Judd Legum's Philosophy of Governance

Judd Legum, the out-of-state funded Democrat for Delegate in District 30, also has a side gig in addition to be a candidate and a trial lawyer as the Chairman of the Market House and City Dock Committee of Annapolis Mayor Josh Cohen's transition team. And buried deep in this Capital story about the failure of the Market House rehabilitation project to get on track are Legum's thoughts about how Market House should operate:

The committee recommended the formation of a commission to determine exactly who will be responsible for the day-to-day operation of the Market House and what businesses will move into it. It's more important to reflect the character of Annapolis than for the property to turn a profit, Legum said.

Emphasis mine.

So, just to be clear, Judd Legum has absolutely no problem whatsoever with Annapolis City Taxpayers operating an ostensibly for-profit enterprise that competes with local private businesses for customers and revenues operating at a loss. That of course would mean that city taxpayers could see themselves footing the bill for more of Market House's operating costs than would be legitimately necessary; a philosophy that has already failed at the state level.

In Judd Legum's world, soaking the taxpayers for the ineffectiveness of government is a perfectly legitimate position to take. We need to make sure that Judd Legum doesn't bring his backward philosophy of governance to the State House next year...

Other People's Money

Who else is stunned by this development?

A union representing more than 30,000 Maryland state employees asked Gov. Martin O'Malley on Thursday to tap into the state's $750 million rainy day fund to help avoid deeper cuts to state services. Patrick Moran, executive director of the Maryland chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, held a news conference Thursday with dozens of union members, who held up signs that read: "It's Raining." State officials avoid using the fund, fearing the state would to lose its Triple-A bond rating, which enables Maryland to borrow money at a more favorable rate.

I am glad that the Union at least can acknowledge when it's raining, but this is one of those metaphorical time when somebody is trying to piss on your head and tell you it's raining.

The rainy day fund exists when the state is short on money. This is true. However, financial mismanagement and incompetence by Governor O'Malley and his allies in the State House is no excuse to dip into the rainy day fund. It's very easy for AFSCME to call for O'Malley to take money out of the rainy day fund because it's other people's money; money that was collected in taxes at a time in which the state was collecting more money from the taxpayers than it was spending. The money was put aside for an emergency; a real emergency.

AFSCME trying to protect its flank in order to save union jobs in a bloated state government? That's not an emergency...

Governor O'Malley would be right to refute calls to dip into the rainy day fund in an order to cover the costs of his own mistakes. But there is an opportunity in this, but only if Governor O'Malley learns the lessons from his prior mistakes, reduces state spending, and reduces the size of Maryland state government. However, I'm sure the political pressures from his union allies to spend other people's money to protect their hide will take precedence over such common sense ideas...

Mission Creep

A Wall Street Journal editorial from Friday notes the problems with mandated insurance, particularly when it comes to health care in Massachusetts:

My husband retired from IBM about a decade ago, and as we aren't old enough for Medicare we still buy our health insurance through the company. But IBM, with its typical courtesy, informed us recently that we will be fined by the state.

Why? Because Massachusetts requires every resident to have health insurance, and this year, without informing us directly, the state had changed the rules in a way that made our bare-bones policy no longer acceptable. Unless we ponied up for a pricier policy we neither need nor want—or enrolled in a government-sponsored insurance plan—we would have to pay $1,000 each year to the state.

And why exactly were they being fined by the state? Well, the answer sounds lot like some of the arguments that are currently being made by supporters of Obamacare.....except this was being championed by a Republican Governor:

The turning point was three years ago, when then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney pushed through the state legislature a health-care plan that he promised would provide universal coverage while lifting from the middle-class the burden of having to pay for those who do not have insurance. His argument was that the uninsured drove up the cost of health care for everyone by seeking care at emergency rooms and then skipping out on their medical bills. Hospitals make up for those unpaid bills by charging everyone else more than they otherwise would.

