Good Stuff

H/T to Erick Erickson for this:



Well, well said...

Pro-Gambling, Anti-Slots Amendment

Of all of the people in Maryland’s blogospohere, I have probably been one of, if not the, most vocal proponents of the expansion of gambling in Maryland. And not just the addition of slots, but also my long-standing support of table gaming here in Maryland.

All that being said, I am voting no on the slots referendum.

The reason that I am voting no is quite simple; the language contained in the Constitutional Amendment has no business being in the actual constitution. I go back to what I wrote last November during the Special Session:

And that's the problem with the slots plan as currently proposed. Making it a Constitutional Amendment will artificially limit the location of slots parlors to certain jurisdictions or, in the cases of one of the plans floating out there, limiting them to certain geographic coordinates within municipalities or defined areas. That is not the point of a Constitutional document. This amendment goes into specific details about plans that would make the location of slots parlors difficult or impossible to change since any change to those locations would require the approval of the voters.

A Constitutional Amendment on slots, at least one as specific as the legislators are currently discussing, is a problem hatched by legislators to address a concern the voters really don't have. The voters want the legislators to deal with the issues. The legislators want to pass the buck the voters. Ultimately, the legislative leadership is abdicating its responsibility to lead, and in doing so handcuffing whatever potential profit the state may have from slots revenue given the constraints of using a Constitutional Amendment as a change agent (and as political cover)...

And I stand by that still. The fact of the matter is that such language adopted in the Constitution will make it nearly impossible to correct any shortcomings with slots, particularly with slot parlor locations, once it is ensconced in the Constitution. At that point, If zoning becomes an issue as the Amendment allows, there is no useful way to fix it; any changes would also need to be adopted as Constitutional Amendments and subjected to another referendum to state voters. That’s no way to make public policy.

On top of Constitutional concerns, the bill as stated is just bad policy and bad politics. Table gaming, not slots is what is needed in order to create gambling revenues in the state (a conclusion even Baltimore City was able to reach). And what’s of even greater concern is the amount of corruption that we have already seen this amendment bring. Clearly, the slot parlor locations determined by the Amendment are no accident, because legislative and Democratic leaders know exactly who is supposed to operate these parlors and win these licenses. Combine that with the buying and selling of legislators we saw from back in the Special Session, and you already know what kind of enterprise O’Malley and Company have created.

Like many, I am pro-gambling, but I cannot in good conscience vote for a poorly written, poorly conceived idea just because it moves this ball forward. I’m voting no, and anybody who supports the expansion of gambling in a logical and constructive manner should do the same…

Now I can take Eric Luedtke even less seriously than I already did

At this point, it's ridiculous for elected officials to continue insisting that no new revenue sources should be looked at.
- Eric Luedtke.

Seriously. He writes this stuff. God forbid that we look at cutting spending and not causing an even bigger financial mess for ourselves through higher taxes.

Obviously, any tax placed on the average, middle-class Maryland is out of the question.
- Eric Luedtke.

You mean like the ones Democrats rammed through the General Assembly last year? Those middle-class tax increases? True, we shouldn't raise any more taxes on middle and working class Maryland families. Unfortunately, I don't think Luedtke really believes that because he'll fly the flag for whatever new "revenue sources" Democrats run up the flagpole.

When Luedtke actually stands up for Maryland and joins those of us who actually want to help working and middle class Maryland families through tax cuts, then he'll actually being doing something worthwhile to help the economy and maybe we can take him seriously. Until then, who knows how bad of an economic situation Luedtke wants to help create.

Economy be Damned

Who's worried about the Wall Street Meltdown? Certainly not Democratic Delegate Heather Mizeur:

No matter who wins the presidential race in November, a national debate on health care is sure to start in 2009, Del. Heather Mizeur said Tuesday.

"It will be a different kind of debate depending on who wins. It seems like every 10 to 15 years we're ready to take this national health care debate on again," said Mizeur (D-Dist. 20) of Takoma Park.

Can you imagine, in this kind of fiscal environment, liberals trying to start a showdown on health care at the state and local level? We already have a situation where government has expanded far, FAR beyond its means. We already have a situation where government cannot afford the spending that has been undertaken at all levels of government. Are Democrats really ready to launch a debate in which they will propose the largest expansion of government social programs in American history knowing that they would need to raise taxes on the middle and working classes to pay for it?

I agree that we need to discuss reforming health care at the national level. But discussion the rapid expansion of government services at a time in which we absolutely cannot afford it is silly and naive. If the Democrats at the state and federal levels really go ahead with this, they will be saying "economy be damned, full speed ahead."

This should have come first

Give credit where credit is due: Martin O'Malley finally realizes that spending cuts are going to have to happen:

Gov. Martin O'Malley directed state agencies yesterday to look for budget cuts of up to 5 percent that could include layoffs or unpaid furloughs for state employees, as he seeks savings in this year's budget and prepares a spending plan for next year.

An economic downturn has cut tax collections, so O'Malley must make cuts for the fiscal year that began in July to keep the $14 billion operating budget in balance, as required by law. The Democrat plans to present hundreds of millions of dollars in proposed trims at the Board of Public Works meeting Oct. 15.

As the Governor notes:

"The more reductions we make now, the better off we will be in dealing with an extraordinarily difficult budget next year," O'Malley said. "While these cuts will not be easy, it is clear that the economic crisis that our nation is experiencing will have a dramatic impact."

Of course what is complete disingenuous is the fact that the reason such drastic spending cuts are required now is the fact that O'Malley and Annapolis Democrats refused to undertake responsible and prudent spending cuts last year, when we saw a deficit and saw the first rumblings of economic stability. Instead of doing the responsible thing, O'Malley and company as you know raised taxes and increased unnecessary discretionary spending.

Here is one thing that we do know; O'Malley and the liberals in Annapolis are going to try to use these budget cuts as an impetus for.....more tax increases. Never mind the fact that last year's tax hikes are part of the reason we have a budget shortfall now, but that's never stopped O'Malley and his ilk going back to the well and trying what has already failed.

