The Supreme Court recently heard arguments over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (f/k/a the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), principally the mandate that compels most Americans to carry health insurance by 2014. Before the proceedings, it was even money that the keystone provision of this legislation would stand. When Anthony Kennedy noted that “the mandate fundamentally changes the relationship between citizens and the federal government,” the money at Troup Hotel and Casino started flowing towards striking down the mandate.

As the arguments wound down, the conversation turned towards life without a mandate. Could the remaining 2,699 pages be valid if the law’s keystone clause were deemed to be unconstitutional? Antonin Scalia seems to think so. He offered, “If we struck down nothing in this legislation but the — what’s it called, the Cornhusker kickback, okay, we find that to violate the constitutional proscription of venality, okay? When we strike that down, it’s clear that Congress would not have passed it without that. It was the means of getting the last necessary vote in the Senate. And you are telling us that the whole statue would fall because the Cornhusker kickback is bad. That can’t be right.” Many on the left flocked to this quote to mock Scalia, noting that the controversial measure was changed so that Nebraska did not receive preferential treatment. A re-read of this hypothetical argument would lead a reasonable person to believe that Scalia thinks the statute could otherwise stand.

This action would take us to a very scary place. This action, for all intents and purposes,would hand the Supreme Court (an unelected body) a line-item veto. In 1996, the “Contract with America” Congress and President Bill Clinton passed “An Act To give the President line item veto authority with respect to appropriations, new direct spending, and limited tax benefits.” This allowed the President to curb pork-barrel spending. Checks and balances dictate that a veto can be overridden by a Congressional two-thirds majority. This means that if the President were to make egregious use of the veto, that Congress could still override it. If the Supreme Court were to claim line-item veto power, no other branch of government could stop it. On June 25, 1998 the Supreme Court deemed the line-item veto act to be unconstitutional. Now they may claim to that power for themselves.

Since the arguments for and against the ACA are emotionally charged, let’s draw a hypothetical parallel using a controversial piece of legislation passed under a GOP President. What if the Supreme Court declared in 2009 that the government could roll out the TARP program under Congress’ authority to order the printing of money, but Congress did not have the authority to demand repayment of the funds since it falls outside the scope of collecting taxes? Wouldn’t that ruling materially alter the legislation? And wouldn’t it also put words into the mouths of the Congressmen who voted for it base upon certain pretenses? Since striking down the mandate materially alters the ACA, the whole law should go back to the drawing board.

President Obama disagrees with this stance (Quelle surprise!). The President said that striking down the law would be “unprecedented” and a classic case of “judicial activism.” What is unprecedented is the President’s use of the word unprecedented. Plenty of laws have been struck down by the Supreme Court, for instance, the line-item veto. One can assume with little risk that President Obama would have great admiration for someone like Franklin Roosevelt. Even so, our 32nd President saw six of his New Deal programs scuttled by the Supreme Court (hence his later attempt to pack the court with sympathetic Justices). With regard to judicial activism, overturning the law would actually be an example of restraint. Activism would require the court to inject more meaning into the law.

Judicial activism would best describe the behavior of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during the proceedings. As Solicitor General Donald Verrilli stumbled and bumbled through his arguments, Ginsburg threw a lifeline: “Mr.Verrilli, I thought that your main point is that, unlike food or any other market, when you made the choice not to buy insurance, even though you have every intent in the world to self-insure, to save for it, when disaster strikes, you may not have the money.” I would have expected Justice Kagan, fresh off the Solicitor’s chair, to be the one who put words into counsel’s mouths.

That the President has picked another fight with the Supreme Court is bewildering. You may recall the State of the Union speech in 2010 when the President excoriated the Court for its decision in the Citizens United case. Now he is wagging his finger once again. It is also a tad strange because Obama seems to revere the courts, and believes they should be used as vehicles for change. For example, in a 2001 radio interview, the current President offered the following: “As radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted. And more important, interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” It seems here that Obama’s lament is that the courts have not been activist enough for his liking, and that he would want to change that. Perhaps President Obama sees his calling as a potential Justice, taking the William Howard Taft route to the bench.

