Tag Archives: Maryland

‘Free’ Tuition Isn’t Free

By Barry Rascovar

Oct. 16, 2017 – Talk on the far left about “free” college tuition got a boost last week from an acolyte of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the foremost proponent of this marvelous-sounding idea.

Benjamin Jealous, former head of the NAACP who is running for governor, told a group of college students and progressive activists, to no one’s surprise, that his gubernatorial pitch includes free education for Marylanders at the state’s public colleges and universities.

Naturally, in this Trumpian world of headlines without facts to back them up, Jealous later admitted he had no cost estimate, didn’t know who might be eligible for the program and had no details on how such a proposal would work.

He did say he’d pay for free tuition by reducing the number of people in prison.

Such pie-in-the-sky, emotional rhetoric – which brings cheers from progressives — falls quickly to earth with a thud when closely examined.

Jealous does a disservice to the electorate by speaking before he can support what he says with cold, hard facts.

Demagogic rhetoric may have elected Donald Trump, but growing public skepticism now greets sweeping political pronouncements – and for good reason.

Steep Price

The notion of free college education isn’t new. It has been around at least 120 years. For decades, California footed the tuition bill in its state higher education system – until the price tag became unaffordable. New York now offers a modified “last dollar” scholarship for many of its college-age students.

But don’t get fooled. Free tuition isn’t free. It comes at a steep price.

First, while a free-tuition policy results in a zero-tuition bill for parents, universities get around this financial roadblock by charging whopping fees.

For instance, the best-known public university in Los Angeles, UCLA, hits in-state students with fees of $13,000. For out-of-state-students the fee is $41,000.

Add in other assorted charges such as room, meals, textbooks, travel and living expenses and  “free” takes on a whole new meaning.

Jealous’ plan is an expensive entitlement program. It grows dramatically in cost for the state during recessions as jobs become scarce and more high school graduates opt for college instead.

'Free' Tuition Isn't Free

Benjamin Jealous

The flood of new students drawn to state universities and colleges by a free tuition plan also adds significant extra expenses to public university systems, which can’t hike tuition to accommodate this vast expansion.

Lecture classes become enormous in size. Quality declines. Without extra revenue, student amenities at public universities suffer. Maintenance is postponed.

Threat to Private Colleges

Even worse, a sweeping free tuition plan for public higher education would devastate private colleges in Maryland. Many of them cannot compete for students when there’s such a huge cost differential. Some could close.

We live in an era where voters almost never approve of raising their own taxes. And their elected leaders are fearful of infuriating the electorate. Thus, a free tuition program means sharp budget cuts in other state programs – a shifting of priorities.

For example, in the 2017 General Assembly session HB 931 called for full tuition waivers for students attending community colleges in the state. The cost: a minimum $60 million a year. A legislative analyst concluded “significant additional costs are likely.”

The bill’s sponsors sought to pay for free tuition at community colleges by taking this money out of slot-machine taxes designated for Maryland’s K-12 public schools.

The bill’s sponsors wanted to strip funds from struggling public schools.

Imagine the price if all of higher education had been covered by this free-tuition bill, which mercifully died in committee.

Moreover, the real winners of no-cost public college tuition aren’t children living in poverty. They already receive sufficient federal, state and college education aid to make higher education possible.

The free-tuition winners are middle- and upper-income families (depending on how the program is structured).

Additionally, free tuition takes away a powerful incentive for students, and their parents, to make sure they get a degree. Putting skin in the game – a personal financial commitment – is a great way to ensure students focus on good grades and a diploma.

As for Jealous’ plan to pay for free tuition by emptying state prisons of inmates, it’s nonsense.

First, it is hypothetical savings that may never materialize.

Second, the Justice Reinvestment Act, which went into effect Oct. 1, already is designed to do the same thing – get thousands of lower-level offenders out of jails and into rehabilitation programs.

The law earmarks expected savings for post-incarceration programs. The idea is to help ex-cons avoid a return to prison.

Does Jealous intend to strip that money away from rehabilitation programs to pay for free college tuition?

Besides, the savings envisioned in the Justice Reinvestment Act is only $10 million a year – a drop in the free-tuition ocean.

There are far better ways to ensure that Maryland students can afford a higher education which prepares them for 21st century jobs:

  • More state support for community colleges that is contingent on lowering tuition.
  • More state aid to supplement federal Pell grants.
  • Far more government support for vocational and technical programs.
  • More scholarship aid directed toward economically struggling students.
  • State aid to encourage high school/community college collaborations.
  • State tax credits for businesses that offer career-education work-study programs.

Free tuition is a misnomer. In this world, nearly everything comes at a price.

Voters should beware of candidates offering “solutions” that, upon examination, are too good to be true.

##

Starting at the Top

By Barry Rascovar

Oct. 9, 2017 – There’s nothing like starting your political career at the top.

No need serving an apprenticeship in a low-level elective office or working your way up in a methodical manner to gain essential expertise and experience.

The new, Trumpian model is to convince voters you’re the most exciting anti-establishment neophyte in the race who is capable of transforming Maryland’s government “swamp” into a modern-day Nirvana — even if you may not meet the legal qualifications needed to run for governor.

Exhibit A is Krishanti Vignarajah, a Sri Lankan by birth who held jobs in the State Department and the First Lady’s office during the Obama administration.

Now she wants to begin her Maryland career as governor, though her local political credentials are close to zero.

Worse, she may not be eligible to enter the governor’s race.

Vignarajah announced she’s running for governor but she has yet to formally file. She is asking a judge in Anne Arundel County to issue a sweeping declaration that she’s qualified.

Vignarajah is suing the campaign of Republican Gov. Larry Hogan for a comment made by Hogan’s campaign lawyer questioning Vignarajah’s claim that she meets the state’s eligibility standards.

How Hogan’s campaign ended up as a defendant is unclear since the governor runs in the Republican primary and Vignarajah is attempting to gain the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. Hogan’s campaign has nothing to do with the Democratic shoot-out.

