Alex Mooney (R-3, Frederick/Washington)
Senator E.J. Pipkin (R-36, Eastern Shore)
Senator Jamie Raskin (D-20, Montgomery)
Senator Bryan Simonaire (R-31, Anne Arundel)
Senator J. Lowell Stoltzfus (R-38, Eastern Shore)

Delegate Saqib Ali (D-39, Montgomery)
Delegate Susan Aumann (R-42, Baltimore County)
Delegate Charles Barkley (D-39, Montgomery)
Delegate Joseph Bartlett (R-4A, Frederick)
Delegate Gail Bates (R-9A, Howard)
Delegate Wendell Beitzel (R-1A, Garrett/Allegany)
Delegate Joseph Boteler III (R-8, Baltimore County)
Delegate Emmett Burns Jr. (D-10, Baltimore County)
Delegate Rudolph Cane (D-37A, Eastern Shore)
Delegate Robert Costa (R-33B, Anne Arundel)
Delegate Don Dwyer (R-31, Anne Arundel)
Delegate Adelaide Eckardt (R-37B, Eastern Shore)
Delegate Donald Elliott (R-4B, Carroll/Frederick)
Delegate William Frank (R-42, Baltimore County)
Delegate Ron George (R-30, Anne Arundel)
Delegate Jeannie Haddaway (R-37B, Eastern Shore)
Delegate J.B. Jennings (R-7, Baltimore/Harford)
Delegate Kevin Kelly (D-1B, Allegany)
Delegate Nicholas Kipke (R-31, Anne Arundel)
Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19, Montgomery)
Delegate Susan Krebs (R-9B, Carroll)
Delegate James Mathias Jr. (D-38B, Eastern Shore)
Delegate Susan McComas (R-35B, Harford)
Delegate Patrick McDonough (R-7, Baltimore/Harford)
Delegate Robert McKee (R-2A, Washington, since resigned)
Delegate Warren Miller (R-9A, Howard)
Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20, Montgomery)
Delegate Peter Murphy (D-28, Charles)
Delegate LeRoy Myers Jr. (R-1C, Allegany/Washington)
Delegate Anthony O’Donnell (R-29C, Calvert/St. Mary’s)
Delegate Joseline Pena-Melnyk (D-21, Anne Arundel/Prince George’s)
Delegate Steve Schuh (R-31, Anne Arundel)
Delegate Christopher Shank (R-2B, Washington)
Delegate Tanya Thornton Shewell (R-5A, Carroll)
Delegate Michael Smigiel Sr. (R-36, Eastern Shore)
Delegate Richard Sossi (R-36, Eastern Shore)
Delegate Donna Stifler (R-35A, Harford)
Delegate Nancy Stocksdale (R-5A, Carroll)
Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18, Montgomery)
Delegate Mary Roe Walkup (R-36, Eastern Shore)
Delegate John Wood (D-29A, Charles/St. Mary’s)

Update:
In an interview on a Cumberland radio station, the Governor renewed his push for slots. According to the Sun:

Gov. Martin O'Malley said today that if a referendum on slot machine gambling fails in November, "it'll be back to the drawing board with a lot of unpopular choices, and I don't think any of us wants to go there."

Nancy Floreen Calls for Across-the-Board Spending Cuts

Montgomery County Council Member Nancy Floreen challenged all county agencies to present a plan to cut their budgets by 2% below the County Executive's proposal on her blog today.

Floreen contends that a 2% across-the-board cut would enable the council to chop the County Executive's property tax increase in half. However, because she would still break the charter limit, her proposal would require seven votes to pass. Floreen argues:

As far as I am concerned, the proposed tax burden is untenable, particularly for the average homeowner facing increased fuel, food and health care costs. I am afraid that this budget is way out of line. In today’s economy, it is unaffordable... I know my colleagues have put their hearts into trying to limit spending. But I don’t believe we have gone far enough. Our neighbors in Fairfax County, the District of Columbia, and Prince George’s County are looking at budget increases of no more than 1.3%. We in Montgomery County need to join the rest of the region in looking toward a more sustainable budget.

It is impossible to overstate the turmoil going on in Rockville right now over the budget. Two council members - Duchy Trachtenberg and Phil Andrews - oppose a property tax increase, enough votes to kill it. Council Member Trachtenberg is eyeing the county's labor contracts for savings. The County Council's Education Committee voted to restore $26 million for public schools and $9.1 million for Montgomery College last week. How can resistance to the property tax hike, increases for education, adherence to union contracts and Floreen's call for across-the-board cuts be reconciled?

We'll find out soon enough. Zero hour for the budget is next week.

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.

Maryland AFL-CIO Backs Slots

In a development that surprised no one, both the Maryland/District of Columbia AFL-CIO and the Metropolitan Baltimore AFL-CIO announced their backing of slots today.

The Sun carried this classic quote:

"The main reason we're doing this is because of jobs, and that's what the hell we're supposed to do," said Ernie Grecco, president of the Metropolitan Baltimore Council AFL-CIO. He noted that racetracks such as Pimlico are "wall to wall" union facilities. "We're going to be contacting our members and asking them in November to get out there and vote for slot machines."

Jobs, jobs, jobs! Now that's a union guy talking!

The pro-slots side has been picking up momentum in the last couple months by earning support from the Maryland State Teachers Association, the Maryland Association of Counties and the Maryland Chamber of Commerce. But the AFL-CIO's endorsement does not mean that labor is monolithically pro-slots. MCEA resisted the state teachers board's pro-slots vote and one of the leaders of the anti-slots campaign is Chuck Graham, business manager of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 26.

As a fellow building trades guy, I cannot resist asking this question. If the IBEW is opposed to the casinos, do the other trades get to perform the electrical work if the casinos go up?

Challenge to the Unions, Part Two

In Part One, we reported on County Council Member and Management and Fiscal Policy Chairwoman Duchy Trachtenberg’s letter to public employee union MCGEO offering a choice between layoffs and COLA reductions. Today we examine whether those measures are justified by the county’s dire budget situation.

Concerned over the county’s long-run finances, Council Member Trachtenberg asked council staff for an estimate of the future obligations to the county imposed by its public employee union contracts. Two weeks later, the County Council’s merit staff director responded with a 129-page memo outlining those costs. Page 2 of the memo contained this statement:

Councilmember Trachtenberg has requested information on agency compensation costs over time. One measure of these costs is the cumulative fiscal impact of the current or pending three-year negotiated agreements with the six County and MCPS unions, starting with the base year. See the fiscal impact statements on pages 37-39 and 111-113. The cumulative fiscal impacts are $117.9 million for MCGEO [government employees], $45.4 million for the FOP [police], $37.2 million for the IAFF [fire fighters], $61.9 million for non-represented employees in County Government, and $577.7 million for MCPS.

