I was watching the Inaugural ceremonies this past Tuesday, and actually enjoyed most of the buildup and our new President's Inaugural Address. I'm happy to see some of the things he's done in just the first couple days in office that will start to reverse the damage done by the Bush Administration, and I wish him the best for our nation.
It's amusing that the news media has been taking certain elements of the program and picking them apart, though.
Last night, we found out that the musical number with Yo-Yo Ma and the rest of the gang was (gasp!) pre-recorded. It was still a beautiful selection, very nicely arranged, and performed well. I can understand that, due to the extreme cold, the instruments would probably not have kept in tune and the results could have been disastrous. I'm OK with that.
You gotta hand it to the folks that decided to attend and stand in that weather for a long period of time. I couldn't have done it.
The real amusing thing has been the "controversy" over The Hat, though. Aretha Franklin's grey bow hat with Swarovsky crystals. You couldn't forget it. Not that it wasn't interesting, it was! Not that it didn't go well with the rest of her outfit, it did! But the first words out of my mouth when I saw her come to the podium were, "oh, NO, she DIH-int wear that hat!" My sister, sitting with me, said, "oh yeah, she DID."
Seems that Ms. Franklin has a regular chapeau maker named Luke Soon, with whom she's had a long-term buying relationship. It's actually a combination of two hats that the Queen of Soul saw when she was shopping for her Inaugural duds. Apparently she wanted the bow from one hat and the cap from another combined, which, of course, Mr. Soon was only too happy to do. Ellen Degeneres wore a knockoff (apparently available for $178.00) the next day on her show, and, of course, CNN, Fox, and a few other tv networks had things to say about it.
So, here's the throwaway poll. You can see it in the sidebar. I realize there aren't enough choices to really give a chance to express an opinion, so, please make a comment if you wish as well.
Friday, January 23, 2009
New Stuff? I Need to Apologize
For all my fans, all three or four of you, I apologize for not having new postings up in the last week or so. There has been a family emergency and I've been out of town, not really having the time or energy to think of new things to post. I fully expect that I may have some new stuff at the beginning of next week, so please check back after January 26 and see if I've done so.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Maybe This Year for Zero-Based Budgeting?
You gotta pity poor Martin O'Malley and the Two Mikes in Annapolis. Really, you do.
Now that tax increases seem to be off the table, there's some real budget cutting that's got to happen. Call out the usual suspects: we're going to have to cut education, public safety, health services, you name it. It's the typical scare tactics they trot out every time.
Not this year, they won't! It won't fly.
The Governor is already saying that there is likely going to have to be layoffs of state workers. That's a real kick in the teeth for the folks that put him there, just like the furloughs were. Now, there are going to have to be job cuts, too.
Well, there are a couple of things to consider in trying to fix the budget mess. It's not an exhaustive list, by any means, but it's a couple of steps in the right direction.
1) There are phantom employees budgeted in a number of State agencies. A phantom is a worker whose salary is in the budget, but there is no employee doing any work. Let's say that our agency, the Bureau of Obfuscation, budgets 20 employees for the year, but we only really keep 18 filled. With 2 unfilled positions now we have money that *would* go toward salary and benefits if there were employees in those positions.
If each of the spots would pay $30,000, then that's $60,000 in "extra" money we can move around because we know we're not going to fill them in the first place. We don't have to put $37,000 in the budget for project X that we really want because we can take money from "salaries" and move it to X, and we'll still have $23,000 left over! And our Bureau isn't the only one in State government that has them.
Sure, but now the situation is dire enough that, even after you lay off all the phantoms, there will still be real people losing their jobs and benefits.
2) However, there's something even more galling, and both State and Federal departments do this. Our Bureau of Obfuscation got a $10 million appropriation for this year. We spent our money fairly wisely, and we still have our two phantoms, and now our total spending was $9 million. Uh oh!
We need to spend the other $1 mil and do it quickly, before the end of the fiscal year! Why? Because if we don't, those who make the appropriations process will see that we didn't spend all of our money, and they'll think we won't need $10 million or more for next year. I've mentioned this to friends of mine who actually are government employees, and they vouch for the fact it happens all the time.
Now, we go into panic mode and start ordering anything and everything we can. We stack our office supplies room to the ceiling with boxes of paper; grosses of pens, pencils, and highlighters; millions of binder and paper clips and other things. But we've only spent $100,000. What to do? What to do?