There’s also the matter of free speech. The comment by Hogan’s campaign official is one man’s opinion, which isn’t normally subject to judicial review.

The state elections board also is being sued. Why is unclear, too.

First, Vignarajah hasn’t officially filed with the board. So it’s not surprising that the board has yet to say a word either pro or con about Vignarajah’s eligibility.

That puts the judge in a bind.

The judge is being asked to rule about a candidate’s eligibility even though the candidate has yet to submit the formal paperwork and pay the filing fee.

Vignarajah’s lawsuit may be premature.

If she does file with the elections board for governor, she still might not be able to get a judicial determination of her eligibility until the March 1 withdrawal deadline for candidates.

At that point, the elections board might make a decision on whether she meets the legal standards required of a gubernatorial candidate.

That’s when she could contest an unfavorable ruling in court.

Vignarajah was a District of Columbia resident and D.C. voter as recently as 2014. She worked, lived and voted in D.C. – not in Maryland.

Is it possible for her to meet Maryland’s requirement that candidates for governor be residents and registered voters for five years at the time of their filing?

Maryland, My Maryland

In her lawsuit, Vignarajah declares that her heart belongs in Maryland, which she feels should be enough to let her run for governor. She grew up in Woodlawn and now owns a home in Gaithersburg. She considers herself a Marylander.

Yet she voted in D.C. elections from 2010 to 2014, which requires residency in D.C. and seems to foreclose the possibility that she was a Maryland resident during that period.

Yes, she has retained her voter registration in Maryland as well, which could become a point of judicial interest if Vignarajah gets a chance to make her case before a judge.

She raises some interesting issues which could use judicial clarification at some point during the campaign:

  • Are the state’s eligibility election laws discriminatory or deficient?
  • Is it legal for individuals to hold dual voter registration cards if they own property in each jurisdiction? Can they then pick and choose which place they cast their votes or run for offfice?
  • What is the legal definition of residency in Maryland for the purposes of state election laws?

Maryland sets a minimum standard that statewide candidates must meet to qualify for the ballot.

Vignarajah is old enough to run for the state’s highest elective office. The unanswered question is whether she meets the five-year residency and voter requirements.

At some point a judge may rule on that question and other related issues. This controversy has just begun. We may not know the outcome for many months.

###

 

The Truth about Truth in Sentencing

By Barry Rascovar

Gov. Larry Hogan can’t make up his mind.

Last year he was a gung-ho advocate of “soft-on-criminals” reforms aimed at cutting Maryland’s prison population by 1,000 and putting more resources into helping low-level offenders avoid a life of crime.

This time, though, Hogan is sporting his “tough on criminals” campaign button, calling for “truth-in-sentencing” as part of a crime-fighting package he’ll introduce in the next legislative session.

So, is Hogan soft or tough on crime?

The Truth about Truth in Sentencing

Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

As the 2018 election campaign draws closer, Mr. Tough Guy wins the day.

It’s good publicity to be seen as eager to crack down hard on thugs and violent offenders making Baltimore City one of America’s crime capitals.

So what if Hogan’s truth-in-sentencing idea negates all the savings of his Justice Reinvestment Act that commences in October?

So what if his plan creates extreme hazardous conditions for correctional guards and for inmates in Maryland’s prisons?

So what if it ties the hands of judges and virtually eliminates the need for a parole board and a probation division?

And so what if Hogan’s idea will do virtually nothing to stem Baltimore’s historic criminal rampage?

Atmospherics Count

It’s all about the atmospherics, the sense that the governor is mad as hell and won’t take it anymore, that he’s fed up with molly-coddling prisoners, that he’s doing something.

Hogan tried to set up city judges as the bad guys. He demanded they attend a criminal justice meeting on Aug. 29 where he’d sternly tell them to hand out lengthy sentences.

After the state’s chief judge informed him no member of the judiciary would attend because it would impinge greatly on judicial independence and the constitution’s separation of powers, Hogan played the role of offended party.

He used their absence to pound on judges as one reason Baltimore’s crime situation is “out of control.”

Mayor Catherine Pugh piled on, too, expressing disappointment in the judges’ absence. “We have repeat offenders continuing to walk the streets,” she said because judges are handing out too many suspended sentences.

If only it were that simple.

Even State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby couldn’t resist taking a shot, indicating that long, long prison terms for violent, repeat offenders would make Baltimore safer. (So would a better record of successful prosecutions by the state’s attorney’s office – a point Mosby artfully ignored.)

View from the Judiciary

Mary Ellen Barbera, chief judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals, later tried to talk common sense in a commentary article but was drowned out by the emotional political rhetoric.

The Truth about Truth in Sentencing

Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera of the Maryland Court of Appeals

She noted those suspended sentences primarily relate to cases in which the defendant has been convicted of multiple crimes.

This results in an extended prison term on the most serious crimes and a conditional suspension of extra time in prison on lesser offenses.

That means inmates leaving prison still remain under state watch through the parole system for years to come. They’re also required to meet other terms set by judges, such as mandatory drug testing, employment, weekly check-ins, etc.

Hogan is getting pushback from some within his administration on the merits of turning Maryland toward the rigid, “life-without-parole” model.

It’s a huge drain on the prison system’s budget and the prison staff. It increases the chance of recidivism once these inmates are released. And it does very little to stem the rising tide of violence.

Hogan got it right the first time with the Justice Reinvestment Act.

Crime in lower-income communities is a multi-faceted, complex problem. Dealing with it by locking up felonious offenders for lengthy periods won’t change the underlying causes of disrespect for the law.

But it does play well with voters, and 2018 is, indeed, an election year for Maryland’s governor and the city’s state’s attorney.