I'm glad that O'Malley finally decided to act like a responsible steward of the people's money, but this is the kind of activity we should have engaged in last year. By waiting this long to reduce spending, O'Malley and company merely cheated Maryland's working and middle class families of a larger percentage of income that a lot of them could really use right now....

Not the way things were

Over on RM lefty made a comment about the New Deal that I think deserves special attention:

The New Deal regulatory regime worked very well for 60 years. From 1947 to the mid-1970s, this country experienced its greatest period of sustained growth ever. And it was the New Deal system that was the basis of that growth.

Beginning in the 1990s, however, there was intense pressure from Wall Street and elsewhere to loosen these regulatory restrictions. So a lot of them were done away with in the name of "modernization" and "efficiency." Translation: we need to make more @%@#% money, and these regulations are in our way.

The problem here is with his premise. The premise is that we had unmitigated prosperity for so long in spite of New Deal big government programs as opposed to because of them. There are two main reasons why we had such sustained economic growth in the Postwar period:

1. Defense spending, which is the only reason that the Depression ended in the first place, continued to be a large portion of the economy for decades due to the Cold War. Defense spending and war has been the only governmetn program in human history that can bring about an economic turnaround.
   
   
2. The complete lack of competition in the global marketplace. Face it, the American economic engine and industrial base had a decade long head start on the rest of the world due to the fact that American industry was ramped up from World War II and the fact that the U.S. was the only industrialized nation that did not suffer substantial to total destruction to its industrial capacity. It's pretty easy to sell products and build industry and prosperity when you are the only game in town, and that made it easy to sustain our lead in industry and technology for as long as we did.

The New Deal had nothing to do with the success of the Postwar Economy. Nothing whatsoever. It just is not the way things were.

I wrote a while back (as he referenced) about the end of Keynesian economics. But as I have stated before, it was Keynesian economics in the sense of unfettered deficit spending that has gotten us into the mess. And yes, President Bush's domestic spending has caused a lot of that problem. But you must remember this: we have never had unfettered capitalism. in the U.S. Before the current regulatory environment, we were faced (particularly in the late 19th century) with regulations geared toward preserving oligarchy, not encouraging capitalism.

To be perfectly honest, I don't know the best solution, and I don't think anybody really does at this point. I don't think either candidate for President has an answer either. I certainly know Obama doesn't, given the fact that he has people like James Johnson, Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick (the people who ran Fannie Mae into the ground) as key economic advisers. But I am certain that the proposed bailout and the unnecessary regulations attached to it aren't it. Keynes is still not the answer.

Just Say No

I haven't really written too much about the proposed Wall Street Bailout as of yet, mainly because the story is still rapidly developing and changing. But here is one thing that I can say for certain: Congress has no business adopting such a plan.

When it comes down to brass tacks, what is the government underwriting of $700 billion worth of bad decisions really going to get for the American people? Not much, other than a higher deficit and a possible risk to the liquidity of the U.S. Government. The last thing we need during a time period where we are already spending more than the government can afford is such an expansion of our national debt. It's an expansion of government involvement in the economy, something that was we have seen over the years (hello Sarbanes-Oxley) generally creates new problems while exacerbating existing ones.

What's even more ridiculous about the concept is the fact that the same people who got us into the mess are the same people who seem to think that they can find us a way out of it. As Ron Smith wrote in the Sun this morning:

Why is it we are supposed to believe that the same "experts" who led us down the path to financial ruin are capable of constructing strategies, policies and bailouts that will turn us around and head us toward solvency? It makes no sense. We are assured that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke is on top of things because he won his spurs as a scholar of the Great Depression. This isn't a replay of the 1930s, though; it's something new, something perhaps even bigger.

If Congress chooses to not pass a bailout, there is no question that it would destabilize the economy both here and abroad. I think that no reasonable person would disagree with that. But it is entirely possibly, dare I say likely, that the results of the bailout will be far far worse for the economy and the American taxpayer than by letting things take their course.

We saw during the 1930's what overzealous government intervention brought in the form of the New Deal, which sunk the American economy deeper and deeper into the Depression and created the Entitlement State that so burdens middle and working class taxpayers to this day. The last thing we need today are such regulations and reforms to make this situation worse.

Congress needs to take a step back and just so no to this bailout. Our future depends on it.

Class is in session

Eric Luedtke, after discussing some language from Progressive Maryland, on the state of working Maryland:

This is what makes efforts like increasing the minimum wage, strengthening the living wage, guaranteeing paid sick days, finding ways to get people health insurance, and reinforcing labor protections are so important.Our economic growth is leaving too many behind.

So let's follow Luedtke's logic here.

1. Maryland's economy is leaving too many people behind.
2. We need more Government to fix the problem.

Now, let's talk about real reasons why middle and working class families are in their current state:

1. Government has gotten too big.
   
2. Martin O'Malley and Annapolis Democrats cannot control spending.
3. Martin O'Malley and Annapolis Democrats cannot control their urge to raise taxes on the middle and working classes.
4. Businesses who can afford to leave Maryland are due to higher taxes, more regulations, and labor unfriendly laws like living and prevailing wage laws.
   
5. Fewer and fewer jobs are left for middle and working class employees.
6. The left responds by calling for even bigger government.
7. Return to step 2 and repeat.

If Luedtke is serious about helping Maryland's middle and working class families (and I have no doubt that he is not and would rather put politics first) he will call for the reduction of lower taxes, reduced government spending, and a regulatory environment that encourages job growth here in Maryland.

People on the fringe left like Luedtke need to realize that they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Class dismissed.

Misplaced Priorities

I know it sounds like a broken record, but I can never be amazed how much Dan Rodricks can misplace his priorities. Time and time and time and time again, Rodricks has shown us he would rather spend a billion dollars on new sports facilities than he would dealing with real problems facing Baltimore's residents.