Well, we have to go on a spending spree! That office furniture we bought only two years ago is looking kinda rough. Suzie Q down the hall complained that the fabric was frayed on her arm rest. Get her a new ergonomic one, right away! The carpet in our posh lobby from last year has a tiny worn spot in it already, and the copiers we bought three years ago have been worked to death. Or have they? But, if we replace the carpet and buy two new copiers for each floor, we might get close to spending the entire $1 mil left in the budget. We'll get our appropriation for next year, and we can do it all over again!
Oversimplified? Yeah, admittedly. But a lot closer than you'd like to believe.
There's an alternative, though. Sooner or later, the State is going to have to look at it. Could this be the year? Under this Governor?
It's called zero-based budgeting. Instead of looking at what your budget was last year, you start at zero. How much are we going to need for real employees? Add it in. How much are we going to need for office supplies? Add that in. What's our phone bill? Add it in. And so forth.
Now, how much do we need for the programs we actually administer? What are the historic costs we've incurred in administering this program, not what number have we decided to pull out of the air because it sounds cool? Are there inefficiencies we can correct to save even more money?
Do we let our lights burn all night instead of shutting them off when nobody's in the building? Is our HVAC system set so that it doesn't provide the heat or AC to keep the mice nice and comfy at night, but is good for working hours? Do we shut our computers off at night, keeping only the essential servers going?
OK, you want to add $1.5 million in the XYZ program. What does the XYZ program do? How much did we spend last year? Why? How effective was the program, how many people did it help? How will the new money be spent? What is your budget for XYZ? Basically, you justify your expenditure proposal. It could happen.
Let's say your 12 year-old child comes to you and says, "Mom, when we go shopping today, would you give me $20.00?" Your first reaction isn't going to be, "sure, honey, here it is. Enjoy. Buh-bye."
At least that's not what MY mother would have said. (If you would say it, could you adopt me, please???)
No, you're going to ask why the child needs the $20.00, what she intends to buy with it, why she needs the item, and you'll probably have a whole host of other questions.
In this period of budget crisis, and even in good times, we should do no less with government budgets.
What can we do about it? Contact your legislators, both your Senator and your Delegate(s), and let them know you want a different approach to budgeting! You can find out who your folks are by going to the General Assembly website at: http://mlis.state.md.us/ and put your address in the "Find Your Legislator" box.
And, while you're at it, why not drop Gov. O'Malley a little note asking the same thing? http://www.gov.state.md.us/mail/
Now that tax increases seem to be off the table, there's some real budget cutting that's got to happen. Call out the usual suspects: we're going to have to cut education, public safety, health services, you name it. It's the typical scare tactics they trot out every time.
Not this year, they won't! It won't fly.
The Governor is already saying that there is likely going to have to be layoffs of state workers. That's a real kick in the teeth for the folks that put him there, just like the furloughs were. Now, there are going to have to be job cuts, too.
Well, there are a couple of things to consider in trying to fix the budget mess. It's not an exhaustive list, by any means, but it's a couple of steps in the right direction.
1) There are phantom employees budgeted in a number of State agencies. A phantom is a worker whose salary is in the budget, but there is no employee doing any work. Let's say that our agency, the Bureau of Obfuscation, budgets 20 employees for the year, but we only really keep 18 filled. With 2 unfilled positions now we have money that *would* go toward salary and benefits if there were employees in those positions.
If each of the spots would pay $30,000, then that's $60,000 in "extra" money we can move around because we know we're not going to fill them in the first place. We don't have to put $37,000 in the budget for project X that we really want because we can take money from "salaries" and move it to X, and we'll still have $23,000 left over! And our Bureau isn't the only one in State government that has them.
Sure, but now the situation is dire enough that, even after you lay off all the phantoms, there will still be real people losing their jobs and benefits.
2) However, there's something even more galling, and both State and Federal departments do this. Our Bureau of Obfuscation got a $10 million appropriation for this year. We spent our money fairly wisely, and we still have our two phantoms, and now our total spending was $9 million. Uh oh!
We need to spend the other $1 mil and do it quickly, before the end of the fiscal year! Why? Because if we don't, those who make the appropriations process will see that we didn't spend all of our money, and they'll think we won't need $10 million or more for next year. I've mentioned this to friends of mine who actually are government employees, and they vouch for the fact it happens all the time.