The total of these amounts, $840.1 million, does not include higher ongoing costs for health benefits for active and retired employees, nor does it include the $1.2 billion cost of the proposed eight-year pre-funding schedule for future retiree health benefits.

Are these marginal costs really accurate? We looked up the supporting data on pages 37-39 and 111-113, which correspond to pages 53-55 and 127-129 in the pdf document. Following is our tabulation of all marginal costs reported.

The marginal costs for each of the employee categories amount to $134 million in FY08, $176 million in FY09, $225 million in FY10 and $21 million in FY11 for a total of $557 million over the four years. (The estimate is low for FY11 because only the fire fighters’ agreements cover that year.) This total is much lower than the $840 million reported on the second page of the staff report, even though that summary refers to the pages tabulated above. There is simply no data in those pages to justify the $840 million estimate.

Furthermore, marginal cost data for FY08 should not be construed as a future obligation faced by the county. FY08, the current fiscal year, expires on 6/30/08. Those costs have mostly been paid already.

Finally, the analysis includes marginal costs due to fire and rescue management and non-represented employees. Why should the unions be held responsible for additional spending on employees they do not represent?

Subtracting out costs for the almost-expired FY08, the fire and rescue management and the non-represented employees, the remaining future obligations faced by the county total $154 million in FY09, $193 million in FY10 and $20 million in FY11, or a combined $368 million. This is a far cry from the $840 million cited at the beginning of the staff report.


Are added salary costs of $150-200 million per year sustainable? The answer depends on the county’s economic performance and the county government’s revenue collections. According to revenue statistics released by the County Executive, revenues collected by the county are projected to rise by $109 million in the current fiscal year (between 7/1/07 and 6/30/08). That overall rise in receipts occurred despite the facts that a) county receipts from the real property transfer tax dropped from $107 million to $80 million (down 25%), b) receipts from the recordation tax dropped from $73 million to $53 million (down 27%) and c) the county may have entered a recession. The above means that even in a really bad year, the county’s revenues continued to rise.

The County Executive’s proposal projects a further rise in receipts in FY09 of $301 million, partially due to his property tax increase. This would be more than enough to pay the $154 million in extra costs associated with the union contracts. At least for next year, the county should be able to meet its labor obligations if it adopts a budget similar to the County Executive’s recommendation.

As for the future, the most volatile components of the county’s revenues are the two tied to real estate sales: the real property transfer tax and the recordation tax. According to the county’s Department of Finance, residential real estate sales volume averaged over $500 million per month from 2006 through the first eight months of 2007. Since then, residential real estate sales volume has averaged between $200 and $300 million per month. It is this collapse in residential real estate transactions that has caused many of the county’s current budget problems. All policymakers – both inside the government and inside the unions – should watch this figure in the Finance Department’s monthly economic updates. If it rises back up to $400 million per month or more, the county’s real property transfer and recordation taxes will begin to recover. If it falls further, tougher times are ahead.

Challenge to the Unions, Part One

In a story first reported by the Washington Post’s Ann Marimow, Montgomery County Council Member and Management and Fiscal Policy Committee Chairwoman Duchy Trachtenberg has written to UFCW Local 1994 (MCGEO), one of the county’s public employee unions, offering a choice between layoffs or smaller pay increases. We reproduce the letter and discuss its importance below.

April 29, 2008

Gino Renne, President
UFCW Local 1994 MCGEO
600 S. Frederick Ave., Ste. 200
Gaithersburg, MD 20877

Dear Mr. Renne:

In light of the difficult decisions County Council faces for the upcoming budget, I am turning to elected union leadership for counsel during this process.

The strong advantage of having union represented county employees is that the union structure, through its elected leadership, is an excellent conduit to reach out to the rank and file. It is important to each councilmember to hear and respect what options county and school employees would prefer as the Council balances the interests of residents across Montgomery County while making our final budget decisions. Without unions in place, this process would be much more difficult.

With the uncertainty of the County Council’s willingness to break the charter limits and concerns over jeopardizing our AAA credit rating, we may well not have the revenue needed to execute the current CBAs [collective bargaining agreements] without invoking their provisions for Reductions in Force. In an abundance of caution, I want to begin a conversation about all available options that might come forward to avoid force reductions as we face the budget deficit.

I am reaching out for an honest and open discussion of options to address our budget deficit. This invitation is extended to MCGEO, SEIU 500, FOP [police], IAFF [fire fighters] and MCEA [teachers]. To facilitate our discussion, below is a list of ideas that have come to my attention that warrant a response from organized labor. You are all invited to submit a memo outlining your concerns and options you feel will be acceptable to the county and school system employees you all represent.

1. If your members were given a choice between a reduction in COLA [cost of living adjustment] or involuntary layoffs through each contract’s provisions for Reduction in Force, which option do you think your rank and file would find most acceptable?

2. The County Executive projects only 58 employees will take an early retirement buyout option. Do you concur with this position, or do you believe there is more demand for this option? What are the best ways to structure these offers to make them more appealing to your members?

3. Would you have members interested and able to participate in a voluntary layoff program that would protect their seniority and health insurance while they drew unemployment for six months? Would there be more interest if this option could be used as a way to bridge a member to retirement?

4. During the District 4 Special Democratic Primary, Don Praisner proposed an extensive labor management cooperation program to help identify savings, much in the same manner as MCGEO’s letter to council. Would your members be interested in such a program?

These questions by no means limit our conversation. For further clarification of this request and any other questions you may have, please contact Eric Hensal through my office. Eric is a former union organizer with a depth of experience in labor issues and a Masters of Public Administration earned through the National Labor College. I am sure you will find Eric an excellent resource as we all chart a course through the current budget crisis.

Cordially,

Duchy Trachtenberg
Chair, Management and Fiscal Policy Committee

cc: Honorable Ike Leggett, County Executive
Honorable Mike Knapp, Council President
Honorable Phil Andrews, Council Vice-President
Steve Farber, Council Staff Director

The letter is a dramatic development in the county’s budget crisis for several reasons.

1. There are only about two weeks to go before the County Council begins voting on the FY09 budget. This letter to the unions comes late in the game. As recently as April 9, the Gazette reported that Council Member Trachtenberg “said the contracts with county employees should be honored.”

