Big Surprise

Want to know why teachers and bureacuracts want to increase funding? Here's why:

Local school systems in Maryland spent more than half the money from the state's new Thornton aid program to increase teacher salaries an average of 8.5 percent over three years, according to an independent study released Wednesday.

Test scores rose in every county and the city over the three-year period -- particularly in the elementary grades -- although no one can prove the higher scores are linked to the extra money, the authors said....

....The average teacher salary across the state increased by about $4,079 to $52,330.

That's why. It all comes back to the bottom line. The Thornton money, instead of actually being used on methods to improve classroom results, winds up going towards teacher salaries. Again, I am not necessarily agains increasing teacher salaries. But I would have hoped that this entire Thornton mess would have actually resulted in money going toward the classroom.

Some Things Never Change

Today is the second anniversary of this blog. Well, only because of a test post I posted making sure the thing worked. My first substantive post, on February 4, 2005 was about...an elected school board.

Which brings me to today's story in the Sun:

Anne Arundel county school board members said they won't be bullied into cutting a $131 million budget increase they're seeking, despite County Executive John R. Leopold's directive that the district trim administrative fat.

Saying that central office administration accounted for only 3 percent of last year's $789 million budget, some school board members said yesterday that cuts would likely hit programs needed to help schools meet federal and state benchmarks.

"We gotta stop having these champagne tastes on a beer budget," Peterson said. "At those public budget hearings, all we kept hearing from parents is 'gimme, gimme, gimme,' but no one is willing to ante up. You can't have gimme without the ante."

Of course there are parents saying "gimme gimme gimme," as Peterson describes. Of course, all too often these parents and activists also have some sort of agenda they are trying to push. Your average parent, your average taxpayer, does not show up for a school board budget hearing because they have no agenda to pursue. The people who showed up at the hearing were naturally inclined to support Maxwell's profligate spending and expansion of the bureaucracy, because they are predisposed to agenda advocacy. I'd be willing to bet that those parents are also willing to pay higher taxes, too...

Once again, Vic Bernson is the voice of reason:

Victor Bernson, a fiscal conservative recently appointed to the school board by former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., sided with Leopold. He said it's "appalling" that Superintendent Kevin M. Maxwell's budget proposal includes funding for more than 670 new staff positions. Though some of them are necessary because of state mandated expansion of the full-day kindergarten program, many are not, he said.

"It's like we can never spend enough," Bernson said. "And as I go through this document and look for corresponding cuts and savings, I'm hard-pressed to find them. It's a gargantuan, unrealistic request and I'm really frustrated by this continued talk ... that all we need to do is raise taxes and everything will be happy, happy, joy, joy."

The elected officials are holding the line, at least for now:

Leopold said he's in the process of sitting down separately with the superintendent, the school board, the County Council and others to reach a budget target number.

"Seventeen percent is not affordable," Leopold said, referring to the funding increase the school system is seeking. "I've made it very clear that I do not support tax increases."

County Council Chairman Ronald C. Dillon Jr., a Pasadena Republican, said of Leopold: "I think he will do all he can [to not increase taxes]. All the council members are very anxious to see what he will propose in May."

Well, Leopold better not raise taxes, given his promises. But once again I do not understand how the members of the board, particularly Eugene Peterson, do not see the reality of the situation. We cannot have those who are unelected continue to rant and rave about the need to raise taxes. This is getting ridiculous, particularly considering that the County Executive has said "no," and in the current structure we have, no means no if the County Executive says so. It's Leopold's budget, and if Leopold doesn't want to fund it, that's his prerogative.

Do I need to say it again, that we depserately need an elected school board, notwithstanding the objections of nearly all legislative leaders?

Not Well Thought Out

Can anybody explain why Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon needs to plan a three-day public campaign rally jazz festival on a weekend in which the Orioles are in town and, possibly, the Ravens playing a preseason game? Is that a great use of taxpayer dollars for Baltimore residents?

Must Read

Go read Greg Kline's post about former PSC Chairman Ken Schisler, then be sure to check out the latest edition of his Conservative Refuge podcast, which should be posted shortly.

Greg does good work (and it doesn't hurt that I am a regular contributor to the podcast) so you should check out what he does regularly...

One Man's Issue

County Executive John Leopold is nothing if not persistent. Particularly true when it comes to his obsession with outlawing panhandling.