Now, we go into panic mode and start ordering anything and everything we can. We stack our office supplies room to the ceiling with boxes of paper; grosses of pens, pencils, and highlighters; millions of binder and paper clips and other things. But we've only spent $100,000. What to do? What to do?
Well, we have to go on a spending spree! That office furniture we bought only two years ago is looking kinda rough. Suzie Q down the hall complained that the fabric was frayed on her arm rest. Get her a new ergonomic one, right away! The carpet in our posh lobby from last year has a tiny worn spot in it already, and the copiers we bought three years ago have been worked to death. Or have they? But, if we replace the carpet and buy two new copiers for each floor, we might get close to spending the entire $1 mil left in the budget. We'll get our appropriation for next year, and we can do it all over again!
Oversimplified? Yeah, admittedly. But a lot closer than you'd like to believe.
There's an alternative, though. Sooner or later, the State is going to have to look at it. Could this be the year? Under this Governor?
It's called zero-based budgeting. Instead of looking at what your budget was last year, you start at zero. How much are we going to need for real employees? Add it in. How much are we going to need for office supplies? Add that in. What's our phone bill? Add it in. And so forth.
Now, how much do we need for the programs we actually administer? What are the historic costs we've incurred in administering this program, not what number have we decided to pull out of the air because it sounds cool? Are there inefficiencies we can correct to save even more money?
Do we let our lights burn all night instead of shutting them off when nobody's in the building? Is our HVAC system set so that it doesn't provide the heat or AC to keep the mice nice and comfy at night, but is good for working hours? Do we shut our computers off at night, keeping only the essential servers going?
OK, you want to add $1.5 million in the XYZ program. What does the XYZ program do? How much did we spend last year? Why? How effective was the program, how many people did it help? How will the new money be spent? What is your budget for XYZ? Basically, you justify your expenditure proposal. It could happen.
Let's say your 12 year-old child comes to you and says, "Mom, when we go shopping today, would you give me $20.00?" Your first reaction isn't going to be, "sure, honey, here it is. Enjoy. Buh-bye."
At least that's not what MY mother would have said. (If you would say it, could you adopt me, please???)
No, you're going to ask why the child needs the $20.00, what she intends to buy with it, why she needs the item, and you'll probably have a whole host of other questions.
In this period of budget crisis, and even in good times, we should do no less with government budgets.
What can we do about it? Contact your legislators, both your Senator and your Delegate(s), and let them know you want a different approach to budgeting! You can find out who your folks are by going to the General Assembly website at: http://mlis.state.md.us/ and put your address in the "Find Your Legislator" box.
And, while you're at it, why not drop Gov. O'Malley a little note asking the same thing? http://www.gov.state.md.us/mail/
Monday, January 12, 2009
UH OH! Guess What Happens Wednesday?
The Maryland General Assembly opens its 90-day Session in Annapolis on Wednesday, January 14, 2009. Although the State is going through some tough economic times right now, various legislative leaders seem to indicate that tax hikes are not likely, but that budget cuts are. (Whew!)
I'm already looking at the synopses of bills that have been pre-filed, and I've got a couple of them that have me scratching my head. Once I see the synopsis, if I have other questions, I'll go into the text of the bill itself.
SJR 1, for example, would have Maryland finally ratify the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution, which provides for the direct election of US Senators. It was ratified on April 8, 1913. (And we need to do this, why?) http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/bills/sj/sj0001f.pdf
What will they get into this year? I don't know, but stay tuned! I'll try to report on it as best I can. And I welcome comments!
Just remember, if the 2007 Special Session didn't prove the following quote, nothing will:
"No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the Legislature is in session."
Now, I digress. Do you know who said that? The answer may surprise you!
A lot of people think that it was either Mark Twain or even H. L. Mencken that came up with the saying. In doing research on the net, I wasn't quite satisfied, so I looked for as many references as I could find, and one source seems to have done exhaustive work on it.
The American Dialect Society has a number of citations as to where the quote was first found, and it determined that it was neither Twain, nor Mencken, nor even Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914), a journalist and short-story writer during his lifetime.
The answer? Judge Gideon Tucker. Who? He ruled in favor of a widow in a negligence suit [1 Tucker 248 (NY Surr 1866)] because her attorney did not advise her on the most current law dealing with settling her husband's estate. That's when he uttered the quote.