2. When Ms. Trachtenberg refers to “the uncertainty of the County Council’s willingness to break the [property tax] charter limits,” she is referring to a situation over which she has some control. After all, Ms. Trachtenberg told the Gazette, “I do not support going over the charter limit.” Added to Council Member Phil Andrews’ opposition to the property tax increase, the tax hike is in real danger of not passing because it requires seven of the current eight council votes. Ms. Trachtenberg’s opposition to the property tax hike may in fact be creating a need for the sort of choices she is now offering the unions.

3. The reference to Eric Hensal is noteworthy. Hensal lost a special election in Takoma Park to fill Marc Elrich’s vacant city council seat and went on to manage Don Praisner’s District 4 County Council campaign. During the District 4 campaign, the Post reported that Hensal was seen entering the County Council building for lunch appointments with staffers for Marilyn Praisner and Ms. Trachtenberg. Has he now been hired as council staff or as a consultant by Ms. Trachtenberg? If he is a consultant, a reference to him in the letter is very unusual. Why would a sitting council member allow a third-party consultant to speak for her on such a vital matter as employee layoffs or COLA reductions?

But there is more. The public sector unions have not forgotten Don Praisner’s frequent criticism of their contracts during the special election. Nor have they forgotten how the Praisner campaign branded union-backed Nancy Navarro as a “special interest” candidate. Are any of the unions likely to view Mr. Praisner’s campaign manager as a desirable interlocutor for labor relations issues?

4. Ms. Trachtenberg gained a famous fan through her letter: none other than Robin Ficker. On Maryland Moment, Ficker squealed with delight:

Trachtenberg is just the kind of person I like---one tough cookie when she wants to be. Continue asking the tough questions Duchy. Social security recipients get a 2.3% increase in 2008 with NO step increases. I loved Charles Barkley. I would ask him, “Charles I know you want to run for Governor of Alabama, but before I vote for you I want to know your views on the economy, NAFTA and healthcare.” He would reply, “Well, I do have a view on the death penalty----they should use it on you!” Trachtenberg reminds me of Barkley.

All of the above is subject to one awful truth: the county is facing a $297 million budget deficit and the County Council has two weeks to go before the tough votes come. Ms. Trachtenberg did not create this deficit and the problems are real. In Part Two, we will examine whether the county can meet its contractual obligations to the unions in the current budget environment.

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.

MoCo: Who Cares About Hospitals? We Want an Arena!

Washington Adventist Hospital’s impending move out of Takoma Park is the biggest development in Montgomery County’s health care system in decades. So why is the Montgomery County government’s reaction one of complete silence?

Currently located in Takoma Park, Adventist is the second-biggest hospital in Montgomery County with 294 beds. After a four-year battle with its neighbors over an expansion plan, Adventist announced it was leaving Takoma Park in 2005. While the hospital’s CEO denied that the conflict with neighbors motivated the move, he did say that its current 14-acre site was not big enough to accommodate the hospital’s long-term needs. Two years later, Adventist purchased 48 acres near US-29 and Cherry Hill Road for a new campus. Montgomery County’s Planning Board unanimously recommended a special exception for the hospital’s land use last week. The final decision on Adventist’s move will be made by the Maryland Health Care Commission and many expect Adventist to file its Certificate of Need (a required application from hospitals for major capital projects) this August.

Holy Cross Hospital is 3.6 miles up Sligo Creek Parkway from Adventist and is the county’s largest hospital (404 beds). When Adventist announced its land purchase, Holy Cross reacted with alarm. Holy Cross told the Gazette and its neighbors that it would be “overwhelmed” by former Adventist patients from Down-county, Prince George’s County and the District if Adventist were allowed to flee up US-29.

This matter is not simply a battle between hospitals. The neighborhoods around Holy Cross have been moved to militancy in recent years by the treacherous conditions at the Intersection of Death, a failed development proposal at the Forest Glen Metro station and a giant expansion planned for the Sligo Creek Golf Course. These same neighborhoods are negotiating with Holy Cross Hospital over its own 100-room expansion after going through a previous one completed in 2005. If Holy Cross is correct, Adventist’s move will plug up Georgia Avenue (including the IOD) and Sligo Creek Parkway, flood Holy Cross’s emergency room and produce enormous health care access problems for Down-county patients.

But Holy Cross may not be correct. Since it is hardly an impartial observer of Adventist’s move, its arguments should be evaluated by an independent entity. Last year, both Holy Cross and my civic association wrote to the Montgomery County Council asking them to fund a health impact study on the effect of Adventist’s move. While the Maryland Health Care Commission is a state agency, it does take into account the views of county governments in deciding on Certificates of Need. Surely, we thought, such a significant event in the county’s health care system could not pass without comment by the county government.

Council Member George Leventhal agreed with us. A year ago, the Gazette reported:

HHS [Health and Human Services Committee] Chairman George L. Leventhal (D-At large) of Takoma Park proposed assessing the financial stability of the county’s hospitals, how moving one hospital would affect the others and how the changes would affect access to health care.

“We need to make decisions based on fact, not on the [back and forth] between hospitals. We don’t really know the effects of the move and we need to find out,” he said.

Despite Leventhal’s dogged advocacy, disagreements over the study’s scope delayed it and the county’s current budget problems ultimately killed it. And so the hospitals and their neighbors prepared for a grim showdown before the Maryland Health Care Commission, with both hospitals submitting their own Certificates of Need for their dueling capital plans and the Montgomery County government standing aside, arms folded, uninterested. Well, we thought, in bad budget times, few get what they want from the county.

And then this Gazette article crackled through the neighborhood like a midnight thunderbolt. While the county has dickered, bickered, delayed and ultimately abdicated any say on its hospitals, it has spent $150,000 (plus $50,000 of state money) on a planning study for a new indoor arena in Germantown. And the county’s Department of Economic Development is requesting $125,000 more! Put aside the merits of the arena (which my union members would no doubt love to build); does planning for an entertainment facility really take precedence over evaluating the impact of a giant hospital relocation? Apparently some believe it does!

So enjoy watching the Maryland Nighthawks play minor league basketball in the new arena! Just don’t choke on that hot dog. The ambulance may not know where to take you.

Millionaires Offered Discount to Move to Virginia

Dear readers, I promise that this is not one of my much-ridiculed spoof posts. Everything that you are about to read is 100% true.

MPW friend and occasional spoof victim Dana Beyer forwarded us an online ad posted by a Virginia real estate agent enticing MoCo millionaires to move. The ad says:

April 09, 2008

Virginia Welcomes Migration of Maryland Millionaires

New Millionaire Tax in Maryland May Cause some to Migrate to Virginia

It's mid-April. Are taxes on your mind?