The central plank of the Romney plan was a mandate that required everyone to buy health insurance or pay a fine for posing a risk to society by walking around without coverage. There would be subsidies for those who couldn't afford insurance, and residents would be required to buy a minimum amount of health insurance, on the grounds that they might buy a policy that doesn't cover the cost of their care and end up skipping out on their medical bills. "We insist that everybody who drives a car has insurance, and cars are a lot less expensive than people," Mr. Romney told the Boston Globe in 2006.

Mr. Romney and Sen. Ted Kennedy publicly promised that the middle class—that is, people like us—would not be taxed and that our health-care costs would actually decrease if the plan became law.

Well, needless to say we see that mandated care in Massachusetts hasn't exactly worked our swimmingly for middle class folks up there. The cost of health care continues to skyrocket, people are still not necessarily covered, and middle class tax payers are suffering for the broken promises of bureaucrats and politicians who told them time and again that they wouldn't be subjected to a tax on health care and that health care costs would drop.

Sound like anything coming out of Washington these days?

Anybody of sound mind can see what is coming if the current health care plan is enacted. I have been saying time and time again that the option of health care reform, in the minds of the Democratic establishment in Washington, has little to do with providing better care at lowers costs, and everything to do with the socialization of health care at the federal level. Mandating minimum levels of coverage, to a certain extent, will be the same thing. And there will be a continued mission creep of the federal mandate to ensure that people are steered toward the exact coverage that Washington bureaucrats want, or whatever coverage Congress mandates into law. As Jonathan Adler notes:

If the federal government adopts an individual mandate, Ms. Williams fears her experience could soon replay itself nationwide. She’s right to fear. Once there is an individual mandate, interest groups will flock to Washington seeking to have their preferred treatment or service incorporated into the requirements for acceptable health care plans. Over time, the requirements will grow, and the cost of health care plans for many Americans will increase as a result. Consequently, many individuals who have health care plans that fully meet their needs will suddenly find themselves “underinsured” — and taxed fined as a result.

I can happen here. And it will happen if Congressional Democrats get their way. The Mission Creep has been real in Massachusetts; it will repeat itself at the federal level. The Bureuacuracy needed to run this mess will be nightmarish. Middle class families are going to have to spend more money on health care, turning it over to one bureacuracy (federally-approved health care companies) or another (the Government).

Mandated care, as constructed, is pretty much the enemy of our basic free market economic principles.....and while only tangential to the health care argument, it should give fiscal conservatives a lot of pause when you consider Mitt Romney's likely second try at the White House in 2012.

Hope and Change Pain

It is obvious to everybody that President Obama's handling of the economy leaves much to be desired. With monetary giveaways to any company with their handout, our "investment" in the auto industry, and record deficits on the way, Obama's fiscal policy seems more like a call for the limbo than it is a plan for fiscal recovery.

And apparently, as I have noted before.....we've seen this movie:

Barack Obama is committing the same mistakes made by policymakers during the Great Depression, according to a new study endorsed by Nobel laureate James Buchanan.

His policies even have the potential to consign the US to a similar fate as Argentina, which suffered a painful and humiliating slide from first to Third World status last century, the paper says.

There are "troubling similarities" between the US President's actions since taking office and those which in the 1930s sent the US and much of the world spiralling into the worst economic collapse in recorded history, says the new pamphlet, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs.

In particular, the authors, economists Charles Rowley of George Mason University and Nathanael Smith of the Locke Institute, claim that the White House's plans to pour hundreds of billions of dollars of cash into the economy will undermine it in the long run. They say that by employing deficit spending and increased state intervention President Obama will ultimately hamper the long-term growth potential of the US economy and may risk delaying full economic recovery by several years.

The study represents a challenge to the widely held view that Keynesian fiscal policies helped the US recover from the Depression which started in the early 1930s. The authors say: "[Franklin D Roosevelt's] interventionist policies and draconian tax increases delayed full economic recovery by several years by exacerbating a climate of pessimistic expectations that drove down private capital formation and household consumption to unprecedented lows."