It seems that Twain somehow got hold of the statement, used it, and Noah Webster apparently credited Twain with it rather than the judge.
If you'd like the citation, drop me an email and I'll send it to you.
Anyway, Wednesday's going to be the first day of many of fun. And, think of it! We'll soon have Governor O'Malley delivering the State of the State Message!
I'm already looking at the synopses of bills that have been pre-filed, and I've got a couple of them that have me scratching my head. Once I see the synopsis, if I have other questions, I'll go into the text of the bill itself.
SJR 1, for example, would have Maryland finally ratify the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution, which provides for the direct election of US Senators. It was ratified on April 8, 1913. (And we need to do this, why?) http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/bills/sj/sj0001f.pdf
What will they get into this year? I don't know, but stay tuned! I'll try to report on it as best I can. And I welcome comments!
Just remember, if the 2007 Special Session didn't prove the following quote, nothing will:
"No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the Legislature is in session."
Now, I digress. Do you know who said that? The answer may surprise you!
A lot of people think that it was either Mark Twain or even H. L. Mencken that came up with the saying. In doing research on the net, I wasn't quite satisfied, so I looked for as many references as I could find, and one source seems to have done exhaustive work on it.
The American Dialect Society has a number of citations as to where the quote was first found, and it determined that it was neither Twain, nor Mencken, nor even Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914), a journalist and short-story writer during his lifetime.
The answer? Judge Gideon Tucker. Who? He ruled in favor of a widow in a negligence suit [1 Tucker 248 (NY Surr 1866)] because her attorney did not advise her on the most current law dealing with settling her husband's estate. That's when he uttered the quote.
It seems that Twain somehow got hold of the statement, used it, and Noah Webster apparently credited Twain with it rather than the judge.
If you'd like the citation, drop me an email and I'll send it to you.
Anyway, Wednesday's going to be the first day of many of fun. And, think of it! We'll soon have Governor O'Malley delivering the State of the State Message!
Sunday, January 11, 2009
A Poll on The Economy, Just for Fun
Just how confident are you that President-Elect Obama's economic team will be able to do much of anything with the economy in the next 12 months? Will the Wall Street banker types and the head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank be able to start fixing a badly-broken system in that time?
I thought I'd put up a poll to see what you all had to say about it. You'll see it down on the sidebar, so please take a moment and cast your vote. When it's done, I'll post the results and we can discuss them. I wanted to see if there was a market for occasional polls on this site, because they might be fun to do.
Meanwhile, this post is open for your thoughts about the economy in the next year and what we think or hope will happen with it.
I will admit I haven't taken a real close look at the PE's economic plan yet, especially since he just announced it the other day. What the mainstream media boils it down to and what was actually said can often turn out to be two different things. I prefer going to as close to the source as I can for something like that.
Has anybody looked at your 401(K) or other retirement plans yet? I'll admit, I'm scared to open mine, especially since the company I worked for had lousy choices in the first place. I know that a friend of mine has looked at his 403(B) since the meltdown, and he's down to around $20,000 from $35,000 this past summer.
How's that bailout working out for US?
It appears that our new President is going to have a lot of Bill Clinton's retreads on his team. That could be good or bad news, because, on balance, the Clinton years weren't all that bad economically.
Will that be enough to bring consumer confidence up so that people will start spending again? Will businesses start expanding again? Will the jobless rates go down, even slightly?
Will the opinion-makers in the press and media be able to convince Joe the Sixpack that everything's far rosier than it is? (Remember Josef Goebbels.)
OK, now I'm getting farklempt. I've put a lot of questions out there! Discuss.
I thought I'd put up a poll to see what you all had to say about it. You'll see it down on the sidebar, so please take a moment and cast your vote. When it's done, I'll post the results and we can discuss them. I wanted to see if there was a market for occasional polls on this site, because they might be fun to do.
Meanwhile, this post is open for your thoughts about the economy in the next year and what we think or hope will happen with it.
I will admit I haven't taken a real close look at the PE's economic plan yet, especially since he just announced it the other day. What the mainstream media boils it down to and what was actually said can often turn out to be two different things. I prefer going to as close to the source as I can for something like that.
Has anybody looked at your 401(K) or other retirement plans yet? I'll admit, I'm scared to open mine, especially since the company I worked for had lousy choices in the first place. I know that a friend of mine has looked at his 403(B) since the meltdown, and he's down to around $20,000 from $35,000 this past summer.