If you're wealthy and live in Maryland, say hello to the first in the nation, Millionaire's Tax. Signed into law yesterday by Governor Martin O'Malley, the legislation created a new tax bracket for those who earn over $1 million per year. Approximately 6,000 Maryland households fall into this new tax bracket and are subject to a 6.25% tax rate.

According to The Baltimore Sun newspaper, more than 40 percent of these wealthy households are in Montgomery County. While Montgomery County is a great place to live and Maryland is a great state, many of those being hit with this new tax may decide to vote with their feet.

Let me be the first to WELCOME YOU TO VIRGINIA.

As you know, Virginia is just across the Potomac River from Maryland. Northern Virginia offers wonderful amenities, parks, schools, history, culture, and an easy commute to D.C. Homes in the upper brackets are plentiful throughout the area, especially in popular communities like McLean, Great Falls, Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax Station, and more. Another bonus of moving to Virginia -- how about in-state tuition at some of the best public colleges and universities in the country, including University of Virginia, James Madison University, and George Mason University.

Virginia has consistently ranked as the Best State for Business by Forbes Magazine year after year.

Best of all -- Virginia does not have a Millionaire's Tax. (Virginia's highest income tax bracket is 5.75%).

Maybe it's time to contact your Maryland Realtor (I can offer some great suggestions) about selling your Maryland home and moving to Virginia.

I'd be happy to help you find a Northern Virginia home and welcome you to our side of the river.

So I emailed this agent the following inquiry:

Brian, I am disturbed about Maryland's new millionaire tax and am considering moving to Virginia. I have a few friends who are thinking along the same lines. If we all decided to move together, could we work out a discount? - Adam Pagnucco, Silver Spring, Maryland.

The agent replied:

Thanks for your e-mail. I certainly understand being disturbed by the Millionaire Tax in Maryland. We can certainly talk about a discount if you and several others decided to work with me to purchase homes in Virginia.

So what are you waiting for, country club members? I actually got a discount for you to move out. Does this mean we get to build the Purple Line now?

Unmasked: the MCDCC Member Who Voted for Jennings Over Edwards

Relying on our extensive spy network inside the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee (MCDCC), we have uncovered the identity of the MCDCC member who voted to send Jason Jennings and not Donna Edwards to Congress. But first some background.

Back in February, Donna Edwards defeated incumbent 4th District Congressman Al Wynn in the Democratic primary. Shortly afterwards, Wynn announced he was resigning early to accept a lobbying job. The Governor declared that there would be a special general election held on June 17th to determine who would fill the rest of Wynn’s term. There would be no special primary; instead, the party central committees in both Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties would nominate a candidate to stand in the special general election. If the two central committees failed to agree, the state central committee would make the choice.

Donna Edwards, who steamrolled the eight-term incumbent, was widely expected to be MCDCC’s choice. But Jason Jennings, another Democratic challenger who lost badly to Edwards in the primary, submitted his resume to the committee as an alternative. MCDCC voted to nominate Edwards by a margin of 22 to 1. But it’s the one vote in favor of Jennings that has really made tongues wag. “Who was it?” cried out the county’s political junkies.

We gave the top-secret mission to our hardened spy corps inside MCDCC. These are the people who scale the castle walls, pick the locks, steal the bon bons and penetrate the hidden vaults of the Baroness. After numerous brushes with guards, attack dogs and angry peasants from Georgia Avenue, our spies brought back the name of the Jennings voter: Vilma P. White.

Ms. White is a Silver Spring resident who lives in Congressional District 8. She was elected as part of MCDCC’s at-large slate in 2006. The slate had no opposition apart from eternal school board candidate and MPW favorite Tommy Le. We emailed Ms. White asking for comment and she has not responded.

Let’s keep in mind the scope of Edwards’ election victory over Jennings. In the Congressional District 4 primary, Edwards finished first in the district with 78,008 votes. Jennings tied for fourth of seven candidates with 1,429 votes. In Montgomery County, the jurisdiction represented by Ms. White, Edwards received 28,781 votes compared to Jennings’ total of 609. And yet Ms. White, who does not live in Congressional District 4, was convinced that Jennings deserved to be the Democratic nominee despite the overwhelming disagreement of her constituents.

[Sigh…] I guess this is our fault. We have been overly harsh with MCDCC over the last few months. Perhaps the pressure of fending off our constant troublemaking is getting to some of them. I had dismissed the rumor that MCDCC Vice Chairman Alan Banov was seen walking down the center of Connecticut Avenue in full scuba gear, but maybe that was true after all.

So perhaps MCDCC should be given a break. We at MPW are going to start a holiday fund for them so that they can take a well-deserved vacation at Wheaton’s beautiful Brookside Gardens. In the meantime, we will recruit Kevin Gillogly, Robin Ficker, Itchy and Scratchy and Muffitt to hold down the fort.

We can only hope that none of them would vote for Jason Jennings!

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.

MoCo State Legislators on the Millionaire Tax

Preserved for eternity, here are the published comments and the votes by state legislators from Montgomery County (as well as remarks by the County Executive and County Council President) on whether a surcharge for millionaires should replace the computer services tax. Whether you agree with David Lublin or with me, the millionaire tax emerged as a major philosophical dividing line in the county delegation.

Delegate Charles Barkley (D-39), who voted against the millionaire tax, from the Post:

"You can only hit a cash cow so many times before they say, 'We're going to take our milk somewhere else,'" said Del. Charles E. Barkley (D-Montgomery).

Delegate Kumar Barve, the House Majority Leader (D-17), who voted for the millionaire tax, from the Post:

House Majority Leader Kumar P. Barve (D-Montgomery) defended the repeal bill, modeled on an O'Malley plan, as "a balanced compromise" that would eliminate the computer services tax before it is scheduled to take effect July 1.

"You will be preserving the place of Maryland in the high-tech sweepstakes," Barve said. "I urge you to kill this thing, right here, right now."

Delegate Brian Feldman (D-15), who voted against the millionaire tax, from the Sun:

"A majority of the Montgomery County delegation have a lot of concerns," said Feldman, who said he hopes lawmakers will consider making deeper cuts in O'Malley's spending programs before raising taxes.

"Maybe this isn't the time for new initiatives," he said.

Senator Jennie Forehand (D-17), who voted for the millionaire tax, from the Gazette:

But repealing the tax is a no-brainer to prevent computer firms from leaving the state, said Sen. Jennie M. Forehand (D-Dist. 17) of Rockville.

"Some of the things we passed in November has a negative impact in the counties and put them in a negative situation," she said. "Unlike the millionaires who are well-grounded and are making their money in the state, they won’t leave. But tech companies who would have been affected by this tax could easily have uprooted their businesses and moved."

