By Barry Rascovar
One Really Bad Day
Capital Priorities Questioned
Barry Rascovar’s blog is www.politicalmaryland.com. He can be contacted at email@example.com.
Barry Rascovar’s blog is www.politicalmaryland.com. He can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Feb. 15, 2016 – First, the good news: Gov. Larry Hogan, Jr. last week created a 19-member commission to come up with ways to fix Maryland’s maddeningly inefficient system for purchasing $7 billion worth of goods and services each year.
Here comes the bad news: This group may wind up trying to re-invent the wheel because state legislators appear ready to pass legislation, based on three years of study, that could dramatically change state purchasing practices.
There’s no doubt Maryland’s now-antiquated and creaky procurement system needs an overhaul.
What once was a national model in the 1980s for sensible and effective state purchasing practices is now a costly embarrassment.
Practically every month, the Board of Public Works hears another horror story of botched bids, favoritism by state agencies in awarding contracts and an arcane set of practices and procedures that ties the bureaucracy in knots and delays major contracts for months and sometimes years.
It’s a procurement lawyer’s dream and a nightmare that costs the state dearly.
Hogan was right to call Maryland’s system “a patchwork of archaic laws and processes that are inefficient, ineffective and results in wasted taxpayer dollars.”
Comptroller Peter Franchot has been on the warpath for years complaining about this “increasingly unworkable” and “broken” purchasing system “in dire need of reform.”
Lawmakers, especially Del. Dan Morhaim of Baltimore County, have been pushing for procurement reforms, too.
So why are the executive and legislative branches unable to synchronize their reform efforts?
Hogan, on his part, appears to want full credit for any changes. He’s hesitant to work with legislators and seems to have ignored the extensive work already completed on procurement reform.
There’s a lingering sense Republican Hogan wants nothing to do with anything initiated by Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley, whom the current governor has indirectly criticized time and again while announcing his own reforms.
Yet it was O’Malley who first took steps to revamp Maryland’s procurement system.
Back in 2012 O’Malley asked the Board of Public Works “to bring someone in to kick the tires” of the purchasing system. “We need to pull this apart and put it back together.”
The board contracted with Treya Partners for a thorough study of Maryland’s procurement activities.
The consultant found fragmented oversight of procurement bidding and the ultimate awards, with multiple state agencies setting their own standards and procedures; conflicting and inconsistent interpretations of procurement practice;, lax contract management, and poor relationships with state vendors.
In other words, the system is pretty much out of control.
Treya made 11 recommendations. After studying these proposals in 2014 and examining procurement laws in other states, the Department of Legislative Services backed many of Treya’s suggestions and added some of its own.
Among the main recommendations to lawmakers: Create a Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) under the Board of Public Works and consolidate most procurement officials spread throughout state government under the CPO.
State purchasing would be centralized, uniform processes would be followed consistently and one official would be accountable for ensuring that Maryland gets the best deal and the best quality for dollars spent on services and supplies.
It turns out Maryland is one of only a handful of states lacking a Chief Procurement Officer. The Free State is way behind the curve.
None of this is reflected in Hogan’s announcement. Nor is there any recognition that Democratic lawmakers are ready to turn into law many of these procurement recommendations.
It’s as though the governor doesn’t want to give credit to the hard work already done on procurement reform one floor below him.
Even before Hogan’s procurement commission gets off the ground the panel’s work may be rendered meaningless. It’s another indication that in the Maryland State House, Hogan and Democratic lawmakers continue to steer in different directions.
Still, the governor can salvage the situation – but only if he teams up with Del. Peter Hammen of Baltimore City, who chairs the House committee that is likely to pass the DLS procurement reform package (HB 353) that gets a hearing this Wednesday.
That would mean sharing credit with Democratic legislators, which Hogan has not wanted to do previously.
It would mean altering the mandate of the governor’s procurement commission so its main purpose becomes assessing the effectiveness of any new procurement law enacted this session and then recommending how to make the new process more efficient, more transparent and more effective in giving Maryland the best value on every contract.
