Marylanders won’t stand for balancing the budget on the backs of our children. We should be concerned about the cuts to higher education which will increase tuition for our students, cuts to Medicaid which will have an adverse effect on our vulnerable families, and the 2% salary reduction to State Workers who are our neighbors, our friends, and our family.
Common Cause Executive Director Jennifer Bevan-Dangel:
We agree with the Governor that people feel a real disconnect between Annapolis and the rest of Maryland, and we believe that special interest influence in elections and a broken redistricting process are fueling that divide. We look forward to working with him on these critical reforms.
Delegate David Moon (D-20, Montgomery):
After striking a partisan tone in his State of the State, Governor Hogan today outlined a series of tax cut proposals without explaining how he plans to pay for them. To me this raises questions about the administration’s commitment to reining in the long-term structural deficit, and the announcement seems strangely timed given that the Governor has signaled his first priority is to bring our fiscal house in order. There are obviously tough choices that will need to be made in the coming session, but our county’s first priority has been and remains restoring school funding and keeping the Purple Line on track. This is not an appropriate time to be considering further reducing the state’s revenues, when we’re deleting hundreds of jobs in our school system.
MCPS Superintendent Josh Starr and the School Board put the school system out of its misery with his planned exit. Starr leaves in two weeks and all involved have agreed never to speak of it again. It’s all so Downton Abbey.
At this point, figuring out exactly why Starr needed to go remains a mystery. Lou Peck helpfully put together that Judy Docca, Michael Durso, Jill Ortman-Fouse, and Rebecca Smondrowski demanded that he go. Puzzled Montgomery residents may still wonder why. Here is the Washingotn Post‘s explanation:
Montgomery County is a consistently high-achieving district with improving graduation rates and strong SAT scores. County officials familiar with school board deliberations told The Washington Post that Starr’s exit was not the result of a single issue; instead, a series of perceived missteps added to a simmering concern about Starr’s ability to build on the success of Jerry D. Weast, who retired in 2011 after a 12-year run.
County officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were describing private conversations, said the board members who lost faith in Starr cited concerns with his approach to closing the school system’s achievement gap and his candidacy for the chancellorship of New York’s public schools after a little more than two years in Rockville. They said his personal style was at times remote and dismissive, and they mentioned the lack of coherent vision for principals at the district’s 202 schools.
After reading this, I’m still wondering, Improving graduation rates and strong SAT scores sound not too shabby. The negative phrases of “perceived missteps” and “simmering concern” read like verbiage that could appear in almost any bureaucratic porridge. Doesn’t exactly reek of the polarization associated with Michelle Rhee or utter failure of many of her predecessors.
The concerns about his candidacy to be New York Chancellor make me shrug. It might be seen as a sign that we were on the right track the school system of America’s largest city considered him a good candidate. Would we prefer a superintendent that no one else wants to hire?
There is also a certain double standard in demanding total loyalty that we are clearly unwilling to reciprocate. Someone who wants to move up also has a real incentive to make the system he currently runs function well.
I’m still trying to figure out what the “coherent vision for principals” concern means. It could suggest a lack of clear marching orders. On the other hand, it might indicate a welcome lack of interest in wrapping up the job in the latest educational fashion. As someone who works in academia and has seen trends come and go, that wouldn’t bother me. Is it just bad relations with the School Board?
We’ll never know, though many theories will circulate widely. Less of a problem for the public’s right to know–I’ll manage in this case–than that it may leave potential good candidates wondering why he went and if they want to follow.
I don’t know any political scientist than Tom Schaller who does a better job of accurately assessing where American politics is headed and writing smart, coherent (read: non-academic) work about current American. Besides being Chair of the Political Science Department at UMBC, Tom writes a regular column for the Baltimore Sun. Tom is smart, witty, and insightful. Heck, he was even on Colbert.
So if you’re around Baltimore on Wednesday, February 3rd, go see him talk about his new book, The Stronghold: How Republicans Captured Congress but Surrendered the White House, at The Ivy Bookshop (6080 Falls Road, Baltimore, MD 21209) at 7PM. You can RSVP here. You’ll be glad you did.