Now apparently, Rodricks also thinks that the arena project is more important than other state projects too. Because while Rodricks thinks there is money for arenas, apparently the Intercounty Connector is just a bridge too far:

The ICC has been sold to us - first by Republican Gov. Bob Ehrlich, then his Democratic successor, Martin O'Malley - as one of those costly but necessary government projects that support development and commerce. It's an 18.8-mile stretch of expensive toll road to move cars and trucks between congested areas, relieve some of the traffic on the Other Beltway, the one that snakes around the nation's capital, and even enhance homeland security. Accepting all these arguments, the Bush administration put the Intercounty Connector on the fast track for Ehrlich five years ago.

But in 2008, it's the Intercounty Anachronism.

With an economic downtown fueled by a housing bust and the cost of energy, the so-yesterday quality of the ICC should be apparent to most Marylanders now.

Why not scrap the whole thing? Why should we feel stuck with building a highway that first hit the drawing boards in the 1950s?

That's right. Rodricks sees no problem in wasting money on an unnecessary project like an arena, but when it comes to building a vital and necessary transportation and economic lifeline, well we certainly can't be having any of that, now can we?

And what exactly is Rodricks solution to deal with the transportation problems that would not be solved by the construction of the ICC? Transit projects that will allegedly alleviate congestion on the Capital Beltway. Never mind the fact that one of the purposes of the ICC was to.....alleviate congestion on the Capital Beltway by removing through traffic going from the Baltimore area to Montgomery County, particularly trucks and business vehicles that would never use this proposed transit model.

Rodricks misplaces his priorities once again. I wonder how much of this is related to Rodricks myopic, Baltimore-centric universe, or just to the fact that Rodricks is ignorant of issues that actually matter to the rest of Maryland's citizenry.

Incredible

If you haven't read Tom Verducci's column in this week's Sports Illustrated regarding the demise of Yankee Stadium, go read it now.

An amazing piece by Verducci.

Does anyone understand?

If you want to understand why the O'Malley Administration cannot get a handle of basic economics, and if you want to understand why Martin O'Malley is continuing to help make it harder and harder for working and middle class families to make it, look no further than his cabinet. State Secretary of Labor Tom Perez tries to sell the argument today in the Gazette that prevailing and living wage laws are good for Maryland.

But of course like most liberals do when discussing the economy, Perez completely contradicts his own argument:

And yet study after study of prevailing wage laws, many that have been on the books for decades, finds that the prevailing wage does not increase costs, and actually has benefits for governments and taxpayers in the form of increased quality and productivity.

A recent paper by the Economic Policy Institute attributed the lack of a link between the prevailing wage and increased costs to various factors, including the fact that in many cases, workers already earn the prevailing wage, and the statute is simply a way to ensure employers who do right by their workers are not underbid by those who do not.

The emphasis is mine and points out a couple of things:

1. If employees are already earning the equivalent to the prevailing wage, what point is there adding prevailing wage laws to the books
2. If the statute is a way to "ensure employers who do right by their workers" is that not artificially inflating costs? If a company paying a prevailing wage needs statutory protection to ensure that they are not underbid by a company who does not pay the prevailing wage, more taxpayers dollars must be spent than otherwise necessary in order to complete the project.
3. Is is better to "do right by workers" by providing more jobs to people who don't have them, or by taking away jobs from people who need them in order to cover the costs of a prevailing wage?
   

So, to make a long story short, Tom Perez is either lying or doesn't understand simple economics.

I do find it interesting that Perez waxes poetic about ensuring workers receive the "basic respect they deserve in return for the work they do." As a taxpayer of Maryland, I sure as hell don't feel like Perez and the rest of the O'Malley Administration has a basic respect for the work Maryland's working and middle classes do, and the taxes we pay to cover their wasteful spending and profligate lawmaking.

Friendly Fire

No matter how liberal Martin O'Malley is, he is never liberal enough for some people. Adam Pagnucco made a note today of something related to the story of Sean Malone leaving the O'Malley Administration. I thought it might be the O'Malley team cashing in, but Adam thinks it might be something else:

Sean Malone has been a close advisor to Martin O’Malley ever since O’Malley was a member of the Baltimore City Council. He rose with O’Malley through the city and state governments, becoming a legal counsel to the Baltimore police department, Baltimore's labor commissioner, and eventually the new Governor’s labor liaison. But Malone was even more than that – he was a member of the Governor’s tight, protective inner circle. That made Sean Malone a powerful figure in Annapolis.

Lisa Harris Jones is the owner of Harris Jones LLC, an Annapolis lobbying firm. Her client list includes the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), one of the most anti-union trade associations in the United States. As the above sources reported, Sean Malone is Harris Jones LLC’s newest employee.

Very interesting, particularly in that this is something that is really going to infuriate certain aspects of O'Malley's base. Given the fact that O'Malley regularly rolls over for his union and liberal allies, I find it hard to believe that the unions have that much of a problem with O'Malley, but still very interest.

And all of this brings me back to something I have been talking about for a year now: do stories like this make it likely that Peter Franchot will challenge O'Malley in the primary in 2010 (results of the slots referendum notwithstanding)?

GUILTY(ish)

Perjurer-at-large Joe Albero blinked today:

A Delmar, Del. man best known for his Web blog and ongoing disputes with Salisbury officials was sentenced to probation before judgement on a perjury charge this morning.

Joe Albero, 46, entered in Alford plea in Wicomico County Circuit Court. By using an Alford plea, Albero does not admit guilt but acknowledges that the prosecution had enough evidence to convict him if the case were to go to trial.

Albero was indicted in April for perjury in connection with a 2005 land deal in Pittsville in which he reportedly stated his was a Maryland resident. However, voting records indicate Albero has been registered to vote in Delaware since 2005.

I would also note that the Daily Times broke the story before sbynews.com did. Looks like Albero "got blogged" by the Times....