Leopold has for several years attempted to completely outlaw panhandling in Anne Arundel County, going back to at least the 2004 session of the General Assembly. Many members of the county delegation are sponsoring HB 250, which will again attempt to ban roadside solicitations in Anne Arundel County.

But I have a question; is this really a problem that any normal citizen is worried about?

Sure, you see people in the median strips along Ritchie Highway, particularly near Marley Station Mall, and near Ordnance Road. And they are soliciting money for various charities. And, from what I see, they stand there. They don't "dart into traffic" as some supporters of this legislation contend. They are really just there. I tend to ignore them because they really aren't hurting anybody.

So with all of the other problems going on and issues to deal with, why are we even talking about dealing with panhandling? On the list of the top 10 issues facing our county, panhandling does not even sniff the bottom spot. Why does Leopold find it necessary year in and year out to try and push for this legislation? Particularly so in the face of his blatant hypocrisy, making his name shortly after moving from Hawaii by waving a sign on the side of the road, in some places creating a much, much more dangerous situation than any panhandler could (such as, for example, standing with his foot on the white line of Route 100 during the morning rush hour the most vivid of my memories).

HB 250 is a waste of everybody's time and should have never seen the light of day. And Leopold needs to find other things to worry about...

A Random Idea

Here is a piece of legislation; SB 77 will, ostensibly, require that names be rotated when appearing on the ballot. The current structure is that the Governor's party is listed first, followed by the top minority party, etc. In races with multiple candidates, the candidates are listed in alphabetical order by party, much as they are in the primary election.

However, this bill would only provide the randomization of names on the ballot within party affiliation in a General Election. For example, in District 31 the 2006 ballot started with Don Dwyer and went Dwyer, Kipke, Schuh, Cadden, Fleckenstein, Reynolds. So, with the passage of this law, the order of the Republican trio and the Democratic trio would be randomized, but only within their own subgroups; the Governor's party would still be listed first. The text of the legislation basically assures that such randomization would only be used in House of Delegates races in multi-member districts.

If we truly wish to seek ballot randomization, then we need to completely randomize the ballot from top to bottom in both primary and general elections. This would mean that the order of the candidates would rotate regardless of party affiliation and regardless of the position in the alphabetized list. If that means in delegate races the Republican and Democratic candidates get interspersed, so be it. The current text of SB 77 accomplishes little useful randomization, particularly consideration that the randomization of the ballot would most help candidates in a primary election.

Though, perhaps that is the point behind this legislation. Its sponsors can claim ground attempting to "level the playing feel" through randomization while in reality maintaining the status quo for 90-percent of the ballot...

An Easily Avoidable Situation

Note this nugget from the Senate President:

The Maryland General Assembly may need a special session in the summer of 2008 to deal with projected budget deficits, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. warned last week.

Not so fast, said other legislative leaders who think it is too soon to be talking about such a strong measure.

Mr. Miller, Southern Maryland Democrat, said that while Gov. Martin O'Malley's proposed budget for the 2008 fiscal year meets recommended guidelines, the next year will present bigger challenges without additional funding sources.

"The following year, all hell is going to break loose," Mr. Miller said.

Of course, what all of the Democratic legislative leadership fail to note is that they have the power to avoid any need for a Special Session through the judicious and fiscally responsible cutting of the Governor's budget. Perhaps legislative leadership will have the courage to rein in spending, and avoid using nearly $1 billion from the rainy day fund to offset the budget...

...but I doubt it. This is a perfect opportunity to use a special session in 2008 as a way to railroad the people of Maryland into buying into the concept of a tax increase. And it's just far enough from the elections in both directions to embolden legislative leadership to get it done while nobody is looking, in a Special Session.

Badly Predictable

I called it:

The State Party has decided to highlight a "Legislator of the Week" on the state party website. In the first week, it was Senate Minority Leader David Brinkley. Predictably, this week it was House Minority Leader Tony O'Donnell. I suppose that Senator Kittleman and Delegate Shank are next...
- January 22, 2007

And look who it is this week:

http://www.mdgop.org/images/MD/senwhip.jpg

Again I ask; does this have a point, given its obvious predictability? Again, nothing against legislative leadership, but aren't there other members of the legislative caucus our party can put in the spotlight other than the obvious choices?

Party Before Priniciple?

John Leopold's ridiculous climate accord story broke four days ago. Yet these ecowarriors have not even mentioned it.

I suppose that in that corner of the world, party truly comes before principle...