The Affordable Care Act is highly flawed. In the instance of the mandate, it will likely be deemed unconstitutional. If the mandate falls, so too should the law. That said, the noble cause of extending access to health care and bending back cost curves should still be addressed. There are plenty of options that are means to those ends, and those options don’t have to involve the creation of budget deficits or Trojan horses for government run health care.

I’m happy to see that the President finds all of this to be so funny. Bill Clinton felt your pain. Bush forty-one wanted to be kinder and gentler. Somehow this President has lost his sense of touch. To be sure, an ironic ailment for the self-proclaimed “warrior for the middle class.”

At a speech in Largo, Maryland at Prince George’s County Community College, the President decided to talk energy. Really, where else would one discuss our Nation’s energy policy but a community college campus? It makes some sense, as campuses are pretty much the last few places where he is still a rock star. I think he knows this to be true, since he used the trick employed by rock stars and professional wrestlers to garner cheap props – he worked the name of the location into his spiel.

In any event, it was unfortunate that the President chose to display his arrogant side. His speech was an interesting blend of Al Green and Alfred Newman, appearing smooth and cool to his audience, but condescending and out of touch to observers from afar. He mixed in a few yucks minutes after telling community college students (commuters) that he realized there was pain at the pump.

One example of his new material: ” . . . politicians dust off their three-point plans for $2 gas. I guess this year they decided to make it $2.50. Why not $2.40? Why not $2.10?” That’s golden, Mr. President! It’s not quite: “Why do they call it Ovaltine? The jar is round. The cup is round. They should call it roundteen.” But he’s getting there. How about I give it a go? “Every generation, politicians dust off their spending plans that will keep unemployment from reaching 8%. Why not 8.3? Why not 9.1?” I’ll be at the Warner Theater next week. Tip your bartender.

The problem that the President has when it comes to gasoline prices is that humor is his lone remaining defense mechanism. Rationalizing really doesn’t work. While he noted that: “gas prices and the world oil markets are putting a lot of pressure on folks,” it is a similar defense that George W. Bush employed. Candidate Obama spent 2008 campaigning against “eight years of failed Bush economic policies.” With the shoe on the other foot, the market forces defense rings hollow.

The President has another problem when it comes to the market forces rationalization. It took the price of oil to tickle $150 per barrel to yield $4 for a gallon of gas in 2008. We are now seeing similar results with oil at $106 per barrel. People want to know how a lower price of inputs four years later can yield a similar price for the output. This is why politicians are dusting off their three-point plans for $2.50/gallon gasoline. Something is clearly amiss in the marketplace, and a plan is needed to bring some equilibrium. Why doesn’t the President seem concerned?

In fairness, the President has decided to reconvene the Oil and Gas Price Fraud Working Group to examine speculation in the marketplace. Why not tout this step, as opposed to making a political point? One reason may be that the think tank was established last April, and has provided no results to date. Also, the group is headed by Attorney General Eric Holder, and he has a few other problems to tackle right now (cough, fast and furious).
President Obama has yet another problem when it comes to the gasoline issue, in that he is boxed in by his own words. Candidate Obama said he had no problem with $4 gasoline. He took issue with how quickly it got there. Prices rise over time, and rational people know that $4 gasoline is a given without changes to America’s energy portfolio. That said, a ninety-five percent increase (using a $2 base) during his first term, coupled with “what, me worry” arrogance leaves that opening for those on the right who believe the President is willfully creating this hardship to satisfy his ideology.

Adding fuel to that fire is Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Chu said in a 2008 interview with the Wall Street Journal that “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Again, this provides inroads for those who will say that this administration is satisfied with taking the United States down a notch on the world ladder. Think about that quote. It would be like Wal-Mart telling its suppliers, “We want the pricing of your twentieth best customer.” In the interest of efficient use of resources (something that ought to interest conservatives), the United States should move towards an “all of the above” energy policy as the market allows; however, the United States should not apologize for its gas prices. Are we going to demand the same of the Chinese and the Venezuelans (nations that enjoy highly-subsidized gasoline)?

