Not Quite

Adam Pagnucco has accused me of "lacking consistency" when it comes to the fact that Governor Palin is more qualified to lead than Barack Obama. Adam's contention is that because the selection of Joe Biden reinforces Obama's lack of experience to be President, that makes it (allegedly) hypocritical to support Governor Palin's nomination as Vice-President due to the experience factor. Never mind the fact that, as Mark Newgent pointed out, her cherry picked pieces of my argument to try and support his point.

The problem is that Pagnucco's argument has no merit. When it comes down to experience in public life, Sarah Palin has served the people of Alaska for the last sixteen years. When Barack Obama was still a young lawyer and "a community organizer" for fringe political groups, Sarah Palin was a mom and City Council member.

When Obama was first elected to the State Legislature, Palin began accumulating her leadership experience as an executive, as Mayor of Wasila.

When Obama was still a State Legislator, she was appointed as Chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, where she led the fight for Clean Government and began railing against Corruption in Alaska State Government against members of her own party.

Once Obama graduated to the U.S. Senate (a job he has shown up for a mere 141 times in four years), Palin was again accumulating Executive Experience as the Governor of Alaska, further fighting corruption and graft both inside and out of Alaska state government. During that time, she managed to get tough in negotiating with oil companies regarding Alaska's Permanent Fund (an excellent piece in the Spectator notes her fantastic negotiating skills).

Pagnucco's argument about Obama's allged foreign policy experience is laughable:

The contention that Senator Obama and Governor Palin have similar levels of foreign policy experience is factually wrong. Senator Obama has worked with respected Republican Senator Dick Lugar to reduce conventional weapons stockpiles, sponsored a measure to encourage public pension funds to divest from companies connected to Iran and co-sponsored the 2006 Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act along with Senator McCain. This does not match Senator Biden's record, but it is hardly equivalent to the "experience" of Governor Palin.

Un-huh. Any U.S. Senator can attach their name to a bill as a sponsor and attempt to take credit for it. So color me unimpressed. Also color me unimpressed that Obama called zero hearings of his European Affairs Subcommittee. Color me unimpressed that Obama and Governor Palin have both taken exactly one trip to Iraq during their terms in office. So yes, it is fair and accurate to say that Governor Palin and Obama both have similar foreign policy experience, which is to say not much.

The argument that Obama is more prepared than Governor Palin to be President is absurd. And the idea that the right, particularly me, is being hypocritical on the Biden/Palin issue is equally absurd. Senator McCain, in selecting Governor Palin, selected somebody who will be a partner in change and in reform. Somebody who can lead on day one, without the training wheels. Governor Palin accentuates Senator McCain's message. As I stated Friday:

Needless to say, I am surprised, and I shocked, I am ecstatic, and I am extremely enthusiastic about this pick. Sarah Palin is the future of the Republican Party. She's both conservative's conservative, and a reformer. She took on the corrupt Stevens/Young/Murkowski wing of the Alaska State GOP and has succeeded in changing her state and her party for the better. THIS is the type of change that Barack Obama wishes he could bring; Sarah Palin has been there, and she's done that already.

So next time Adam, be a little more honest about the argument conservatives are making. The argument of experience is important, but let's face it; conservatives are excited about Governor Palin because she symbolizes real change and real reform. And that is what Republicans have to offer, and it is the polar opposite of four years of tried, tired, and failed liberalism revisited that Obama administration would offer America.

Liberals need to face a simple fact; while Governor Palin was leading, Barack Obama was grandstanding. And it's not hypocrisy to challenge The One.

Quotable

On Isaac's post regarding Governor Palin, it's turning into a jungle over there:

That's your final answer, Brian? Is there any action, any at all, that a Republican can take that makes you say "hold on, WTF, I can't justify this?" Is it all ultimately just a game for you, you pusball? Does nothing matter other than making whatever argument is at hand? Is there finally no limit to your mendacity and your smarminess? At long last, sir, have you no decency whatsoever?
- lefty

Sigh. One of many insults hurled at her, me, and Republicans in general. Their desperation is hysterical. I guess that's what I get for pointing out facts.

The depths Democrats will go to defend their (unqualified) candidate and discriminate against Governor Palin is impressive.

You Gotta Wonder

Maybe this explains why the left wing doesn't get economics. FSP'er Scott Goldberg said this:

In order to help John McCain find out exactly how many houses he actually owns, I have decided to stop drinking Budweiser beer. Hopefully, his wife's income will slow down long enough to get an accurate count before they buy a few more places.

Yeah....well, Hensley & Co. distributes Anheuser-Busch products in Arizona. The decision for Maryland's left wing to stop drinking Budweiser will have zero economic impact on the McCains. In fact, Goldberg's protest does what Maryland liberals love to do best: take money from local businesses, specifically one of the ten Anheuser-Busch wholesalers who distribute their products here in Maryland.

Goldberg's comment is as silly as four years ago when some Republicans stopped buying Heinz ketchup. I'm not going to stop buying a quality product just because somebody I don't like is making money off it (though by no means am I calling Budweiser a quality product).

Astroturfing Health Care

FSP is shopping this on its front page in an effort to astroturf the creation of a socialist health care system:

Quite simply, with rising health care costs (including $50 billion per year to pay for insurance industry advertising) being born out by working families and American businesses, health care is a top economic concern. To keep American workers at their best, and to keep American business competitive in the world, something has to change.

Nancy Pelosi has recently declared health care expansion to be #2 on her list of legislative priorities, right after ending the Iraq war. In the past month, tens of thousands of Americans have told us they want quality, affordable health care for all. Now it's time to ask Congress.

So, Congress, which side are you on? Are you with us for quality, affordable health care for all? Or are you with the insurance companies, working to preserve our broken system?