On its own, Hogan’s procurement commission cannot change Maryland’s purchasing laws. Legislators can do that and they seem ready to act.
Hogan can avoid an embarrassment and come out looking like a true reformer by joining forces with like-minded legislators – regardless of their political party – who want a better procurement system for Maryland,
Feb. 8, 2016 – Though lacking flair and imagination, Gov. Larry Hogan, Jr.’s second State of the State address proved a solid effort with just the right theme: conciliation and compromise.
That leaves unanswered the key question: Will these promising words be followed by matching deeds?
The governor called his speech “A Middle Temperament,” taking a page from Robert J. Brugger’s definitive state history – “Maryland A Middle Temperament 1634—1980” and from Captain John Smith’s written description of the Chesapeake’s munificent bounties in the early 1600s.
Hogan heaped ample praise on himself in the speech, taking credit for everything that went right over the past 12 months in Maryland – even if he had nothing to do with it.
For instance, he raved about Maryland’s job growth and his big budget surplus – both the result of national macro-economic factors in which any governor plays virtually no role.
He boasted about his record spending on education – though that’s the result of mandated increases in Maryland’s education aid formula. Hogan didn’t lift a finger to make that happen.
He even claimed credit for being the first governor to fully fund a program giving extra education aid to higher-cost counties. This, despite the fact he cut that aid in half last year and only fully funded the program in his new budget because infuriated lawmakers made it a legal requirement.
Hogan also sounded alarm bells about Maryland’s ballooning borrowing costs. Yet the governor did little in his budget to sharply rein in borrowing over the next fiscal year.
Actions, not words, will tell us if Hogan is serious about working with Democratic lawmakers on that and other serious problems the governor discussed in his annual address.
Legislative leaders have plenty of reasons to doubt whether Hogan will follow through on his pledge to “seek middle ground where we can all stand together.”
In his early dealings with lawmakers, the Republican governor struck a partisan tone. He refused to meet them halfway. He has continued to shut them out of policy development and rarely keeps them informed about his plans before he makes a splashy PR announcement. He’s been the opposite of inclusive.
He also has lacked consistency.
Last fall, out of the blue, he announced extra education aid for three Republican counties to help them deal with falling student enrollment. Yet Democratic Baltimore City, facing a far larger and more costly enrollment plunge, got nothing.
Then last week, Hogan finally caved to demands from legislative leaders to ante up money promised by the O’Malley administration to support Prince George’s Hospital Center until a new regional medical complex is built.
Hogan did so only after the House speaker and Senate president announced they’d push through a bill forcing Hogan to put up these funds in future years.
Yet Hogan praised his action, asserting such an arrangement was long overdue – as though the O’Malley administration had dropped the ball. It was a transparent re-writing of history.
In December, Hogan suddenly announced plans to pour $700 million over a number of years into Baltimore City’s housing demolition program. Yet when Hogan’s budget arrived, the first installment of demolition money wasn’t there, nor an explanation of where all that $700 million would come from.
Hogan blamed Baltimore City for this gap in his budget. He claimed the city had failed to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that had been in negotiation for months.
But wait a minute: There’s no signed MOU for the Prince George’s hospital, either. Yet that didn’t stop Hogan from putting supplemental funds into his budget last week.
Where’s the consistency?
“There is so much we can find agreement on,” Hogan said in his speech. Indeed there is. But it will take more give than take from the governor – a reversal of his style from his first legislative session.
t also will take less partisan one-upmanship, less headline-grabbing announcements that blindside legislative leaders.
The opportunity is there, though, for Hogan to put together a winning legislative record this year. That will mean not only saying the right things about “finding the middle ground” but making the right moves to make compromise possible.
That may not prove popular with his hard-core conservative base, but if Hogan is serious about avoiding a rough road for his priorities and avoiding hyper-partisan gridlock in Annapolis, he’s the one who must take the initiative by backing up his conciliatory words with conciliatory deeds.