Incidentally before Albero tries to weasel his way out of this and say that he didn't plead guilty, don't forget that an Alford plea is in fact a form of a guilty plea:

More recently, the Supreme Court has approved so-called Alford pleas, in which defendants plead guilty while simultaneously protesting their innocence.³ Far from criticizing these practices, Judge Frank Easterbrook and most other scholars praise these pleas as efficient, constitutional means of resolving cases.⁴ Even Albert Alschuler, a leading critic of plea bargaining generally, supports Alford pleas. He views them as a lesser evil, a way to empower defendants within a flawed system. As long as we have plea bargaining, he maintains, innocent defendants should be free to use these pleas to enter advantageous plea bargains without lying. And guilty defendants who are in denial should be empowered to use these pleas instead of being forced to stand trial.

Emphasis mine.

I'd say that now that Albero has copped a guilty plea that he would lose his credibility, but given his antics, criminal history and plagiarism, it's not like he had any credibility to begin with....

The Sun never shines on education

I am only somewhat puzzled and surprised by The Sun's editorial this morning on the positions of Senator McCain and Obama on Education.

First off, the editorial notes the following truism about the boondoggle known as No Child Left Behind:

Senators Obama and McCain also both acknowledge that the federal No Child Left Behind Act passed under the Bush administration is inadequate. The law requires schools to make steady improvements in instructional quality each year as measured by student performance on standardized achievement tests. But it doesn't provide money for schools to hire better teachers, upgrade curriculum and equipment or create after-school enrichment programs. The law is a classic example of an unfunded mandate that leaves struggling states and local governments to pick up the tab for costly federal initiatives.

Yes, everybody on both sides can agree that No Child Left Behind is a cataclysmic failure of trying to solve local-level problems with national-level solutions. And I will concede that NCLB is a large unfunded mandate that is really putting a crimp into budgets at the state and local level.

And then, the Sun goes off the reservation:

And that's where the main difference between the candidates lies: Senator Obama promises to fully fund the NCLB law and make quality public education available to every child.

It is completely illogical (other than nothing that the fact that the Sun is in the bag for Obama) to insinuate that Obama clearly has a workable plan. Just one paragraph before, the Sun alluded to the fact that NCLB is a failure. Now, somehow, through the magic of The One, NCLB will suddenly work solely because he will "fully fund" it, whatever that means. Pay no mind to the fact that it is an unworkable, liberal solution to the problem that was strangely championed by George W. Bush. Never mind the fact that both conservatives and liberals dislike this law. The Sun somehow thinks that fully funding it will create a magic solution for education, and that money will make NCLB's problems vanish.

Of course Obama's plan goes a little beyond that, proposing all sorts of feel-good programs that will bankrupt the budget, including compulsory pre-school and a national "Zero-to-Five" education plan that sounds like federalized education taken to all its Marxist glory.

So naturally, when Senator McCain proposes something really different, the Sun throws him under the bus:

Senator McCain, by contrast, says the law's shortcomings merely show that parents should have more choice about where to send their children to school; that's why he favors giving money directly to parents, in the form of vouchers, to pay for private school tuition

God forbid Senator McCain and those in favor of school choice actually want to get kids, you know, educated. But the editorial was not content to stop there, no, the race and class card was next out of the deck:

In a city such as Baltimore, the problem with Mr. McCain's plan is obvious. Even if substantial numbers of parents took advantage of vouchers to flee to private schools, there still would be tens of thousands of children trapped in troubled or failing public schools. And those schools would have less hope than ever of getting federal help to get better. In a reprise of the racially segregated school systems of the past, such a plan would re-create a dual school system, based on class and funded by taxpayer dollars, that would benefit a lucky few at the expense of the vast majority.

Of course, what the ivory tower crowd fails to realize is that there is already a dual school system; private schools for those who can afford it, public schools for those who can't. And guess what? Those private schools are, currently, benefiting a "lucky few" even while those parents still have to pay taxes to fund the schools attended by the vast majority. And her is an interesting quote from Senator McCain's website which should really illuminate the issue for everybody:

If a school will not change, the students should be able to change schools. John McCain believes parents should be empowered with school choice to send their children to the school that can best educate them just as many members of Congress do with their own children. He finds it beyond hypocritical that many of those who would refuse to allow public school parents to choose their child's school would never agree to force their own children into a school that did not work or was unsafe. They can make another choice. John McCain believes that is a fundamental and essential right we should honor for all parents.

Does it not make more sense to ensure that more children have the opportunity to improve their station in life? Isn't it more important to provide more opportunities for children to learn, succeed, and avoid being drawn in to urban drug culture and criminality? Apparently not to the Sun's editorial board, who would rather continue throwing money at policies and programs that don't work as opposed to trying something to benefit the children.

The Sun should be ashamed for expressing support for Obama's so-called education plan. Continuing what has failed generations of school children sentences a new generation of students to the continued acceptance of failure in the public classroom....and it's certainly not a change that anybody can believe in. Senator McCain's plan is certainly not a panacea, but it does not accept continued failure in the classroom as an option, which Barack Obama seems content with.

Cashing in or Abandoning Ship?

Does O'Malley's inner circle know something? Read this:

Sean R. Malone, a long-time trusted aide to Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), said today that he will leave the administration in coming weeks to become a partner in a law firm and lobbying shop.

Malone, a deputy legislative officer to the governor, is the third member of O'Malley's inner circle to depart in recent months. Steve Kearney, a long-time communications aide, left to start a public affairs firm, while Josh White, who ran O'Malley's 2006 gubernatorial campaign and later joined the administration, has become a lobbyist.

So, other than the fact that another Democrat in Maryland is going to help continue the culture of corruption and get filthy rich from their contacts with other Democrats in State Government, do O'Malley staffers see the end is near?

Bottom line: Does O'Malley's inner circle think he is going to lose in 2010?

Off the Needed Path

Somehow, the ever sanctimonious Michael Dresser seems to think this is a feasible alternative to a new Bay Bridge:

Perhaps, as a toll agency, the authority feels an affection toward its counterpart in Delaware. But the combined toll for a weekend jaunt to the beach using the authority's suggested route comes to $13 for a passenger vehicle ($5 for Interstate 95 in Maryland, $4 for the Delaware Turnpike and $4 for Delaware Route 1). Hardly an incentive to avoid the $2.50 toll on the Bay Bridge, is it? Here's a modest proposal: Shift traffic to the northern route by reversing the toll incentives. The authority could adopt a modified version of congestion pricing on the bridge, raising the rate at times of peak weekend congestion to, say, $10 (exempting commuters and other frequent users).