Green Politics and Greenback Politics

Again I ask the question: Why Elect a Democratic County Executive when you can have John Leopold instead?

Leopold is trumpeting the fact that he has signed up Anne Arundel County to be part of the Sierra Club Cool Cities Program by signing the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement spearheaded by the City of Seattle, the full text of which is available here.

The main crux of all of this is to get city and municipal governments to adhere to the tenets of the Kyoto Protocol, which as you know was defeated in the U.S. Senate by a 95-0 vote in 1997 through passage of the Byrd-Hagel Resolution.

And the reasoning he gives for his decision: Al Gore;

Mr. Leopold said he was inspired to take action on global warming after seeing former vice president Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."

"I saw the movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth,' and was impressed with the adverse impact in the world of the greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide in the air, etc.," Mr. Leopold said. "That movie was inspiring."

That kind of reasoning is appalling. Especially given the fact that Gore's film is politically motivated drivel...

Now despite the fact that there is no consensus that global warming is caused by man, and despite what people from some corners of the universe seem to believe, I am not opposed to doing things to improve our environment. We only have one environment and we as responsible citizens and responsible consumers need to do what we can in order to ensure that we have clean air and clear water. Conserving our resources is a good thing.

But there are responsible ways to do this. One responsible way is to not overreact every time the temperature breaks above 50 degrees in January, because that is not proof of Global Warming. As I have said, there is no consensus on Global Warming. But just because there is no consensus does not give us no excuse to do things to try and protect the environment as consumers. We do not get carte blanche on cleaning the environment because the science is questionable. If I could go out and by a hybrid car (or preferably, a Tesla Roadster) I'd do it.

All of that being said, this Agreement and the Sierra Club program are kind of strange. Sure, we all can get behind things like protecting open space, using energy efficient street lighting, and ensuring the government purchases energy efficient appliances and equipment. Those are things that are economically viable in the long-term. But these plans also include trying to implement Kyoto's agreements on "trading" emissions credits, more government intervention in promoting the development of cleaner burning fuels, creating "walkable" communities, etc.

And now this gets back to the environment, economics, and the county budget. John Leopold has stated repeatedly about the need to find "efficiencies" in government to save money and cut government spending. However, signing up for these agreements seems contrary to everything Leopold has said about efficiencies in government. Leopold campaigned on a platform of not raising taxes and reducing county spending. I'm not sure he can keep his promises while adhering to these compacts. By signing this document, Leopold has committed to Anne Arundel County government to:

• Provide incentives for car pooling and using public transit;
• Support the use of "waste to energy technology";
• Invest in "Green Tags " (the buying and selling of emission credits, commonly known as a carbon credit);
• Improving building codes for energy efficiency;
• Renovating county buildings;
• Practice and promote "sustainable building";
• Recover wastewater treatment methane for energy production;
• Help educate the public, schools, other jurisdictions, professional associations, business and industry about reducing global warming pollution.
  

All of which may benefit the environment, but at what cost to the taxpayer? How efficiently is government going to be able to provide this? And where is the money going to come from? And will any of this stuff achieve the intended consequences or, worse yet, have any unintended consequences that will negatively impact our county?

As I stated, some of these things are clearly workable and have a clear net positive for the county and for taxpayers. More open space means more parkland and less ground level pollution. Using energy efficient lighting and appliances save money on electricity costs. But what about building renovation? From whom are we buying "Green Tags?" Yeah, Plasma arc technology sounds cool on paper, but are it and other "waste to energy" technologies efficient or economically viable?

We all have a stake in protecting the environment, an environment that has been constantly improving since the Nixon Administration. However, we need to take proactive steps, much like the U.S. Senate in 1997, to ensure that protecting the environment does not come at the cost of wrecking our economy. We can have it both ways; there are ways to be environmentally sustainable in an economically sustainable manner.

But I am concerned that the agreement to which Leopold has ascribed Anne Arundel County leads us too far down the way toward too much government intervention in the economy and potential tax and budget hikes down the road. This agreement is the antithesis of what John Leopold campaigned on during the 2006 election. This is not where we need to go, especially given that his whole reason for signing this accord is "inspiration" from Al Gore.

I shudder to think what comes next...

Yawn

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is finally forming an exploratory committee for 2008. This prompted Erick Erickson (here and here) to note Huckabee's less than conservative credentials. Of course, he can't be any worse than the last guy we got from Hope...

