Seeing the Light?

You will never guess who wrote this lament:

So the resulting energy tax hike is both large and narrowly targeted: at the people who create jobs.

The author of that revelation was none other than......Adam Pagnucco.

Yes....Adam Pagnucco has realized that Democrats, when they go out to raise taxes, invariable raise taxes either directly on Maryland's middle and working class families, or they raise them on the companies that employ Maryland's middle and working class families. In the instance of this tax increase, proposed by Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett as a business energy tax, the cost of the tax will be doubly born by the people of Montgomery County. On one hand, all Montgomery County residents who frequent these businesses will be faced with increased costs in an effort to offset the cost of the tax. On the other, a number of jobs that would otherwise be created by these Montgomery County businesses may not be created due to the burden created by Leggett's tax.

All that being said, I would like to welcome Adam Pagnucco as a visitor over here to the real world, as he examines this and other tax proposals by Maryland Democrats that would further devastate our state's economy, and harm the standard of living for Maryland's middle and working class families.

They Just Don't Get It

Some people just don't get it. I refer you to the latest comments by Adam Pagnucco as it relates to budget and taxation here in Maryland.

On a post in which in he is discussing the shifting of teacher pensions from a state to a county responsibility, Pagnucco drops the following:

If Montgomery wants to preserve the quality of its schools, it must put up a tough fight and negotiate only when it has maximum leverage. That point is not now, but next year, when the next Governor – whoever it is – will have to pass a tax and spending package to deal with Maryland’s long-term budget deficits. Such a package cannot pass without MoCo’s votes.

Um.....what?

That point is not now, but next year, when the next Governor – whoever it is – will have to pass a tax and spending package to deal with Maryland’s long-term budget deficits.

There is only one problem with Pagnucco's broadbrushed statement.

It's not true.

What is the main reason why Pagnucco's statement bunk? It has nothing to do with the fact that Governor Ehrlich (who, by the way, will be Governor again next year) opposes the broad based tax and spending package that Pagnucco is suggesting. It has nothing to do with the fact that Governor O'Malley has presided over the least fiscally responsible administration in the history of the state, or the fact that O'Malley has engineered a series of immoral and irresponsiblie tax increases that has crippled our state financially.

It's the fact that, as many liberals continue to do, Pagnucco relies on the failed notion of taxes and spending being the solution to deal with our budget problems. People failed to realize that the time for Kenyes still passed.

What's more absurd is the fact that Pagnucco's premise continues to go with the theory that only through higher taxes and increased state spending. Hello? Isn't that the kind of policy on which Governor O'Malley's administration has be predicated upon? All O'Malley has done during his time as Governor is raise taxes, raise spending, and fail to take respoonsible steps to protect the fiscal health of this state.

Liberals like Pagnucco just don't get it. There is another way. Whomever is Governor in 2011 should take broad steps to reduce state spending and lower our taxes. Taxes at the very least should be returned to pre-O'Malley levels, in an effort to the middle and working class families that Maryland Democrats seem hellbent on destroying. Our spending plan should be rebuilt from the ground-up to ensure that only legitimate priorities and not Democratic special interests are receiving the bulk of our funding. And the Governor, whomever it is, should take broad steps to begin reducing the size of our state government. Maryland's government has for far too long been too big for its britches; we need a smaller, mor efficient government that only provides necessary services to the people of Maryland.

Maryland's middle and working class families, the ones who have been so hurt by Martin O'Malley's recklessness, knows that higher taxes are not the answer. If liberal opinion makers such as Pagnucco don't come to grips with the fact that there is an alternative to higher taxes and more spending....the people of Maryland will leave them in the dust.

Judd Legum is Gutless, and other facts of life

I'm going to be straight about it: Judd Legum (D-Soros) has no balls.