We've set up a quick and easy way for you to contact your Members of Congress and ask them if they support our vision for health care reform. Just click here and enter in your phone number and address. Choose the elected official you want to talk to and in a few moments, we'll call your phone and connect you automatically.

Over the next few weeks, we want to make 100,000 calls to Congress, asking every Member which side they are on. We need your help to do it, so please click here to call!

I'm not really going to get into the idea of public health care, because there is a general consensus that it would be a disaster. But there are a few things that bother me with this, not the least of which is the fact that the author of the piece, Jason Rosenbaum, is employed by the Health Care for America Now group and Isaac chose not to point that out, which is disappointing.

What is not surprising, however, is the fact that the fringe left needs to try and create a groundswell of support for the issue of socialist health care. Because there is no support for it. The general public understands that when you have government run health care, you get government run solutions. The quality of care is diminished. The availability of care is diminished. Even the most important preventative procedures get a patient waitlisted and people resort to their own measures. Think of an HMO on steroids, and that's what the Democratic plan is.

Jon Henke wrote a piece for The Next Right yesterday afternoon that is very timely, given the left's attempt to further ruin American health care:

However, there are three problems with what Krugman claims about Medicare being "immensely popular"...

1. The recipients of Medicare get it, basically, for free. Since they're not paying for it at the point of purchase, it's not surprising that they think it's quite a nice thing.
2. Indeed, a lot of the real costs of Medicare lie in the future. And they are enormous. The costs are being hidden for now, while voters mostly approve of the more tangible benefits. Should voters ever have a chance to make a real cost/benefit trade-off, we'll see just how much they actually value it.
3. But, you might argue, polls show that 76% of Americans approve of Medicare. And so they do. But look what else those polls show about public approval of Medicare...

And that, my friends, is the problem. The most important plank of the Democrats plan is that it is a single-payer system available to everybody. But it is hard to create support for such a system when:

1. The costs of such a system would require draconian tax increases in an economy that cannot handle them;
2. The existing public health system already in place is one of the most reviled programs in government.

As usual, with the left it's about power, not about helping people, the same people who block affordable health care to the poor. The public would be best to ignore the health care solution the left wishes to manufacture support for.

You Don't Say

Who didn't see this coming?

A liberal lobbying group has given its former director its highest rating on a legislative scorecard that generally favored Democrats.

Progressive Maryland's scorecard — covering the General Assembly's 2007 special session and the 2008 legislative session — gave Del. Tom Hucker a 99 out of 100 in its rankings. Twenty percent of the score came from a subjective ''leadership" evaluation in which Hucker received a 19 out of 20.

Sean Dobson, Progressive Maryland's executive director, saw nothing unusual in Hucker's ranking.

''He's a lifetime advocate for working families, so it's not surprising at all," Dobson said.

Of course, this isn't the first time that Progressive Maryland has covered for Delegate Hucker. Back in May, Hucker was outed as being wined and dined by lobbyists in direct contradiction to Progressive Maryland's stances, and not at peep was heard out of the group. The Hucker/Progressive Maryland lovefest is so bad, even the left is tired of it. FSP poster "lefty" (hardly a friend of our side) had this to say about it:

(1) Progressive Maryland has turned into Tom Hucker, Inc., (2) Tom Hucker supported the bill calling for the slots referendum, and (3) Tom Hucker doesn't want the public to know about (2), it's not really surprising to see PM "sitting this one out." Yes, the union/activist divide probably had something to do with it, too, but unfortunately the interests of Tom Hucker have overridden pretty much everything else at Tom Hucker, Inc.

So for Progressive Maryland to design a survey that makes Tom Hucker look good is, shall we say, a bit unsurprising.

The real star of this story, however, is House Minority Leader Tony O'Donnell

Republicans received low scores, which pleased House Minority Leader Anthony J. O'Donnell, who received a 3.

''I am actually happy of my very low score with that organization, and actually disappointed that I scored three points. I'm going to have to work harder to reduce it," said O'Donnell (R-Dist. 29C) of Lusby.

He called Progressive Maryland a socialist front.

‘‘I don’t say that rhetorically. These are the political socialists who have rebranded themselves as quote-unquote progressives to fool Marylanders and American citizens,” he said. ‘‘They have not been able to get a political foothold under their previous banner of the Socialist Party of America, so they’ve rebranded themselves.”

Thanks goodness that the Minority Leader is willing to call a spade a spade here. I wish Progressive Maryland and Delegate Hucker could be as honest...

Here we go again

Not that I want to continue to prop up the left wing through pointing out their fallacies, Eric Luedtke has decided that it is time to tax the middle class into poverty through the creation of a funding source for transportation projects other than just the flat gas tax. Luedtke's reasoning is as follows: people are driving less due to high gas prices and the O'Malley Recession, ergo we need to find out a new way to make sure transportation projects can be funded.

So is the solution to do the logical thing and cut discretionary spending to cover the shortfall? Of course not, that wouldn't fit in with Luedtke's myopic worldview and limited economic understanding. Instead, he has two harebrained schemes designed to take money out of your pocket:

One alternative is congestion pricing, at least around the urban areas of Baltimore and Washington. The idea is that you set up a series of concentric rings around the cities, and use a sort of EZ-Pass system so that as commuters get closerto the center of the city, they pay a little bit as they enter each new ring. Similar systems have been successfully implemented in a number of places, most notably London.

That's right. He wants to charge you to drive on roads that you already have paid for, roads that are currently free. Now, I'm not opposed in principle to toll roads, particularly ones that are used in privatization plans that either takes highway maintenance off of the state budget, or the construction of new roads through private funding. But Luedtke's idea of brining congestion pricing to the US is the type of statist idea that is anathema to our way of life and would be devastating to the middle class and small business owners alike:

A payment of £8 is required for each day a chargeable vehicle enters or travels within the zone between 7am and 6pm; a fine of between £60 and £180 is imposed for non-payment.