Also of note, John McCain is going to try to further clamp down on free speech by enacting tough campaign finance reform on 527 groups. It is hard to imagine that McCain could do much more to impose upon the First Amendment than he did via McCain-Feingold, but he has found a way.

Thankfully, we've still got a ways to go until we have a Republican nominee...

Good Call

It is rare when I praise County Executive John Leopold, but he did the right thing in telling Kevin Maxwell he will not get his full funding request:

County Executive John R. Leopold said last night that the county just can't fund the school superintendent's massive spending plan.

Mr. Leopold laid out his vision for the county's future to the Greater Crofton Chamber of Commerce last night and ruled out the increase that would bring Superintendent Kevin M. Maxwell's school budget to $920 million.

"I drive by the school administration building on Riva Road and I wonder how many of those positions are duplicated," Mr. Leopold told the crowd of 65 gathered at Kauffman's Tavern in Gambrills. "We simply cannot afford a 17 percent increase in the school budget."

Let's see how much the increase winds up being. And lets' see if Maxwell actually tries to trim the fat in the budget. But I am pleased that Leopold will not acquiesce to the Superintendent's funding request. Everybody wants to have a great system and improve education. But let's not do in a fiscally irresponsible manner, as was suggested by Maxwell. Even today's Capital editorial got into the spirit:

Taxpayers here are more averse to big spending increases for education and government services. But without an elected school board they have few means to hold the school system accountable for its spending. And that's the rub: What will they get for putting another $131 million into education?

We don't doubt the superintendent is sincere in wanting to give Anne Arundel the best schools possible. But taxpayers have to be persuaded that their money is being well spent.

One of the goofier quotes from this first story was this:

Bob Mosier, a spokesman for the superintendent, said the county school system's ratio of administrators to students already ranks among the lowest in the state.

As noted Tuesday, the ratio of one administrative staff member for every 4.35 teachers; the ratio for students is one administrative staff member for every 69.4 students. It's amazing that nobody on Riva Road seems to think that the school system is too top heavy, and that is what Leopold is talking about when he discussed inefficiencies...

A Try at Constitutional Subversion on State Circle

I noted in September that California was attempting to undermine the Constitution change the way we elect our President without actually amending the Constitution. Now, such lunacy has been brought to the Maryland General Assembly in the form of HB148. Delegate Hixson and several other Democratic legislators have introduced this bill in an effort to implement this interstate compact that would radically undermine the Electoral College by pledging a state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

As I noted in September:

if the proponents of abolishing the Electoral College really want to do this in a legitimate manner, not in a sneaky, underhanded, subversive way, try to pass a Constitutional Amendment. It certainly wouldn't be the first time such an amendment would be introduced in Congress. Clearly, the organizers of this effort have some sort of agenda they are pushing in order to try and subvert our political process in this manner.

Clearly what the proponents have in mind is a way to get around amending the Constitution for whatever political gains they have in mind (though I note that the Republican members of their "Advisory Board" are all Republicans; including 1980 independent anti-Reagan candidate John Anderson and disbarred former Senator David Durenberger, who endorsed Kerry in 2004).

As I have stated before, this is an extremely sketchy way to conduct business with something as important as Presidential Elections...

No sooner than I post that...

I see this via RedState:

NY Post: Rudy Giuliani...is moving to Sell his businesses, hire key staff.

NY Daily News: Rudy presidential bid getting 'very serious'

I guess at this point, nobody really knows, though he can sell the business if he choose, that in and of itself does not fix the organizational problems the Giuliani campaign has...

Is Giuliani Serious?

The Politco ponders whether or not Rudy Giuliani is serious about running for President. Some snippets:

Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani is finally scrambling to beat back a crippling perception that his bid for president isn't quite serious. But even as he begins to hire aides and consultants, many of his New York supporters and critics, as well as neutral observers, see a repeat of his half-hearted, unfinished 2000 campaign for Senate...

The question for this year's Republican primary is whether voters can expect the Giuliani of his first winning campaign in 1993 -- a studious, disciplined, hard-working candidate -- or the indecisive, disorganized, reluctant candidate of 2000, carried by spectacular public polling and national Republican hopes toward a confrontation with Hillary Rodham Clinton until he flamed out in May.

To many in New York, it's starting to look like 2000 all over again with Giuliani drawing the biggest headlines of late when an aide lost possession of a binder containing detailed fund-raising plans and worries that his personal and business life could scuttle his campaign; that 140-page dossier, first published in the New York Daily News, is available online today at Politico.com...