How's that bailout working out for US?
It appears that our new President is going to have a lot of Bill Clinton's retreads on his team. That could be good or bad news, because, on balance, the Clinton years weren't all that bad economically.
Will that be enough to bring consumer confidence up so that people will start spending again? Will businesses start expanding again? Will the jobless rates go down, even slightly?
Will the opinion-makers in the press and media be able to convince Joe the Sixpack that everything's far rosier than it is? (Remember Josef Goebbels.)
OK, now I'm getting farklempt. I've put a lot of questions out there! Discuss.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Noon on January 20 Can't Come Fast Enough
Dear Mr. Bush,
The title of this post says it all. Your presidency has been an absolute disaster for just about everybody concerned, and I can't wait until your last moment in office. No, I didn't vote for you in either 2000 or 2004, neither did I vote for your Democratic opponents.
As a Republican, you belied everything that the GOP stood for. If I hadn't decided to leave your party in 1996, I would definitely have hit the road during the early portion of your first term. The "Compassionate Conservative" turned into the "Big Government Socialist Warmonger," ruining just about everything you and your neocon cohorts could get your mitts on.
The assault on civil liberties following 9/11 -- and what DID you know and when DID you know it beforehand? -- by the USA PATRIOT Act and other legislation is reminiscent of the Clinton reaction to the 1995 Murrah Building incident in Oklahoma City. The bottom line is that we've lost a hell of a lot of our civil liberties in the last two administrations.
"No Child Left Behind" was based on a fraudulent program in Texas and has been shown as the mistake it was in the years since its passage. Discipline problems run amok, schools can't take the steps they need to correct these problems for fear of losing federal funds. Teachers don't like it, school systems have to hire extra staff and spend extra money to administer it. And to think that developmentally disabled children who can't even take care of themselves with basic life skills are going to be able to pass Algebra II by a certain age just flies in the face of reality. It needs to be either radically reworked or, better yet, scrapped.
An attack on Afghanistan *might* possibly have been justified on the basis of the Taliban's aid and comfort for al-Qaeda. However, the war in Iraq, which has cost thousands of American lives and countless Iraqis, and spent untold bagazillions of dollars, was absolutely over the top and unjustified. Now, we're in a morass where someone else is going to have to clean up *your* mess.
On the basis of "UN Resolutions" you stubbornly led a coalition into Iraq. I'm sorry, but when are US troops supposed to be used to enforce UN Resolutions? Especially when the UN has NOT requested that they be used?
The US Constitution (remember that old thing?), which you swore "to preserve, protect, and defend" does NOT call for this nation to be the world's policeman. Nor are we to arrogantly tell others how they must live or mandate what system of government we think is best for them. That's what's gotten us into this situation in the first place!
You've consistently grown the government you talked about paring back. New departments, new fiefdoms, new titles, new powers assumed, new regulations.
Your economic policies haven't been much better. Although I did agree with the tax cuts to help stimulate the economy, I did not think your cozy relationships with all the Wall Street crowd was terribly helpful. There were many warning signs that the subprime market was going to bite us in the rear, but your administration ignored them.
Then, when it all went south, Hank Paulson's "solution" was the big bailout in September, making the Sec Treas the "Bailout Czar," with the sole and ultimate authority to decide who got what funds. (And those are his to give, WHY? )
Sure, there's plenty of paper stock at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Roll 'em out, don't worry that our dollar may well free-fall.
Last time I checked, a free market didn't guarantee that if you made bad decisions, the government would bail you out. If you made bad decisions, it was your problem to figure out. We haven't had a free market in decades, though.
But I nearly went through the roof when the bailouts occurred. Taking over AIG made us, for the first time, a socialist nation. The government now owns a certain percentage of equity in exchange for funds in a company that immediately sponsored a lavish vacation for its inept executives at a posh spa. Great.
And it didn't stop there! Now the government has equity in a number of banks and other companies that are "too big to fail."
I've suggested that we scrap the "Star Spangled Banner" for "The Internationale." I'm only half kidding.
No, sir, I'm not going to miss you and the rest of your gang. That all this damage could have come in just eight years is astounding. I'll give three cheers that "The Decider" has finally left the building and we'll be through with him. It will be up to the new administration (which, I'll also say in full disclosure I did not vote for) to try to rebuild our foreign relations, our economy, our morale.