The President made clear to the students at his speaking engagement that the United States has two percent of the world’s known reserves, but uses twenty percent of annual production. He also said that someone taking a math class at PGCC could figure out that there is a math problem. There certainly is a math problem. The President is comparing numerators with different denominators.

The two percent figure is also a bit misleading. The United States currently has 1,442 billion barrels of recoverable oil within its dominion. Only 20 billion barrels are deemed to be part of known reserves because of the amount of deposits the government has declared off-limits. The Institute for Energy Research declared in 1944 that oil reserves were at 20 billion barrels. That is the same figure as today, yet the US has produced 160 billion barrels since then. In other words, technological advances are constantly redefining the word recoverable. If we eliminate all of the middle men in our energy production, we can limit speculation and keep prices reasonable until widespread renewable energy becomes feasible.

It is critical to add renewable energy to our portfolio; however, our government cannot continue a punitive mind-set with current methods of production. The right must realize that renewable energy is ultimately beneficial to our Nation. The left must realize that the world’s largest economy can remain strong while the bridge to an affordable green infrastructure is built.

There are a lot of pots boiling right now. When it’s all said and done, all that’s left is the sighing.

The local economy: Sigh. I’m hearing a lot of discussion on improving the economics of the region. It has beenan ongoing conversation that continues to include a weird dynamic – people discussing economic development as a yes/no issue. The economy is no more a yes/no issue than the environment, entitlements, or education. If the discussion centers on yes/no as opposed to size and scope, it’s focused on the wrong thing.

The hurdle that most of the naysayers must clear is the word “development.” The fear here is that development, in the physical sense, begets more development. Those people are right. Physical development requires infrastructure to support it. Then there are schools. You can’t build half of a school. So if you’re building a school, you have to have enough addresses to fill it. This dance continues until people are crowded out and move to the next frontier.

Economic development, or the maximization of the region’s aggregate wealth, can occur with limited physical development. The region surely has assets. But assets aren’t assets if they aren’t leveraged for the purposes of a return. Our open spaces and waterfronts can be used towards a leisure focus,developing green energy opportunities, and using the US301 corridor for light manufacturing and warehousing operations.

Public and private solutions have been advanced towardst hese ends. The Hopkins Game Farm, Chestertown waterfront, and the Worton solar field are steps in the right direction. What’s left is to cultivate an all-in attitude. If we have this attitude, others will want to get on board. This means fewer “for sale” signs, and living here as a primary residence. Now we’re talking about more children in the public school pipeline and greater tax revenues. It can be done without the strip malls and cookie-cutter neighborhoods that so many associate with economic development. But the first step is toget past “no.”

Another One Bites the Dust: Sigh. Another group of hourly workers was shuttered out of their positions seemingly overnight. There was some chatter that the closing of the Red Brick Pizza location is especially problematic because it was a franchise location. The implication is that a franchise has more capital at its disposal. This may not betrue. It all depends on the franchisee, and the demands placed on them by the franchisor (for example, Quiznos is notorious for making life hard on franchisees).

What felled this operation wasn’t a matter of capital. At the end of the day, Red Brick was “stuck in the middle.” They were a value-added provider in a low-cost location. This meant that people in the immediate vicinity are more apt to buy a $9 pizza, and those who would pay for a $15 pizza may not remember them tucked away on upper High Street. If you read articles on-line about “10 brands that may disappear in 2012,” the problem is almost always “trying to be all things to all people.” It sounds good in the beginning, but ultimately leaves companies being nothing to anyone.

Plus there is a critical mass of places to get a pizza around here. Which brings me to . . .

Some Self-indulgence Sigh. I hesitate to write about this matter. I was only kidding about helping friends, crushing enemies, and getting free stuff. But my reasons aren’t entirely selfish.