That failure to build a national organization echoes 2000, in which Giuliani paid little attention to Upstate New York and ditched appearances in Rochester and Buffalo for a Yankees game. "He couldn't put together a statewide campaign in New York," scoffed on Democratic strategist active in the 2000 race. "Why would anyone think he could do so in the entire country?"

The link to the documents is here.

One of the things that never made sense about Giuliani's potential candidacy was the sheer fact that he is a very wealthy man who has made a ton in business. Running for President would, at best, inhibit his ability to run his companies or, at worse, severely cripple their future performance. And frankly, why would he want to subject his "American Hero" persona to the potential rigors and pitfalls of a Presidential campaign?

Maybe the organizational problems are the same as they were in 2000. The cancer scare from 2000 was ostensibly used back then as the reason Giuliani was leaving the Senate race but even then there was a sense, much like with Doug Duncan's withdrawal from the gubernatorial race last year, that there was something more to the story. The Giuliani campaign took a severe public relations blow when those documents went missing. Perhaps this is the first visible sign of a campaign that is not particularly held together very well.

Once again, it proves how important competent political organization and structure is to a campaign. If a campaign cannot stay on message and build an effective organization, there is not much that campaign can do to win; it will die a death of a thousand cuts...

Here's the Problem

From a Strategic Vision Iowa Poll (H/T Hotline):

Do you see President George W. Bush as a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan? (Republicans Only)
Yes 11%
No 77%
Undecided 12%

And that's partly why we're a minority in Congress right now...

Inside the School System Budget

The Anne Arundel County Board of Education provides the Budget in Brief on its website as well as the full budget. It is important to note a few things in Dr. Maxwell's proposed $920,050,136 budget:

• $731,486,947 of the budget consists of salaries and benefits; that's nearly 80 percent of the budget spent on personnel. Of that amount
• $40,973,621 is on salary and health care
• $18,500,000 is on retirement benefits
  
• $1,999,137 is being spent on implementing the all-day Kindergarten program. That's not the fault of the local system, but again begs the question as to why the state should require five-year olds to attend school all day.
• Only $2,569,944 is on additional school security.
• Only $3,501,729 is spent on technology upgrades, and of that money a portion is being spent solely on the creation of 17 new technical positions to add to the bureaucracy.
• The Office of the Superintendent alone is budgeted to spend $496,618, to be spent on one Superintendent, 2 secretaries, and office assistant and a newly created "Office of Civil Rights Liaison".
• An Office of Volunteer Services has three full time employees, at a cost of $172,521 to the county.
• The County Coordinator of Athletics will make $101,484.
• There are 1065.20 positions classified as "Administration" or "Mid-Level Administration." There are, however, 4632.30 teachers. This means there are 4.35 teachers for each administrative staff member in the County School System.
  

Peruse the budget for yourself and see what little nuggets you can find.

After looking at the budget, I still think of two things; how irresponsible it is to call for a tax increase given some of the bureaucratic overload on Riva Road, and the continued need for an elected Board of Education...

Does this have a point?

The State Party has decided to highlight a "Legislator of the Week" on the state party website. In the first week, it was Senate Minority Leader David Brinkley. Predictably, this week it was House Minority Leader Tony O'Donnell. I suppose that Senator Kittleman and Delegate Shank are next...

Listen, both are good guys, but does highlighting our leadership as "Legislators of the Week" have a point?

Battle Lines

The fight over the School Board budget is a long, long way from being over, as noted in the article in today's Capital.

One of the interesting things to note from the article is that both the Superintendent and the Board are starting to back away from the notion of an increase in the piggyback tax. This despite the fact that the Board's legislative agenda clearly supports(pages 6-7):

• Consideration of all available revenue options to support Maryland’s public schools.
• The County Government’s full utilization of the increase in property tax rates permitted by the 1992 property tax revenue cap. Such utilization will provide elected officials increased flexibility and options to raise revenues required to ensure the success of each and every student in Anne Arundel County Public Schools.
• Full utilization of the county’s piggyback income tax to the extent currently authorized by law.