That's the equivalent of $16 per day to enter downtown London, and I'm sure that Luedtke's scheme would involve similar or even higher congestion payments. It is ridiculous and it is absurd to think that such a system would even be proposed by somebody who wishes to be taken seriously.

As usual, he ends with a gem:

So, in the near future, we're probably going to see a drop-off in money for new transportation projects and reconstruction of infrastructure. Unless the state's politicians show a level of bold leadership that's not typical of politicians in bad economic times. Fat chance.

But at least there we can agree. Until Democrats show the type of leadership that understands the need to cut discretionary spending on unnecessary social programs in order to meet our common infrastructure needs, or until Democrats show the courage to call for and implement privatization systems, our transportation infrastructure will continue to remain unimproved, and the oft-raided Transportation Trust Fund will continue to dwindle....

Too Smart by Half

Eric Luedtke trots out a theory that Mike Miller is in all actuality going to retire, he's just not telling anybody at this point in order to keep the Senate together in one place.

Luedtke's thought process there is completely rational, and totally something that Mike Miller would do in order to continue being Master of the Senate. However, whee Luedtke's analysis goes wrong is right here:

Martin O'Malley's polling numbers have been, in the words of one West Wing character, 'Less than yeasty.' He needs to bring those poll numbers up to have a good shot at re-election. In order to bring up his poll numbers, the Governor is going to need the legislature to, you know, legislate. And not just normal naming of post office legislating, but big time get popular and ground-breaking stuff done legislating. Now, if Miller is retiring in 2010, and that fact is public knowledge, the State Senate's Democratic Caucus would spend the next two years splitting into factions as Senators Frosh and Middleton jockey for position.

And I don't think he could possibly be any more wrong here. The reason that O'Malley's poll numbers are less than yeasty has everything to do with what the Senate has done for O'Malley. Miller led the Senate towards higher taxes. Miller ensured the Senate didn't cut parts of the budget to make up the difference. Miller helped the Governor pass his ludicrous spending plans. Let's face it: Mike Miller being Mike Miller and helping out Governor O'Malley is exactly why the Goveror's poll numbers are in the tank. O'Malley got what he wanted, which is something that taxpayers are less than enthused about.

The funny thing is that if Miller had stayed retired, and Luedtke's "Lord of the Flies" scenario came to pass, the Senate would be virtually in a stand still. And that means that none of the Governor's out of the mainstream tax and spend proposals would ever see the light of day. In that scenario, the divided Senate protects O'Malley from O'Malley, with the only piece of legislation derailed that would hurt the poll numbers would be the likely temporary election year tax cut that Democrats always like to pass.

In Luedtke's analysis, he assumes of course that a Miller retirement would have been the end of the universe:

But as for the whole idea of keeping the Senate Democratic Caucus in line, here's something our Democratic State Senators need to remember - if O'Malley loses, all of us lose. Not just in the larger sense of getting stuck with another four years of Bob the Golfer. But also in two very serious ways: 1. A strong showing by a Republican gubernatorial candidate could increase Republican turnout and swamp some of our Senators in the more marginal districts, decreasing our advantage in the Senate, and 2. Whoever is elected Governor in 2010 will have significant power over the redistricting after the next census, and could create districts in such a way as to completely screw with Democrats, as happened with the Republican gerrymandering in Texas. Sitting Senators stuck in the same district. The map redrawn to create Republican districts in Democratic jurisdictions, such as northern Montgomery County. It. Would. Be. A. Disaster. In other words, if the Senate didn't do its job without papa Miller to ride herd, they wouldn't deserve re-election, because they'd be doing serious damage to the party.

Because for Luedtke and his ilk, the party always comes before the people. And he, of course, forgets what happened when the Glendening map was thrown out in court for....completely screwing Republicans and conservative Democrats, with sitting Senators stuck in the same district.

Of course, Luedtke calls it a disaster....I call it a good start.

This never ending Racialization is getting old

Once again, Eric Luedtke goes tries to equate conservatism to racism again, this time in regards to school vouchers:

Vouchers is one of those, an attempt to apply a radical conservative ideology to a public good. To give you an idea of what I mean: Milton Friedman, the great conservative economist who wrote Capitalism and Freedom, not only proposed school vouchers, but argued that the Civil Rights Act is not necessary because market forces will end discrimination. I'm sure Rosa Parks would have been comforted to know that if she had not sat down on that bus, the free market would have eventually solved segregation for her.

An unnecessary, pointless cheap shot at Friedman. It would also be a cheap shot to note that the Civil Rights Act would not have been necessary had Democrats not supported Jim Crow laws for 80 years, so I won't say it.

But how come the privileged Caucasians over at Free State Politics equate everything conservative to racism? You might almost think that they have no other arguments to stand on.

I'll address Luedtke's nonsense comments on education in a separate post....

Kratovil: Look for the Union Label

Eric Luedtke has his knickers in a knot because Andy Harris has accepted $9,000 in contributions from Oil Company PACs.

That got me thinking, how much money has Frank Kratovil taken from, say union PACs?