Then, when emergencies close lanes, the authority could jack those prices up to truly demand-dampening rates. Let's say $20. That's still a pretty good deal when the previous alternative was a ferry.

That's the stick. The carrot would be to refund tolls on Interstate 95 and other toll facilities to motorists who use those alternate routes to reach the Eastern Shore during peak bridge travel periods. (There are ways.) Once you have the toll incentives in place, you stop giving Marylanders bad advice on reaching the beach and instead provide smart directions -- such as cutting over to U.S. 40 to avoid the Delaware Turnpike.

So instead of building a new bridge, Dresser would rather create a confusing myriad of "solutions" of allowing people to reach the beach. Of course, the cornerstone of this idea of is to really jack the tolls up at the existing Bay Bridge, but like any good liberal he completely ignores local economic factors in creating such a decision. With so many people living on th Eastern Shore who work on the Western Shore, it would virtually create a new tax aimed specifically at people who live and work on opposite shores. When you factor in the number of businesses in Greater Annapolis and Kent County that have business relationships with each other, Dresser's cockamamie idea really starts to become absurd and unfair tax on Anne Arundel and Kent County residents who already can factor in existing tolls into their household or small business budgets.

Don't worry though. Dresser's silly ideas don't end there. Because when in doubt, why not spend more taxpayer dollars:

Here's how the authority could spread out the traffic and lure people away from the Bay Bridge: There are two stops along I-95 where many travelers already pause for a cup of coffee and a bite to eat: the Maryland House and the Chesapeake House. The authority could set up kiosks there to distribute "goody bags" including directions to different Delmarva destinations and coupons good for gas and goods and services at the beach and at businesses along the different routes. Throw in claim forms for Maryland toll refunds and vouchers to cover tolls along Route 1 in Delaware.

How about a stuffed "Cecil the Bridgeless Bear" to honor the intrepid beast who made it to the Shore last week without paying a toll? The goal should be to make the northern route the No. 1 choice for Baltimore-area leisure travelers (and truckers). That frees up a more costly but less crowded Bay Bridge for folks from Annapolis and Washington while taking traffic pressure off Kent Island.

This is useful dialog? I don't think so.

It continually and constantly befuddles me that a so-called "expert" in transportation like Dresser would continually propose all sorts of off-the-wall solutions, but not endorse the most obvious, most useful solution of all to Bay Bridge traffic....

Our Fiscal Dilemma

Issac Smith had a quote in a comment today in FSP that I thought was worthy of note.

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

And he's right. Martin O'Malley's heedless self-interest in protecting his flank and doing the bidding of special interest group led to historic and unnecessary tax increases, and unthinkable and immoral spending hikes. Reasonable people knew then that it was unthinkable and disturbing policy. We knew then that it needlessly put out state's fiscal posture in peril. And unfortunately, we have been proven right time and time again that O'Malleynomics is bad policy for Maryland's working and middle class families.

At this point, it's safe to say that Martin O'Malley and the General Assembly have brought us to the brink of collapse. Even the Sun Editorial Board is noting that Martin O'Malley needs to enact spending cuts, and enact them now:

Politically, Mr. O'Malley can't be happy with the timing. After raising taxes to mend the state's structural deficit (the long-term imbalance between projected revenues and spending), a flagging economy has caused a new, albeit more short-term, gap in state finances.

Still, it's better to be prudent and make the necessary cuts even if some needed programs will be shortchanged. Nothing else is certain to relieve the problem.

While the editorial did not adequately draw attention to the fact that O'Malley increased spending last year when we faced a deficit, nothing should be a cold slap in the face of reality to the O'Malley Administration than the fact that its biggest cheerleader is telling them they need to, for once, enact some sort of financially responsible policies.

As I noted last week:

That's because the General Assembly as a whole refuses to act like grown ups and live within their means. Instead of acting responsibly and reducing state spending last year when they had to opportunity, they chose to approval O'Malley's irresponsible tax hikes, and bless his near immoral increase in discretionary state spending. Instead of cutting spending to manageable levels, Democrats railroaded a $2 billion tax increase to cover a $500 million shortfall, and then added $1.5 billion in spending just to break even.

No reasonably intelligent person would think that's a good idea. It's an even worse idea when you considered, as conservatives have noted time and time again, that tax revenues decrease when individuals and businesses change their spending habits or leave the state entirely....blame Democrats for the shortfalls in revneues that we caused by their irresponsibility and greed.

It's time for O'Malley to stop acting like a petulant child, put down the guitar, and get about doing the people's business here in Maryland. O'Malley should immediately call for across the board spending cuts, the revocation of last year's irresponsible tax increases, and the elimination of last year's unthinkable increases in discretionary spending.

Martin O'Malley got us into this mess. Let's see if he has the courage to try and get us out of it.

Privatization option still marginalized

Once again, alternatives to the current Bay Bridge situation are being floated and discussed. And once again, the idea is being debated within a framework that only allows for state funding and state construction of such an improvement.

Why not the private sector? Why not a privatized ferry system? Why not a privatized third span? Why are we so stuck in the muck that Maryland will not consider privatized alternatives? Every time I think we've turned the corner on this issue, we find ourselves right back at square one.

Instead, we get stupid stuff like this:

The MTA isn't enamored with either idea. It is focusing more on short-term solutions to make the existing bridge spans more driver-friendly.

Last week, the MTA increased Eastern Shore commuter bus service. They also believe changes in driver habits, like increased E-ZPass usage, could ease traffic flow along the bridge.

That's right, let's focus on fixing what's already broken in the short term, and try to punt on anything that could really make a lasting impact in the long run.