## 

Hogan & Pugh: Doing What’s Right

By Barry Rascovar

Aug. 21, 2017 – In this seminal period of American history, it is important for elected officials to display moral courage and leadership rather than more fashionable politics of survival – and a craven pandering to people’s baser instincts.

Both Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan and Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh took the high road last week, doing what was right even if it proved controversial.

The two leaders acted quickly to remove Civil War-era statues that inflamed public debate, thanks to President Trump’s incendiary comments following a neo-Nazi, white supremacist rally and a later domestic terrorist attack in Charlottesville, Va.

The two Marylanders are getting flak for their prompt, common-sense decisions. They even drew criticism for daring to provide sensible arguments for their actions.

While this dispute superficially involves the removal of statues honoring the Confederacy and slavery, the culture war erupting nationwide is forcing Americans to confront some of this country’s darkest history.

Ever since the end of the North-South confrontation that lasted four bloody years, there’s been a concerted effort to patch things over and get on with “reconciliation.” Southern leaders, meanwhile, have tried to keep the image of the ante-bellum era alive, turning Confederate leaders into hallowed heroes and their traditions into a virtue.

Those divergent initiatives led to Confederate statues arising around the country. Four in Baltimore now have been removed as has one on the State House grounds in Annapolis.

Lee-Jackson on Horseback

The Lee-Jackson equestrian statue in Wyman Park dell near the Baltimore Museum of Art should have come down long ago. It was an embarrassment, an ode to two military men who betrayed their country and sought to tear it asunder.

Their actions do not merit a salute on public city property. Neither Robert E. Lee nor Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson showed up in the vicinity of Baltimore during the Civil War. There’s no reason for this statue to be in a Baltimore park.

Hogan & Pugh

Lee-Jackson Monument at its former site in Baltimore.

Pugh hit a home run when she suggested the equestrian bronze rightly belongs on the Chancellorsville battlefield in Spotsylvania, Va. That is where Lee and Jackson concocted a brilliant strategy that pulled off a surprising victory – one that was marred by Jackson’s friendly-fire wounding and subsequent death.

As for the two statues of Roger B. Taney (1777-1864), the issue is more complex. Taney, the fifth chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, stands out as the most prominent Marylander to serve in high federal posts for an extended period of time.

After election to the Maryland House of Delegates, state Senate and then to the office of state attorney general, Taney took on the role of President Andrew Jackson’s attorney general and later secretary of the Treasury. He was the most influential member of Jackson’s “kitchen cabinet” and architect of Jackson’s campaign to abolish the Second Bank of the United States.

This was a pivotal issue in Jackson’s election and re-election. Taney provided a glide path for President Jackson, who was the Bernie Sanders of his time – a populist intent on bringing the voice of the common man into the White House.

Taney on the Supreme Court

Jackson then chose Taney to succeed the giant of Supreme Court chief justices, John Marshall. It was a position Taney held for over 28 years.

A state’s rights constitutionalist, Taney broke new ground in commercial law, the enforcement of legally binding contacts and the decision-making authority of popularly elected state legislatures.

One landmark written opinion, though, left Taney’s reputation in tatters. From the moment the Dred Scott decision was announced in 1857, it was excoriated for its harsh and inhuman characterization of African Americans.

Scott, Taney wrote, had no standing to file a lawsuit because African Americans – both freedmen and slaves – possessed “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

Hogan & Pugh

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney

From today’s vantage point, there’s no doubt of the terrible wrongness of Taney’s declaration. But in the context of his times, Taney’s viewpoint was supported by many Americans, including six other Supreme Court justices who supported Taney’s majority opinion.

According to an amazingly timely account of the Taney statues in the spring/summer issue of the Maryland Historical Magazine, Taney’s bronze image came about as a result of diametrically opposed drives by state legislators: One group sought reconciliation after the war by honoring Maryland’s most famous national figure. The other group had clear white supremacist goals, using Taney’s Dred Scott opinion as the rationale for their racist views.

Bronzes are Born

William Henry Rinehart, a renowned Maryland sculptor, cast the Taney bronze in his Rome workshop. It cost taxpayers $10,000 (about $250,000 in today’s dollars). The statue’s unveiling in 1872 was a major state event. A duplicate of Taney’s head, neck and shoulders, with alterations, was later commissioned for Baltimore, crafted by the brilliant American Beaux-Arts sculptor, Augustus Saint-Gaudens.

These are historically accurate and important works. Demagogic demands by gubernatorial candidate Ben Jealous and Baltimore City Councilman Brandon Scott to melt down those artistic creations are despicable attempts at modern-day book-burning. Such demands bring into question these individuals’ temperament as public figures.

Both Hogan and Pugh placed the controversial statues in storage until an appropriate home can be found. Flame-throwers on both the far-right and far-left would love to make these statues a cause celebre to further their opportunistic objectives.

No wonder the bronzes were moved overnight from their sites. Public safety was at risk.

Appropriate Replacements

Now the question becomes: What should replace these discredited public monuments?

Why not commission statues of unifying figures from Maryland’s recent past, such as political giants:

  • William Donald Schaefer (four-time Baltimore mayor and two-time governor),
  • Theodore Roosevelt McKeldin (two times both governor and Baltimore mayor),
  • Barbara Mikulski (feminist ground-breaker and longest-serving female member of the U.S. Senate), and
  • Charles “Mac” Mathias (seminal centrist politician in both the U.S. House and Senate).

Or perhaps we should replace the Baltimore bust of Taney with a bust of the most recent Maryland Supreme Court justice, Baltimore-born Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American jurist on the nation’s highest court.

What about Nancy D’Alesandro Pelosi – the Baltimore daughter of a three-term mayor and five-term congressman, Thomas “Old Tommy” D’Alesandro, Jr. – who rose to the highest rung of the U.S. House of Representatives as the nation’s first female Speaker of the House?

Or maybe we should avoid political figures and honor in bronze the likes of James Rouse, the pioneering urban planner (the new town of Columbia, Harborplace, Cross Keys, Mondawmin and Harundale Mall – the first enclosed shopping center east of the Mississippi).