AFL-CIO COPE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS COMMITTEE	03/26/2008	2500.00	28990858481
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION-COPE	02/22/2008	250.00	28930766435
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION-COPE	03/14/2008	500.00	28990809503

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVT. EMPL. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE	03/24/2008	500.00	28931214256
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES - P E O P L E, QUALIFIED	03/27/2008	5000.00	28990875596

COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA-COPE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS COMMITTEE

02/21/2008

5000.00

28930818828

DRIVE - DEMOCRAT REPUBLICAN INDEPENDENT VOTER EDUCATION - PAC FOR INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF T	04/09/2008	1000.00	28931584922
ENGINEERS POLITICAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE (EPEC)/INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS	05/21/2008	5000.00	28991319554

DRIVE - DEMOCRAT REPUBLICAN INDEPENDENT VOTER EDUCATION - PAC FOR INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF T	04/09/2008	1000.00	28931584922
ENGINEERS POLITICAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE (EPEC)/INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS	05/21/2008	5000.00	28991319554

MACHINISTS NON PARTISAN POL LEAGUE OF THE INT'L ASSN OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS

03/27/2008

5000.00

28990788019

NEA FUND FOR CHILDREN AND PUBLIC EDUCATION

03/28/2008

1000.00

28990863773

POLITICAL EDUCATIONAL FUND OF THE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT AFL-CIO

02/27/2008

1000.00

28990616933

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION (SEIU COPE)	02/06/2008	5000.00	28990697192
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION (SEIU COPE)	04/11/2008	5000.00	28931693286
SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION LEAGUE	03/25/2008	2500.00	28990855976

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS COMMITTEE	05/01/2008	1000.00	28991270198
UAW - V - CAP (UAW VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM)	03/10/2008	1500.00	28931127438
UNITED ASSOCIATION POLITICAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE	03/27/2008	5000.00	28931174045
UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION ACTIVE BALLOT CLUB	01/16/2008	1000.00	28930610559
UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION ACTIVE BALLOT CLUB	02/29/2008	5000.00	28930819742
UNITED STEELWORKERS POLITICAL ACTION FUND	03/31/2008	2500.00	28931077829
UNITED STEELWORKERS POLITICAL ACTION FUND	03/31/2008	2500.00	28931077829

That's $63,750 in contributions from unions to the Kratovil campaign. Not counting other donations from D.C. PACs.

If Andy Harris has been "bought" by the oil companies, does that mean that unions bought Frank Kratovil seven times over?

Sycophantic Obsequiousness

FSP is once again touting the merits of Al Gore's hypocritical, pie in the sky plan to railroad the U.S. towards clean energy without regard to economic consequences. But, of course, the fringe element never lets the facts get in the way of a good story and the pseudonymous poster "lefty" is exposing the fringe element for what they truly are.

In the comments in that post, "lefty" decides to launch into an attack on me personally instead of discussing the (lack of) issues I brought up regarding Gore's hypocrisy and the clear lack of a consensus on climate change. Instead of discussion, I get stuff like this:

So if I write a blog entry that says that all conservatives are deranged sociopaths who like to have carnal relations with goats, would it be OK for a bunch of allegedly influential liberal bloggers to pick up the story and create a similar feeding frenzy, on the grounds that the "consensus is building that Brian Griffiths and his conservative friends are all goat f*****s"? That's the moral equivalent of what you're claiming. The problem is that this kind of stupid-ass feeding frenzy only happens on the starboard wing of the blogosphere.

Classy.

These are the type of people that are, unfortunately, at the vanguard of the left-wing movement here in Maryland. People who a sycophantic and obsequious to whatever the Democratic Party is standing for today, and will stoop to any level to keep discussion, dissent, and debate out of site and out of mind. As I stated before, people like "lefty" believe in the Plutocracy, that they know better than you and that it is their Geia-given right to shout you down for disagreeing with them.

I feel bad, because I can go to bed every night with my conscious clear that I am thinking for myself and supporting policies in the best interest of my state and my country, not blindly following bad ideas in the name of the party.

The Racialization of the Purple Line

It looks like we are getting close to the point where the Purple Line in Montgomery County is going to get dragged down an unnecessary road.

To make a long story short, there is a lot of opposition to the construction of the purple line, and the Columbia Country Club is at the vanguard of that movement because the proposed course may or may not be on land that belongs to the club (yes, it's a pretty convoluted story).

Well, what first drew my attention to Eric Luedtke's post today about the issue was this:

The Purple Line is mass transit, and while mass transit helps everyone, the socio-economic group that most benefits are those who live below the poverty line.

Which, of course is patently absurd. Mass transit does not help everyone. It only helps people who use mass transit. Ask some of the folks who live near the Light Rail line if they have been helped by mass transit when it brought crime into their neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, that was only the beginning. Because Luedtke then jumped to the assumption that it's a racial issue:

Now, I absolutely don’t believe that David or most of the other Purple Line opponents I’ve met are intentionally being elitist. But they are advocating for an inequity, in the same way that a person who is not at all racist can unknowingly support elements of institutional racism. And the Columbia Country Club, whatever its role in their effort, is the poster boy for that whole issue.

Emphasis mine. Luedtke makes the same fundamental mistake that Michael Dresser made in the Sun last week by assuming that opposition to mass transit is fundamentally race based. And this is a card that the fringe left seems to be starting to play more and more every day. The left is trying to make any opposition to mass transit not based on the need for construction, the route, or in this case even the violation of private property rights (well, maybe). They immediately assume that the Columbia Country Club and the people who oppose the Purple Line are doing it to keep minorities and lower socioeconomic classes down. That of course further clouds the issue as to where and if the line should be built, burying behind an unneeded haze of identity politics.

I really don't have an opinion about the Purple Line itself, but I do not see why the debate about its construction needs to join many other topics that have needlessly been impacted by race. The introduction of race into the discussion of the mass transit by Luedtke, Dresser, and others is unnecessary and just makes it harder to discuss issues where racism is a legitimate problem.

Unions, Government Websites, Labor, GM, and O'Malleynomics

And you're probably thinking "What in the hell is he talking about?"