Our middle child recently won his second student of the month award for this school year. This award was particularly pleasing to us because the award for art is selected from the entire student body. As a treat, we took him to eat at a place of his choosing. He wanted pizza. We’ll leave it at that. The next hour was spent listening to the supervisor curse at staff, slam dishes, and berate customers on the phone. That was all before our order was incorrectly prepared! It was not an ideal experience.

The reasons why I was hesitant to mention this are twofold. One, I’m not here to embarrass people. Two, plenty of people have had bad dining experiences in their lives. Not all of them are afforded bandwidth to discuss it. The reason why I bring it up is the staff. I have had management apologize for staff errors. I have never experienced the reverse. It isn’t fair to them to have to do that, and I hope this was just someone having a bad day. Bad days are contagious.

Rush to Judgment Sigh. Rush, you ignorant slut! When you have been in the business this long, you can’t use those words, especially with flimsy logic. This all started with an issue that wascovered in a recent TC non-sequitur. The Affordable Care Act has a provision that allowed HHS to compel religious organizations to provide insurance that covers birth control expenses. There was considerable pushback, citing that separation of church and state should cut both ways.

The resistance was loud enough that Congress took up the possibility of overturning the rule. Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown Law student, testified in front of Congress why she and others should be entitled to such a benefit. Rush Limbaugh took the IRS definition that defrayed costs are income, therefore, Ms. Fluke’s possible nighttime exploits amount to prostitution.

Limbaugh’s gaffe presents several problems for the conservative position on this issue. By turning Ms. Fluke into the issue, she became a sympathetic figure. In turn, her testimony became above reproach. There was plenty to question. The costs she cited seemed extreme. The idea that these products are solely available through insurance companies is patently false. These employees’ employment with these organizations is at will. One could (gasp) consciously decide that they will not partake in such exploits. People act like all of these new rules wil lmake things free. To borrow the words ofanother local commentator, they only become mostly free. And mostly free ultimately leads to shortages.

Double Taxation – It’s for the Dogs You may recall my call for Chestertown to go forward wisely with its recreation initiatives. Your columnist agrees with Mayor Bailey that a mandate of her job is to provide a town where people or companies can gravitate. That said, I renew my call for the Town to abandon managing towards an increase in per capita recreation funding, and move towards working with the County’s existing Parks and Recreation department to secure access for the citizens of Chestertown. I think I may have found a few folks who agree with this principle.

Citizens of Chestertown fund Town and County coffers. To that end, I’m struck by something Kent County Commissioner William Pickrum recently said. We have to get past “County money” or “State money.” “There is only one color of money.” That phrase nails it. Quantity theory of money states that the money in existence is a specific amount, and that its scarcity contributes to its value. When it’s used unwisely, many feel the pain. What I’ve been trying to yell from my keyboard all this time isn’t “Government:yes/no?” It’s about who will do what to be the best stewards of our tax dollars. Whether you’re on Cross Street, High Street, State Circle, or East Capitol Street, this should be the mission that guides your decisions.

Things have been hectic in Troup’s Corner as of late. In fact, I recently corresponded with the Publisher of The Chestertown Spy to apologize for my truancy, and to announce that I had my latest take on the GOP primary almost ready to go. That night, the other three corners that comprise Troup’s house got hectic too. I unexpectedly found myself in charge of all the aspects of running a household.

My wife and I are not fans of marital scorekeeping. It really doesn’t matter why a spot is on the floor. If you see it and you want it eradicated, grab the sponge. We each fall into normal roles with the primary chores, with neither being more important to complete a task than the other. It all needs to be done. If I want to ensure the continued presence of clean underwear in my drawers, it’s best that I handle the dishes. Was it Confucius who said “Happy wife. Happy life”?

I know scorekeepers. They either bring up their salary, or they trot out the statistic of their hypothetical salary for doing household chores. Homemaking scorekeepers never credit their other half for landscaping wages or sanitation (lawn and trash). Working scorekeepers never account for benefits received. In a twist of fate that is probably the opposite of the scorekeepers’ intention, scorekeepers are so often consumed by the score, that large tasks go undone. They would rather split responsibilities 40/40 than collectively accomplish 100 percent. I had a chance to put scorekeeping to the test.