A privatized third span of course would be wildly popular, and would easily allow a private contractor to make their money back in a relatively reasonable fashion. A privatized ferry system could work if it is done correctly and made attractive to commuters. I have used the ferry system in Washington State, and it is very user friendly, very efficient, and while not entirely cheap, it saves a boatload of time that would otherwise be spent on roads. A car and passenger ferry that docked in downtown Baltimore, for example, may even remove cars from Baltimore streets if it allows workers the possibility of walking or biking to work from the ferry port, something done extensively by Ferry Commuters in Washington State.

Something is needed to relieve the stress on the current Bay Bridge spans. Public safety demands the issue. Government cannot afford to build them on its own, nor can government allow Luddites to complicate the matter. We need to allow the private sector to undertake these projects....

A Revolution that should not be televised

I love the fact that my friend and RedMaryland colleague G. A. Harrison is proposing reform in they way the Republican Party operates. Unfortunately, I could not disagree with him any more on one of his proposed solutions. In last night's post, G. A. proposed conventions to nominate candidates.Notwithstanding the fact that state law preclude its implementation, I don't think that this will benefit the Republican Party and its membership in the ways he thinks it would.

On the issue he writes:

I like mass meetings (caucuses) and conventions for nominating candidates. Primaries, which appear democratic, usually become little more than a money race - money that could be better spent in the general election. Mass meetings and conventions get people involved. They get people excited. They particularly involve and excite the people who will be out knocking on doors and making phone calls - the people who win elections.

However, things do not always work out in this manner. Yes, primaries do devolve into issues around money, Yes, large conventions get get people involved and get people excited. However, the idea of nominating conventions does create several issues:

1. It doesn't solve the money issue. If you are talking about large gatherings such as the ones in Virginia, money still plays a tremendous part in the convention process. Candidates still spend money prior to the convention. They spend money on ferrying people to and from the convention. It would take the current primary process and instead replace with a more byzantine version of the Iowa Caucus.
2. The best candidate doesn't always win. This year, Jim Gilmore was nominated at convention to be the nominee for Senate in Virginia. But you could argue that the Republican base was better represented by Bob Marshall, who also sought the nomination. Which leads us to....
3. Principle. Republicans talk a lot about the marketplace of ideas. Should we not allow candidates to compete in this marketplace free of byzantine structures and a convention process that is more manipulatable than a primary election.

I'd also be concerned, of course, with the idea that this sort of lends itself to endorsement of candidates by the party, which I have written extensively about in the past.

I agree that we need to shake up the way we do business, but we need to do that through training and encouraging good conservative candidates to run than by throwing out the rulebook and starting anew.

RedMaryland Radio: The Past and the Future

First things first, thanks to all of you who have gotten RedMaryland Radio this far; the readers of my blog, the readers of Greg's blog and the listeners to the Conservative Refuge Podcasts, and of course the readers at RedMaryland. And a special thanks to Warren Monks for giving us the opportunity first to be a part of his show on The Word on the Street, and then the opportunity for us to launch RedMaryland Radio on WAMD in Aberdeen.

If you have not been able to listen to our shows, all five of our past shows are now available in "Past Shows" section of our website, redmarylandradio.com.

As far as the future of RedMaryland Radio goes, Greg and I are looking forward to bringing it back somewhere and at sometime in the near future. We are looking at a couple of different options for this. As soon as we know something, we will let everybody know....

Down the Drain

As we know, Superintendent Kevin Maxwell likes to whine how the school system doesn't have enough money to properly educate students. Well, maybe he can try to explain this:

At a time when the economy is in recession and local governments are tightening belts, the county school system seems to be pouring money into raises for top administrators.

An examination of county payroll records reveals the number of school employees earning more than $100,000 doubled from 213 in 2007 to 450 in fiscal 2009, which started in July.

In addition, the size of raises given to school system employees dwarfs those of other governments and the private sector.

Doubled the number of employees making $100,000 or more. That means that in Fiscal Year 2009, the school system will be paying a minimum of $45 million (not counting benefits) to these employees. That is roughly five percent of the county school system budget, and a pretty damning assessment of Kevin Maxwell's failure to lead considering in June the school system was required to slash jobs, science labs, and other educational necessities due to budget shortfalls.

Nobody can explain to me how a massive Riva Road bureaucracy helps to educate students in the classroom. The system is top heavy, and Maxwell and the majority of the School Board will do nothing to reverse it.

It's getting to the point where Kevin Maxwell needs to be replaced as Superintendent. If Andres Alfonso understands that an oversized school system central office doesn't help educate students, we need to find somebody in Anne Arundel County who will. And sadly, I would be willing to bet that Tricia Johnson and unregistered Democratic lobbyist Teresa Milio Birge support this kind of mismanagement. It's money being poured right down the drain.

The time for Keynes has passed

Adam Pagnucco responded to yesterday's post regarding his take on the budget. Adam, unfortunately, still is unwilling to admit a few key points and still questions my more mainstream view of Maryland's fiscal matters.

First, Pagnucco tries to shift most of the burden out of the O'Malley Deficit out of Maryland entirely:

Even casual readers of the news know that Maryland’s economy has suffered along with the rest of the nation. The causes of American economic stagnation are well known: a bursting real estate price bubble, resulting problems in financial markets and rising fuel prices exacerbated by a weak dollar. (The weak dollar is caused in part by immense federal budget deficits driven by the war in Iraq.) Those national problems affected Maryland.

I don't think that either of us can dispute the impact that an unstable national economy has had on our state, particularly in light of the fact that neither Republicans nor Democrats in Washington have been willing to cut back on President Bush's ridiculously unnecessary rate of domestic spending (which makes Lyndon Johnson look like Ebenezer Scrooge in comparison). But to say that the national economy is first and foremost the cause of the O'Malley Deficit is just factually incorrect, much like his next statement:

The slowing economy laid bare an underlying truth: the state had a structural deficit and was on track to spend $1.10 for every $1.00 it received in taxes. As I said nearly a year ago in a blog post ignored by Griffiths, the cause was two-fold: a 10% income tax cut in 1997 and billions of additional spending on education (commonly called the Thornton Plan) started in 2002. Both of these events occurred during the Glendening administration, but Governor Ehrlich did nothing to reverse them.