Let's start with a recent kerfluffle in Maryland's liberal blogosphere, which FSP's has been all over. Basically, the left was in a tiff because the state had an "anti-union website" that highlighted that Maryland has a "very favorable labor climate" and goes into detail about why Maryland is (allegedly) a good state for labor relations for businesses in Maryland. The left got in a lather, emails got sent, the Secretary of DBED responded and the O'Malley Administration folded like an accordion basically in less than one business day.

Now, I'm not going to really give the Administration or FSP a hard time about that. The Administration responded to its base, they had something which was contrary to administration policy, and they fixed it. And it also shows the influence that bloggers can have on government and policy. But that's not the story here.

The real question is this: who in the world thought Maryland had a climate that encourages businesses to create jobs here in Maryland? Income taxes are up. Property assessments are up. As we saw with Walmart, if you're too successful, they'll try to pass punitive legislation so unconstitutional it couldn't stand judicial muster. The General Assembly passes bills increasing the minimum wage and requiring high "living wages" in order to compete for government contracts. And with spending still out of control, more taxes and fees could be on the horizon. Clearly, the problem with Maryland is the fact that government here remains what it has always been: Anti-Business, Anti-Worker, and Anti-Consumer. The state website, while clearly over the top in being anti-union, just goes to show how much selling Maryland needs to do in order to attract business to this state. It was quite an exaggeration of Maryland's labor environment.

Now, let's tie this all together by talking about General Motors. GM is poised to announce a massive restructuring tomorrow:

General Motors Corp. is expected to cut several thousand salaried jobs and further slash truck production in response to falling U.S. sales and Wall Street's demands for more action to stem its losses, according to two people briefed on the plan.

GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner was scheduled to discuss the changes at a news conference Tuesday morning. GM released no further details, but salaried job cuts and reductions in benefits and executive compensation are likely.

What does this have to do with Maryland, other than the obvious fact that Broening Highway closed three years ago and that a large Allison transmission plant is still in White Marsh? Everything.

One of the reasons General Motors is in such deep trouble financially is the amount of control the United Auto Workers has over their bottom line. The UAW continues has negotiated to the point where salaries are higher than the demand truly is for the positions that are being filled in GM plants. Furthermore, the UAW negotiated from GM an overly generous health insurance plan for its workers and retirees, a plan that really eats into the bottom line. Now I'm not saying that these workers should not have health care, but the fact is that the UAW continued to negotiate from such a strength of power than they were required to concede virtually nothing to GM at the time. But instead of negotiating in a manner that allowed union workers to be handsomely compensated and allowed GM to continue to be profitable, the UAW continued to take, take, and take.

The problem is that a lot of people saw the GM collapse coming from a mile away. An editorial by Allen Sloan in the Washington Post from April 2005 stated:

These problems began to surface about 15 years ago because regulators changed the accounting rules. In 1992, GM says, it took a $20 billion non-cash charge to recognize pension obligations. Evolving rules then put OPEB on the balance sheet. Now, these obligations -- call it a combined $170 billion for U.S. operations -- are fully visible. And out-of-pocket costs for health care are eating GM alive.

GM spokesman Jerry Dubrowski says the company expects to pay $5.6 billion in health care costs this year for 1.1 million people covered by its plans. That's up from the $3.9 billion it shelled out in 2001 to cover 1.2 million people.

"At the time GM began offering these benefits, no one had any idea that the costs for prescription drugs and medical services would explode the way they have," Dubrowski said. True. But the UAW was astute (or lucky) enough to push the risk of covering these costs onto GM....

...If GM were making lots of money selling vehicles, this would all be manageable, sort of. GM could buy enough time for demographics to bail it out, as more retirees begin getting Social Security and Medicare, reducing GM's costs, and other retirees die off. Its ratio of retirees to workers, currently 2.5 to 1, would shrink. Alas, GM's vehicle business is in the tank. Unless GM starts making money on vehicles or gets a break from the UAW or the federal government, things are going to get really ugly. I hope that doesn't happen, but it easily could.

The bottom line: Whenever you offer someone a free lunch, make sure that you'll be able to pay the bill when it comes in.

Yes, GM suits share a significant portion of the burden here. But why has the union refused to help GM in an effort to keep the doors open? A victory to maintain 100% coverage is pyrrhic if the doors to the plant are shuttered and people are out of a job. But unions often

And this right here is why Maryland was advertising what they referred to as a "very favorable labor climate." Companies cannot afford to go where union leadership is going to force the issue and make costs prohibitively high. There is a reason that foreign car companies that build plants in America build plants in right-to-work states. There is a reason that India's Tata motors (which I wrote about in January) purchased Jaguar and Land Rover from Ford and obtained their foreign and domestic dealership and distribution network. In both cases, these foreign automakers are not forced to deal with union issues in the way that General Motors has.

Maryland, of course, is not a right to work state. In fact, we live in a state where unions have a disproportionate amount of power when compared to the actual number of citizens who are union members. And usually of course, it is the union leadership that is in the back pocket of Maryland's Democratic Leadership. Hell, in Maryland teachers are not even allowed to skimp on union dues even if they do not join the union. Freedom of choice in paying union dues, that's not something teachers in Anne Arundel County have here. Despite the rhetoric on the now defunct state website, Maryland is a state where unions (particularly union leaders) thriver financially by doing what is best for the union, not what is best for the workers or the local economy.

Think I'm joking? Do you think it is the best interest of Verizon workers to vote to strike when their contract expires in 30 days, as they are expected to do? In this economy? Does anybody really think that it's in the best interest of Verizon workers to do that at this time?

The left's uprising about this "anti-union" website shows interesting problems with Maryland's economy. While it was against the policies of the current administration, it really highlights to problems that Maryland has in selling itself to companies looking to create job growth. Maryland has positioned itself to be a very expensive place to do business, and has forced itself into a corner, much like General Motors did with their union policies.