When my better half went on the disabled list, I became the pitcher, leadoff hitter, clean-up hitter. There were the occasional moments that I had available to cogitate like an adult, and those moments took me to some weird places. When I realized that I had yet to do a single load of laundry, I mentally ran through my kids’ wardrobe like Greg Heffley from the Diary of a Wimpy Kid series to see how long I could delay the inevitable. What had I become?

I came to realize that I was essentially bargaining with myself. I was fortunate to have that luxury, as I was confident in our medical professionals that this arrangement was temporary. I also came to realize that if this were a permanent arrangement, my options would be limited. My options would be to sacrifice one task altogether, or to do everything eighty percent effectively. This conundrum has affected more and more families, even ones considered relatively stable, as people take on more and more commitments that fill their calendars.

As families functioning at eighty percent become the norm, we see the effect over time. For the stretched-too-thin parent, video games and nine channels of cartoons beamed to your dish keep kids occupied and give parents some peace of mind in knowing where their kids are. These activities turn kids into bundles of potential energy, and when it turns kinetic, they can go haywire. Meal preparation is also a victim. If you want to eat and have clothes to wear the next day, it’s easier to order out, fry something, or dump it out of a box. This can get the kids fed, but how well?

We take it as a given that we are seeing upticks in child obesity and behavioral disorders. Some feel that the answer is a regulated approach full of PSAs on the Disney Channel and food police in our schools. None of these solutions get to the root of the problem, which seems to be a self-inflicted assault on the familial unit. Fatherhood has been minimized more and more. Want proof? Check out how many signature lines there are for fathers on the paperwork that comes with having a child. What’s more, the men in these equations have done an exceptional job assisting in this trend.

Back to the autobiographical portion of this edition. I’m trying to fall asleep, but being kept awake by the household chores left undone, when my mind visits a very strange place. If it gets more difficult after seventy-two hours, then what about ninety-six, and so forth? What’s more, who would choose this? This led me to the most un-PC of conclusions – Dan Quayle may have had a point.

For the benefit of our younger readers, you probably want to know who Dan Quayle is. Our older readers want to know how a guy who couldn’t spell potatoe could be right about something (our younger readers may also not know that was a joke). Dan Quayle was perhaps, if not likely, the most irrelevant elected Vice-President since whomever happened to handle those duties for Herbert Hoover (time will tell for Mr. Biden). Quayle’s claim to fame was that he waged a war of words with Murphy Brown, a fictional character from a sit-com of the same name. As Louis Black would say, “let me repeat that because it bears repeating”: The Vice President of the United States spent part of an election year waging a war of words with a fictional character from a fictional (not-real) television show.

What was the topic of this war of words, you ask? The title character in Murphy Brown decided to have a child as a single parent. This is a scenario that has since played out on television each week for twenty years on your choice of network, so why the fuss? You have to remember that this was back in the time of the Keatons and the Huxtables, and the Taylors. The fault in Quayle’s ire was that the television show was merely introducing an angle with an already increased presence in the society at large; it wasn’t somehow inventing the concept of single-parenthood. It would be akin to Al Gore thinking that lesbians didn’t somehow exist before Ellen DeGeneres had a sitcom, or if Walter Mondale were shocked to learn of African Americans living in “deluxe apartments in the sky.”

Even if Quayle’s intentions were to highlight how the episode was a symbol of a larger meltdown in family values or to simply state that not everyone has the economic security of a network news anchor (as the fictional character, Murphy Brown did), an argument against a fictional character cannot be won. It’s like yelling at a video game. While the pixelated version of Terell Owens may be an “idiot” and “sucks” for dropping that pass, at the end of the day, you’re yelling at a blinking box (not speaking from experience or anything). Ultimately, a future episode of the show ended with the “VP” having a truck full of potatoes dumped on his lawn. What can you do next – tell those fake reporters to get off your fake lawn? Perhaps most interesting in this feud is that six years later, it would be revealed that the President of the United States (who defeated Quayle’s boss in 1992) had an affair in the Oval Office and said President is largely looked upon in a favorable light. Dan Quayle made family values lose whatever coolness they had left.