Delegate Bill Frick (D-16), who voted against the millionaire tax, from Maryland Moment:

Del. C. William Frick (D-Montgomery), a member of the Ways and Means Committee, said he is "disinclined to change the income tax brackets."

"We worked hard on them and reached what we think is an appropriate compromise in the special session," Frick said.

Senator Brian Frosh (D-16), who voted for the millionaire tax, from the Post:

Sen. Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery) said he thinks lawmakers should step back and consider whether raising the tax rate is good public policy, irrespective of the consequences for his county.

"I understand that people say it would hit Montgomery County harder than some other jurisdictions, but we don't get taxed by jurisdiction," Frosh said. "I don't perceive it as a geographic issue."

Delegate Hank Heller (D-19), who voted for the millionaire tax, from the Gazette:

"I don’t think we have to apologize" for fighting higher taxes, said Del. Henry B. Heller (D-Dist. 19) of Leisure World. "Montgomery County, instead of [being] a major decision-maker ... will end up either being the obstructionists or having to go along with it."

The so-called "millionaires tax" will cause Montgomery residents to move across the Potomac River to Northern Virginia, weakening the economy, Heller said.

Delegate Tom Hucker (D-20), who voted for the millionaire tax, from the Post:

"I have to represent all my constituents, not just the millionaires," said Del. Tom Hucker (D-Montgomery). "I think those folks can afford to pay more state income taxes, especially in the wake of enormous federal income tax cuts that they have benefited from for the last six years."

Senator Nancy King (D-39), who voted for the millionaire tax, from the Sun:

…Montgomery County Democratic Sen. Nancy J. King, said she would reluctantly opt for an income tax increase, "If I had to."

Montgomery County Council President Mike Knapp from the Gazette:

The tech tax repeal will burden Montgomery County residents unfairly, said County Council President Michael J. Knapp (D-Dist. 2) of Germantown.

Of the state’s 6,150 millionaires, 41 percent live in Montgomery County; Baltimore County has the next highest number.

"Montgomery County is solving a statewide problem — again," Knapp told reporters in Rockville on Monday.

Senator Rona Kramer (D-14), who voted against the millionaire tax, from Maryland Moment:

Sen. Rona E. Kramer (D-Montgomery), who chairs the county's Senate delegation, said she wants the computer services tax repealed, but would prefer cuts in transportation spending than changes in the income tax structure.

"Montgomery County already does the yeoman's share of supporting the state budget," she said. "It's absolutely inappropriate for one jurisdiction, Montgomery County, to pick up the tab for 50 percent of one tax."

And from the Sun:

"I would not support it," Sen. Rona Kramer, a Montgomery County Democrat on the budget committee, said yesterday.

O'Malley's proposal is a political mistake, she said.

"He's coming to the one jurisdiction where he's still popular and saying: 'We're going to make you compromise again,'" Kramer said. "It's going to make him look terrible."

Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett from the Post:

Leggett said he favors a repeal, partly because the planned tax significantly affects the thriving technology industry in the Washington suburbs. Leggett said, however, that he opposes raising the top personal income tax rate because a large number of wealthy Marylanders live in Montgomery and that he is wary of cuts to transportation funding.

"I want to be supportive of resolving this, certainly as it relates to this computer tax, but Montgomery County cannot be the sole source of solving a statewide problem," he said.

Senator Richard Madaleno (D-18), who voted against the millionaire tax, from the Post:

Sen. Richard S. Madaleno Jr. (D-Montgomery) acknowledged that the number of those who would be affected by the millionaires’ tax is small. "But this is a class of people who generate a lot of tax revenue for Maryland and Montgomery County," Madaleno said. "To create a disincentive for them to stay would be damaging to the rest of us."

And again from the Post:

"Opponents of this tax are not going to characterize it as a millionaires tax," said Sen. Richard S. Madaleno Jr. (D-Montgomery), a member of the budget committee. "It's going to be just another tax increase. . . . This is just more fodder for conservative talk radio."

Madaleno echoed arguments by other Montgomery officials, who have suggested that a higher income tax rate could prompt people who are creating jobs in the county to move. He suggested making cuts in transportation funding to repeal the tech tax.

Madaleno also questioned the political consequences in his county of the governor's support for the millionaires tax.

"I think it could be damaging to O'Malley in the part of the state where he probably remains the strongest," Madaleno said.

Madaleno posted an essay on this topic and others on Free State Politics.

Delegate Craig Rice (D-15), who voted against the millionaire tax, from the Sun:

"This is another ill-fated Senate move," said Rice of the Senate bill, which he criticized for not replacing the computer tax with a long-term revenue source. "We need to move forward with taxing other services."

By an 8-12 vote, [House Ways and Means] committee members also rejected a proposal from Rice that would have cut $150 million from transportation projects but eliminated the tax on millionaires.

And from the Gazette:

"I think Montgomery County has work to do," said Rice (D-Dist. 15) of Germantown. "I think as a delegation, we have got to do a better job at standing together on these things. We should not be balancing tax policy on one class of people."

Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17), who voted against the millionaire tax, from Maryland Moment:

Del. Luiz R.S. Simmons (D-Montgomery) said he is frustrated to see his county become the "last refuge of unimaginative people" during budget crises.

"The tax is always imposed on us," Simmons said, adding that he thinks state leaders perceive Montgomery as a land of wealthy suburbs that is immune to the social ills that require government spending. But he said much of the county is middle-class and struggling during the economic downturn.

"I'm not trying to give you gobbledygook, but if you take a cumulative effect of these tax increases, what you will get is a migration of people out of the county," Simmons said.

"It has nothing to do with defending the millionaires," he added. "I'm not a millionaire. I'm just concerned about us taking hits on many different fronts and the confluence of those is going to hobble our economy."

Delegate Herman Taylor (D-14), who voted for the millionaire tax, from the Gazette:

"You’re exchanging one for the other," Del. Herman L. Taylor Jr. (D-Dist. 14) of Ashton said of the new income tax bracket. "I don’t know if that’s a good compromise. Just like the computer tax, we’re going to have to wait and see. Instead of hitting millionaires’ businesses, we hit millionaires directly."

Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18), who voted against the millionaire tax, from the Gazette:

"The question is how do we replace those revenues in a way that is true to our progressive values and fair to Montgomery County," said Del. Jeffrey D. Waldstreicher (D-Dist. 18) of Kensington.