Well, that's a cheery way to spend your Labor Day. But I think it is incredibly illustrative of the arguments being put forth not just in Washington but also in Annapolis. Both Obama and O'Malley are hellbent on trying to spend our way to fiscal prosperity while, at the same time, making it harder and harder for middle and working class families to compete on a level paying field. Both the President and the Governor are taking us on a reckless fiscal course that will lead to higher deficits at the national level, long-term inflation, and a reduction in earnings and income for most Marylanders.

At the Maryland level, this is a particularly damning problem. With our state Constitution requiring balanced budgets, it is painfully obvious to everybody the danger that comes with proposed overspending. When you combine liberal belief in the myth that Maryland has a recession proof economy with a senseless devotion to Keynes, you wind up with a hyper-bloated state budget that requires piecemeal cuts. And Governor O'Malley, instead of showing leadership and reducing state spending and the size of state government, instead tries to finagle his way out of it.

In short, the fiscal policies of Barack Obama and Martin O'Malley are not sustainable, will cause more and more pain for middle and working class Marylanders and are designed to avoid the tough choices that these leaders need to be making.

On this Labor Day, I challenge Maryland's leaders at the federal and state level to figure out how exactly they are going to make life more affordable for Maryland's middle and working class families. Your reckless fiscal positions have gotten us to this point; so how do you plan on fixing it?

MDE's Abuse of Power, Abuse of Reason

One of the classic arguments that liberals like to put forth is that when disaster strikes, the government should be strong so it can "help," Ronald Reagan's words notwithstanding. However, here in Maryland, it seems like a certain government agency thinks that the when disaster strikes, your first responsibility should be to......the government.

After last weekend's tornado, officials from the State Department of the Environment managed to determine that John Long of Dundalk had "purposefully placed a significant amount of yard waste, debris or items that could have resulted from the recent storm we had" into a nearby creek and a nearby flood plain. Mind you, MDE had exactly no reason to suspect that Mr. Long was responsible for the debris that was in the yard. In fact, trash and refuse has been washing down from nearby locations off of Merritt Blvd for fifty years prior the last weekend's tornado, and a lot of the debris that MDE is trying to ping Long for has been washing up during that entire time period. In fact, I'm hard pressed to figure out a good reason as to why MDE decided to wait until immediately after a natural disaster to start poking their head around this particular area. Butthat doesn't seem to keep the zealots that Martin O'Malley has placed in charge of the Department of the Environment from demanding that Long clean up the mess he didn't make....under the penalty of a $10,000 a day fine if the mess is not cleaned up within thirty days.

We all know that Governor O'Malley and many of Maryland's other leftist Democrats enjoy using the power of government to keep the citizens in check. But even the most adamant liberal has to be able to comprehend that a government that is prepared to use its instruments of power to put the screws to a homeowner who is trying to clean up for a natural disaster is a government that is abusing its power. And you have to think to yourself that it is only a matter of time that a government that is going after the downtrodden is going to come after you.

Perhaps you might want to let MDE Secretarty Shari WIlson or the Governor's Chief of Staff what you think of their ridiculous handling of this matter.....

Dog Bites Man

In one of the least surprising things around you'll find, taxpayers aren't exactly enamored with bigger and badder government:

In early October, as the meltdown of the financial industry gained momentum following the collapse of Lehman Brothers, a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 59% of U.S. voters agreed with Ronald Reagan that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”...

....Despite all that, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows that the basic views of the American people have not change: 59% of voters still agree with Reagan’s inaugural address statement. Only 28% disagree, and 14% are not sure.

Gee, I wonder way. Maybe it has something to do with the first couple of stimulus packages not working. Maybe it has to do with the President, his actions, and his rhetoric in continue to stick the accelerator open as we roll down the road to serfdom. Maybe it was the continued display of crass and corrupt leaders in Congress and appointed to the Obama Administration. Whatever it is, the people of America aren't playing ball with this. And Congress, as they are wont to do, is leading our nation down a screaming path that is diametrically opposed to the will of the people.