P.S. While Tom is a staunch Democrat, Republicans could learn a lot by listening to him.
Towards the end of last month, the Carroll County Republican Central Committee (CCRCC) acceded to Gov. Larry Hogan’s request to nominate three people for the District 5 Senate seat left vacant by Sen. Joe Getty’s move to the administration:
The Carroll County Republican Central Committee recommended former County Commissioner Robin Bartlett Frazier, Del. Justin Ready, R-District 5, and David Wallace for the now-vacant Senate seat in District 5.
Wallace was an unsuccessful candidate for the U.S. House against Chris Van Hollen and has run for other public offices in the past.
So other than Del. Justin Ready, recently easily reelected by the voters, the CCRCC confirmed its penchant for selecting political losers, hardly a necessity in a county filled with Republicans who have actually won office. Once again, the process was completely secret, likely to protect the innocent from having to watch how the CCRCC makes decisions.
To no one’s surprise, Hogan appointed his preferred choice: Justin Ready. He has now been appointed and sworn into the Senate, much to the relief of all concerned. Many were adamantly opposed to the CCRCC’s original sole nomination of loopy Robin Frazier, who lost reelection to her county commission seat in the primary and the general–so don’t blame Carroll voters.
But is Robin Frazier Still in the Mix for Delegate?
Justin Ready’s move to the Senate now leaves open his House seat. And by now you can probably guess what benighted group of Addams Family values Republicans gets to nominate his replacement: the CCRCC.
Rumors are circulating around State Circle that Gov. Larry Hogan agreed to appoint Robin Frazier to the House of Delegates in exchange for getting his choice of Ready for the Senate. If so, this is a true Faustian bargain, as Frazier will be the gift that keeps on giving to Democrats every time she opens her mouth. And she has no love lost for the Hogan administration after they torpedoed her Senate appointment, so her crazy fire would go off in all directions. I look forward to the founding of her YouTube channel.
Moreover, such an appointment would show incredible weakness on the part of Hogan. Less than a month after his inauguration, the Republican who carried his party to victory in deep blue Maryland would show he can’t even get his own party, let along the Democratic General Assembly, to go along with him.
Hogan has aspirations to build the Maryland GOP. If Robin Frazier is the answer, what was the question? Let’s hope that the rumor mill is, once again, wrong.
Israeli politics is divided along multiple cleavage lines. Americans are most keenly attuned the divide between proponents and opponents of the two-state solution but there are several other divisions that do not always split Israeli society on the same line. Beyond the increasingly powerful between religious and secular Israelis, ethnic divisions between Askhenazim and Sephardim persist. Of course, the Arab minority has its own internal divisions.
Latest Developments
Israeli parties move fast, especially during election campaigns, and there have been two developments since last week’s post. First, Avigdor Lieberman has ruled out the possibility of Yisrael Beitenu joining a coalition led by Zionist Union. Second, Eli Yishai has hooked up his tiny breakaway party from Shas (Ha’am Itanu) with MK Yoni Chetboun, who quit Bayit Yehudi, into a new list called Yachad (Together). Yachad will run on a joint list with extreme right Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Strength) under the Yachad name.
Current Polls
Leaving aside these latest last minute hookups before the deadline for finalizing lists, the key question is whether incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or his opponents will possess enough strength in the 120-member Knesset to form a coalition. (Check out Jeremy’s Knesset Insider for polls and more analysis.)
Here is the average predicted seats from last week’s gaggle of polls according to Jeremy:
25.2 Zionist Union
24.4 Likud
14.7 Bayit Yehudi
12.0 United Arab List
09.4 Yesh Atid
07.7 Kulanu
07.1 United Torah Judaism
07.1 Shas
05.4 Yisrael Beitenu
05.3 Meretz
03.3 Yachad
Netanyahu starts out with a good base of 39-43 seats from his own party and close allies. His Likud party has been polling around 24 seats. Bayit Yehudi, an even more right-wing party, has little choice but to support Netanyahu and is on course to gain about 15 mandates. If Yachad makes it past the 3.25% threshold, he will contribute another 4 seats to a Netanyahu coalition.