Why not a bronze statue commemorating philanthropists like Johns Hopkins, Enoch Pratt and George Peabody, whose selfless contributions to the Baltimore region have endured for over a century?

It’s time to move on from 150-year-old Civil War divisions.

Let us find proper, appropriate sites for controversial statuary art from that era.

Then let us honor and commemorate men and women of all races who have made metropolitan Baltimore and Maryland better because of their dedication and hard work for the common good.

###

Barry Rascovar’s blog is www.politicalmaryland.com. He can be reached at brascovar@hotmail.com.

Pension Investing: Goldilocks vs. Chicken Little

By Barry Rascovar

Aug. 14, 2017–Separating fact from fiction, headline-screaming hype from on-the-ground reality isn’t easy in this 24/7/365 media-frenzied world, especially when it comes to reporting on government and politics.

Take, for example, the world of state pension fund performance. Returns on these investments have been pretty meager in recent years and the nation’s governors and legislatures have resisted pumping hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve “full funding” for these pension accounts.

In Maryland, it has become an annual rite of August for critics to lambast state pension trustees when they fall short on their investments. The biggest lament is the state’s huge “unfunded liability,” which stands a bit below $20 billion.MD Pension System: Goldilocks vs. Chicken Little

Wow. That’s a mighty hefty number. Is the pension program for 387,000 state workers, teachers and retirees going broke as doom-and-gloomers insist?

Or are we being fed “fake news” in which the “sky-is-falling” screams are based on a false premise?

It’s more the latter than the former. The $20 billion number is based on a scenario that will never happen. It assumes every eligible state worker and teacher retires tomorrow. In other words, government virtually shuts down and everyone starts collecting retirement benefits.

Future Gap in Payouts

It is true the state’s retirement agency pays out more in benefits each year than it takes in from employee contributions and state and local governments. In good years, that gap is closed by investment income. In bad years, the agency withdraws funds from its $49 billion in assets.

This past fiscal year was a very good one for Maryland’s retirement fund. Investments yielded a 10% return – a $3.6 billion increase in net assets. Over the past 10 years assets have grown by $10 billion.

Still, critics assert Maryland’s pension trustees should be far more aggressive. Instead of middle-of-the-road investing compared to other states, they also insist the trustees could make billions more by shifting investments into static index funds.

That would achieve two things. Management fees would be markedly lower, since index funds require very little work for fund managers once they are set up. Second, index funds perform exceptionally well in flush economic times since they reflect overall stock market booms.

Maryland pension officials have resisted this shift and here’s why. In bad times, index funds are hit much harder than actively managed funds.

State officials have been cautious over the years in an attempt to reduce extreme highs and lows by diversifying their portfolio. Only half the agency’s money is tied up in equity funds. The rest goes into much safer, and thus lower paying, investments such as government bonds, real estate and cash.

Over the past 30 years that approach has returned an 8% return per year.

To Index or Not to Index?

Still, critics are pounding the retirement agency for not fully indexing its accounts to lower management fees.

Those critics are ignoring worrisome storm clouds many economists see on the horizon. T. Rowe Price, for the first time in 17 years, is pulling back on its stock investments and increasing investments in bonds – a sign the company sees a downturn coming our way.

T. Rowe Price actively manages its funds so that if the economy starts to tank, it can shift out of stocks and increase its cash reserves. That shelters shareholders from the worst of bad times.

But if you are fully invested in index funds, there’s no way of avoiding a direct hit when the stock market plunges 20% or more.

Comptroller Peter Franchot has warned trustees against taking too many risks to achieve higher returns by buying stocks when their valuations are sky-high. His caution reflects the consensus of the retirement fund’s trustees.

At the moment, Maryland’s pension program is 70% fully funded and the board has instituted a 25-year-plan to close the remaining gap. But this liability is more an academic concern than something to lose sleep over.

Maryland state pension fund trustees continue to ignore the Chicken Littles screaming that “the sky is falling.” Instead, the trustees are following the tried-and-true Goldilocks formula: “Not too hot, not too cold, j-u-s-t right.”

###

John Delaney for . . . President??

By Barry Rascovar

Donald Trump may have started an unwelcome trend. An outsider who started as a joke rather than a serious contender in the wide-open GOP presidential primaries last year, Trump pulled off America’s biggest upset. Today he’s president and now just about anyone thinks he, or she, can do the same thing.

Exhibit A is Maryland Congressman John Delaney. He thinks he should be president. He is giving up his seat in Congress to run for Trump’s job – though his odds at this point are slim and none – and Slim just left town.

Delaney’s credentials are exceptionally modest. Yes, he’s serving his third term in the House of Representatives as a Democrat from a district encompassing Western Maryland and parts of Montgomery County. That’s his only fling at public office. Previously he started, ran and then sold two financial service companies, making him super-rich.

John Delaney President??

U.S. Rep. John Delaney of Maryland

But given Trump’s even more meager political resume, Delaney apparently thinks experience no longer counts.

The difference is that Trump is an exceptional reality TV personality, a charismatic, loud-mouthed know-it-all who captivated America’s heartland with his unconventional sales pitch and aggressive, unapologetic rhetoric.

Delaney, by contrast, is more phlegmatic than charismatic. He’s been in office over five years yet still is unknown in most of Maryland.

Congressional record

He’s also got little to show for his three terms in Congress.

His claim to fame is a proposal to rebuild U.S. infrastructure by encouraging corporations to re-patriate, tax-free, billions of profits stashed overseas in exchange for buying special infrastructure bonds that support a giant public works agenda.

Great idea but that’s all it is after five-plus years. Delaney’s brainchild hasn’t matured into a viable plan of action in the Republican Congress.

All Delaney offers Democratic voters at this point is a more moderate, pro-business view of the world than any of the likely presidential candidates in the 2020 primaries.