And here is Senate President Mike Miller’s assessment from the Sun:

Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller said lawmakers from Montgomery County held the key to breaking the deadlock, noting that they were the most adamant opponents of both the "tech tax" and the proposed levy on those earning more than $1 million annually. He said the county also receives the most in state transportation funding, leaving its representatives reluctant to redirect that money.

The county "is in the eye of the storm," he said.

That it is, Mr. Miller. That it is.

The final vote tally among Montgomery County’s state legislators is:

For replacing the computer tax with a surcharge on people making $1 million a year or more:

Senator Brian Frosh (D-16)
Senator Rob Garagiola (D-15)
Senator Nancy King (D-39)
Senator Mike Lenett (D-19)
Senator Jamie Raskin (D-20)
Delegate Saqib Ali (D-39)
Delegate Kumar Barve (D-17)
Delegate Bill Bronrott (D-16)
Delegate James Gilchrist (D-17)
Delegate Hank Heller (D-19)
Delegate Sheila Hixson (D-20)
Delegate Tom Hucker (D-20)
Delegate Anne Kaiser (D-14)
Delegate Susan Lee (D-16)
Delegate Roger Manno (D-19)
Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20)
Delegate Karen Montgomery (D-14)
Delegate Kirill Reznik (D-39)
Delegate Herman Taylor (D-14)

Against replacing the computer tax with a surcharge on people making $1 million a year or more:

Senator Rona Kramer (D-14)
Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18)
Delegate Charles Barkley (D-39)
Delegate Al Carr (D-18)
Delegate Kathleen Dumais (D-15)
Delegate Brian Feldman (D-15)
Delegate Bill Frick (D-16)
Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-18)
Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19)
Delegate Craig Rice (D-15)
Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17)
Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18)

Valerie Ervin Issues "Call to Action" on Economic Justice

Montgomery County Council Member Valerie Ervin, who represents Silver Spring, Takoma Park, Wheaton and Kensington, wrote the following op-ed in the Gazette today. We reproduce it here for our readers.

The Gazette
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Economic justice: A call to action
by Valerie Ervin

This month marks the 40th anniversary of the death of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He was assassinated while in Memphis supporting sanitation workers who were on strike to improve working conditions and low wages. For Dr. King economic inequality was an important tenet of the civil rights movement. This new focus was the convergence of racial and economic concerns and had the potential to change the course of the movement.

Forty years later many things have changed in Montgomery County, but much remains the same. In 1975, the county’s minority population was 8 percent. In 2005, census data shows the minority population had grown to 41 percent countywide and was 79 percent in some areas. However, a comprehensive discourse about race and poverty is absent.

In Montgomery County, one of the most affluent counties in Maryland, policy makers often ignore the plight of those who are struggling to make ends meet. I believe that a new conversation about poverty and race must take place.

County government officials explain that growth in the county was less than 1 percent last year. However, what does this mean for an average working family? Without a growing tax base, our roads will continue to experience gridlock and our schools will remain overcrowded. More than 5,000 public school employees must travel from as far away as West Virginia each day to teach our children.

Police officers and firefighters go to great lengths to serve our communities, yet many call other jurisdictions home. Commute times are getting longer because, for so many, the cost of living in Montgomery County is a dream that is out of reach. Montgomery County has the second highest foreclosure rate in Maryland, and we have yet to see the worst of this trend.

Each year our public school system must teach more children who arrive at our doors unable to speak English. Poverty is also an issue for our county’s children with nearly 25 percent of school children eligible for free and reduced meals.

So where do we go from here? I have traveled throughout the county and visited the homes of people who dream of simple achievements that many of us take for granted. Their voices are silent in our most critical public policy debates. What I have found is that there is a disconnect between what preoccupies policy makers and what truly troubles the majority of working people who are struggling to care for children, pay for housing and cover the ever increasing costs of utilities, fuel and groceries. The current economic downturn impacts working families disproportionately, but they are too busy trying to make a living to spend time lobbying lawmakers.

As a call to action, I propose a summit for state and local policymakers to begin a new debate — a conversation about how to achieve economic justice for all of our residents. We must focus on opportunities for the future, not artificial limitations imposed by the past.

Valerie Ervin, a Democrat from Silver Spring, represents District 5 on the Montgomery County Council.

A note from Adam Pagnucco.

Council Member Ervin is touching on a theme that was explored in the recent County Council District 4 special election. In the candidate debates in that short campaign, Nancy Navarro repeatedly mentioned the plight of the people "not in the room." In contrast, my blog-brother Kevin Gillogly offered this characterization of the election in a blog post comment: "That is this race in a nutshell: Growth and Land Use Policy. Everything else is smoke screen." The debate on growth policy, poverty, jobs and pay is heating up as this county teeters on the edge of a recession and Valerie Ervin is calling that question.

If another elected leader has a different view, we will carry it for our readers in the interest of encouraging open debate.

Budget Cutbacks at MPW

Recently, we have offered frequent coverage of budget problems at both the state and county levels to our readers. This week, the Gazette reported that MCGEO – the county government employees union – submitted a list of budget savings to the county including limits on toilet paper provided to inmates. In that spirit, we at MPW are announcing a package of budget cutbacks at this blog to deal with our own financial difficulties.

1. MPW owner David Lublin has called his union contract with myself, Kevin Gillogly and Paul Gordon “unsustainable.” Apparently our provisions on catch-up pay to the bloggers on Free State Politics are excessive. So David is cutting our cost-of-living increase to zero, which should save him a lot of money. In return, he is terminating his union-avoidance consultant.

2. We will be introducing a new comment fee for our readers. Anyone posting comments of praise for our opinions, writing skills or superior good looks will be exempted from the fee. Extra charges will be assessed on anyone making more than a million dollars per year, any developers, any members of MCDCC or PGCDCC and any politicians who voted to pass the much-hated blogger tax.

3. We will no longer be employing Itchy and Scratchy as security service providers to this blog. Our readers are aware that we have occasionally criticized certain officials inside the county government. So a couple months ago, we decided to hire a security service for fear of encountering active intimidation by county government employees. But now Itchy and Scratchy will have to return to the state fundraising circuit.

4. Our much-anticipated $65,000 bathroom project with a private shower is indefinitely postponed. The reason is simple: our readers access our content from remote locations. If you are not in our physical presence, what need do we have for hygiene?

5. The saddest casualty of our budget cuts may be David’s hairless chihuahua, Muffitt. He can no longer afford to feed caviar to Muffitt on a daily basis so her fine dining needs will now be covered by donations from the Columbia Country Club.

But fear not for Muffitt! We are sending her to work on Senate President Mike Miller’s staff and, in a couple years, she will leave to pursue her fortunes as a high-priced, Miller-connected lobbyist! Muffitt’s burgeoning career in Annapolis will no doubt pay the bills for MPW (as well as David’s mortgage)!