Word on the street was that Judd Legum was mad about my post detailing the truth behind his campaign cash haul last week. So instead of manning up and saying so himself on his own blog, his own website, or his own Twitter feed like any normal person would, Legum decided to put the "yellow" in "Yellow-Dog Democrat" and recruited a flunky, Anne Arundel County Democratic Party Chairman Stephen Thibodeau, to do it for him four days after the fact with a post up on Maryland Politics Watch.

Yeah, it's real scintillating stuff too, made more impressive by the fact that Thibodeau in his pathetic defense of the feckless Legum concedes virtually every major point that I was trying to make about Legum being a product of out of state Democratic interests.

The one point that Thibodeau really really wanted to pounce on was this:

Well, it’s only beyond comprehension if one doesn’t realize that the Thayaparans are part of Legum’s family. His in-laws, to be precise. Had Griffiths bothered to do a simple Google search of “Judd Legum Thayaparan”, he would have found several references to Judd Legum and Roshini Thayaparan. Roshini is Judd’s wife. So either Griffiths didn’t bother to check something basic – that the donations in questions were from his family – or Griffiths did in fact know and thought it would make great copy to insinuate something shady was going on. Either way, bad form, Brian.

Apparently, Stephen Thibodeau has a magic Google which some connects the word wife and/or marriage to the two names. Because I searched the names four days ago. I searched them again today. And, of course, there is no connection to the casual observer. I would refer you to the extensive biography of Legum located on Legum's campaign webiste....except one doesn't exist on Legum's website.

So, to summarize Thibodeau's main points:

• Raising money from out of state is OK if it's family.
• Dancing around the fact that a number of small contributions came from a small number of people donating multiple times is OK.
• Rasing 71.2% of your campaign funds for a local race is OK.
• Don't look at us, look at Ron George!
  

I guess we now know why Anne Arundel County has a Republican Majority....

(And as an aside; during this filing period, Delegate Ron George had four donations made from out of state. Four. That means that 98.5% of Ron George's total donations and 98.3% of all dollars raisedwere from Maryland donors)

Again, I point out that Thibodeau concedes every major point that I made. And to boot, he refuses to deny that Legum's campaign, while not taking money from state PACs and lobbyists, is raking in big money from Washington-based, federal lobbyists who are part of the Clinton machine.

The funniest thing about this however, is the fact that poor old Judd Legum is angry because somebody dared to question. And let's not forget here, that Legum is a product of the hypercompetitive political environment from the Clinton Campaign Machine. Apparently, Judd Legum can dish out the heat, but he can't take it when the spotlight is foisted upon himself.

I like to think of it as a football fan who wants to criticize the decision making of the team's quarterback; sure it looks easy when you're watching it on TV. But I can tell you from stepping is as a quarterback for my social league touch football team that it's a whole different animal when it's you scrambling around in the pocket.

And to top it all off, Judd Legum didn't even have the intestinal fortitude to respond himself. He had to find somebody else to do his heavy lifting for him. So, so sad.

Here's some advice Judd; if you want to represent the people of District 30, you're going to have to make the tough decisions on your own. You can't get other people to fight your battles for you in those time when you curl up in the fetal position, suck your thumb, and act like a lily-livered coward. If you don't grow a spine, you're just going to make more of an joke out of yourself than you already have.....

Next time you need to say something....say it yourself.

Judd Legum's still playing in the Mud

Sure, our friend Judd Legum may be running as a Democrat for Delegate in District 30, but that doesn't mean he's taking any time off from being a political hack for hire:

Gov. Paterson has hired the man who was responsible for "negative research" on then-presidential candidate Barack Obama to dig up dirt on Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who is preparing to run for governor, The Post has learned.

Paterson's campaign committee signed Maryland-based Judd Legum, research director for then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's bitterly fought presidential primary campaign against Obama in 2008, to a five-week contract earlier this month, with the understanding that he would "prepare a research book on Cuomo" and other potential candidates for governor, said a prominent Democratic Party activist.

"Legum is the guy who did a lot of the opposition research work on Obama, and now Paterson's people are outsourcing that kind of work on Cuomo to him," said the source, who demanded anonymity.