Feb. 2, 2016 — ITEM: Now that Martin O’Malley is an ex-presidential candidate, he still has time to file for the Democratic mayoral primary in Baltimore.
Why not? None of the current candidates for mayor is catching fire in the polls, O’Malley loved the job when he had it, and he was a successful mayor. Even the New York Times liked his performance in Baltimore.
And he still lives in a big house in Homeland.
ITEM: Three out of four Iowa Republican caucus-goers voted for someone other than Donald Trump.
Yet you’d never have guessed that listening to the unprecedented media hype given The Donald.
ITEM: Someone ought to remind Florida Sen. Marco Rubio that finishing a third still means you lost to two other candidates.
ITEM: As for retired Hopkins neurosurgeon Ben Carson, he did worse in Iowa than the 2015 Orioles in the American League East. The Os disappointed fans by barely finishing third. Carson disappointed his supporters by finishing a distant fourth.
ITEM: Carson’s efforts gained him 17,395 votes — about half the size of an Orioles-Yankees crowd at Camden Yards.
ITEM: Is winning the Iowa Republican caucus a jinx?
Is it the bad-luck equivalent of a team pictured on the pre-season cover of Sports Illustrated to win the World Series or Super Bowl?
It sure was for Mike Huckabee (2008) and Rick Santorum (2012). Et tu, Ted Cruz?
ITEM: When the media proclaims a “record” turnout in Iowa for the caucuses, better take that with a grain of salt. The GOP turnout was under 30 percent and the Democratic total made it just over the 30 percent mark.
ITEM: If you thought O’Malley got wiped out in Iowa (not a single delegate), what about former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore? A grand total of 12 Republicans voted for him in Iowa.
ITEM: Bernie Sanders’ big day is coming!
He came so-o-o close in Iowa, but he should romp in New Hampshire, the Vermont senator’s New England neighbor. He’s leading big-time in nearly every poll over Hillary Clinton.
But then reality starts to sink in. The next two primaries are in Clinton Country — Nevada and South Carolina, states with large minority voting blocs that adore the Clintons. Those states could be momentum shifters.
Feb. 1, 2016 — Here’s the good news for former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley: Iowa is not America in miniature. Neither is New Hampshire. Each state has an abysmal record for picking the next president.
Getting humiliated in the first two primary states – which seems highly likely for O’Malley starting tonight—may not signal the demise of his 2016 quest. His carefully packaged liberal message is pegged to appeal to the broad Democratic Party base, which is not well represented in either Iowa or New Hampshire.
On the other hand, miracles can happen in these early primaries. Long-odds challengers have emerged victorious more often than not. Indeed, two times out of three, the Iowa winner is usually the underdog. It happens even more often in New Hampshire.
That’s a positive for O’Malley, though he’s so far back in the polls it is difficult to see him emerging out front.
The Des Moines Register-Bloomberg poll on Sunday gave O’Malley 3 percent of the Iowa vote. Other recent polls gave him 5 percent and 7 percent. Meanwhile, O’Malley is polling 2 percent in New Hampshire. In the next primary state, South Carolina, O’Malley also is running at 2 percent.
Even in neighboring Pennsylvania, where the ex-Maryland governor should be better known and respected by Democratic voters, he’s getting just 2 percent in a recent poll.
O’Malley can take modest comfort from a New York Times editorial endorsing Hillary Clinton for the Iowa primary caucus. In the editorial, the Time editors call him “a personable and reasonable liberal.”
Unfortunately, the rest of that sentence indicates how far he has to go to be taken seriously on the national stage. The Times editorial concludes O’Malley “seems more suited for the jobs he has already had – governor of Maryland and mayor of Baltimore – than for president.”
Translation: Martin O’Malley isn’t even close to being ready for nationwide, prime time politics.
Newspaper endorsements and polls can be misleading, though.
An editorial-page backing doesn’t carry the weight with voters it once did.