Instead of worrying in the grand scheme of things about websites, let's think about what we can do to stop the mismanagement of Maryland's economy and actually provide real incentives for businesses to come here and create jobs. And continued tax hikes, anti-business legislation, and unchecked spending is just the way to ensure no such job creation happens.

Seeing Red

Now that their main man Martin is in the Governor's Mansion, apparently the state budget running in the red is no problem for the Sun Editorial Board. Their editorial this morning is one of the more bizarre editorials I have read in quite some time.

Maryland tax revenues are proving to be less than expected, particularly from the distressed housing and retail sectors, a clear indicator that the local economy is not immune from the national downturn. According to the latest estimate, tax collections for the fiscal year that began July 1 are likely to fall about $200 million short of projections.

It's true that the housing and retail sectors being down are going to lead to lower tax revenues. But what the writers do not take into account, naturally, is the decrease in tax revenues due to the increases in taxes. I have noted before that when tax rates are increased, revenues decrease. This is particularly true when you make it a point to pass taxes targeted at those with the means to leave.

Not only have Maryland's economic troubles proved relatively mild compared with other states, at least so far, but the budgetary outlook has been helped substantially by last year's tax package.

By adding a penny to the sales tax, raising the income tax for the state's wealthiest and taking a few other steps, Mr. O'Malley and the General Assembly not only averted a potential $1.7 billion budget shortfall but also had enough to spend more on transportation projects and health care for the uninsured.

Of course, it is morally reprehensible to increase taxes to cover a shortfall, but increase them just enough to spend billions more in increasing the size of government. Not only is that detrimental to the economy and to the wallet of the taxpayer, it also sends a dangerous message that such profligate and irresponsible spending will not only be acceptable, but encouraged. The Sun seems to think that indiscriminate wasteful spending and hiking taxes to obscene levels is a more acceptable way to manage the state than it would be to spend responsibly and reduce the size of government in order to spend what we can afford.

Decisions that seemed painful last fall are now paying off. A $200 million drop in revenues is manageable because lawmakers set aside more than that in the state budget's cash balance account.

You want painful? Talk to the parents who have less money to save for college. Tell that to the high school student who can't get a summer job to help pay for their own education. Tell that to the mother who lost her job and can't put food on the table for her children. Isn't that more painful than having enough money to cover a bloated budget?

Even for families who aren't in dire straits, they can just go hit up their neighbors for more money in order to pay their bills. They realize that they need to cut back on spending and only spend what they can afford. That's how they make their fiscal situation "manageable." The only way that the Sun editorial writers are going to find a solution to the current fiscal situation that is manageable is through higher taxes.

And speaking of tax hikes...

But that is the short-term view. In fiscal 2010 (the budget year that begins nearly one year from now), the gap could widen to $500 million. And after that, the state's budget health may depend on whether voters approve this fall's slots referendum - or find an alternative source of new revenue.

Which, of course, is ridiculous. It is fiscally irresponsible to depend on slots revenue to cover future spending. It is fiscally irresponsible to not cut spending now in order to cover expected shortfalls. And I said before, it would be morally bankrupt to raise taxes again.

The Sun wraps up their editorial with a rather weak-kneed endorsement of spending cuts, but the earlier paragraphs make it clear that their preferred method of dealing with the issue is not through cutbacks in spending, but further increasing the burden on their readers....maybe explaining why so few people are buying the Sun these days.

But of course our friends on the left still think taxes are the way to go. FSP poster Nate W posts this about the shortfalls in the last two budgets in a larger post about the recession:

Yea, I'd say that wouldn't be such a bad idea Mr. Descheneaux. Even though this shortfall isn't nearly as bad as the $1.5 billion gap that required a special session last year, its still around $200 million more than you'd like to see. Especially when there are no signs that this dragging economy is going to tick upwards anytime soon.

The bolding is mine because I want to draw attention to the very same mindset that the Sun is endorsing. The $1.5 billion gap did only required a Special Session because Governor O'Malley refused to act like an adult and cut the budget in a responsible way. Instead, Democrats in Annapolis raised taxes and raised the cost of living for every man, woman, and child in this state. They did so with no care whatsoever to the devastating impact these taxes had on the local economy. Terms like O'Malleynomics and the O'Malley Recession aren't cute buzzwords to piss off the left, but real descriptors of the damage O'Malley and the General Assembly has done to the economy and done to the Maryland taxpayer. What we see in Maryland's economy and the impact that it is having on the working and middle class taxpayer is not entirely their fault, but O'Malley and the General Assembly share a pretty good chunk of blame for it.

The cure for Maryland's economic woes are what I have argued for from day one; lower taxes, and reduced spending. It's that simple and until Democratic leaders understand that, we have no way out.

Fringe Left: Now Mikulski isn't Fringe Left enough

Remember last year when the crowd at FSP declared Martin O'Malley to be too centrist? Now, Eric Luedtke has decided that Barbara Mikulski, of all people, isn't leftist enough:

I was an Mfume supporter during the last primary, but I've been very impressed with Cardin since he took office. I just wish Mikulski weren't playing the moderate so much now. Whenever she does retire, getting a bona fide progressive elected to that seat needs to be priority number one.

That's right. Barbara Mikulskui has spent her entire political life voting for higher taxes, bigger government through earmarks, and basically being an ineffective Senator who spends her time casting votes in favor of screwing middle and working class families. But apparently, that's not good enough for Comrade Luedtke.

I shudder to think how far to the left one has to be in order to successfully pander to the online left...