Legum, a friend of Paterson campaign spokeswoman and strategist Tracy Sefl, is being paid about $25,000 for the project, it was learned.

Legum confirmed that he had been hired by Paterson's campaign but, when asked to describe his job, insisted, "I really can't talk about that now," and hung up the phone.

Repeated attempts to reach Legum for additional comment were unsuccessful.

Well isn't that special? I wonder what the African-American Democratic primary voters, who just saw Zina Pierre thrown under the bus by the Democratic establishment, are going to think about the white lawyer whose job was to trash Barack Obama in the General Election.

I find it even more humorous that Legum has no comment when you consider the fact that Legum told Capital reporter Eric Hartley that he wants "people would know what I'm up to" in a Twitter interview.

When you combine Legum's shady dealings with Paterson, along with his involvement in ThinkProgress' manufactured deceit, his auctioning of himself to Washington lobbyists, the old questions about his campaign appartus, and the self promoting narcissism that even Democrats can't stand, I would say that there a lot of reasons why nobody of any political stripe can find any reason why Judd Legum should be representing the people of District 30.

Regardless of the ethical clouds that surround Judd Legum, the fact that of the matter is that he owes the people of District 30 and honest answer; is he going to try and be their delegate, or is he content to be a professional political hack. The people of District 30 want to know...

Meaningless Numbers

The left has decided to examine Governor Ehrlich's chances of unseating Martin O'Malley next year, and Adam Pagnucco decided to start his analysis with the most meaningless statistic in all of politics: voter registration data.

Overall, the Democrats have an absolute majority (at 56.9%) and outnumber Republicans by better than two-to-one. But the total numbers mask the geographic domination of the Democrats and the regional isolation of the GOP.

The Democrats have more than 50% of registered voters in eight jurisdictions: Baltimore City and Baltimore, Charles, Dorchester, Kent, Montgomery, Prince George’s and Somerset Counties. Those jurisdictions account for 60% of the state’s registered voters. The Republicans have more than 50% of registered voters in two jurisdictions: Carroll and Garrett Counties, which account for just 4% of the state’s registered voters.

Let’s lower the threshold to 40%. The Democrats have more than 40% of registered voters in 18 jurisdictions (all except Allegany, Carroll, Frederick, Garrett, Queen Anne’s and Washington Counties) that account for 88% of the state’s registered voters. The Republicans have more than 40% of registered voters in eight jurisdictions: Allegany, Carroll, Frederick, Garrett, Harford, Queen Anne’s, Talbot and Washington Counties, which account for just 17% of the state’s registered voters.

All of which, statistically speaking, was incredibly similar to the numbers that then-Congressman Ehrlich faced in 2002 when he defeated Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.

Pagnucco goes on to continue with his analysis:

Registration does not always determine voting behavior. Maryland is a state in which Democrats can and do vote for Republicans, the most successful of whom has unquestionably been Bob Ehrlich. But all of the above means that the Democrats have a far broader reach across the state than does the GOP. Western Maryland is the only region in which the Democrats struggle to compete. The Republicans are non-competitive in three of the state’s four biggest jurisdictions (Baltimore City and Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties) and lag Democrats in Anne Arundel and Howard Counties, fast-growing Charles County and even some parts of the Eastern Shore. All of this is a hurdle that any statewide GOP candidate would have to overcome.

Which of course, is also completely meaningless. When you look at voting results, and not voting registration, you see a picture that is, statistically speaking, more of a level playing field for Republicans running in Maryland; particularly a more-moderate, high-name ID Republican such as Bob Ehrlich. And, of course you need to look no further than the aforementioned Anne Arundel County to notice that a Democratic-majority county has elected this decade a Republican County Executive, Clerk of the Court, Register of Wills, two Circuit Court Judges who ousted Democratic appointees, three Judges of the Orphans Court, four of seven County Council Members, a majority of the Delegates, half of the State Senators, and gave two solid majorities to Bob Ehrlich and George W. Bush, and even one to John McCain.