He does have two advantages: 1) He’s the first to jump in, giving Delaney oodles of time to romance caucus delegates in Iowa and voters in New Hampshire and South Carolina – the early primary states; 2) he can self-fund the next few years of his campaign while building a fund-raising operation.

Even then, it is hard to imagine  Delaney making much headway. He has all the makings of Maryland’s last presidential wannabe, former Gov. Martin O’Malley, who performed so miserably he got just 0.6% of the Iowa caucus vote – and dropped out. It was a huge humiliation for O’Malley, an end to a once-promising political career.

Now Delaney seems headed in the same direction. With a few more terms in the House of Representatives, he might have been an influential congressman. Or he might have used his wealth to become the Democrats’ gubernatorial nominee next year.

Instead, he could end up a footnote – an also-ran in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary season.

That’s insane, but holding public office, or wishing to hold public office, does strange things to an individual’s ego.

Gubernatorial Wannabes

How, for instance, does a Washington lobbyist like Maya Rockeymoore think she is qualified or has the electability skills to become Maryland’s next governor?

How does a little-known “technology policy expert,” Alec Ross, who wrote a best-selling book (“The Industries of the Future”) and advised Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on matters of technology, believe his background is sufficient to persuade voters he’s the most qualified person to fix problems bedeviling Maryland?

And how in the world does a 37-year-old former policy staffer to Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton, Krishanti Vignarajah – with no prior experience whatsoever in Maryland – believe her modest resume (she ran Michelle Obama’s “Let Girls Learn Initiative”) proves she is capable of running a complex state government?

If Trump can pull off a miracle electoral victory, then just about anyone else can, too. That seems to be the mindset.

It’s as though relevant experience no longer counts. Some captivating sound bites, colorful ads and outrageously out-of-the-box ideas and, voila, the presidency, or the governorship, is mine.

All these contenders see is opportunity – even though they lack the background traditionally expected of elected chief executives in this country.

The last time John Delaney faced a tough electoral fight, in 2014, he won reelection (in a gerrymandered, pro-Democratic district) by a slim 2,774 votes. That’s not an encouraging sign for his uphill battles in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The other wannabes have zero prior experience in running for public office, much less any measure of success. That’s a discouraging sign for their gubernatorial hopes and dreams.

But it’s also a discouraging sign for voters, who must separate the lighter-than-air candidates from the legitimate contenders.

## 

Crowded Governor’s Race

By Barry Rascovar

July 24, 2017— Given Republican Gov. Larry Hogan’s widespread popularity, it is difficult to grasp why so many Democrats are jumping into the race for chief executive of Maryland.

In the past week, state Sen. Rich Madaleno of Montgomery County formally declared and in a totally unexpected move the wife of U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings, Maya Rockeymoore, said she wants to run in the gubernatorial primary, too.

That’s in addition to technology innovator Alec Ross,  Baltimore lawyer Jim Shea, Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamenetz, Prince George’s County Executive Rushern Baker, U.S. Rep. John Delaney, former NAACP President Ben Jealous and former Attorney General Doug Gansler.

Madaleno’s entrance into the populated race adds a solid policy wonk who is giving up a promising career in the Maryland Senate. He knows the issues cold and has worked in the legislative trenches for the past 15 years arguing for progressive legislation and often getting important bills enacted.

Rockeymoore’s curious comments came as a shock to the political system. She is a near-total unknown – except as the wife of a longtime Baltimore congressman.

She has no background in Maryland state or local government – she is a creature of Capitol Hill. She has no political base of her own and is a mystery figure to virtually every voter in the state.

‘Different Kind of Leader’

Rockeymoore, who operates her own consulting firm in Washington, says she wants to run for governor because she has “a bold vision,” though that’s what every other candidate is saying. She also asserts she will be a “different kind of leader,” though that’s what Ross, Jealous and Shea also maintain.

Crowded Governor's Race

Maya Rockeymoore

And she notes the lack of a woman in the Democratic primary race for governor, though all the other contenders are almost certain to have similar liberal views on issues affecting women’s rights.

Yet in such a large field, anything could happen.

Still, why bother?

The Republican governor has sky-high popularity numbers and he continues to outfox his Democratic critics. It will take a set of external forces centered around the rising unpopularity of President Trump to make Hogan’s chances of reelection shaky.

The June 26 Democratic primary – 11 months from now – looks like it will be so chock full of candidates that it may be impossible to predict the winner.

Splintered Votes

Baker, the leading African American candidate, could see that large segment of the Democratic vote split among himself, Jealous and Rockeymoore.

Kamenentz, hoping to become the Baltimore-area candidate, could see that strategy shattered by the candidacies of Shea, Ross and Elijah Cummings’ wife.

Madaleno’s hopes as a popular Montgomery County senator could receive a body blow from the candidacies of John Delaney and Doug Gansler, both from Madaleno’s home county.

Madaleno, Jealous, Rockeymoore and Ross are hoping to gain the lion’s share of this state’s progressive Democratic electorate, even though the far-left hero in last year’s Maryland presidential primary, Bernie Sanders (who recently endorsed Jealous), got just one-third of the party’s popular vote.

At this early stage, the top contenders appear to be Baker and Delaney.

Baker’s edge is his long political career in populous and heavily Democratic Prince George’s County. If he can hold that vote together, he will be a formidable presence in such a big field.

Delaney holds a number of high cards. He will do very well within his congressional district that includes most of Western Maryland and portions of Montgomery County. He is the only moderate-centrist in the race with a solid track record in Congress championing bi-partisan, pragmatic solutions to national problems.

Buying an Election?

Delaney’s biggest advantage is the tens of millions of dollars of personal wealth he can throw into his campaign. The Potomac congressman may not be a household word in Maryland today, but by next June his ads could be flooding the airwaves, making the man and his positions crystal clear to every Democratic voter.