And polls can prove highly deceptive in a caucus state like Iowa.
Voter sentiment in a telephone poll becomes meaningless in Iowa unless the voter is determined enough to attend one of 1,681 precinct caucuses this evening that could last for hours.
In Iowa, it will be candidates with the most hard-core followers who have the best shot at pulling a surprise. Precinct-level organizing is absolutely essential, too. The Iowa event is long, drawn-out and a test on voters’ patience and commitment to a candidate.
That’s why Hillary Clinton may have a decided edge over Bernie Sanders and O’Malley. The depth of Sanders’ enthusiastic support among college-age students and disenchanted Democrats is one of the great unknowns.
Grass-roots organizing and caucus-level attendance could be key on the Republican side, too. That’s where Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas could surprise front-runner billionaire Donald Trump.
The same holds for Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, whose organizational strength and quiet determination to challenge Cruz among Iowa’s large bloc of evangelical Republicans could lead to a larger-than-expected showing.
As for retired Hopkins pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson, his meteoric rise in the polls has been eclipsed by his meteoric fall. His off-point remarks in the last Republican debate in Iowa emphasized how unready he is to live in the White House. Voters in polls seem to sense that, too.
Regardless of the outcome, losing candidates can take solace from the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire are hardly indicators of the eventual outcome.
If those two state primaries were true stepping stones to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the list of presidents by now would include Iowa and New Hampshire winners such as Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Paul Tsongas, Gary Hart, Tom Harkin and Richard Gephardt.
The media has made a BIG DEAL of these two early primary states. Inflating the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire has been great for TV ratings and created a surprise bonanza of advertising dollars.
Yet the truth is that this is deceptive reporting by the media. Television commentators are vastly overstating the role the two states play in the nominating process.
In the larger presidential election picture, Iowa and New Hampshire are minor starting points. We’ve got a long way to go.
Jan. 25, 2016 – At first glance there is lots to like about Gov. Larry Hogan, Jr.’s new budget. It’s largely a status quo blueprint that keeping spending under expected revenue growth without harming on-going programs.There’s a bit of sunshine for just about every group – liberals, conservatives, environmentalists, law-and-order types, urban dweller, rural residents and suburbanites.
Yet there’s a yin and a yang to Hogan’s financial plan for Maryland. The Republican governor seems to be pushing the state in different directions simultaneously.
While he is keeping a lid on state spending, as would any conservative politician, Hogan also wants to cut taxes – a move that would reignite Maryland’s structural deficit Hogan has pledged to eliminate.
It doesn’t add up.
First, let’s deal with some of the good news.
Now for some of the bad news.
We’ll learn much more about the governor’s blueprint when the legislature’s fiscal advisers start their round of budget briefings after the snow dig-out. Their analysis will pinpoint further weaknesses and oversights in Hogan’s plan as well as its strengths.
Given the uncertain economic outlook, a go-slow approach might be the best possible outcome.
Jan. 18, 2016 – Tumbling oil prices, a bear market for stock and 401(k) investors and a sharp economic pullback in China and other developing countries could wreak havoc in Maryland as Gov. Larry Hogan, Jr. prepares to release his budget for the coming fiscal year.
Even before lawmakers get a chance to analyze what’s in Hogan’s conservative spending plan, the state’s revenue assumptions for the next 18 months could be out of date.Budget projections made by the state’s Board of Revenue Estimates just a month ago have been eclipsed by the worst-ever start-of-the-year results on Wall Street, historic drops in oil prices and stock market losses totaling a staggering $2.5 trillion in just two weeks.
This bad news comes at a terrible time for Hogan. His budget already has gone to the printers. It’s too late to make adjustments. His fiscal blueprint could be out of sync with January’s realities.
Indeed, if this worldwide gloom persists, the modest economic growth anticipated by Hogan might prove optimistic. The governor’s spending and tax-cut proposals might have to be drastically reduced – even with a large surplus in the bank.
Maryland’s economy is tied to what happens nationally and internationally.