Bibi can get to the magic 61 MKs in a number of ways. First, he can join up with the two major religious parties: Shas, and UTJ. They exist to be in government, as otherwise they cannot threaten to leave it to gain more funding for their schools or to block anti-religious legislation.
Adding on either Yisrael Beitenu or Kulanu–and more likely both would join–would put him over the top. This right-religious coalition would resemble previous right-wing coalitions, such as the one led by Yitzhak Shamir. It would be reasonably cohesive, though only by the standards of Israeli politics.
The core anti-Bibi Zionist parties–Zionist Camp (Labor and Hatnuah), Yesh Atid, and Merez–together start with a relatively impressive 40 seats. The problems start when one tries to add on other parties to get to 61. Think of it as being like junior high where A won’t talk or sit next to B unless C isn’t there.
While Shas and UTJ usually prefer right-wing governments, they will also join left-wing governments, as they too can provide access to the state treasury. However, it is hard to imagine the diehard secular Yesh Atid sitting in government with Shas or UTJ.
Similarly, United Arab List will never support Bibi. But it also likely would not support any coalition formed by Zionist parties. Excepting possibly Meretz, the Zionist parties reciprocate the feeling because of concerns regarding security–always a central issue in Israel–and being close to anti-Israel Arab MKs like Haneen Zoabi, which would alienate the Jewish center.
Opposition parties would pounce, claiming that a coalition dependent on United Arab List MKs cannot defend Jewish interests in negotiations with the Palestinians. In short, United Arab List can help keep Netanyahu out but it is not clear that they would or could serve in government. (Note: UAL has one Jewish MK and Arab MKs also win off of predominantly Jewish lists.)
Finally, adding Kulanu would not bring a Zionist Camp-Yesh Atid-Meretz coalition even above 50 without either the religious or Arab parties. Thought the left has performed better in recent polls, a left-led government is still much harder to envision than a right-wing one led by Netanyahu.
Disunity Government
Finally, Likud and Zionist Camp could join up to form a “unity” government. Together with Kulanu and various other willing participants, it could easily possess far more than 61 votes. This would give Netanyahu the opportunity to give Bayit Yehudi’s Naftali Bennett the old heave-ho. Even better for Netanyahu, either Yitzhak Herzog or Tzipi Livni would become foreign minister, likely easing the building European pressure on Israel and the current discord with the Obama administration.
In some ways, this seems the most likely combination due to the opportunities it provides Netanyahu and many others. But either this or another right-wing government feels like a rerun of earlier Israeli government reality shows.
Wild Card: The Threshold
Israel has always had very low thresholds to enter parliament. The last Knesset raised it, however, from 2% to 3.25%. Three parties–Yachad, Meretz, and Yisrael Beitenu, face serious danger of failing to pass it and receiving no seats. Any failure by them would redound to the benefit of other parties.
If Meretz made it past the threshold but Yachad and Yisrael Beitenu fell short, it would be a great boon to the left, as right-wing voters will have wasted a disproportionate number of votes. Of course, the reverse could also occur.
Another reason Israel’s election night in March will be fun to watch.
Everyone loves to write about failure. There are shelves of books about ethnic conflicts in Bosnia, Israel, and Rwanda. But wouldn’t it be easier to try to keep Humpty Dumpty up on that darn wall rather than having to put him back together again? Minority Rules eschews the usual focus on failure to study the representation of minorities in free democracies in roughly 80 countries around the globe from the tiniest nations in Polynesia to India and the U.S.
Contrary to theories that emphasize sources of minority discontent–such as disputes over natural resource wealth–Minority Rules demonstrates that electoral rules play a dominant role in explaining not just why ethnic and regional parties perform poorly or well but why one potential ethnic cleavage, like language, emerges instead of another, like religion. Unlike past studies, Minority Rules finds that decentralization does not augment the success of ethnoregional parties.