Crowded Governor's Race

U.S. Rep. John Delaney

Will that be enough? We’ve never been in such a situation in the Free State and it is difficult to tell how voters will react to a super-rich, self-financed campaign for the state’s top elective post.

Delaney also can make the case he is the only Democrat positioned to match the governor’s enormous stash of campaign funds and then far surpass Hogan’s fund-raising abilities.

It is, indeed, an odd bunch of gubernatorial wannabes, some with zero elective experience, others with a wealth of government expertise, a millennial contender, three African Americans (one a woman), a gay candidate, an establishment, big-city lawyer — and possibly another unknown female candidate — Krishanti Vignarajah, a former aide to Michelle Obama whose chances are quite literally slim and none.

It is a giant puzzle that could get more complicated as the contenders choose a lieutenant governor running-mate. Plus, we haven’t even started the endless rounds of gubernatorial debates throughout the state.

So stay tuned as the political world turns in Maryland: 2018 could give voters a wild roller-coaster of a ride.

##

Hogan vs. the Legislature: A Constitutional Clash

By Barry Rascovar

On the surface, it seems much ado about nothing – an esoteric argument most folks can safely ignore. But the dispute over whether two state Cabinet appointees can legally remain in office without Senate confirmation raises an important constitutional question that cries out for judicial resolution.

Gov. Larry Hogan precipitated this divide with some unorthodox moves that appear aimed at stripping power from the General Assembly and enlarging his ability to ignore actions of the state legislature when it comes to appointments subject to Senate confirmation.

Following hearings earlier this year, two of Hogan’s Cabinet nominees raised alarms for lawmakers. That is precisely the way the “advise and consent” section of the state Constitution is supposed to work. It’s one of the defensive mechanisms James Madison and Alexander Hamilton inserted into the federal Constitution – and embraced by most states – to place a brake on the chief executive’s power.

It provides a chance for legislators to interview Cabinet nominees, question them on the issues and pass judgment on their readiness to serve in important, decision-making state jobs.

If the appointees are found lacking, the Senate can vote down the appointments. That’s how American government works. Each branch plays a role that is independent yet interdependent. Both the chief executive and the legislative branch must give the OK.

But what happens when the governor doesn’t want to share power, when the chief executive thumbs his nose at the legislative branch?

That’s the situation Hogan and lawmakers are facing.

Schrader and Peters

Hogan’s choice for health secretary, Dennis Schrader, has good management credentials, a government background and good political contacts but no professional medical or academic health care credentials.

Constitutional Crisis

Interim Health Chief Dennis Schrader

Lawmakers on the Senate Executive Nominations Committee, after hearing from Schrader, became alarmed and delayed a vote on his confirmation. Then Hogan, surprisingly, withdrew Schrader’s nomination – even though he had assurance from the Senate president that the full Senate would eventually assent to Schrader’s appointment.

Senators had even more concerns about Hogan’s Cabinet appointment as Planning Secretary, Wendi Peters. She lacks any professional planning credentials. She worked as a paralegal and served as a Republican on the Mount Airy Town Council before losing a race for House of Delegates in 2014.

Legislators heard horror stories about Peters terrorizing Planning Department workers, firing them for little cause and creating an oppressive work environment.

That led the Senate committee to reject her nomination. But before the full Senate could finalize that move, Hogan withdrew Peters’ nomination, too.

Once legislators adjourned in April, though, Hogan re-appointed both to their jobs on an interim basis, sticking a thumb in the eyes of lawmakers.

Legislative counter-move

Assembly leaders anticipated Hogan’s move. They’ve seen how he insists on having it his way. So they inserted language in the state budget that bars Peters and Schrader from being paid after July 1 because they lack confirmation by the Senate committee.

Constitutional Crisis in MD

Interim Planning Secretary Wendi Peters

The state attorney general issued a legal opinion noting that Hogan has every right to reappoint the two Cabinet officials but the General Assembly has the right to cut off their pay checks because the two failed to gain Senate confirmation.

(Hogan’s office made the astounding statement that the elected attorney general’s opinion doesn’t count for a hill of bean but Hogan’s own, unelected staff counsel’s determination should be the last word.)

Then Democratic Comptroller Peter Franchot, who has continually shown an eagerness to side with Republican Hogan, did so again, announcing he would pay Peters and Schrader.

But the key signature on those paychecks isn’t Franchot’s but state Treasurer Nancy Kopp’s.

She read Attorney General Brian Frosh’s legal opinion. Frosh’s office is, after all, the constitutional authority for all state government agencies. As a spokeswoman for Kopp put it, “Her attorney is the attorney general” – not Hogan’s staff lawyer.

Kopp’s conclusion: She has no choice but to follow the guidance laid down by the attorney general and abide by the language added to the state budget. Thus, Schrader and Peters will not be paid until this disagreement is resolved.

Shaky Power-sharing

Since his election as governor, Hogan has inveighed against sharing power with the Democratic-controlled General Assembly. This is another example of his unwillingness to accept the limitations  laid down in the state constitution that make the two branches co-equal parts of Maryland state government.

Other governors, when faced with rejection of an executive department nominee would have moved on, recognizing that’s the right of the state senate. There are plenty of other positions Peters and Schrader could fill in Hogan’s expansive jobs orbit.

More important, there are plenty of better suited individuals who could ably fill those Cabinet slots, individuals that agree with the governor’s conservative views but are acceptable to Democratic leaders in the General Assembly.

That’s how governance is supposed to work in Maryland – and how it has worked in the past. Unfortunately, Hogan is looking for a fight rather than consensus.

This war of words could persist into the future if Hogan wants to it drag out, reappointing Peters and Schrader, then withdrawing their nominations before the full Senate votes to reject them, then re-appointing the two once next year’s session ends.

It would make a mockery of the “advise and consent” section of the Maryland Constitution. It would send a signal Hogan isn’t willing to share power.