Then again, that might explain why....

In a corollary to Reagan’s assessment of government, most voters believe that no matter how bad things are, Congress could always make them worse.

The Rasmussen numbers are hardly surprising given out of touch Democrats are these days. It's very interesting to see how far Congress will try to take the country against the will of the people. The exploding phenomenon of tax tea parties makes for interesting theater and a pretty significant showing of the pulse of the country.

The Beginning of the End?

Ed Fuelener from Heritage made some very valid points about the Stimulus Debacle:

This bill has been advertised as an economic stimulus bill—despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office estimates it will actually weaken our nation's long-term economic growth. While the stimulative utility of the bill is, at best, questionable, it would unquestionably rewrite the social contract between the American people and their government. For example:

• The bill reverses the bipartisan and highly successful welfare reforms of 1996 and drastically expands the welfare state. For instance, it will start rewarding states for adding people to their welfare rolls, rather than for helping them find gainful employment. And contrary to long-established practice, it will entitle able-bodied adults without children to receive cash assistance.
• It does extreme violence to the concept of federalism—bailing out states that have spent irresponsibly at the expense of taxpayers in states that have been fiscally prudent.
• It greatly shifts the responsibility and power over health care delivery and decision making from individuals to government. Among other things, it would create a new federal health board to decide which medical services are "effective" in America, paving the way for government effectively to overrule the clinical decisions of private physicians.
• It deliberately censors religious speech and worship on school campuses by prohibiting use of any "stimulus" funds for facilities that are used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school of divinity.

The list goes on. These and similar provisions will mean fundamental changes in our society. In many instances, the bill would establish policies that directly challenge widely held American values.

And he makes several valid points. What a lot of Democrats seem to fail to understand is how invasive the Stimulus Package is, not just in the amount of wasteful government spending that it provides, but in the ways that it fundamentally changes the game.

Most disturbing to me is the new government board that deals with health care. We have already seen time and time again how government intervention into health care leads to disastrous consequences. There are reasons that Europeans who can afford to come to the U.S. for appropriate health care do, and it has a lot to do with the fact that government run health care systems there are ineffective, backlogged, and full of red tape. But this Democratic Congress had potentially changed all that and established a new board that will determine what is best for your health, not you. Does that seem like something you want to see. Do you want a bureacucratic Washington body making decisions for the health care of your parents or kids? Of course not.

Fuelner is right in that this stimulus bill is a dangerous precedent for America; the beginning of the end of the country as we know it. I take solace only in the fact that the American people will see through this charade and see this bill for what it is; a liberal Christmas list designed to take money and freedom away from average Americans...

Bottoms Up

We talked extensively about this on RedMaryland Radio tonight, but I wanted to say a few things here about this:

Top university officials in Maryland - including the chancellor of the state university system and the president of the Johns Hopkins University - say the current drinking age of 21 "is not working" and has led to dangerous binges in which students have harmed themselves and others.

Six college presidents in Maryland are among more than 100 college and university presidents nationwide who have signed a statement calling for a public debate on rethinking the drinking age.

"Kids are going to drink whether it's legal or illegal," said Johns Hopkins President William R. Brody, who supports lowering the drinking age to 18. "We'd at least be able to have a more open dialogue with students about drinking as opposed to this sham where people don't want to talk about it because it's a violation of the law."

The presidents of the University of Maryland, College Park; Towson University; the College of Notre Dame of Maryland; Goucher College; Washington College and the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute signed the statement, along with the presidents of Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State University.

"How many times must we relearn the lessons of prohibition?" the statement says. "Adults under 21 are deemed capable of voting, signing contracts, serving on juries and enlisting in the military, but are told they are not mature enough to have a beer."

And I say "here, here." The only reason that we have a "national" drinking age is because the Federal Government tied in highway funding to the 21-year old standard; if your drinking age wasn't 21, you didn't get your share of the pie. And that's a pretty dumb way to make public policy and and a cheap way to coerce states into doing what you can't do legislatively.