I'm looking forward to the "change." It certainly can't be much worse...
The title of this post says it all. Your presidency has been an absolute disaster for just about everybody concerned, and I can't wait until your last moment in office. No, I didn't vote for you in either 2000 or 2004, neither did I vote for your Democratic opponents.
As a Republican, you belied everything that the GOP stood for. If I hadn't decided to leave your party in 1996, I would definitely have hit the road during the early portion of your first term. The "Compassionate Conservative" turned into the "Big Government Socialist Warmonger," ruining just about everything you and your neocon cohorts could get your mitts on.
The assault on civil liberties following 9/11 -- and what DID you know and when DID you know it beforehand? -- by the USA PATRIOT Act and other legislation is reminiscent of the Clinton reaction to the 1995 Murrah Building incident in Oklahoma City. The bottom line is that we've lost a hell of a lot of our civil liberties in the last two administrations.
"No Child Left Behind" was based on a fraudulent program in Texas and has been shown as the mistake it was in the years since its passage. Discipline problems run amok, schools can't take the steps they need to correct these problems for fear of losing federal funds. Teachers don't like it, school systems have to hire extra staff and spend extra money to administer it. And to think that developmentally disabled children who can't even take care of themselves with basic life skills are going to be able to pass Algebra II by a certain age just flies in the face of reality. It needs to be either radically reworked or, better yet, scrapped.
An attack on Afghanistan *might* possibly have been justified on the basis of the Taliban's aid and comfort for al-Qaeda. However, the war in Iraq, which has cost thousands of American lives and countless Iraqis, and spent untold bagazillions of dollars, was absolutely over the top and unjustified. Now, we're in a morass where someone else is going to have to clean up *your* mess.
On the basis of "UN Resolutions" you stubbornly led a coalition into Iraq. I'm sorry, but when are US troops supposed to be used to enforce UN Resolutions? Especially when the UN has NOT requested that they be used?
The US Constitution (remember that old thing?), which you swore "to preserve, protect, and defend" does NOT call for this nation to be the world's policeman. Nor are we to arrogantly tell others how they must live or mandate what system of government we think is best for them. That's what's gotten us into this situation in the first place!
You've consistently grown the government you talked about paring back. New departments, new fiefdoms, new titles, new powers assumed, new regulations.
Your economic policies haven't been much better. Although I did agree with the tax cuts to help stimulate the economy, I did not think your cozy relationships with all the Wall Street crowd was terribly helpful. There were many warning signs that the subprime market was going to bite us in the rear, but your administration ignored them.
Then, when it all went south, Hank Paulson's "solution" was the big bailout in September, making the Sec Treas the "Bailout Czar," with the sole and ultimate authority to decide who got what funds. (And those are his to give, WHY? )
Sure, there's plenty of paper stock at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Roll 'em out, don't worry that our dollar may well free-fall.
Last time I checked, a free market didn't guarantee that if you made bad decisions, the government would bail you out. If you made bad decisions, it was your problem to figure out. We haven't had a free market in decades, though.
But I nearly went through the roof when the bailouts occurred. Taking over AIG made us, for the first time, a socialist nation. The government now owns a certain percentage of equity in exchange for funds in a company that immediately sponsored a lavish vacation for its inept executives at a posh spa. Great.
And it didn't stop there! Now the government has equity in a number of banks and other companies that are "too big to fail."
I've suggested that we scrap the "Star Spangled Banner" for "The Internationale." I'm only half kidding.
No, sir, I'm not going to miss you and the rest of your gang. That all this damage could have come in just eight years is astounding. I'll give three cheers that "The Decider" has finally left the building and we'll be through with him. It will be up to the new administration (which, I'll also say in full disclosure I did not vote for) to try to rebuild our foreign relations, our economy, our morale.
I'm looking forward to the "change." It certainly can't be much worse...
Unintended Consequences of MD Slots?
Back in November 2008, you almost would've forgotten that there was a presidential election going on in this state. Why? After all, at 8:00:01, you *knew* Obama had 10 electoral votes.
Megabucks (and not the multi-state lottery game) were being spent by both sides trying to convince us to either approve or shoot down a Constitutional amendment to permit Video Lottery Terminals (slots) gaming in our dear state.