What does this all mean? It means that voter registration numbers as a means of determining voter performance are completely useless......which was something Pagnucco could have learned had he read my analysis from six months ago, the last time he tried this argument.

If Democrats are hanging their hat on voter registration numbers to bail them out next year, Bob Ehrlich and the Republican Party may be in better shape that even we think...

Maybe they get it?

I was surprised to read this:

On every other measure, Fairfax residents and businesses pay lower taxes than their counterparts in Montgomery. The biggest gap is in income tax rates, especially at the top. We do not have the comparative tax burden between the two counties, but on the state level Maryland (ranked 4th in the nation by the Tax Foundation) far exceeds Virginia (ranked 18th). There is no way that Montgomery County, a high-tax county in a high-tax state, can compete with Fairfax on the basis of low taxes.

Emphasis mine, but isn't this something that Maryland Republicans have been saying about Maryland vis-a-vis Virginia for some time now, even before Martin O'Malley's historic and immoral tax increases?

Maybe, just maybe, Maryland's liberal class is finally starting to understand the damage done by high, confiscatory taxation.

Dustup

If you haven't noticed, a new an essentially anonymous blog called Maryland Politics Blog has been peddling a story about Queen Anne's County Central Committee Member Andrew Langer and his involvement in Pelurapalooza. The new blog, however, has refused to reprint Langer's response to his alleged involvement in this story. So Andrew asked me to post the response publicly, and here it is, unabridged and unalderated:

From: Andrew Langer
Subject: Re: 15 west st post
To: "Maryland Politics Blog" <marylandpoliticsblog@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, August 1, 2009, 11:33 AM

Dear Sir or Madam:

While it is gratifying to know that my name is generating hits for your website, it is unfortunate that a story so riddled with errors is responsible for them.

I don't know who you are. I don't know your motivations for making such allegations. I can't verify your sources in any way, shape, or form.

What I do know is this. I am not 15WestSt@gmail.com. As was pointed out by someone else, I wasn't even IN the meeting at issue (I was kicked out when the meeting went into executive session).

The e-mail doesn't match my writing style. Please take a look at my blog: http://langrrr.blogspot.com. In it, you'll see a host of examples of how I write. This e-mail you discuss contains no em-dashes, no en-dashes, there's no comma in the first sentence (I'm big on commas). The piece isn't nearly as wordy as I'm prone to writing. It's also not in my writing cadence (yes, I have one).

It's this last point that is most important - you might be thinking that I'd try to mask my writing style. Were I someone who was inclined to write under a pseudonym (more on this in a moment), masking one's writing cadence (which is more about rhythm than style) is incredibly difficult to do. A number of anonymous authors have been unmasked through such analyses.

As for writing under pseudonyms or anonymously, it's not something I do - and I've written about my philosophy of this:

http://langrrr.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_archive.html

"One of the things I look askance at is anonymous or pseudonymous criticism. Now, I know that one of the hallmarks of a free society is the ability of someone to criticize someone else from behind the mask of anonymity. But it always seems that the most ill-thought, most base, bad-intentioned, insulting, and untrue critiques come from those writing anonymously or pseudonymously.

"When I used to write on Usenet, I developed a fan base, as I’ve mentioned (and I use that term facetiously. I do not mean that these people were actual fans of mine). Some of my “fans” indeed did use their real names, but several of them wrote under pseudonyms. More often than not, these pseudonymous posters fell into that category of writing base, insulting, non-germane, and outrageously untrue things."
---end quoted material---

I stand by the things that I write--and do so by attaching my name to them.

What's more, having had friends who have been dinged by this in the press, I have a maxim I stand behind: never put anything in e-mail that you wouldn't want seen in the pages of the Washington Post.

Now, I am, as a rule, incredibly cautious about with whom I place my total political trust--who I give counsel to, who I offer my political analyses to. An e-mail like this, from me, makes no sense.

As to your allegations regarding my motives:

1) That I have, "long been a Pelura supporter, not necessarily because he thinks Jim is doing a good job, but because he sees his own influence directly attached to Jim remaining in office."