When my wife was discharged, she asked how I dealt with my time as a “single parent.” I told her that it was rewarding, but the pay stinks. Then I returned to my thoughts of the prior night. I had the luxury of returning to normal. Everyone lives with their own version of normal. Sometimes they choose it, and other times it chooses them. Either way, twenty years after Dan Quayle when families come in all shapes and sizes, if you are responsible for people other than yourself, make sure that their normal is as normal as it can be.

It was November 7th of 2000 that the late Tim Russert saddled up to the news desk with his dry erase board and taught the Nation every arithmetic problem possible to yield numbers greater than 270, the number of electoral votes needed to win the Presidency. As each state closed its polls and counted votes, numbers became permanent, and the map of the United States was emblazoned with a new red or blue state silhouette. Now “red state” and “blue state” are common phrases in modern political speak.

From the national perspective, Maryland is comfortably a blue state, buoyed by the three most populated jurisdictions. The Eastern Shore is largely regarded as red-state territory. Over the past fifty years, the Republican candidate has won election to Congress four out of five times. The region even leaned toward McCain in what was otherwise a national walkover.

Those residents of the region who are of the Democratic persuasion surely must take pride in that shining blue light on the banks of the Chester River known as Chestertown. Regardless of the protocol that exists in local and municipal elections, it is widely understood that until the recent election, the council had a definitive Democratic majority. In 2011, that council passed its landmark ordinance, the ban on the distribution of plastic bags within Town limits. The Town also cleared the path for taking ownership of the marina property, mistakenly referred to by some as “getting into the marina business.” Also in 2011, the Town (either directly or through its Planning Zoning Committee) continued its haggling on land deals with Washington College, in addition to dealing with interested parties who were looking to revamp Park Row – flexing its muscle as central planner.

Towards the end of 2011, Mayor Bailey announced her next initiative. This initiative involves exploring opportunities to maximize recreation opportunities for all citizens of Chestertown. A commission was appointed to explore these opportunities. The commission is chaired by the qualified Bill Arrowood.

The genesis of this initiative would appear to be local activist John Munson’s presentation to the Mayor and Council in the summer of 2011. At issue was the rehabilitation of the Ajax basketball court near the police station on Cross Street. The crux of this presentation was that the town was being penny wise and pound foolish by not rehabbing the basketball court, since one less recreational facility means one more opportunity for Town youth to become ne’er-do-wells. The objection to the presentation was that the court had been rehabbed in the past, only to become vandalized, ostensibly by the very people it sought to serve. The conclusion of that tete-a-tete was to agree to disagree on Ajax, yet agree to agree on the larger issue of recreation.

Upon further review, the Mayor stated on WCTR that the genesis of the issue came to be when findings were brought to her attention that Chestertown spends one-third per head on recreation the level that towns in Talbot County and others spend. What concerns me about this viewpoint is the notion that if Chestertown does not race to meet this ratio, that Chestertown will somehow be viewed as three times as inferior to the Talbotans.

While the town may spend a mere nine dollars per head on recreation, it is important to remember that the Town coexists with Kent County, which has its own department of recreation. Any attempt by the town to manage towards a higher dollars to citizen ratio by building facilities will lead to a duplication of effort and ultimately underusage of individual facilities across Kent County. It is fair to note that the report provided by the Commission thus far centers around the utilization of existing facilities. Hopefully the commission stays on this avenue. If the Town is looking for an end-around on how to spend its hard-fought operating surplus, it’s barking up the wrong (topped, not trimmed) tree.

Putting on my consultant hat, if I were to flowchart this issue, I would say that the nodes of the process already exist. It is the vectors which connect them that are missing. It is more cost effective to invest in the vectors, if you know where to draw them. The commission will be most effective if it answers the question, “How do you get a latch key kid from Chestertown Middle to the Community Center in Worton?”