Thankfully, the entire Board is not necessarily on board with this Legislative Agenda, as you can see through the meeting minutes of the 12/20/2006 Board of Education meeting and the spirited discussion Messrs. Bernson and Leahy (both good men) had regarding their issues with the agenda. Here is an important pullout from those minutes regarding Mr. Bernson and the legislative program:

Mr. Bernson offered a final summary comment. From his perspective in drafting the substitute, he personally viewed the pre-existing document as an unacceptable, politically left-wing document that he could never support, and it essentially calls for – there are many different things in there – but the essence is that the Board needs to go to the legislature and ask them to throw additional money at the Board, and that money will be the Board’s fantasy and Mr. Bernson cannot support that. Hence, he drafted the substitute document that takes a more traditional approach to education and seeks to stay neutral on certain questions of funding. It certainly advocates for increased funding where it is appropriate, but in general seeks legitimate reform and not just additional monies.

All of the above, once again, goes back to the concept of needing to have an elected Board of Education.

Moving on, Dr. Maxwell went on to state that, according to the article, "he'd support any tax hike to boost revenue for schools." This despite the fact that, once again, the article does not indicate that the Superintendent and the Board are considering the effectiveness of the programs that they propose being fully funded.

One of the things that is really dispiriting about the article is this quote:

"While there were some inefficiencies, the administrative pieces where those inefficiencies were really only account for 10 percent of the budget," said Penny Cantwell, a co-chairman of Dr. Smith's budget task force. "From that viewpoint, we wouldn't be looking at a huge cost savings anyway."

10 percent of the budget is approximately $92,000,000; just a little less than the proposed increase Maxwell wishes to see, and wishes to be funded through taxes. So, in the eyes of some, we should keep existing inefficiencies in order to artificially inflate the budget by 10 percent in order to call for additional funding and tax increases? Am I reading this correctly?

It is going to be imperative that the County Executive and the Republican Members of the County Council hold the line on this issue. We cannot allow for the Superintendent and the Board of Education to attempt to dictate the tax policy for our county.

Additionally, it is once again imperative to get on board with meaningful School Board selection reform, such as SB28 sponsored by Sens. Simonaire and Greenip to allow for a truly elected Board of Education that can represent citizens, parents, and taxpayers alike.

Broken Record

Of course, deep down I knew that the Terps played their way out of the NCAA Tournament and into the NIT by losing four straight down the stretch. Had the Terps won one or two of those games, they make the tournament. Sure, they might have made it in had Utah and Pacific both won Saturday night. But the Terps received the tournament spot that they earned.
- Me, 3/14/2005

Barring a late run through the ACC tournament, the Maryland Terrapins will once again find themselves in the NIT...If the Terps do wind up in the NIT, once again they will have earned their spot.
- Me, 2/23/2006

Hi, remember us? We were ranked well into the season with hopes of making a Sweet 16 run. Now we're on the brink of planning an NIT road trip.
- ESPN.com's Doug Gottlieb, talking about Maryland and a few other teams, 1/22/2007

Say What?

Apparently, in the mind of some local Democrats, debating a point is bullying. This goes back to this fiasco from a few days back.

It's a sad state of affairs when trying to debate a point with reason (and not even being mean about it) is referred to is bullying. It is a failure of those doing the name calling to back up their points with sound logic. It's sad really.

Ironically, they suggest that:

The advice with bullies is always the same...Stand up to them, which we do and ignore them which a ban defacto does.

Which actually means that they choose to stick their heads in the sand and avoid ideas they find disagreeable. Sad, truly sad. And apparently it's not just me who has had this kind of problem.

Mr. Moody, incidentally, is a member of the Anne Arundel County Democratic Central Committee. Take that for what it's worth...

Keep one hand on your wallet...

Peter Franchot was sworn in as Comptroller today. So hang on to your wallets because. ready or not, here he comes. Once again though, Franchot seems to not understand the job he has accepted:

Democrat Peter Franchot took office today as Maryland's 33rd comptroller -- and he made it clear within moments that he won't be content to be a behind-the-scenes tax collector.

Franchot, a 20-year House member from Montgomery County who knocked off former Comptroller William Donald Schaefer last year, said after taking the oath of office that he wants to push for biotechnology jobs and to fight slot machine gambling.

The ambitious agenda came even though Franchot no longer has a vote in the legislature or any power to influence state policy except as part of a three-person board that approves state contracts.

We have noted before that Franchot seems to think his office is a bully pulpit from which to fight for his worldview, notwithstanding the limitations set forth in the State Constitution. Mike Miller is actually the voice of reason on this issue:

"He'll quickly learn that his job is a tax collector, not a policy maker," Miller told reporters after Franchot's speech.