On what basis do you make either assertion? Conversations with unnamed individuals? I find it hilarious that one anonymous blogger can claim something based upon conversations which may or may not have occurred.

I don't know what "influence" you think I have. I was honored, and completely surprised, that Jim Pelura appointed me Chairman of this commission. But he did so not because of any fealty that I may have demonstrated to him, but to my professional background and my conduct as an activist within the party.

Understand this--I approach the work as a party official professionally, as I have been taught to do by some tremendous mentors (part and parcel of this is not spreading around anonymous e-mails, for instance). This means dealing with issues seriously, thinking strategically about the party's current status and its future, and approaching the business of the party in a goal-oriented manner.

That this approach has gained me allies across the political spectrum within the party is a testament not to me, but to the wisdom of my teachers. Their lessons have worked - not my ambitions (more on this in a moment).

2) "Mr. Langer views Chris Cavey and Chuck Gast as threats to his own future goals. "

I do? Please enlighten me as to what these future goals are--and just how either Chuck or Chris are threats to them!

If you're going to do serious political journalism, then you might consider actually asking the subject of your story to comment on the allegations you are prepared to make.

This, to me, was the most insulting of the allegations that you were going to make. I don't view people as "threats" - and not out of some arrogant self-image. I view people as allies - and I count Chris Cavey and Chuck Gast among them. They are two party activists who have demonstrated a desire to work hard towards party victory, the greatest determinant of people you can "count on" (an important trait in my book)

People who can't be counted on aren't threats. They're simply unreliable.

Now, there are people who stand opposed to what you might believe in. But they're not "threats" either. They are people with whom you work to try and find common ground (as another mentor of mine taught me, people with whom you are in agreement on 80% of the issues aren't 20% your enemy).

Chris, Chuck, and I share a common goal - party victory. And I don't see either of them as threats to that. If you're talking about something more specific, do elucidate me: Party chairman? Senior officership? Again, I don't see any conflict among the three of us which would give rise to a "threat".

3) "Why would he attack Mike Pappas in the email, well at that time it was thought that Charles Lollar and Mike Pappas would be battling in the 2010 gubernatorial primary."

Considering that I knew on that Saturday morning that Charles wouldn't be running for Governor in 2010, this defies reality.

The reality is that I like and respect Mike Pappas greatly--and, in point of fact, had a conversation with him about his race for Governor just after that

And again, I don't view people as "threats" - Mike Pappas may have been a potential opponent, but he wasn't a "threat". That's a shade of politics that I simply don't play - if you're going to learn anything about me, it's that I don't practice the politics of personal destruction when it comes to inter-party races. I believe it leaves the party damaged. It's counsel I've given time and time again to candidates - part and parcel of my "judo school" of politics beliefs.

If Charles had run for Governor, we would have focused on Martin O'Malley, not Mike Pappas. At the end of the day, especially in such a short window between primary and general election, alienating your opponent and your opponent's supporters is the surest way towards defeat (cf. Maryland's 1st CD, 2008)

That's why I'm concerned. It's not just that I don't write anonymous e-mails. It's not just that the 15WestSt e-mail is so poorly written as to make such an allegation an insult to my writing abiliy. It's that you presume to look into my motivations as a party activist, and because you don't know me at all, you have no idea as to the reality of who I am. And you therefore leave people with this complete misimpression of me.

Who are you do to that? And you don't even have the courtesy to contact me before making such allegations? I mean, you claim to have contacted a number of people who "confirmed" your story, but you didn't even have the wherewithal to contact me, even for a denial?

As I said, as gratifying as it is to know that I can generate hits for your site, it's really too bad that the story couldn't have been more accurate. Or accurate at all.