The ultimate irony in this discussion is that there are several recreation avenues in town that have been developed via the private sector. For example, the Kent Athletic and Wellness Center hosts a variety of leagues. Your columnist’s progeny are partial to the youth indoor soccer program that is available to members and non-members alike (for a nominal fee). First Fridays bring art and culture front and center. The Garfield Performing Arts Center puts on a variety of productions and hosts drama camps. Kent County Parks and Recreation has a drop-in basketball program at KCMS. Let’s not forget that fishing at the bottom of High Street is still free. Basically, in this blue dot where we lament that the recreation solution isn’t “blue enough,” plenty of “red solutions” already exist. Casting aside the partisan metaphor, here’s hoping the local and municipal governments can work together and draw the necessary purple vectors to provide access to as many citizens as possible. The Town should not use the commission to lament what isn’t being spent. It should trumpet the enduring entrepreneurial spirit of our town, and find ways to maximize participation.

Wow, has Governor O’Malley been working out? That’s quite a lead balloon he launched by proposing an increase to the sales tax. Obviously that proposal was political cover for legislators who will be rolling out a cocktail of other tax and fee increases. All the while, the same legislators can lay claim to shooting down the Governor’s sales tax increase.

The Eastern Shore treats every session of the General Assembly as a roller coaster ride. There is that first big hill that has you clutching your harness. Then you let go and think “this isn’t so bad.” Finally, after one hill too many, all you can think is, “Alright that’s quite enough.” For some reason, when it’s over, you have this desire to go through all of it again.

The notable points of contention of the prior session were an increase in the alcohol tax and a recommendation to move forward with toll increases. The toll increase was explained as an overdue increase to a user fee. That seems stomachable until one starts talking about the debt service for building MD 200 (more on that road to follow). The alcohol tax was supposed to fund health initiatives. This is also a worthy endeavor until one realizes that the proceeds are now being used to install artificial turf at a school whose football team is 29-53 over the last eight years. This would be wrong if the team were 53-29.

This tax and spend proposal comes less than two years after the shuttering of the Upper Shore Mental Health Center. Michael Busch, who presides over the Delegates, justifies this sequence of events by declaring that Senator EJ Pipkin voted against the tax; therefore, he is declining the revenue it generates. What never occurred to Speaker Busch was that Senator Pipkin may have seen this act before, and thought that Hammond High School did not require artificial turf. Every session begins with “Woe is us. How do we plug this hole?” and ends with the supposed solution being used for artificial turf.

This opposition is seen as inadequate representation of the region. Another way to put it is that Senator Pipkin has a philosophical difference with Speaker Busch on the functions of government. This being a representative democracy, our delegate has a right to vote against taxes levied upon his constituents. On occasion, those votes will impact all citizens of the State. If voting for a tax increase is the criterion for receiving proportional funding from the tax, then could we argue that a vote against the tax does not compel the Upper Shore’s vendors to collect the tax on behalf of the State? I am quite certain that some citizens of Anne Arundel and Worcester Counties voted against slots. Certainly those citizens’ schools will still be funded. The State of Texas voted for John McCain in 2008. Does this exempt it from the provisions of the Affordable Care Act? (More on that to follow.)

After seeing all of the proposed tax increases, the region seems to have avoided another sales tax increase; however, the rest of the session will probably require us to clean our seats afterwards (a cost that will also be passed to the counties). While it is easy to blame petty politics for the constant proposals that adversely affect our region, our delegation should not be let off the hook.

In the business sense, delegation is the act of assigning someone to a task for which you are ultimately responsible. Delegation is usually viewed as busy work. Effective delegation typically requires a “what and why” statement. One must provide an ideal outcome and convey why that outcome is beneficial to all who are involved.

In the government sense, a good Delegation possesses the ability to convey a “what and why” statement to constituents and colleagues. It is one thing to declare opposition to a sales tax increase. It is quite another to explain how raising the sales tax only widens the trade deficit between the Eastern Shore and the State of Delaware. Moreover, it is altogether different to convey the benefits of a lower rate tax that is applied across the board, thus evenly spreading the tax burden across all commerce. And that is where I split from my support of our Delegation. It is perfectly fine to be against this tangled web of governance, but if we’re not talking about things that the leadership might be for, then every session will be a rubber stamp.