That’s one of the reasons Hogan must take the matter to the Maryland Court of Appeals. When two co-equal branches of Maryland government disagree this strongly on the constitutional powers of the other branch, the third branch, the judiciary, is there to interpret the law and render a definitive answer.

Failure to seek a judicial decision on this constitutional issue would be playing politics instead of seeking a final judgment as to which side is right.

It’s time for Hogan to tell his minions to stop with the name-calling and angry allegations of unethical behavior and instead order his legal counsel to take the matter to court. It would be good for both feuding branches of state government. ##

 

Repeal Obamacare? Hogan’s Conundrum

By Barry Rascovar

July 10, 2017 – Though he’s a Republican, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan must pray each night that his fellow Republicans in Congress fall flat on their faces in their concerted efforts to wipe out Obamacare and replace it with a vastly inferior health care safety net.

Hogan quietly voiced opposition to House and Senate “repeal and replace” bills in a statement he had issued in Annapolis while on an overseas trip.

He’s trying hard to avoid offending Maryland Republicans who support an immediate repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Yet he’s acutely aware of the harm, and human pain, such a move would have on hundreds of thousands of Marylanders.

Maryland is in a unique situation when it comes to the “repeal and replace” movement. Ending Obamacare could place this state’s entire hospital system in jeopardy. Hospitals in the Free State stand to lose a staggering $2.3 billion in Medicare and Medicaid payments if Obamacare abruptly ends.

Obamacare and Hogan

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan

Some hospitals, especially in rural parts of the state and in poor urban neighborhoods may not survive. One national study indicated up to 50% of all rural hospitals in the United States could close under an Obamacare repeal. In Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, up to 75% of rural hospitals could be driven out of business.

Nursing homes are under the gun, too, since two-thirds of its patients are on Medicaid, which is the primary budget-cutting target of congressional Republicans.

‘Tremendous Impact’

Passage of either the House or Senate repeal bills “could have a tremendous impact on Maryland,” according to the non-partisan Department of Legislative Services. This would “require the General Assembly [and the governor] to consider significant financial and policy decisions.”

That’s something Hogan cannot afford in 2018 as he runs for re-election. Yet the governor could find himself between the proverbial rock and a hard place next year, thanks to conservative Republicans in control of the House, Senate and White House.

The price to Maryland state government of an Obamacare repeal is in the billions. Maryland government would lose $1.3 billion in federal Medicare and Medicaid funds next year, growing to a loss of $1.5 billion in federal dollars in 2022.

If the law is repealed, Hogan and Democratic legislators in Annapolis would face a monstrous and agonizing choice.

Do they jettison Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid that now gives health insurance to 421,000 state citizens, many of them children? Do they leave 1 million Marylanders now covered through subsidized private insurance plans or the Medicaid expansion to the tender mercies of insurance companies?

Or are Hogan and lawmakers going to jump in, swallow hard and raise taxes – in an election year – by a huge amount to cover the lost $1.35 billion next year?

That’s why deep down inside, Hogan really but really wants Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan to give up their insistent request to wipe out Obamacare and instead work with Democrats on a compromise plan that preserves the best parts of the ACA and fixes what’s not working.

Seeking a Magic Bullet

The odds of McConnell and Ryan finding a magical “repeal and replace” formula that satisfies the majority of Republicans are not good. It may yet happen but time isn’t on their side.

The more voters learn about specifics of the Republicans’ replacement proposals, the stronger the opposition. Over the July 4 holiday, GOP lawmakers who dared to venture out received heated criticism from constituents.

Part of the problem is that McConnell and Ryan are attempting to peddle a plan that calls for an unprecedented version of “income re-distribution.”

Obamacare re-distributed taxes collected from the rich, insurance companies, durable medical equipment companies and tanning salons. The ACA spent that money to help provide health insurance to the poor and lower-income families.

Now Republicans are calling for a reversal of this process – giving back all that tax money to wealthy Americans and profitable corporations while stripping from the poor and lower-class much of their health care benefits.

It’s “Robin Hood in Reverse,” in this case congressional Republicans want to take from the poor and give to the rich.

Had the GOP plans created an alternative health care safety net that protected the rights of the elderly, poor and near-poor, the furor today might have been averted. But in their haste to wipe out Obamacare, Republicans in Congress failed to develop a legitimate replacement program that would make things better, not worse.

Obamacare in Maryland

In Maryland, there have been good results from Obamacare. The state’s uninsured rate has dropped more than half, to an all-time low of 6.6%. This is a godsend for hospitals, which saved $311 million in just two years due to the shrinkage of uncompensated care cases.

Big problems remain in the current system. Large premium increases are pending before Al Redmer, the state insurance commissioner (and a likely Republican candidate for Baltimore County Executive next year).

If Redmer approves large rate hikes, many of those currently insured may be priced out of the market. The state’s uninsured rate could soar and hospitals could run deficits.

But if Redmer rejects those big rate hikes, private insurers may have no choice but to drop out of the Maryland marketplace, as Cigna recently did.

Regardless of what happens in Washington and what Redmer decides, Maryland’s health-care safety net is in danger of tearing apart – unless Hogan and state legislators are willing to intervene.

That’s a tough call in an election year, especially for a governor who made a no-new-taxes pledge.

But the Republican governor and Democratic leaders in the General Assembly may have no choice.

Fixing the existing system is far easier than wiping out Obamacare and starting from scratch. Either way, though, State House politicians likely will have some heavy lifting to do early next year. ##

Is Maryland like Georgia and Wisconsin?

By Barry Rascovar

June 26, 2017—Taken together, developments in Georgia (special election) and Wisconsin (redistricting lawsuit) have been read by some Maryland Republicans as positive indicators that things finally are moving in their direction in a state overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats.

Retaining a Republican House seat in Georgia indicates to this state’s GOP that there’s been no mudslide erosion of support within the party from President Trump’s erratic behavior.