MPW Banned by Federal Agency

One of our long-time readers has reported that a federal agency, the reader's employer, has blocked Maryland Politics Watch blog. The reader has asked us not to publicly name the agency for fear of potential waterboarding.

When the reader attempted to access our site, the following message came up:

SITE BLOCKED
This site has been blocked by the security team because it is listed by the vendor of our Web-blocking software as having one or more of the following among its content:

Web Chat Service
Web-Based E-mail Service
Pornography / Sexual Content
Gambling or Games
Illegal Activity / Drugs / Hate Propaganda / Violence
RealAudio or RealVideo Services

Hmmm... pornography, sexual content, gambling, hate propaganda, violence... Now Mr. Gillogly, have you been posting and deleting things in the middle of the night for your degenerate friends?

Which post got MPW banned? Was it our account of Itchy and Scratchy's appearance at a recent fundraiser? Those two are definitely violent enough to get banned. Was it our lampoon of Mike Miller's blogger tax? The Senate President is certainly powerful, but maybe not powerful enough to control a federal agency's Internet security team. The same goes for County Executive Ike Leggett, who probably can't wait for people to stop discussing his new bathroom. Or perhaps the feds saw Dana Beyer's hell-raising escapades outside the Bethesda Giant and judged us to be a national security threat.

I can't shake the feeling that MCDCC had something to do with this. Any comment from Alan Banov or Marc Korman?

Marriage Equality is Inevitable

Marriage equality is inevitable. It is going to happen in Maryland and it will eventually happen across the country. The reason for that is not politics, nor religion, nor even the daily tactical decisions of civil rights organizations like Equality Maryland. It is because of two forces that are infinitely more primordial: personal relationships and mathematics.

Are you a straight person? If so, do you remember your first gay friend? If you met your first openly gay friend more than fifteen years ago, as I did, there was probably a bit of novelty to it. After all, no one else you knew was gay. But after awhile, you stopped thinking about that friend in that context. You treated him or her the same as you treated other friends. But there was always one difference: that gay friend could never have a relationship that was formally sanctioned by society. It did not matter how satisfying or constructive that relationship was – it could never be recognized as marriage.

And so if you have a gay friend that you really care about, gay marriage is not a gay issue. It’s about you, your friend and your relationship with that friend. Because if you oppose gay marriage, you would have to look that friend in the eye and tell him or her that their romances and dreams were inherently inferior to yours. And if you’re like me, you could never, ever do that. It’s just not possible to do it and retain your own humanity. So it was with me as I became pro-gay marriage soon after I met my first gay friend.

Now here’s where mathematics comes in. Suppose that 5% of the population in Maryland is gay. No one knows for sure, but let’s use that number for now. That would mean roughly 275,000 gay people now live in Maryland. More than fifteen years ago, gay relationships were still taboo for the most part. So at that time, perhaps 30,000-50,000 gay people were out. They had straight friends and family members who cared about them. Many of them accepted those gay people for what they were, and they accepted their relationships. Many of them adopted my view that marriage was their fundamental right. Suppose, again, that each of those gay people had ten friends and family members who came to believe in their right to marriage. That would add up to perhaps a sixth to a fifth of the state’s population.

Over the years, more and more gay people came out. And they made more and more friends. And many of them formed families. So the numbers grew and grew. Suppose 250,000 gay people are now living as openly gay in the state today. And suppose each of them has ten friends and family members that believe in their right to marry. That would equal 2.75 million believers in marriage equality in Maryland, close to half the population. But the process does not stop there. Friends of gay people talk to their friends, some of whom do not have close relationships with gays. And so they too become converted.

What we have been witnessing is a magical virus of humanity passing from person to person. This is happening right now, in our cafeterias, our offices, our sidewalks, our living rooms and even our churches. It cannot be stopped. It cannot be controlled. It cannot be defied or suppressed. And it is taking over our culture. Conservatives are fond of emphasizing the importance of our national culture. For once, I agree with them. Person by person, our culture is producing a groundswell for marriage equality.

In the short term, Maryland’s politicians have a choice. Like Attorney General Doug Gansler, they can embrace gay marriage. Or they can squirm uncomfortably in the murky netherworld of civil unions. Or they can spit into the wind as the gusts mount. But over the long term, marriage equality is coming. And there’s not a damn thing they can do about it.

Transportation in a Crunch

By Marc Korman.

A recent Gazette comic, reproduced below, sums up the recent action by the General Assembly when it comes to transportation. A big loser in this year’s session, and a potential loser in future years, is the state’s transportation funding.


Coverage of the General Assembly’s repeal of the 6% computer services sales tax mostly ignored the negative effect on transportation and instead focused on the new millionaire’s surcharge, really just a new tax bracket, that taxes earnings over $1 million at 6.25%. Far less attention was paid to the $50 million cut from the state’s Transportation Trust Fund for each of the next five years. Just a few months ago, the General Assembly and the Governor received much earned praise for adding $420 million in new annual revenue for transportation.

The opponents of the computer services tax repeal proposed even deeper cuts to transportation, with Senator Madaleno proposing a $150 million annual cut to the Transportation Trust Fund. In a posting to Free State Politics and republished here at MPW, Senator Madaleno justified his proposal by noting that it would still leave in place a $300 million increase from prior to the Special Session. Senator Madaleno also stated that the projects slated to be funded were not good uses of the state’s money. Given the state’s transportation needs, I find the argument a bit curious because the idea that the local transportation projects have no validity because they will only improve “traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of these intersections” begs the question of why they are being funded at all. If Senator Madaleno’s claims are true, and these projects are of such low priority and value, then perhaps our legislators need to convince the Department of Transportation to pick better projects instead of deciding to cut funds.

But the real point for all of those proposing transportation funding cuts of any size is that the needs are real and we need more funds, not less. Even if individual legislators do not support all of the projects on the list of needs, surely each individual Senator supports a majority of these and numerous others. Some of the needs are:

1. The Inter County Connector-$2.4 billion
2. The Purple Line-$105 million to $1.685 billion (depending on the method selected)
3. Corridor Cities Transitway-$850 million estimate
4. BRAC Enhancements in Bethesda-$70 million estimate
5. Georgia Avenue and Forest Glen Road Crossing - Cost unknown, but I put it in to avoid the wrath of MPW’s writers.