A sharp slowdown in China’s trade hurts the Port of Baltimore and BWI Airport. Ditto for the laggard economic activity in Europe and in emerging countries.
The oil glut is leading to 250,000 layoffs in the energy sector, which will mean less work for contractors, subcontractors and suppliers throughout the country, including Maryland.
Maryland’s income tax receipts will be hurt by the plunge in stock prices. Alarmed consumers, already unnerved by talk of terrorist attacks, could continue to rein in their spending, which hurts sales tax collections.
Economists aren’t yet predicting that international woes will lead to a second Great Recession.
But weak growth could make it exceedingly difficult for Hogan to carry out his pledge to cut taxes.
While the Republican governor will propose over $400 million in tax cuts in his address to the Maryland General Assembly this week, Democratic lawmakers aren’t likely to support them if economic conditions make those tax cuts unsupportable.
The best news for Hogan would be if the current batch of bad news is replaced by a sharp and lengthy bounce-back on Wall Street and an uptick in consumer spending. The U.S. economy, after all, is in far better shape than the rest of the world.
Still, we live in an era of instant international linkage. What happens in China or France or Iran or Russia affects the U.S. economy. As journalist Thomas Friedman famously wrote, “The world is flat.”
Hogan has little, if any, control over Maryland’s overall economic well-being. He can’t stop the panicked selling on China’s stock exchange, or Iran dumping more oil exports on an oversaturated world petroleum market or a Republican Congress ratcheting down federal aid to the states.
Lower gas prices were supposed to stimulate consumer spending as drivers fill up their vehicles far more cheaply. Yet so far no such bump has occurred.
Shaun Driscoll, who manages T. Rowe Price’s New Era Fund, predicts low gasoline prices could persist for the next six months and the oversupply of petroleum might linger for a couple of years.
The U.S. could find itself in a sustained period of low growth or no growth. For Hogan, that would make tax cuts problematic not only this year but in the immediate future, too.
“Risks abound,” the state’s Board of Revenue Estimates warned last month, noting the nation’s economic outlook was “subdued.”
Those observations came before the history-making plunge on Wall Street and disappointing economic news from China.
Volatility around the globe and at home makes it tough for elected officials to accurately predict the future. Extreme caution may become the watchword as budget deliberations begin in Annapolis.
Barry Rascovar’s blog is www.politicalmaryland.com. He can be contacted at email@example.com.
By Barry Rascovar
Jan. 12, 2016 – Vetoed bills are on the minds of all 188 members of the Maryland General Assembly as they begin their annual 90-day session in Annapolis. Indeed, it’s the first order of business on Wednesday.
Among the most controversial is a vetoed bill concerning a dispute between large hotel operators, like Bethesda-based Marriott and Rockville-based Choice Hotels, and internet travel companies. The fight is over tax payments to the state by those internet companies when they book in-state hotel rooms.
The vote to override Hogan’s veto puts three “swing” Democrats with centrist records on the hot seat — Sen. Jim Mathias of the Eastern Shore and Sens. Kathy Klausmeier and Jim Brochin of Baltimore County.
All three Democrats come from districts where anger over high taxes led to large Hogan victories in 2014 with margins topping 60 percent for the Republican governor.
Now Democratic leaders want the three senators to go against Hogan on the internet hotel tax bill. For them, that may not be the wisest political move, especially on a piece of legislation viewed by many constituents as a tax increase.
The big hotel operators want travel companies to pay taxes on the fees they charge customers when travelers book Maryland hotel rooms through an intermediary. (The internet sites already add the state sales tax to the negotiated rate going to the hotels.)
Gov. Larry Hogan, Jr. vetoed this bill.
He did so for the most sensible of reasons: Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot already is suing an internet company, Travelocity, over what he claims is $6 million in unpaid taxes on those service fees between 2003 and 2011.
“The General Assembly should respect the long-standing practice of not passing legislation that would directly affect matters being litigated in a pending court case,” Hogan wrote in explaining his veto last May.