Only somebody trying to pull a fast one could make such a claim. To say that the income tax cut of 1997 was directly responsible for the currently shortfall is patently ridiculous. While Glendening pushed through the tax cut solely to take teeth out of Ellen Sauerbrey's 1998 gubernatorial campaign, it was a correct move for the people and the taxpayers of Maryland. But once you cut taxes, you know the money isn't there to spend. So, in a state where the budget is constitutionally required to be balanced, how can one blame a deficit on money that is not available to spend in the first place?

While I will agree that the Thornton Plan is part of our budget problem, to blame Governor Ehrlich for doing "nothing to reverse" it is also slightly ridiculous. It was Annapolis Democrats who railroaded the Thornton Plan through, a multi-billion dollar boondoggle where nobody wanted to articulate where the money was going to come from. Once Ehrlich was elected, Annapolis Democrats would never vote to repeal it because it was a convenient albatross to hang around Ehrlich's neck when he couldn't fund the increase in education in Baltimore City and Prince George's County. It was the left who was responsible for fiscal silliness surrounding Thornton.

At this point, Pagnucco deviates into the absurd:

Griffiths implicitly assumes that tax hikes hurt the economy while government spending cuts do not. Here he demonstrates a basic ignorance of every macroeconomics course taught to college freshmen. From the perspective of economic growth, it does not matter whether the government implements a tax hike or a spending cut as a deficit reduction measure. Both reduce aggregate demand in the economy, especially when taking into account a reverse multiplier effect.

I didn't implicitly assume anything. I will explicitly state that tax hikes hurt the economy while government spending cuts do not. This is part of the basic philosophy of the Austrian School of Economics championed by folks such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek. It is their philosophies that have shown, time and time again, to be the best course of action for our nation. Keynesian Economics played a large part, for example, in the creation of the New Deal and the further economic devastation caused by its implementation.

Pagnucco, instead, champions the failed policies of Keynesian Economics, which champions a strong role for the state in a theoretical effort to increase economic growth. That Pagnucco would champion such a model is not surprising, for Pagnucco is employed by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Ergo, Pagnucco's support for increased or maintained state spending, while understandably self-interested, is flawed and somewhat hypocritical.

Increasing or maintaining state spending helps Pagnucco and his employer, as in a closed shop state such as Maryland the preponderance of state capital construction projects wind up built by union shops. If taxes are cut and state spending is reduced, more capital will become available for the economy at large. There may be more constructions jobs available for a greater number of contractors, but since the free market is not bound to hire union workers at potentially inflated wages, it is in Pagnucco's interest and his employers interest to maximize the amount of jobs available to union members, in this particular instance union carpenters. The problem is, while this may be beneficial to Pagnucco and his employer, it is a raw deal for average middle and working class families who are expected to pay higher taxes to cover the cost of this governmental largess. Which is why he concludes with this:

The best thing the state government could do to revitalize Maryland’s economy is to increase its investment in infrastructure, even if it means taking in additional revenues. The Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce recommended raising $600 million for the Transportation Trust Fund this year, a step that was unfortunately not taken by the General Assembly. The business community and building trades unions believe that infrastructure construction creates jobs, long-lasting physical assets and abundant opportunities for private sector growth. Those things in turn will stabilize the budget over the long term. If only conservatives like Brian Griffiths could agree.

While I would agree that our infrastructure needs greater attention, it would be completely foolish to again raise taxes in this economic climate. But once again, there is a way to address our infrastructure at a reduced cost, without increasing spending, and without raising taxes if we just again bring privatization to state building projects, particularly transportation projects. Pagnucco, however, would probably resist such an idea because, once again, it is not in his own self-interests.

Pagnucco and other liberals continue, however, to make one point clearly and painfully obvious to all voters and taxpayers here in Maryland. Liberals will stop at nothing to raise taxes and increase spending, particularly when it comes to their own self-interests and the interests of the special interest groups who support them.

Once again I ask: when are Maryland's leaders going to put the interests of our working and middle class families first? When are we going to get the tax cuts and spending reductions our economy needs to grow?

Crybaby

Apparently Susan Reimer never learned the Golden Rule: "treat others as you would like to be treated."

After Reimer's hateful, bitter, pathetic, puerile, lame hate screed against Governor Sarah Palin published in Monday's paper, she seems legitimately shocked that people were offended, and she was the subject of hateful attacks against her person.

Now I'm not going to defend personal attacks made by readers against Reimer. Just because Reimer launched a series of unnecessary personal shots at Senator McCain and Governor Palin doesn't mean people should respond in kind. But questioning Reimer's charachter and judgment are completely in line, and can be expected after the kind of crap that she wrote under her own name.

One line that did give me a chuckle was this:

So much pent-up anger, so much barely concealed hate was released in those e-mails and those postings. I wonder where next they will find a vent.

Gee, I wonder who unleashed pent-up agner and barely concealed first? Perhaps in was an in-over-her-head Baltimore Sun columnist maybe?

Obviously, given Reimer's column, this is clearly how she wanted to be treated though. Otherwise, she would not have subjected Senator McCain and Governor Palin to this kind of treatment...

The Real Letter to the Editor

The Sun published my letter to the editor yesterday regarding Susan Reimer's hateful, bitter, pathetic, puerile, lame column from September 1st. Of course, certain part of the letter just didn't make it into print. Included the sections that were bolded. I wonder why.....

Susan Reimer's column of September 1^st is one of the more patently offensive pieces printed in the Baltimore Sun in some time. While Reimer is free to support whichever candidate she pleases, her puerile and shallow rant against the selection of Governor Palin should not pass by without rebuke.