Sincerely,


Andrew Langer

Do as I say, not as I do

The "Progressive" blogosphere is all a flutter about the fact that ThinkProgress founder and former Hillary Clinton research director Judd Legum is running for the House of Delegates in Maryland, targeting conservative Republican incumbent Delegate Ron George. This of course has the folks at Kos, MyDD, HuffPo and other places tripping all of themselves proclaiming Legum as the next big thing and the "first national blogger to run for office" (never mind the fact that RedState's own Erick Erickson ran for and was elected to the Macon City Council two years ago).

Like most activists on the fringe left, Judd Legum is a big believer in campaign finance reform and public financing of campaigns. This of course would require a whole new bureaucracy and funding source just to fund campaings out of the public trough here in Maryland. It would also require campaigns to follow to a T a whole slew of new filing and campaign finance requirements in order to comply with the public funding plan the Legum and his ilk want to see.

Which brings me back to Legum and his current campaign. Legum has already raised a decent sum from his campaign via ActBlue. But you see, in Maryland you are required to a do a few things before you can start organizing a political campaign and raising money. This includes filing a statement of organization and opening a dedicated bank account for campaign activities. However Maryland's online database of campaign finance entities does not contain any information about Legum filing the appropriate paperwork that would allow him to legally raise campaign contributions.

This is not the only issue that Legum has when it comes to campaign finance issues. Maryland law also requires that each item of campaign material must contain an authority line on it indicating who produced it. That authority line must contain the name or address of the individual producing the material unless an appropriate entity is on file with the State Board of Elections. Legum's website, on which he is soliciting donations for his campaign for the House of Delegates, contains no such authority line.

Both of these violations are pretty serious. Even the seemingly minor issue of an authority line is punishable by up to a $1,000 fine, up to one year in jail, and a prohibition from seeking public office for four years.

At issue of course is the holier than thou nature of progressives like Judd Legum. Legum and folks like him want to continue to regulate our campaigns, regulate our lives even, to the highest extent possible. And when the continual burden of over-regulation continues, everybody at some point seems to find themselves in violation of a law one way or another. Legum will probably cry foul and explain that these issues are merely "oversights" on his part, however the issues that we have here are very serious indeed.

Legum's problem is the same as the of many a progressive: do as I say, not as a I do. His seeming failure to follow even the most basic of Maryland campaign finance laws goes a long way towards proving that many on the fringe left believe in holding politicians to the fullest extent of the law only until the point in which it inconveniences them.....

At it Again

Well, Judd Legum is at it again, and he's getting this lying thing down pretty pat, because he got caught in another bold-faced lie. Legum apparently is running for the House of Delegates here in Anne Arundel County in District 30 (as if the district couldn't be any more poorly represented by Speaker Busch and by Delegate Virginia Clagett, but alas) and he is targeting incumbent Republican Delegate Ron George.

Legum of course thinks of himself to be quite the hotshot, so he told the blog The Plum Line this litte doozy:

Still, Legum is better known for his work at Think Progress, and this campaign could be a historic first in a sense. Legum tells us he’s pretty certain that he’s the first national blogger to attempt a campaign for elected office, and as best as I can determine, he’s right.

Which of course is patently ridiculous when you consider the fact that RedState Chairman Erick Erickson was elected to the City Council of Macon, Georgia two years ago (though really blogger Greg Sargent is at just at big of fault for doing no fact checking whatsoever).

I get that Judd Legum seems to think a lot of himself (and why not, I guess that when you get bought off by George Soros you can just make it all up on the fly) but rarely has a candidate for the House of Delegates jettisoned their credibility so quickly.

Then again, he is now appearing on the website Crooks and Liars, so maybe he has finally discovered truth in advertising....

I Get Letters....

Judd Legum springs to Judd Legum's defense by email:

Dear Brian:

Thanks for your interest in my blog.

I just wanted to respond briefly to the following claim: "Legum stating that people support the stimulus package is nothing short of a bold-faced lie."

Actually I wrote that "a new poll by Gallup shows that the American people strongly support Obama's handling of the stimulus issue." This statement is fully supported by the Gallup poll. Here is a direct quote from Gallup: "The American public gives President Barack Obama a strong 67% approval rating for the way in which he is handling the government's efforts to pass an economic stimulus bill."