Why in the world would state lawmakers interfere in a court case brought by the state’s comptroller?
Why not do what nearly all prior General Assemblys have done and let legal proceedings play out before taking action?
The answer is partisan politics. Democratic leaders want to show Hogan who’s in charge by overturning the governor’s vetoes.
On this one, pragmatism and practicality should prompt lawmakers to let well enough alone until there is a definitive ruling from the Maryland Tax Court.
It’s a complicated issue. Legislative controversies usually are.
For instance, the hotel booking tax could hurt local Ma & Pa travel agents, who are having a hard time as a result of shrinking commissions from hotels and other destination sites.
The fees they charge customers are their profit margin. If those fees get taxed, it could mean staff reductions to make up the difference.
Besides, they already pay local and state income taxes on revenue derived from those fees.
The new sales tax also could have the unintended consequence of harming small businesses such as tour operators, event planners and service providers, who might be forced to pay a new tax.
Industry data indicates that for every percentage increase in hotel rates, there is a negative two percent drop in bookings. That could be huge in Maryland if the legislature overrides Hogan’s veto. It could easily wipe out the revenue gain, estimated at $3 million to $4 million, from taxing service fees on third-party hotel bookings at a rate of six percent.
Large hoteliers say this tax “levels the playing field.” Yet it also forces third-party booking agencies to hike their prices to consumers and thus become less competitive with the hotels’ in-house booking operations.
The biggest booster of the new tax is Marriott, which has enormous clout among legislators from Montgomery County.
Ironically, Marriott was a big beneficiary in 1999 of state tax breaks topping $58 million in exchange for keeping its headquarters in Maryland. Part of the deal called for Marriott to expand its HQ staff by 700. Instead, there’s been a major workforce reduction.
Think how much the state’s tax coffers would have benefitted if Marriott had followed through on its 1999 commitment.
Those opposing this bill say this amounts to a new tax, which it definitely is for third-party hotel booking services. You can rest assured most of this tax increase would be passed along to customers booking lodging in Maryland through them.
As noted, this is not a cut and dried issue.
Should all services fees be subject to the state sales tax, or just fees charged by internet hotel booking companies? Should local travel agents and travel-related companies be exempt from the tax?
The legislature is acting prematurely. It should await a Tax Court decision. Then it should form a work group to study the full, wide-ranging implications, including the mixed responses to this problem in other states.
All that points to a go-slow approach.
When SB 190 comes before the Senate and House of Delegates on Wednesday, lawmakers should avoid a hasty decision. There’s no need to rush to judgment – unless bitter partisan politics overrules common sense.
Before we get too far into the New Year, let’s dispense with the Maryland political maneuver deemed as the low point of 2015: Civil rights advocacy groups waited till the very end of the year to file the worst and most counter-productive legal complaint that’s been filed in a long, long time.
The groups, including the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union, are essentially suing Gov. Larry Hogan administratively for daring to kill the $2.9 billion Red Line rapid rail route through Baltimore. Their reasoning: Hogan made a racially discriminatory decision that harms African Americans in Baltimore City.Not only is the complaint historically inaccurate, it is pointless and damaging to their cause. For this publicity-seeking waste of time and energy, the groups’ complaint richly deserves 2015’s “Dumb and Dumber Award.”
Republican Hogan has been heavily criticized for cancelling the Red Line project, but racial bigotry isn’t one of the charges that sticks.
Not only is it a stretch to make that wild accusation, there’s no evidence to back up the charge.
Did Hogan sit in his office plotting the death knell of the Red Line so he could keep African Americans “in their place”? Did he divert most of the Red Line money to rural and suburban highway projects as a discriminatory move against blacks?
The accusation is preposterous on its face.
Protesters even claim the Red Line was a vital piece of the state’s plan to remedy racial disparities, and that rejecting the Red Line was part of an historic pattern of racially imbedded transportation decisions by state governors.
Never once in all the years I have reported and commented on the Red Line project have I heard such a distorted argument.