Now this is interesting

Isaac Smith is floating a trial balloon about the concept of far-left Democrats finding a primary challenger for Steny Hoyer in 2010:

After Steny Hoyer's shameful performance in pushing the FISA bill through the House [which just sailed through the cloture vote in the Senate --IS], there's been talk about putting up a primary challenge to him in 2010. Even if it's only a protest candidacy, it might at least register the outrage many Democrats feel about their party's leadership giving in to Republicans' demands to let telecom companies break the law, and then turning around and portraying it as a victory for Democrats. It was infuriating enough when Democrats were in the minority, but to see Hoyer, et al, do the same thing as the majority party is almost inexplicable.

But is a primary challenge the best way to hold Hoyer accountable?

Interesting to see the Democrats also considering more "eating their own" tactics, much the same way that Maryland has been saddled with one Congressional extremist, Donna Edwards, this month already. I can't see a scenario where any serious Democrat will challenge the House Majority Leader while it still looks like Democrats will retain both Houses of Congress, but it'll be interesting to see how much play the idea gets.

Real Quiet

I notice that Maryland Democrats, both on and offline, have gotten real quiet about the troubles of Ulysses Currie. Considering the fact that her in Maryland time, and time, and time, and time again it is the Democrats who are always implicated in some sort of corruption scandal in Maryland.

Free State Politics and the other opinion leaders in the liberal blogosphere are quiet. David Paulson is keeping his mouth shut (for once) too. But hey, I'd get tired of going to bat for these guys, too.

But I keep noticing how much more critical Republicans are of their own, which I think speaks volumes of the charachter difference between the two parties these days. Most Republicans (not necessarily the ones in DC, mind you, but most) put principle and integrity ahead of victory. Not so much with a lot of Democrats these days...

This deserves an answer

In my critique Saturday of Paul Foer's somewhat bizarre rant on in-school war protesting, Streiff made an interesting comment:

Does your view hold true for students supporting the war, or those who want to miss school to attend the annual March for Life?

I think it's a question that deserves an answer: does Paul Foer or other liberals who support students missing school or disrupting the school day to protest the war also support the right of conservatives protesting abortion or supporting our troops to do the same?

It's a fair question, and I think I know what the answer is going to be...

Shorter Paul Foer: "Kids don't need to learn, they need to recreate the '60's!"

Paul Foer over on his blog and at FSP is horrified that students who disrupted the school day at Annapolis High School were suspended.

Here is what the Capital story tells us:

Three students were arrested at Annapolis High Thursday afternoon for staging a sit-in to protest the Iraq war, according to county police.

Kit Whitacre, 17, was among the students arrested. He said they had only been sitting on the floor for about 10 or 15 minutes when administrators began threatening them, and the police officer stationed in the school called for backup, flashing sets of plastic handcuffs.

"We just sat down in front of the main office," Kit said. "We didn't want to go to class, because we felt it's unfair other people our age are in Iraq."

County police said yesterday they charged the three students with disorderly and disruption of school activity. They would not give names of those arrested because the report has not yet been filed, and because those arrested are juveniles.

Bob Mosier, a spokesman for the school system, said "appropriate disciplinary action" was taken against the protesting students. He would not specify what disciplinary action was taken.

"You can't disturb the instructional day," Mr. Mosier said. "That's in the code of student conduct."

Now, I will say that arresting the students was probably a little over the top. But I don't see a real big problem with suspending the students for their actions. Their actions are no different than any other stunt pulled to intentionally disrupt learning in their school. The students made a choice to make a spectacle of themselves and they got suspended for it. It's not like they were suspended specifically for protesting the war.

Paul Foer then takes it completely off the tracks:

Contrast this to the Vietnam era when we had a draft and for most purposes, had to pay for the war. The young people went nuts, and their protests eventually brought about an end to the war. And our country seems to have collective amnesia about every lesson we should have learned from that folly. So, after all these years in Iraq, trillions squandered and many thousands dead,we seem to forget all the lies foisted upon us by Bush and Cheney Incorporated. Instead, we take a few students who sat down peacefully and suspend them for ten days.

If Foer wants to argue the war, he can go ahead and do so and spill his offbeat, fringe opinions about the war to his hearts content. But to say that the kids should not be suspended because the war is still going and that's what we are doing "instead" of "learning the lessons" so to speak about the war is foolhardy.

Then, Foer seemingly encourages students to shut down the school day:

Perhaps, yes perhaps, if cooler heads prevail, we'll get a massive student protest going and maybe we'll shut the whole school down for ten days. That might make a point. As the parent of an Annapolis HS student, I'm all for it. It might make the lessons my son is learning about US government and history all the more meaningful. And if he gets suspended for ten days, we'll go visit all the war memorials in Washington, stroll among the gardens of stones at Arlington, visit our Senators and Congressman to protest. He might learn more than he does in school.

Apparently, Foer thinks that nonviolent protest of a war is more important for his son than actually receiving instruction that will prepare him for the rest of his life. And as a parent, Foer has that right. However, he does not have the right to take opportunities for learning away from the other students at Annapolis High School. He doesn't have the right to encourage protest of a war in lieu of learning about science, about history, and about math. For some of these students who go to Annapolis High, education is the only way out of their socioeconomic situation. They may only have the opportunity to go to college through what they learn during the school day. Why should they be denied that right when some of the uppity Annapolis-area bourgeoisie want to relive the Sixties vicariously through their children.

Ironically, Foer's idea to shut down Annapolis High will take educational opportunities away from the lower and middle classes who attend Annapolis. It may also keep kids out of college who then, ironically, may feel like they need to enlist and wind up fighting in the war that Foer so passionately opposes. Funny, I thought liberals were for education and against sending our kids to war.

Foer's assertions that this kind of nonviolent protest should be encouraged are disturbing. We should be encouraging students to go to school to get an education, not do the bidding of their parents by protesting a war. Education is everything, and nobody on the right or the left should be encouraging its disruption for any reason.