If you are old enough to sign a contract, serve in the military, and do things that require you to attain the age of 18, you are old enough to purchase and consume alcohol legally. This is a no-brainer and I have no idea why this movement hasn't come sooner than it has. The commitment to keeping 21 as the legal drinking age makes little legislative or policy sense, and certainly does not pass the test of common sense. The Presidents should be applauded for supporting logical action.

My only disappointment? My alma mater, which is a signatory to the foolish American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment, couldn't be bothered to sign on to this much more useful endeavor...

Flying the Merging Skies

There seems to be a lot of consternation regarding the merge of Delta Airlines and Northwest Airlines. Frankly, I'm not exactly sure why.

Would it not make more sense for all parties involved to support this merger? Is Consumer Choice going to be severely degraded? Not really. Are jobs going to be lost? Probably none that weren't already in danger. Will prices go up? Highly unlikely, at least in terms that are directly related to the merger. And those seem to be the biggest concerns when it comes to this proposed merger.

But I ask this question: if Delta and Northwest did not merge, wouldn't it be more likely that one of the two would go out of business? Would that no guarantee greater job losses? Would that not guarantee even fewer consumer choice? Would that not lead to higher prices as the demand shifts to the remaining carriers?

The Delta-Northwest Merger is going to be a long and arduous process for all who are concerned. But to say that this the merger should be rejected are completely wrong in their assertions. The merged airline will provide American consumers with a stronger, more financial stable airline that will have a larger fleet with reduced operating costs due to the new economy of scale. Sure it may be a headache for passengers and employees for the time being, but more than likely consumers get a stronger airline over the long-term. And given the state of the economy, this cannot be anything but a good for passengers, employees and consumers.

The Recession Proof Economy and other Liberal Economic Myths

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And finally, we get this:

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

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

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

More of John Leopold's Big Government

For all of those apologists who still say John Leopold is a "small government conservative," for the love of god explain this:

Rude cabbies may need a new gig if a law requiring them to be "courteous" passes the County Council.

A bill proposed by County Executive John R. Leopold would revamp taxicab regulation in Anne Arundel, pushing out solo operations in favor of centralized companies and imposing more restrictions on how cabbies can conduct business.

So naturally this brand of "small government conservatism" means unneeded, unnecessary, and unwarranted regulation of small businesses:

Tightening rules on a taxicab licenses is "really a consumer protection bill," explained Alan Friedman, Mr. Leopold's director of government relations. "We wanted to give people the feeling that there was structure, that if there was a problem, there was a company to handle it."

County officials have received complaints about "cell phone cabs," said Mr. Friedman, which he described as "basically one guy with a car and a cell phone."

The one-cab operations float around the county, and some consumers allege the operations are unreliable and unreachable when complaints arise. By restricting taxi cab licenses to only companies that own at least three cabs, then requiring companies to operate 24 hours a day and set up a physical office in Anne Arundel, the county can reassure riders and let the12 companies in the county police their own drivers.

I am completely puzzled and perplexed as to why this is such an issue for County Government. With all of the problems that are going on in Anne Arundel County (school funding, a school board commission debacle, lower revenues, higher taxes and fees, permitting problems) I can't imagine that there is a real need for such comprehensive taxi reform here in the county. I'm not saying that there should be no regulation of taxis in Anne Arundel County, but in what harm is there in sticking with the status quo? Why is it so bad that independent operations have an alternative business model? Why should independent taxi companies be forced by Leopold's intrusive government to expand or go out of business? And what harm will be brought to consumers who may have their choice of cab companies reduced through this legislation.

Maybe it's just because I never use taxis, but this legislation seems silly, short-sighted, and unnecessary at best. Beyond that, sadly it is just another way for John Leopold to implement his big-government, high regulation, high fee "management" style at the detriment to the taxpayers and consumers of Anne Arundel County.