The Rassmuessen poll is interesting but does not ask the same question.

Feel free to contact me if there is any further confusion.

-- Judd

Of course the issue here is always in the phrasing of the statement, as it always is with the liberals.

This, you'll remember, is what the premise of Legum's post was:

Steele said that “the president is upside-down with the voters on this issue.”

THAT is the operative statement in Legum's post, the intimation that Michael Steele was at fault for stating that Obama is opposing the will of the American people....something that the is clearly demonstrable in the Rasmussen poll. The reason that the Rasmussen poll doesn't ask about the President's handling of the stimulus issue is irrelevant because the people of this nation oppose the stimulus regardless.

The nuance Legum tries here is cute, but glosses over the lack of support for people of this Democratic boondoggle.

For a lawyer, Judd Legum is a bad liar

Well all know that Judd Legum, the newfangled prettyboy of the loony blogging left, has some truthiness issues given his past employment. But today he unleashes a pretty sizable whopper:

Yesterday on ABC’s This Week, Former Maryland Lt. Governor and current RNC Chairman Michael Steele said that President Barack Obama’s approach to economic stimulus was not supported by the American people. Steele said that “the president is upside-down with the voters on this issue.”

Today, a new poll by Gallup shows that the American people strongly support Obama’s handling of the stimulus issue:

Yeah......about that:

With the Senate poised to vote Tuesday on an $827-billion version of the economic recovery plan, 62% of U.S. voters want the plan to include more tax cuts and less government spending.

Just 14% would like to move in the opposite direction with more government spending and fewer tax cuts, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Twenty percent (20%) would be happy to pass it pretty much as is, and five percent (5%) are not sure...

....An analysis by Scott Rasmussen notes that the stimulus debate is now driven by a tug-of-war between the popularity of President Obama and the nation’s deeply ingrained reluctance to increase government spending. Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters believe that increased spending is generally bad for the economy. On the other hand, 57% say tax cuts are generally good for the economy . Overall, 37% of voters favor the stimulus plan and 43% are opposed. Most of those who are undecided have a favorable opinion of the new president and are likely to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I understand that Legum is just covering for his President, who is already cruising towards the title of least effective President ever (why else would he have stopped governing and started campaigning today....at least he knows how to do that). But Legum stating that people support the stimulus package is nothing short of a bold-faced lie.

I give Legum credit though, it looks like he set all sorts of state blogosphere speed records in torching one's credibility...

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?

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.

I Get Letters

Needless to say that yesterday's post about Paul Foer earned me a nastygram....from Paul Foer:

from	Paul Foer
to		brian@briangriffiths.com
date		Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 7:36 AM
subject		Thanks for all the free publicity of my ideas......

We've never met, yet you sure have taken an interest in me. I appreciate the fact that you read Capital Punishment, take me so seriously and pay so much attention to what you label as my "fringe left" views that you feel compelled to tell even more people about it--who then visit my blog. I think it's funny that you say I resort to "yelling" because I put a few sentences in bold. At least I don't resort to immature name-calling.

Regarding the Bay Bridges, you confidently feel that we'll alway have the energy available to power all the vehicles you anticipate for years and years to come. Okay. Talk about sticking one's head in the sand. There's plenty of it at the beach, so enjoy your next trip there...over two spans or ten....why not just build a fifty lane bridge? More bridges everywhere.....

It's bad enough that your views don't consider the tremendous changes we will are undergoing now, but to attack someone whose views you don't like or agree with is just silly. Now you'll turn around and whine that I'm like the people described in "Liberal Fascism" or some such thing. But you don't know me. You know nothing about me.


Paul Foer

Wow. Foer does realize that I am not promoting his ideas....I'm mocking them for their lack of foresight, thought, and reason.