The Recession Proof Economy and other Liberal Economic Myths

Isaac Smith tries to climb his way out of his remarks about the "conservative" General Assembly by making some more odd points, the first of which is by again talking about the myth of a recession proof economy:

Of course, Brian's point (I think) is that the tax increases are exacerbating the recession's effects in Maryland, which is debatable; certainly the Washington suburbs have been doing better than the national average in terms of employment, and Maryland's unique economic features make it more resilient to downturns generally. Things could get worse, however, if the state made the draconian kind of budget cuts that Brian and other Republicans have been clamoring for. As I've noted before, budget cuts during a recession are actually more harmful to the economy than tax increases, since it exacerbates the problem of falling consumption by reducing consumption even further.

And yes, that was the point I was trying to make; that an already bad economic climate is being made worse by Annapolis Democrats. Of course, liberals in Annapolis always try to fall back on the idea that Maryland's economy is recession proof due to the shear number of federal jobs and federal spending that is tied into the Montgomery and Prince George's County suburbs. The fact of the matter remains that despite this "unique economic feature" as Isaac likes to call federal spending, federal workers can also be disproportionately harmed by higher taxes and higher spending at the state level. Just because their jobs are "recession-proof" doesn't mean that the diminution of their purchasing power thanks to higher taxes and the higher price of goods and services is going to be stopped, too.

As far as budget cuts during a reccession harming the economy, that just make little sense. The preponderance of the additional spending proposed an enacted by the O'Malley Administration deals with increasing the size and largesses of government, not the reduction of capital projects that are already budgeted and under contract. This is further exacerbated by the fact that much of the spending cuts and the diminution of purchasing power could have been avoided if spending were cut in the first place since the spending cuts could have provided relief from the "need" for higher and higher taxes. And besides, remember what happened when Roosevelt tried to spend his way out of a massive economic downturn. The type of spending that Isaac suggests is the type of spending that bankrupted the Soviet Union.

I am heartened by the fact that Isaac realizes that the elimination of balanced budget requirements in Maryland is foolhardy, but I could not disagree more with this reasoning:

Ideally, what you would want is for the state to build up its rainy-day fund during boom times and spend it down during bust times (what's known in economic jargon as countercyclical fiscal capacity), so that there's some stability in the functioning of government programs. Unfortunately, Maryland's rainy-day fund went dry in 2007, so that option is closed off.

No, ideally what you want to do is have a government that only takes as much money from its citizenery as it needs to provide the most basic of services; schools, fire, police, etc. I'm pretty sure I didn't volunteer to make an interest free loan to the State Government in order to stash away money for pet projects when times are rough. Should there be a rainy-day fund? Yes, but only for actually fiscal emergencies to meet the most basic of collective services, not just for the sake of out-of-control spenders trying to balance the budget when tax revenues fail to meet expectations.

And finally, we get this:

I'm hoping, then, that if the recession persists, as seems likely, Congress will push for greater federal aid to the states, which would allow programs like Medicaid and unemployment assistance -- which are high in demand during a recession -- to get to more people who need it.

Actually, the last thing we need to do is for Congress to start doling out more money to the states. States should be able to find ways to fund these programs out of their own fiscal houses and not really on additional federal assistance above and beyond what is already in place. The state budget should have adequately prepared for increases in Medicaid and unemployment claims when the General Assembly adopted it last week, but I'm sure that pet projects were more important to legislative leadership than this already existent spending.

The argument that Maryland does not spend enough and that we should continue to maintain current spending levels during the O'Malley Recession flies in the face of responsible government, and I find it hard for Smith and others to continue making spurious arguments for the continuation of this reckless fiscal posture.

The Liberal Kool-Aid Acid Test

Whatever Isaac Smith is drinking don't follow suit, because this is the kind of thinking that is destroying Maryland:

One more thing I should add is that I think we can explain the right-ward lurch, as Paul puts it, in the General Assembly this session as a reaction to the economy taking a nosedive and the aftermath of the special session.

There are a number of just completely ridiculous things in that brief sentence. First is the accusation that the General Assembly took a "right-ward lurch." Only somebody to the left of Mao could think that this General Assembly lurched in any direction but towards a Maryland that taxes its citizens to the hilt, spends more than it can afford, and looks to find ways to interfere with the lives and the civil liberties of its citizenry. This is the Maryland that Isaac Smith claims he wants, but this is a Maryland that isn't far to the left enough for Smith and the fringe left.

Of course, Smith fails to acknowledge that part of the reason for "the economy taking a nosedive" here in Maryland is precisely due to the Special Session and the O'Malley Recession that was born from it.

Then, as if Maryland didn't have enough spending problems:

I know I harp on this, but the inability of states to do deficit spending like the federal government severly constricts what states can do during a recession.

Yes. Smith came out and endorsed deficit spending as the solution to our problems. Fortunately, the State Constitution in Maryland requires us to have a balanced budget, or lord knows how much Martin O'Malley and his crew could have begged, borrowed, and stolen from this General Assembly and, ultimately, the taxpayers. The reason that we are not allowed in Maryland to have deficit spending is for the precise reason that Smith wants us to spend into deficit: so that irresponsible, financially dimwitted elected officials can't try and spend our way out of economic problems. We are already taxed to death and concerned with our bond rating: how does Smith think that deficit spending is going to magically solve those problems?

Finally, we get this:

Given that environment, it's easy to see how O'Malley and the General Assembly adopted a tempermentally, if not ideologically, conservative stance on fiscal matters.

I am stunned that somebody as financially to the left as O'Malley can be called a conservative on any financial issues when he continues to spend beyond the state's means and continues to try to tax Maryland's middle class and working families into poverty and brokering deals that will require families to spend more on electric rates.