A Little bit of everything

This story has something for everybody. First, let's not the complete bureaucratic failure over here at the Census Bureau:

Big worries for the nation's first high-tech census should have been obvious when tests showed some of the door-to-door headcounters couldn't figure out their fancy new handheld computers.

Now, officials say, technology problems could add as much as $2 billion to the cost of the 2010 census and jeopardize the accuracy of the nation's most important survey.

Census officials are considering a return to using paper and pencil to count every man, woman and child in the nation.

Well, I'm glad the bureau spent so much time verifying the necessity, usability, and function of the products they spent billions to buy before buying them. That seems like a great use of taxpayer dollars. Read the entire story to show the wackiness of how this money got to be spent in this fashion.

Of course, it wouldn't be a real story unless we had a congresscritter saying some asinine:

"What we're facing is a statistical Katrina on the part of the administration," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York.

I'm not sure how bureaucratic failures in the Census Bureau equate the deaths of 1,200 plus people due to bumbling by the Louisiana and New Orleans governments, but what do I know, right?

The real problem here is the fact that the census is taken every ten years. It's not like they didn't know it was coming. So how come here in March 2008 they realistically still have no idea how in the world they are going to get the job done?

Once again, federal bureaucracy finds examples to give us that provides us with insight as to why we must continue to shrink, not expand, the size of government....

The Difference is...I'll Respond

So Isaac Smith, who of refused to accept my challenge to a debate, challenged me to cut the budget:

But as you surely know, it's one thing to talk in generalities, and quite another to get down to specifics. So what, Brian, would you cut? Here's the FY2008 budget; have at it. And of course, it's not just enough to propose budget cuts, but you have to demonstrate that these cuts will not impair the ability of the state to carry out its duties in education, in health care, in public safety, etc. You may not think the state has such duties, and that perhaps is the difference between you and me.

Of course, I have the size to actually respond to such a challenge. So read it and weep. And I actually went further than just cutting the budget by reallocating some of the money to where it was actually useful, and by privatizing certain state assets. So what you see here is a net savings of over $3.6 billion. And yes, public secondary education, public safety, and health care are not impacted at all.

I know in fact that the FSP people (who have called me delusional incidentally) will cry and scream that a lot of these things that I am cutting or privatizing are part of the role of government. Except government either should not be doing it in the first place, or certainly is not doing it well right now....

Government Operating Outside its Scope....Again

Can somebody explain to me what the hell a Sailing Hall of Fame has to do with the Maryland Stadium Authority? That seems to be the entire problem in building a new Sailing Hall of Fame in Annapolis is that the State seems to be in the middle of it, where it naturally does not belong:

State involvement through the Stadium Authority is completely out of line, but not out of recent practices for the authority. The Stadium Authority was originally created to build Camden Yards and then build what eventually turned into M&T Bank Stadium. Of course the scope wound up going much farther than that, though I guess if you squint a university Commons Building kinda looks like a Stadium.

Furthermore, does anybody really think that downtown Annapolis needs a Sailing Hall of Fame smack in the middle of it? It seems to me that this would be the kind of urban renewal project that so disturbs a historic area that it would be the kind of thing that Democrats would hate to see in place. I mean, I certainly don't want the view of City Dock disturbed by the construction of some monstrous, unnecessary building. But of course, Annapolis Mayor Ellen Moyer loves the concept, even if there is likely no discernible economic benefit to the city from its construction. There is certainly no benefit to state taxpayers who seem like they are going to get stuck with part of the bill.

The only way to fix this is through two solutions. The short term solution is to pull state funding for the construction of this Hall of Fame complex and allow it to continue only with the use of private money. Second, the General Assembly needs to legislatively remove the ability of the Maryland Stadium Authority to build new projects, thus restricting them to managing the projects currently under their purview until the facilities can be privatized.

For more info on the Sailing Hall of Fame and it's relationship to our Capital City, my Red Maryland colleague Brian Gill has an excellent post on the matter.