This matters because the emergence of ethnic and regional parties along with the failure to incorporate them meaningfully into political systems has long been associated with ethnic conflict. As a result, the findings, which derive from a rich empirical foundation, have important implications not only for reaching successful settlements to such conflicts but also for preventing violent majority-minority conflicts from breaking out in the first place.
David Lublin is Professor of Government in the School of Public Affairs at American University. He is the author of The Paradox of Representation and The Republican South.
At the request of Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett, the County’s legislative delegation has filed a bill (MC 24-15) to allow the County to create a new, independent Transit Authority. The bill is already generating controversy and an online petition against it on change.org (or, in this case, don’t change.org).
If passed, the bill would permit (read again: permit, not require) Montgomery County to create a Transit Authority. The new authority could potentially run anything from the current Ride-On system to a new BRT (bus-rapid transit) system to parking lots and roads around the County.
The County Executive would appoint the members of the Transit Authority board subject to confirmation by the County Council. This independent body would then carry out independently a transit program as passed by the Council. This program could be relatively narrow (e.g. take over the existing Ride-On system) or broader (e.g. construct and operate a new BRT system).
Taxes and Finances
As written, the bill would allow (again: allow, not mandate) the County to pass a property tax that is designated to raise funds specifically for the Transit Authority. These monies would not count toward the County Charter limit.
Additionally, if transportation expenditures (e.g. Ride-On) are moved over from the County budget, the County could reduce taxes or spend the money on other needs because they would no longer be counted as within the Charter limit.
Less Different Than You Think
The County already has the power to do much of this through special taxing districts that have the power to construct transit (i.e. make capital expenditures) and raise funds outside the Charter limit. However, special taxing districts cannot operate transit.
Though the Transit Authority might spend monies on building and operating new systems, it would also likely realize some savings elsewhere. For example, a new transit line would likely result in needing to spend less on Ride-On buses.
Advantages
The clear advantage of this proposal is that it would allow Montgomery to take greater control its transportation future. Monies raised in Montgomery would stay in Montgomery. The County could choose to build projects that the State is not ready or able to fund. Ideally, the County would adopt a program that would help reduce traffic and help Montgomery grow.
Ironically, it might conceivably save money at the State level by reducing the need to construct another project elsewhere in the State in order to build the political support needed. Unlike the Montgomery-Prince George’s Purple Line and the Baltimore Red Line, Transit Authority projects would not need to move in tandem with other projects to gain support.
Disadvantages
No one likes seeing their taxes go up. While some would be willing to pay to see the money spent here in Montgomery on transportation, other will undoubtedly oppose anything that allows the County to increase its taxation authority.
Other may view the Transit Authority’s greatest strength–its ability to operate more insulated from politics–as its greatest weakness, perceiving it as less accountable to the public. Tradeoffs like these often exist in government. The Federal Reserve Board operates infinitely better for being independent of Congress and the President but it is also less responsive to the vicissitudes of public opinion.
County Executive and Council influence over transportation would simultaneously increase and decline. It would increase because they could fund and mandate new projects, giving the County much more muscular authority over transit. But the independent authority would be more independent once a funding mechanism is in place and a program adopted.
To Build What
A new Transit Authority would likely be able to move forward with the widely supported Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) and additional bus-rapid transit lines gradually for the County. BRT is much less costly than light rail (Purple Line) or heavy rail (Metro).
It would almost certainly not be enough to move forward with the Purple Line because that project is just so expensive ($2.4 billion and rising). I am hearing that the Transit Authority would not be intended to build the Purple Line but to move forward with the CCT and other transit improvements.
Of course, I’d like to see numbers so I could figure out what is possible and what is not. This is impossible for the simple reason that the taxation rates and general program of any Transit Authority would be up to the County Council.
Preliminary Thoughts
My initial reaction is that the Transit Authority may well be a good idea. Montgomery County has major transportation needs that should be more broadly addressed. The Authority would provide both the means and the opportunity to do so. Councilmember Nancy Floreen, a former Council President, said that the idea had “a certain amount of sense” when I spoke with her.