Instead of searching for ways to meet these needs, everyone is proposing cuts. If we are not going to raise the gas tax, the least we can do is stop raiding the Transportation Trust Fund. As I said, it was only a few months ago that we were praising the $420 million increase. It was just a year before that we were criticizing Bob Ehrlich for raiding the Transportation Trust Fund. In 2010, I do not want the Democrats to be accused of the same transportation policy failures.

A Note of Concurrence from Adam Pagnucco

Marc Korman's argument is even more powerful than he originally stated. The fact is that Maryland's Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) is already under assault.

First, the revenues devoted to the fund are endangered by the poor economy. The major sources for the TTF are gas taxes, motor vehicle titling taxes and fees (like registrations and licenses), operating revenues (like tolls) and a portion of corporate income tax receipts. All of these revenues will probably record shortfalls in the coming year.

Second, construction material prices are soaring. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, national wholesale prices have skyrocketed by 31% for ready-mixed concrete, 73% for gasoline and 78% for asphalt between 2004 and 2007. The situation is exacerbated by an ever-weakening U.S. dollar and rising commodity demand from India, China and other developing countries. These price increases threaten the financial solvency of some construction contractors and will stretch already scarce dollars at MDOT.

Of the $400+ million transportation increase approved by the General Assembly’s special session, $150 million was planned for new projects such as the ones listed above by Marc. The loss of $50 million from the computer tax repeal, the slowdown of TTF revenue sources and rising commodity prices will greatly reduce the amount of money left for new projects. As a matter of fact, if the state protects tens of millions of dollars in planning money for mass transit projects (like Baltimore’s Red Line and MoCo’s Purple Line and CCT), it is entirely possible that all other new work aside from the ICC will be deferred. That means that if the legislature attempts to raid the TTF – as Governor Ehrlich did repeatedly – there may be little left to plunder.

There is another possibility. The legislature could choose to defer system maintenance, which was supposed to receive an extra $250 million per year. The state prioritized system maintenance in the wake of the I-35 bridge collapse in Minnesota. If the state does cut maintenance and a major infrastructure failure occurs, the political consequences will be cataclysmic.

Council District 4 Special Election by the Numbers

Many political observers inside Montgomery County are discussing the meaning of Donald Praisner’s victory in the Council District 4 special election. Our contribution to that debate focuses on mathematics. From that perspective, Mr. Praisner won because of turnout and demographics.

In the district’s total polling place results, Mr. Praisner received 3,288 votes, 348 more than Nancy Navarro (2,940). Steve Kanstoroom finished third with 804 votes and Pat Ryan trailed with 402. Overall turnout was 11.2%. But real insight requires an educated read of the precinct counts.

Council District 4 has 45 precincts. Of that number, Mr. Praisner won 22, Navarro won 21, Praisner and Navarro tied in 1 and Steve Kanstoroom won 1. (We predicted Kanstoroom’s win in Precinct 13-11 a week ago. Keep reading this blog, people!)

The precincts won by Mr. Praisner reported a combined turnout of 12.9%. Navarro’s precincts reported a combined turnout of 9.1%. That difference of 3.8 points contributed to Mr. Praisner’s margin of 348 votes.

But there’s more. Mr. Praisner won all five precincts reporting the highest turnouts, including Precincts 13-54 and 13-69 in Leisure World. Of the eight precincts reporting the lowest turnouts, Navarro won seven and tied with Praisner in the eighth.

The two Leisure World precincts had combined turnout of 20.5%, 9.3 points ahead of the district total. They reported 476 votes for Mr. Praisner (47% of their total), 323 votes for Navarro (32%), 166 votes for Kanstoroom (16%) and 45 votes for Ryan (4%). Leisure World by itself gave Mr. Praisner 44% of his victory margin.

Turnout was correlated with demographics. District 4 has seven precincts in which the Hispanic population topped 20% in the 2000 Census. Navarro won all seven. These precincts cast 267 votes for Navarro (50% of their Democratic total) and 179 for Mr. Praisner (34%). However, their turnout was only 7.6% - a full 3.6 points below the district’s total turnout.

District 4 has eleven precincts in which the black population topped 30% in the 2000 Census. Navarro won seven of these and Mr. Praisner won four. These precincts cast 583 votes for Navarro (47% of their total) and 509 for Mr. Praisner (41%). Navarro’s victory here is notable since Mr. Praisner’s biggest endorsement came from County Executive Ike Leggett, Montgomery County’s most prominent African American resident. These precincts reported a turnout of 8.4% - 2.8 points below the district’s total turnout.

District 4 has fifteen precincts outside of Leisure World in which the white population was at least 60% in 2000. Mr. Praisner won eight of these, Navarro won six and they tied in one. These precincts cast 1,016 votes for Mr. Praisner (44% of their total) and 936 votes for Navarro (40%). Turnout was 10.9%, almost equal to the district’s total turnout (11.2%). In the end, these precincts plus Leisure World accounted for 233 votes of Mr. Praisner’s 348 vote lead, or two-thirds of his margin.

Mr. Praisner’s supporters are understandably pleased at his victory, but they have cause to worry about 2010. As Mr. Praisner has said many times, he will not be on the ballot again. His supporters and potential successors should consider the following relevant facts:

1. School board member Marilyn Praisner (in 1990) and American University professor Jamie Raskin (in 2006) both required year-long campaigns to knock off long-time incumbents. Nancy Navarro came close to defeating the 17-year-incumbent Praisner family in just six weeks. As someone who saw her operation up close, I was impressed by the discipline and tactical intelligence of her campaign. Now that Navarro has survived the fire of an occasionally acrimonious and difficult election, she should be an even more formidable candidate if she runs again.

2. Most voters knew who their candidate was when they arrived at the polls on Tuesday. This reduced the importance of MCEA’s Apple Ballot. This will not be the case in 2010.

3. District 4 is a majority non-white jurisdiction and is trending even further in that direction. Navarro’s strong performance in black and Latino precincts – even against the choice of a black County Executive – swims with the demographic tide of history. And if she chooses to run again in 2010, she will have much more time to get out the vote in those precincts.

Ironically, the best hope for Navarro’s opponents among non-white voters could be Pat Ryan. His work with Action in Montgomery has brought him into contact with many black, Latino and immigrant communities in the county. His hands-on advocacy for affordable housing is a good issue with these constituencies. But Ryan was discouraged from running by the establishment officials who backed Mr. Praisner. Starved for money and deprived of endorsements, Ryan garnered just 5% of the vote and finished last in 33 of the district’s 45 precincts. If Ryan or Steve Kanstoroom, who spent $24,000 of his own money only to draw 11% of the vote, is anointed to be Mr. Praisner’s successor, will either be able to overcome such a low finish?

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.