In one disturbing swoop, Reimer takes unnecessary cheap shots at Senator John McCain's age and health, Governor Sarah Palin's gender, Governor Palin's education at a public university, and most shockingly, Governor Palin's young child with Down's Syndrome. I find it hard to believe that the Sun thinks that such discrimination on the basis of age, gender, class, and developmental disability should be promoted and encouraged in its pages by its columnists.

It is unacceptable and inappropriate to demean Governor Palin in this manner, particularly when her qualifications, experience, ethics, and judgment far exceed those of Barack Obama.

Unfortunately, I have come to expect such unenlightened drivel from certain Sun columnists, particularly Ms. Reimer. The Sun should no longer tolerate the blatant and unacceptable discrimination Susan Reimer promoted in her column, particularly in light of the Sun's prior dalliances with discrimination against Lt. Governor Michael Steele on the basis of his race during the 2002 gubernatorial campaign.

Brian Griffiths Pasadena

Gee, couldn't imagine why the Sun wouldn't want to revisit that episode. What bothers me is the fact that I spoke with Franz Schneiderman, the editor of the letters page, on Wednesday regarding my letter. He had issues with the fact that I pointed out that Reimer's column was sexist, something that Schneiderman said "he didn't see." At no point did he ever indicate that he planned on removing my factual statement against the Sun'sSun's hateful and bitter tirade against Lt. Governor Steele. It's disappointing that Scheniderman, in his capacity as letters editor, would try to flush the Sun's past hatefulness down the memory hole, yet sadly I am hardly surprised anymore....

Pagnucco, liberals fail Economics

Adam Pagnucco likes to question my honesty. But how honest is it for Pagnucco to wax poetic about the impending budget shortfall without writing about the impact of O'Malley's tax hikes?

Like most liberal, Pagnucco refuses to acknowledge that the cause of the O'Malley Recession and the cause of the shortfalls in tax revenue are the responsibility of two things; profligate spending by Annapolis Democrats, and Martin O'Malley's irresponsible tax hikes.

Here is the money quote from Pagnucco:

It seems that no matter what the General Assembly does to close the budget gap, the failing economy undoes it. But still the state is required by law to balance its budget. No state legislator I know believes that more tax hikes are an option so that means almost a billion dollars in spending cuts will have to be considered. The Board of Public Works, comprised of Governor Martin O'Malley, Comptroller Peter Franchot and Treasurer Nancy Kopp, may pass some interim cuts but the heavy lifting will have to be done by the legislature. It is a task that nearly all of them dread.

That's because the General Assembly as a whole refuses to act like grown ups and live within their means. Instead of acting responsibly and reducing state spending last year when they had to opportunity, they chose to approval O'Malley's irresponsible tax hikes, and bless his near immoral increase in discretionary state spending. Instead of cutting spending to manageable levels, Democrats railroaded a $2 billion tax increase to cover a $500 million shortfall, and then added $1.5 billion in spending just to break even.

No reasonably intelligent person would think that's a good idea. It's an even worse idea when you considered, as conservatives have noted time and time again, that tax revenues decrease when individuals and businesses change their spending habits or leave the state entirely. But Pagnucco patently refuses to blame Democrats for the shortfalls in revneues that we caused by their irresponsibility and greed.

Pagnucco noes accurately that "Few Maryland politicians truly embrace any spending cuts," and that's what has gotten us in this jam in the first place. Annapolis Democrats are not responsible stewards of the peoples money. And as usual, they will likely shift the burden to taxpayers to pay for their pet projects and to cover the cost of O'Malley's Deficit.

If Pagnucco was being an honest broker, he would note that the decrease in revenues is directly caused by the irresponsible tax hikes enacted by O'Malley and Annapolis Democrats last year, and that the current structural deficit has been caused by irresponsible discretionary spending increases. But, for reasons that shall remain obvious, he refuses to place any blame whatsoever on O'Malley and his band of merry tax hikers.

When will liberals finally take a stand? When will Annapolis Democrats stop making it harder and harder for Maryland's working and middle class families to make it?

Last Call

If you ever had the impetus to listen to The Word on the Street with Warren Monks on Oldies 970, WAMD Aberdeen, you might want to listen today from 5:00-8:00 ish.

Due to closing of the sale of WAMD to Salem Broadcasting, the station will be changing things up, and The Word on the Street is going to be one of the casualties.

So tonight it will be be host Warren Monks with Brian Griffiths, Greg Kline, Kenny Burns, Joe Gagliardi, Paula Mullis, Mister D and maybe even Media Superstar Mark Newgent in one last blogger roundtable from 6:30-7:45.

One last time, be sure to check us out: (H/T Radio Locator)

Quote of the Year

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."
- Gov. Sarah Palin

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.

NFL Predictions

Well it's not like these are going to be any more accurate than the Ravens/Saints Super Bowl prediction last year, but they are back and I am ready to go on record with the once more, and yes I am wildly backing off of the 9-7 Ravens prediction now that Joe Flacco is being forced to start, and with so many question marks still with this team ...

AFC East: New England, NY Jets, Buffalo, Miami
AFC North: Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Baltimore
AFC South: Indianapolis, Tennessee, Jacksonville, Houston
AFC West: San Diego, Denver, Oakland, Kansas City
NFC East: Dallas, Philadelphia, NY Giants, Washington
NFC North: Minnesota, Green Bay, Chicago, Detroit
NFC South: Tampa Bay, Carolina, New Orleans, Atlanta
NFC West: Seattle, St. Louis, Arizona, San Francisco

AFC 1st Round:
(5) Tennessee def. (4) Pittsburgh
(3) Indianapolis def. (6) Denver

NFC 1st Round::
(5) Philadelphia def. (4) Minnesota
(3) Seattle def. (6) NY Giants

AFC Divisional:
(1) New England def. (5) Tennessee
(3) Indianapolis def. (2) San Diego

NFC Divisional:
(1) Dallas def. (5) Philadelphia
(2) Tampa Bay def. (3) Seattle

AFC Championship:
(1) New England def. (3) Indianapolis

NFC Championship:
(1) Dallas def. (2) Tampa Bay

Super Bowl XLII:
New England def. Dallas