It's funny how in 2003, when Bob Ehrlich (R) was governor, Mike Busch (D) couldn't see his way to permitting slots in the state. It was a horrible idea, and we didn't need them, and all sorts of evil would befall the state if we were to allow them. And, for 4 years, we didn't get slots.
Fast forward to 2007, now Martin O'Malley (D) is governor, and the economy is starting to go to hell in a handbasket. O'Malley called a Special Session and Speaker Busch jumped right in line saying that, hey, the economy was bad, and slots would now be good.
Comptroller Peter Franchot (D), a slots opponent all along, to his credit, said that he still thought it was a bad idea. I'm not going to rehash all the arguments, the election is over. (Whew!)
However, I gotta tell you, it's not the lottery terminals I had a problem with. It's the METHOD of bringing them to Maryland that stunk. Those who opposed the amendment will be able to point out next year that the slots, which will just possibly be coming online, are not going to live up to the promises made, and may organize to oust the rascals that voted to put the question to the voters. Can I help?
You see, if the Assembly had grown a pair, they could have simply passed a bill authorizing slots and the parlors could be well under construction or even open right now. There really was no need to amend the Constitution to do it. The bill could not have been sent to referendum because, under the Constitution, it is a "revenue bill," and, therefore, not referrable.
I did mention unintended consequences, right? Back in 2002, I was spending an evening at the Charles Town Races and Slots in West Virginia. They had just begun construction on a new garage and expanded gaming floor, and I had the chance to speak to a security guard. He told me that they hoped that MD would pass slots in 2003. Why? Because the WV General Assembly would be ready to consider adding table games in their state. Now that slots are also in Pennsylvania, how soon do you think they can pass it?
Cool! No more 2-1/2 hour drive to Atlantic City to have to deal with their attitude. No more 5 hour flights to Vegas, where western hospitality was a lot of fun, but the jet lag sucks. We may soon go to WV and get it all there!
Full Disclosure: I have gambled in slot parlors in PA, DE, WV, and other states, and will likely also do so in MD. I have no problems if an adult wants to spend some of his entertainment money playing slots. But, in the end, I also voted "AGAINST" the amendment.
Megabucks (and not the multi-state lottery game) were being spent by both sides trying to convince us to either approve or shoot down a Constitutional amendment to permit Video Lottery Terminals (slots) gaming in our dear state.
It's funny how in 2003, when Bob Ehrlich (R) was governor, Mike Busch (D) couldn't see his way to permitting slots in the state. It was a horrible idea, and we didn't need them, and all sorts of evil would befall the state if we were to allow them. And, for 4 years, we didn't get slots.
Fast forward to 2007, now Martin O'Malley (D) is governor, and the economy is starting to go to hell in a handbasket. O'Malley called a Special Session and Speaker Busch jumped right in line saying that, hey, the economy was bad, and slots would now be good.
Comptroller Peter Franchot (D), a slots opponent all along, to his credit, said that he still thought it was a bad idea. I'm not going to rehash all the arguments, the election is over. (Whew!)
However, I gotta tell you, it's not the lottery terminals I had a problem with. It's the METHOD of bringing them to Maryland that stunk. Those who opposed the amendment will be able to point out next year that the slots, which will just possibly be coming online, are not going to live up to the promises made, and may organize to oust the rascals that voted to put the question to the voters. Can I help?
You see, if the Assembly had grown a pair, they could have simply passed a bill authorizing slots and the parlors could be well under construction or even open right now. There really was no need to amend the Constitution to do it. The bill could not have been sent to referendum because, under the Constitution, it is a "revenue bill," and, therefore, not referrable.
I did mention unintended consequences, right? Back in 2002, I was spending an evening at the Charles Town Races and Slots in West Virginia. They had just begun construction on a new garage and expanded gaming floor, and I had the chance to speak to a security guard. He told me that they hoped that MD would pass slots in 2003. Why? Because the WV General Assembly would be ready to consider adding table games in their state. Now that slots are also in Pennsylvania, how soon do you think they can pass it?
Cool! No more 2-1/2 hour drive to Atlantic City to have to deal with their attitude. No more 5 hour flights to Vegas, where western hospitality was a lot of fun, but the jet lag sucks. We may soon go to WV and get it all there!
Full Disclosure: I have gambled in slot parlors in PA, DE, WV, and other states, and will likely also do so in MD. I have no problems if an adult wants to spend some of his entertainment money playing slots. But, in the end, I also voted "AGAINST" the amendment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)