If that weren't bad enough, he then tries to completely change the argument. At no point in my rebuttal of his post did I talk about fuel. Why? Because something is going to power cars. I don't know if it will be gas, ethanol, sawgrass, hydrogen, or chicken droppings, but the people of this country will be using cars. That's not going to change anytime soon. People have been using personal, land based conveyances since a minor invention 5700 years ago. If Foer believes that is going to stop, that we won't evolve to cleaner fuels, than he is even more naïve than I thought he was.

This is my favorite part:

but to attack someone whose views you don't like or agree with is just silly. Now you'll turn around and whine that I'm like the people described in "Liberal Fascism" or some such thing.

You mean like this?

No, Mayor Moyer, you're just a mean-spirited, angry, paranoid incompetent as mayor. You are not a bad person. Rough around the edges perhaps. Quick to anger. Not always warm and fuzzy. We can handle that. But please, we have a municipal government to run, a corporate body, and it just keeps getting worse.

Yeah, couldn't imagine how I'd find you a hypocrite.

Besides Foer. I know what your game is. You make money off of the transit industry, so naturally he is going to denigrate alternatives in an effort to put some money in his pocket. It kinda reminds me of this (warning, language):



Foer also makes money on boating, including gas-guzzling motorboats. So I'm not exactly sure I want to get preached at on the environment by somebody who makes a living on things that guzzle more gas than my Saturn.

I point out people like Foer because these are the people who think they know better than you. Paul Foer thinks he is better than me, better than you, and better than anybody involved in politics or government. In truth, he's just a bitter guy, mad that he wasn't old enough to be a hippie, so bitter that even reasonable liberals like Bruce Godfrey have trouble getting a meaningful conversation out of. I point people like Foer out because these are the people that are brining nothing constructive to the political conversation, and people like him need to be exposed for what they really are.

Banned in Kos-sackstan

A very interesting story developing in the leftist blogosphere, as one Daily Kos member was banned for having the audacity to talk about John Edward's marital infidelities:

About a week ago, I posted a piece on the Huffington Post called Say It Ain’t So, John. I didn’t think it would have much more impact than my usual posts…maybe a dozen comments or so, a couple of people linking to it. To my surprise, it became the most read blog the Huffington Post for a few days.

I cross posted on DailyKos, which is probably the best known and biggest progressive blog. I’ve been posting at Kos for a long time. As more news about Edwards has come out, I followed up with more posts which were also the subject of a large number of comments. All of them looked at the Edwards situation from my point of view; that is, a liberal who is concerned about the implications this story may have in November.

Now I’m banned. I can’t write about ANYTHING at Kos. Can’t comment, can’t post a non-Edwards piece. Nothing.

And I stand by my title - it’s largely John Edward’s fault that I’m banned. I’m now personally a small piece of fallout from the scandal. That’s because Edward’s defense is shoot the messenger, not answer the questions. The rabid response of the people on Kos is directly related to Edwards and his own response. That’s exactly why I’m saying this has the potential to hurt the Democratic brand.

So answer the effin’ questions already, John. For everyone’s sake.

I’m not sure if the DailyKos is going to take down my writing and make me a complete un-person there. Of course, real progressives are against censorship so Maryscott O’Connor’s blog MyLeftWing is my new community home. (Maryscott was the lead actress in my film Breathing Room about 13 years ago, by the way.)

We have talked a lot before both briangriffiths.com, RedMaryland, the Conservative Refuge, the Word on the Street, and other places about the inability of liberals to take criticism, their inability accept dissent, and their default position to crush, vilify, or flush down the memory hole anybody who disagrees with their one view of the world.

But this is something above and beyond the pale. The Daily Kos crowd likes to talk a good game about how the Bush Administration tries to crush dissent, how mainstream Democrats tried to crush dissent, and how an open society accepts the fact that "dissent is patriotic." But can anybody rationally explain why such a site, the biggest site in the leftroots, would ban a poster from talking about a legitimate news story?

If this kind of thing is widespread in Kos-sackstan, I think it is safe to say that the Daily Kos has begun its inevitable slide to irrelevance.