People certainly should be interested and make their views known regarding the proposal. But I am concerned that the petition and emails circulating suggest large tax increases that simply are not realistically in the cards. This is a critical issue and we should use the bill as an opportunity to discuss our future–not dismiss it out of hand.
The proposed Transit Authority may well allow Montgomery to tackle its transportation needs much as similar tax increases in northern Virginia have aided road and transit construction south of the Potomac. No doubt people will want more information. The County Executive should tell us more about why he requested that this bill be filed. At the same time, there is a limit on what can be provided as the County has not begun to debate publicly if and how it would use its new power.
I don’t know much about the current highly interesting politics of the Montgomery County School Board. (Fortunately, Lou Peck over at Bethesda Magazine does). However, Israeli politics are famously fractious and complex, so I thought it could be useful to present this guide to the lists competing in March’s Knesset elections. (Note: as with everything involving Israel, someone invariably with vehemently disagree. This is my take.)
The System
Israelis elect MKs (Members of the Knesset) off of closed party lists within a single national district by the d’Hondt method of proportional representation. Parties must receive 3.25% of the vote to qualify for seats–up from 2% at the time of the last election. Put another way, seats are distributed proportionally to parties above the threshold, though d’Hondt (called Bader-Ofer in Israel) has a bias toward larger parties.
Left-Wing Zionist
The major left-wing Zionist parties favor the two-state solution and fall on the secular side of the secular/religious divide. Their other key commonality is that none would join a Netanyahu government, even though all but Meretz have in the past.
A coalition of Labor and Hatnuah, Zionist Union is the major mainstream left list. Labor was Israeli’s dominant party for decades after independence in 1948. No more. It came in third in the 2013 elections. Labor continues its struggle to reinvent itself, mainly by focusing on bread-and-butter economic issues. Appealing to Sephardim remains a problem for this party identified with its historically Ashkenazi leadership.
Hatnuah (The Movement) has an unintentionally ironic name as the party is really Tzipi Livni’s one woman show. Originally a member of Likud and then centrist Kadima, Livni continues her hegira to the left by forming an alliance with Labor. Hatnuah is most closely identified with support for peace negotiations and the two-state solution.
Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid (There is a Future) was traditional flash in the pan success story in 2013–Israeli elections nearly always feature one–and is expected to lose roughly one-half of its MKs in March. While favoring the two-state solution, this center left party (i.e. to Labor’s right) is more known for its strident support of secularism and focus on economic issues.
Strongly dovish and secular, Meretz (Vigor or Energy) is the most clearly left-wing primarily Jewish party. Heavily Ashkenazi, Meretz has had trouble broadening its support.
Right-Wing Zionist
These parties range from center right (Kulanu) to the extreme right (Bayit Yehudi). Excepting Kulanu, none would join a coalition led by Labor/Zionist Camp.
The leader of the mainstream right, Likud (Unity) has moved steadily rightward. Mirroring the RINO phenomenon in the US, the party has dumped party stalwarts like Dan Meridor–someone hardly identified with the left–for more right-wing candidates. As a result, Netanyahu now is among the most left-wing Likud MKs. Historically, Likud has received more support from Sephardim.
Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home) is a very successful extreme right party that favors settlements and opposes the two-state solution. This religious (but not Haredi) nationalist party has experienced growing success under tech businessman Naftali Bennett, whose ambition is to displace his former boss–Netanyahu–as PM.
Yisrael Beitenu (Israel Our Home) is led by Avigdor Lieberman and appeals foremost to Russian immigrants. Lieberman is well-known for his anti-Arab comments and hawkish views. However, he has taken a new tack in this election in suggesting that it could be time for Netanyahu to go and that Israeli needs a peace deal. Mired in a corruption scandal, Yisrael Beitenu will lose seats this year.