And if Franchot sticks to that, he'll keep his own party off of his back. Not that I think Franchot really cares too much about that. However, I am amused that Franchot tells WBAL radio he will be a "fiscal watchdog" for the state of Maryland. I believe that. You see, what the people of Maryland need in a Comptroller is a guard dog, somebody who will be the voice of reason and fiscal sanity when it comes to funding these expensive projects the Legislature and the Administration dream up. Unfortunately, given Franchot's "agenda" and his 20-year record in the House of Delegates indicate, he is going to be a watchdog in the sense that he is the dog that watches the money flow out of the State Treasury. He will be nonexistent when it comes to stopping wasteful spending, but I'm sure Franchot will have no problems leaving the spigot open far and wide for the continued expansion of nannystatism...

Of course, given Franchot's penchant for raising money from out of state and loaning himself $750,000 of his campaign kitty (hey, that sounds familiar) I doubt that he'll be too concerned with the plight of Maryland's taxpayers.

Remembering Games that Mattered

MASN is showing the full telecast of the July 15, 1989 Orioles game against the California Angels. The game where Mike Devereaux hit a 3-run game-winning home run down the left field line at Memorial Stadium that was so controversial that Angels manager Doug Rader was ejected for arguing the call during the exchange of lineup cards for the next day's game. This was during the "Why Not" season of 1989, my favorite Orioles season I can remember. (I turned four during the Orioles 1983 World Series run, so it's not something I actually remember).

It reminds me of why, despite my love for Ravens football, baseball remains my favorite sport. I hope one day again sometime soon, the Birds can actually play games that are meaningful in July again...

#%$*!

I can assure you that the ending to the AFC title game is not what I had in mind...

LET'S GO BEARS!

A Bipartisan Problem

One of the ways that people interact with their government most is one the roads. This is particularly true when it comes to snowfall, as it is the responsibility of the respective governments to keep the streets safe and clear. Given the current states tonight of both state roadways (Ritchie Highway, Mountain Road) and county roads (Magothy Bridge Road, Edwin Raynor Boulevard) it looks like the state and the county aren't fulfilling their obligation to keep the roads clear. Particularly true given the fact that it is not like we have been inundated with snow this evening.

Fair or not, Martin O'Malley and John Leopold are going to be held responsible for this in the minds of some voters. Sometimes, life isn't fair at the top.

How Dare I?

Apparently, I am a "closed off to facts", "spew complete misinformation," and am a "heretic" on the subject of global warming, mainly because I understand that there is not a consensus on the issue. At least, according to the folks at Daffodil Lane.

I never understand why the people who claim that they are tolerant are the most intolerant of the bunch. Certainly, this added nothing to the conversation of global warming...

Everytime I think of the "global warming gospel" crowd, I think of this:

Horse Farm Redux

With the Navy now taking offers on the Naval Academy Dairy Farm property, I would like to reiterate something I said a year ago about the property:

As a county, we would be better served by the state leasing the land from the federal government and operating the land as an agriculture education center, much in the same way Arlington Echo operates as a an outdoor education center. We would be able to preserve the land's agricultural heritage without the development and traffic concerns that may come with the creation of the horse park.

And I still think that using the property for that educational purpose is much more useful than a Horse Park, a mine, or whatever else somebody could come up with.

Shot Logic

21 State Senators have proposed an "Assault Weapons Ban", SB43. Of course, like with most weapons bans like the recently expired federal ban, this proposed legislation seems to be more steered towards outlawing weapons based on what they look like as opposed to their actual firepower.

Of course if legislators wanted to do something constructive, they could stop for a second and try to think of new and better ways to keep criminals off the streets and in jails as opposed to outlawing guns strictly for their cosmetic appearance...

Summing up the Day

WBAL-TV just showed a clip of the "impromptu" performance given by O'Malley's March during the inaugural ball. Let's just say that if the new Governor's performance in office is anything like his singing ability, things are not going to go well the next four years....

Uh-oh...

In case you were one of those who is missing the accumulating snow with our recent warm temperatures, you might enjoy this, because things could get bumpy in the next week or so.

H/T to Frank Roylance at MarylandWeather.com.

Defending Nannystatism

Because this issue is not going anyway anytime soon, (as discussed in yesterday's Conservative Refuge Podcast) County Executive John Leopold penned a guest column in this morning's Maryland Gazette defending his proposed smoking ban. His logic is...curious.