Getting the Supreme Court to jump into the Wisconsin redistricting lawsuit means Maryland Republicans might get their state’s gerrymandered, Democratic-leaning congressional districts thrown out, too.

Yes, hope springs eternal, but a closer look at these two developments paints a far less rosy picture for Maryland’s minority party, outnumbered 2-1 by Free State Democrats.

Expected Victory for GOP

The Georgia special election should have not been close. This is a solidly Republican district in the growing Atlanta suburbs that hasn’t had a Democratic congressman in almost 40 years.

In 2014, Republican incumbent Tom Price won by nearly 24%. Yet this year the GOP’s winning margin plunged to 4%.

That shrinkage mirrors similar special elections in Montana and Kansas where the Republican candidates won but not by landslide margins of prior years.

The Trump factor is largely to blame. His controversial early months in office have roiled much of the electorate, even in safe GOP districts. The public’s distaste for Trump hasn’t reached the tipping point yet, which is good news for Republicans.

In Maryland, that’s especially true for Gov. Larry Hogan as he begins to chart his re-election course. The last thing Hogan needs is the Trump albatross around his neck.

This explains Hogan’s unexpected decision to criticize the Senate Republican health-care bill. Polls show nearly two-thirds of Americans dislike Republican health-reform proposals and Hogan doesn’t want to be standing by Trump on the wrong side of this issue.

It’s hard to imagine that a newly elected president could become so unpopular so quickly. Trump in just five months has seen his popularity ratings drop into in the mid-30s. Some recent polls have him in the high 20s.

At this rate, imagine what the voting public will think of the incumbent president when they go to the polls in November 2018.

So while the results of the Georgia special election on the surface look good for Republicans, the narrowness of the victory should scare GOP incumbents in marginally Republican districts, such as the Miami and Philadelphia suburbs.

It underlines Hogan’s delicate balancing act in Maryland: retain absolute loyalty from rank and file Republicans while appealing to independents and moderate Democrats.

So far, Hogan has done a magnificent job avoiding GOP erosion while not losing his broader appeal.

Still, if 2018 becomes a “message election” in which voters across the country let Trump know they don’t like his bizarre performance, Hogan could struggle to win a second term. Separating his own political persona from Trump’s is key.

Gerrymandering Meanders into Court

Meanwhile in Wisconsin, a redistricting case involving gerrymandered state Assembly districts has made it to the Supreme Court. Republicans in Maryland have their own gerrymandering case in federal court.

Would a victory over gerrymandering in the Wisconsin case mean a huge GOP win in the Maryland case?

That may not be the logical conclusion.

Maryland’s redistricting maps, while grotesque in geographic design, don’t come close to carrying out one-party gerrymandering the way the GOP did in Wisconsin.Is Maryland Like Georgia and Wisconsin?

That state is marginally Republican. Barack Obama captured the Dairy State in 2012 by 7%, but Republican Gov. Scott Walker won reelection in 2014 by 6%. Last year, Republicans won the presidential vote in Wisconsin by less than 1%.

The 2011 state legislative redistricting map Republicans enacted packed Democratic voters into a small number of districts in the state’s two urban areas – Milwaukee and Madison. That allowed the GOP to create Republican majorities in nearly two-thirds of the state’s Assembly districts –a “baked in majority” of 20 seats. In recent elections, Republicans have gained 15% more seats in the legislature—despite the almost-even split in statewide races.

A district court and an appeals court agreed this sort of gerrymandering goes too far. Now the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the fall.

Maryland’s redistricting lawsuit is quite different. Plaintiffs face an uphill battle in spite of the Wisconsin court rulings. That’s because the voter registration numbers don’t appear to support the GOP’s contention that political gerrymandering severely discriminates against Republican voters.

The GOP complains about the 6th Congressional District, which used to be represented by Republican Roscoe Bartlett until Democrats re-drew the boundaries by attaching Democratic parts of Montgomery County to Republican Western Maryland.

Suddenly a district that elected Bartlett with 59% of the vote in 2010, swung Democratic, electing John Delaney in 2012 with 59% of the vote.

Yet that large Democratic advantage didn’t hold up two years later, when Delaney won by just 1.5% of the 6th District vote.

Last year, facing a weaker Republican nominee, Delaney won with 56%.

The voter registration in that district (based on the 2010 Census) is fascinating: 43% are Democrats, 31% are Republicans and the rest, 26%, unaffiliated, Green Party or Libertarian.

It’s a competitive district. If Delaney decides at the end of July to run for governor, the race for his congressional seat could be wide open.

That’s hardly a winning court argument against gerrymandering.

The 6th District also is fairly compact, even with the addition of the Montgomery County precincts (instead of moving directly east the district turns due south).

Moreover, there’s precedent for turning Western Maryland and Montgomery County into a single congressional district: For decades, this was the case with Republicans J. Glenn Beall Jr. and Charles “Mac” Mathias from Western Maryland representing the combined areas – without a peep about unfair gerrymandering.

Republicans also complain about the 3rd Congressional District’s weird shape (like “a winged pterodactyl” according to an appeals court judge). The GOP says this illustrates Democratic efforts to dilute GOP strength, since only 25% of registered district voters are Republicans and 55% are Democrats.

The litigants have a point on the complete lack of compactness. Their argument falls apart, though, over the dilution of GOP strength. It turns out the 3rd District’s party split (55-25%) almost precisely mirrors Maryland’s party split (55-26%).

Republicans may be at a disadvantage in all but one Maryland congressional district. However, that’s due to the GOP’s 2-1 voter registration deficit statewide.

Still, it would be in the public’s best interest for the Supreme Court to get involved, once again, and clearly delineate general rules for redistricting after the 2020 Census.

There always will be political manipulation – by either party. But if the high court rules that all districts must be compact, contiguous and respectful of neighborhoods and natural boundaries, it would go a long way toward straightening out the extreme gerrymandering that plagues far too many states.

###