A former Likud minister best known for having brought down cell phone costs, Moshe Kahlon founded Kulanu (All of Us) for the 2015 election. Expected to be this year’s flash in the pan party, the polls suggest that Kulanu is steadily losing support, though it should still enter the Knesset. Much like Yesh Atid, it focuses on middle class concerns and leans secular.
Religious Parties
The religious parties are most keenly interested in funding for their school systems and religious observance (e.g. preventing El Al from flying on Shabbat). They bitterly opposed the narrowing of draft exemptions for yeshiva students.
Shas is the major Sephardic religious party but has now split into two parts due to the defection of former leader Eli Yishai. The party is now led by Aryeh Deri, who suffered recent embarrassment upon the release of tapes showing Shas’ spiritual leader, the now deceased Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, criticizing him. Deri served time in prison for corruption while he was Interior Minister. Shas has usually taken a more right-wing stand on the conflict but seems more open to aligning with the left under Deri’s leadership.
Ha’am Itanu (The Nation is with Us) is Eli Yishai’s new party. Unlike Shas, it would only join a right-wing coalition. At this point, it’s unclear if the party can pass Israel’s new, higher 3.25% threshold to enter the Knesset.
United Torah Judaism (UTJ), the Ashkenazi religious party, unites two Haredi (i.e. very strictly Orthodox) parties, Degel HaTorah (Torah Flag) and Agudat Israel (Union of Israel). While Agudat gains its support from Hasidic Jews, Degel HaTorah receives support from non-Hasidic Haredi Jews associated with the Lithuanian yeshivas.
Arab Parties
The new 3.25% threshold has forced the three major Arab lists to unite in order to evade the possibility that one of more of them might fall short of the necessary share of the vote. United Arab List encompasses Hadash, Balad (National Democratic Assembly), and Ra’am-Ta’al (the eponymous United Arab List).
Hadash is rooted in the Communist Party and claims to be the only bicommunal party. Balad supports the two-state solution with Israel being a binational state. United Arab List brings together the Islamic Ra’am with Ahmad Tibi’s Ta’al.
One of Governor Hogan’s very first decisions has been to rescind a pending air-quality regulation that would have curtailed emissions from existing coal fired power plants. This regulation had been extensively vetted by industry, the public and the Maryland Department of the Environment. The Maryland Air Quality Control Advisory Council (AQCAC) concurred unanimously with the proposed regulation in October 2014. Note that the AQCAC:
consists of 15 members appointed by the Secretary of the Department. Members include representatives from industry, labor, professional associations, local and regional government organizations, academia, farming, the medical community and the general public.
Indeed, AQCAC is currently chaired by a BGE employee–John Quinn.
Hogan has ordered a comprehensive review of all pending regulations, opening them up for further “public input, public hearing and full due process” before they can be finalized.
But that due process has already occurred. These sorts of regulations go through truly extensive vetting before they get published in the Maryland Register. The unanimous approval by all AQCAC members present on October 6, 2014 is testament to the success of the vetting process.
These environmental regulations will have an important impact on public health in Maryland. MIT published a study in 2013 showing that air pollution is the source of 200,000 excess deaths annually in the US. On the east coast, a substantial share of the air pollution is due to electricity generation by coal fired power plants. Among the types of fossil fuels used to produce electricity, coal is far and away the greatest source of air pollution. And guess which city has the highest mortality rate in the country due to air pollution:
The researchers also mapped local emissions in 5,695 U.S. cities, finding the highest emissions-related mortality rate in Baltimore, where 130 out of every 100,000 residents likely die in a given year due to long-term exposure to air pollution.
Among the many regulations that Gov. Hogan vetoed or delayed, this should not have been one of them. It had extensive review with unanimous concurrence by the full spectrum of stakeholders. The regulation was key part of the effort to address directly the root cause of the multi-year failure of the greater Baltimore metro area to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and reduce the associated cost of pollution to public health.
Regulations are often onerous with some having less merit than others. Environmental regulations, however, are critical because they force businesses to pay a cost–either in terms of public health or cleanup–that they otherwise would dump on the public. Open for business is great but not at the cost of the well-being of Maryland’s citizens.