Never once did the Democratic O’Malley administration or the Republican Ehrlich administration make the argument that they wanted to proceed with the Red Line because of its civil rights implications.
Never once did the Hogan administration even hint at a racial motive for stopping the Red Line in its tracks.
The civil rights groups are far, far off-base.
Yes, cancelling the Red Line, and the $900 million in federal funds, ranks as the most boneheaded decision of the century (so far) in Maryland.
Yes, it will harm African Americans in Baltimore – but also whites, Hispanics and Asian-Americans in both Baltimore City and Baltimore County.
But Hogan’s move was largely a political decision. Racial discrimination didn’t enter into the discussion.
He did it because he’s a rigidly conservative Republican who hates big government spending projects that primarily benefit Democratic strongholds. He didn’t feel this controversial construction undertaking was worth the huge outlay of state funds.
He wrongly called the Red Line a “boondoggle” because in his mind any oversized project that won’t help his voter base in rural and suburban Maryland isn’t a priority.
He called the Red Line “unaffordable” even though it clearly could have been downsized and revamped to make it more cost-efficient and make it fit into the state’s long-term transportation budget.
Nixing the Red Line was decided by Hogan long before he took office.
He promised during the 2014 campaign to kill the Red Line. Race had nothing to do with it; conservative ideology had everything to do with his decision.
The civil rights groups also make the argument Maryland has a long history of racially discriminatory transportation and housing decisions.
Excuse me, but how did housing get into this argument over building the Red Line?
There’s no doubt housing discrimination was at play in the Baltimore region over the past 100 years. My former colleague at The Baltimore Sun, Antero Pietila, brilliantly presents the case against the federal, state and city governments for their racially biased housing policies in his book, “Not in My Neighborhood.”
But the issue here is transportation, not housing.
Where did the civil rights groups get the idea that building Baltimore’s Central Light-Rail Line and the region’s Metro Line were purposely designed to discriminate against blacks?
That’s buncombe. It rewrites history to fit the groups’ distorted, conspiratorial world view.
Marvin Mandel built the Red Line not to serve white Marylanders but because there was a right-of-way available from the old Western Maryland Railroad that ran through Northwest Baltimore City and Baltimore County.
Today, Baltimore’s first mass-transit rail line well serves areas that are both black and white, as well as Hispanic. Even the line’s county stations serve a very large and growing African American community.
William Donald Schaefer built the Central Light-Rail Line because there was an abandoned right-of-way available — the former Northern Central Railroad route. It was a cost-and-efficiency engineering decision. The goal, then as now, was to make public transportation to jobs, stores and entertainment easier for EVERYONE – especially those living in Baltimore City.
Neither Mandel nor Schaefer posed as George Wallace seeking to deny blacks better public transportation. Quite the opposite. Race was never a factor in their decisions to build those routes, plain and simple. It did not enter into discussions.
There’s no question Baltimore lacks quality public transportation. There’s no question the city and the state should have done a better job anticipating the need for a comprehensive, coherent and connected mass-transit system that gets low-income adults to job sites.
It’s been a huge failure by state and local officials.
You can blame it on politics, both in Annapolis and in Washington. But you cannot blame Baltimore’s sorry transportation situation on racial discrimination.
Civil rights groups are wasting time and money on this canard. There are important civil rights issues confronting Baltimore at this time, but not the Red Line’s demise.
The civil rights groups’ complaint to Washington bureaucrats contains another huge leap of illogic: It’s too late to undo what’s been done.
Hogan killed the Red Line. It’s a fait accompli. The federal government is redistributing that $900 million to other cities that weren’t stupid enough to turn their backs on such a huge federal gift.
You can’t revise history to satisfy your wishes. The Red Line money from Washington is gone. A civil rights complaint, even if upheld, won’t make that money reappear.
Besides, who’s to say the Red Line would have solved Baltimore’s discrimination woes? Since when did these civil rights groups become experts in the most advantageous public transportation modes for Baltimore residents of color?