Five years ago, I was lying in a hospital bed recovering from surgery to remove melanoma from my abdomen. I had seen so many others suffer from various other forms of cancer. I resolved then that I would do everything I could as an elected official to fight this terrible disease and improve opportunities for early cancer detection.

While that may be true and unfortunate, melanoma is a type of skin cancer that is not caused by smoking. It is caused by exposure to UV rays. The type of UV rays that are strong near the Tropic of Cancer and from campaigning outdoors extensively without proper protection...

Now as county executive, it is my responsibility to push the debate forward and reduce exposure of non-smokers and children to secondhand smoke. Such exposure causes Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, bronchitis, coronary heart disease, lung cancer and numerous other ailments.

No, as County Executive his responsibility is to ensure that the county government works efficiently and at reduced cost. Given Leopold's call for "efficiencies" in county government, I wonder what resources he plans to use to lobby and then ultimately enforce this proposal.

He goes on to cite some scientific data noting that cigarette smoke is disgusting and unhealthy (there at least we agree), then he goes on:

and we certainly will not be the first jurisdiction to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. As of last spring, 2,216 cities and counties had some sort of smoking restriction in place, including 292 affecting restaurants and 215 affecting bars.

Five counties in Maryland, including Montgomery, Howard, Prince George's, Charles and Talbot already have various bans, and Washington, D.C. cut off smoking in restaurant bars and nightclubs this month. It is not a question of whether every jurisdiction will follow suit, but when.

Because if everybody is doing it, why shouldn't we?

To smokers who feel they have a right to light up in bars and restaurants, I ask if non-smokers and children have a right to enter public places without being exposed to carcinogens.

Except the proposed smoking ban would outlaw smoking on private property; smoking is generally already banned on public property and I doubt if you are going to find much of a groundswell to support it on public property. But what right does John Leopold have to determine that private business owners should be required to forbid certain legal activities in their establishments? And, once again, customers can vote with their feet; particularly ones who have children.

It should be noted that patrons can speak with their feet and choose not to frequent smoke-filled bars and restaurants. Waitresses and bartenders, however, who are just trying to make a living, are trapped in a workplace environment of thick smoke.

It is stunning to find that Leopold thinks so lowly of the intelligence of waitresses and bartenders that they cannot comprehend what they do for a living. Additionally, these employees can also choose to vote with their feet and choose to work in a smoke-free establishment. Nobody is holding a gun to their head forcing them to work in an establishment that permits smoking.

Once again, Leopold uses curious logic to try and outlaw a legal activity. I hope that this sort of activist government, the kind we expect from Democratic politicians instead of Republicans, is not a trend during his term. It makes me wonder what other legal activities Leopold wishes to ban in Anne Arundel County...

They Said It

"It's like Waiting for Godot,"
- Del. Luiz R.S. Simmons (D-17) on the impending O'Malley Administration

Eventually...

Brownback, Gilmore, Gingrich(?), Giuliani, Hagel(?), Huckabee(?), Hunter, McCain, Pataki(?), Paul, Romney, Tancredo, Thompson...

One of these guys has to be the Republican nominee(right?). That's 13 GOP candidates before we get to likely minor candidates such as John Cox, etc...

It's a good thing that the Democrats have 12 candidates to sort through of their own...

Let's Hold off with the Global Warming Hysteria

The Maryland Weather Blog noted something tonight (bolded emphaiss mine):

AT BWI...THE AVERAGE TEMP OF 43.5F DURING THE 45 DAYS (DEC 1-JAN 14) MARKING THE FIRST HALF OF WINTER RANKS IT 4TH WARMEST ON RECORD...SINCE 1872. THE WARMEST SIMILAR 45 DAY WINTER PERIOD WAS ALSO DURING`THE WINTER 1889-90 WHEN THE AVERAGE TEMP WAS 46.6F. ONLY A TRACE OF SNOW HAS FALLEN SO FAR IN BALTIMORE SINCE DEC 1ST...TYING IT WITH 10 OTHER SIMILAR FIRST HALF WINTER PERIODS...INCLUDING LAST WINTER. TOTAL PRECIPITATION SO FAR OF 4.18" FOR THIS PERIOD IS SLIGHTLY BELOW THE NORMAL RAINFALL OF 4.95".

So yes, this has happened before. The Global Warming boogeyman is not at fault for this one...