How do they view Hogan’s decision to spend $135 million on improving Baltimore’s sub-par bus system? That’s a whopping amount of money for such an undertaking that will primarily benefit the city’s lower-income workers and residents.
Is that part of the discrimination conspiracy, too?
What a distraction.
These civil rights groups should be ashamed. Demonizing Larry Hogan for unfounded civil rights affronts is a terrible mistake that politicizes the legitimate work of those groups. It polarizes the situation and needlessly antagonizes the one person who holds the purse strings for future transportation projects.
The complaint hurts, rather that helps, Baltimore City in its appeals to Annapolis at a time when the city needs all the help it can get.
Jan. 6, 2016 – If you’re running for any elective office, you’d better have thick enough skin to accept occasional humiliation.
That’s especially true for those in the presidential primaries.
It may be the most important job in the world but those in the running have to expect moments of embarrassment that for ordinary folks would be ego-shattering.
Martin O’Malley has had his share of deflating moments recently.
The former Maryland governor continues running in the low single digits (except for one Iowa poll). He’s not being taken seriously as a true challenger to Hillary Clinton.
Right after Christmas, O’Malley beat his rivals into the field in Iowa, addressing 100 people at the Des Moines Social Club, nearly all of them undecided voters, not O’Malley supporters.
The next day, O’Malley braved a snowstorm to meet with five undecideds in Webster City, 12 in Iowa Falls and an undecided, bearded voter named Kenneth in Tama (population 2,800).
O’Malley tried to make light of these tepid turnouts. It did, at least, get him much-needed publicity, though it was not at all positive.
The ex-governor tried another approach by asking Sen. Bernie Sanders, who does have a legitimate shot at winning the nomination, to ignore the Democratic National Committee and stage a two-man debate that would garner more media attention.
But Sanders declined. He’s not about to give O’Malley a chance to strip away some of his liberal support. Chalk up another stumble for the O’Malley campaign.
Then came bad news from Ohio, a pivotal election state. O’Malley’s troops botched the petition drive needed to get on that state’s primary ballot.
He only needed 1,000 signatures of qualified Ohio voters. He managed to sign up just 772 legitimate voters – out of some 11.5 million in the state.
Now that’s humiliating.
No wonder O’Malley isn’t being taken seriously.
As of Oct. 1 he had just $805,000 in his campaign account – versus $27 million for Sanders and $33 million for Clinton. The two front-runners raised another $71 million combined through year’s end.
Even with limited resources, O’Malley can muddle through Iowa and New Hampshire with a bare-bones, retail campaign. It will keep his name alive, at least.
But sometime after Feb. 9, if O’Malley receives the expected drubbing in those two states, he should fold his camping tent. The outlook is even bleaker in the next two states, Nevada on Feb. 20 and South Carolina on Feb. 27, where O’Malley is scoring close to zero (1 percent in Nevada and 2 percent in S.C.).
O’Malley must decide when to gracefully withdraw and when to endorse the eventual winner, most likely Hillary Clinton.
If he persists in sticking it out and fails miserably in Nevada and South Carolina, does he damage his future political aspirations? Does he become a figure of mockery, a hopeless presidential wannabe along the lines of ex-governors Mike Huckabee and George Pataki?
It shouldn’t be a tough call.
O’Malley has served his purpose with his determined campaign in the first two early primary states. He’s set out his liberal agenda for Democrats to see.
But he will need a political platform to keep his presidential hopes alive in four or eight years. That might happen if he wraps up his campaign in another month or so and then spends the rest of 2016 as a Clinton surrogate making speeches around the country.
Martin O’Malley thought he could catch fire as the Democrats’ liberal alterative to the more moderate Clinton. But Bernie Sanders stole his thunder and made O’Malley an also-ran.
The “O Say Can You See” campaign will continue to limp along gamely for another month. But O’Malley could face the inevitable in five or six weeks and make a pragmatic decision to call it quits.