We are reaching two years since the phrase “speak Democrat” entered the region’s lexicon. For those who despise this slice of bandwidth, you can blame its orginator (and the proprietor of this establishment). I obviously reject pay for play governance. Unfortunately, our Delegates have fallen into the “party of no” trap that has been set for them. We must convey the what and why of our beliefs before the Eastern Shore is dotted with silver signs explaining to “reach the beaches” where towns used to be.

Troup’s Corner Non-Sequitur – Searching for the Legal Tender: I recently experienced driving on MD 200, Maryland’s only all electronic toll road! I also had to use the Dulles toll road in Virginia. As I stared at my colleague’s dollar while we waited our turn to pay and get the expense receipt, I was reminded of the note borne by US currency: “This note is legal tender for all debts public and private.” If the State builds a road using taxes and fees (ahem, Bay Bridge) paid by its citizens, shouldn’t the State be obligated to accept US currency without compelling its citizens to enter into a contract with a private entity?

Where have I heard that phrase before? Oh…

Troup’s Corner Non-Sequitur – Speaking of Forced Contracts: A major point of contention with the Affordable Care Act is that it compels people to engage in a specific act of commerce. Proponents of the measure tout the fact that this is not a unique concept. Very well, that’s a debate for another time. The most commonly cited example of this type of contract is car insurance. Again, casting aside the “driving is optional, breathing isn’t” argument, car insurance contracts come with a variety of options such as deductible, amounts of coverage, and miscellaneous options (“Cadillac plans” if one likes puns). While the ACA guarantees 30 million new customers for the insurance companies, the act mandates what must be covered (e.g. preventive care at 100 percent).

Opponents of the act refer to it as “government-run health care.” This phrase won Politifacts “lie of the year” honor in 2010. Now comes news that the Department of Health and Human Services will invoke a rule under the ACA that compels church-based organizations requiring their affiliated groups to provide a range of services, from implanted contraceptive devices to the morning-after pill for its employees. One must know that when one enters into employment at Adventist HealthCare, Sinai, or Catholic Charities that benefits afforded to employees will be in line with their value system. If these health services mean that much to an employee, they could reject the employer-based plan and purchase a plan off the shelf.

The separation of church and state should cut both ways. In any event, what is the threshold of rules and other mandates that must be crossed before we no longer dance around the idea of “government run health care?” I’m reminded of the quote attributed to Norman Thomas: “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program.”

Next time:They’re turning me into a Newt.

As expected, Mitt Romney won the Republican Party’s New Hampshire primary election. This victory comes on the heels of an eight vote victory in Iowa. If Romney can go to South Carolina and win the regional bellwether trifecta, the nomination is all but certain.

Victory in the Palmetto State will be difficult with Newt Gingrich looking to resurrect his campaign in a region where he should thrive. The former Speaker went from a dead heat with Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire to an also-ran in merely a month. Gingrich is fancied as the most conservative, experienced, brightest, and politically savvy of the “non-Romneys.” All of the superlatives under the sun will mean nothing if Gingrich cannot begin to post wins.

The Ricks have come crashing back to Earth. Rick Santorum had a message that resonated with Iowans, but not so much in New England. Rick Perry’s crash has been more like a parachute jump. He has got nowhere to go but down, and he cannot get there fast enough. It is time to go the Bachmann route and bail on the race. And so ends the runs of the two candidates who I think would have Supreme Court cases decided by placing the defendant on a scale with a duck. On the bright side, they would get some bridges built.

Ron Paul continues his quest to make the Federal government into a bread box (hat tip to “The Idiots”). Paul is an interesting case. For all of the people who have gone to their respective rallies, called into a radio program, or opined in an online newspaper about limiting the Federal government, Paul seems to be the one actually willing to do it once the rubber meets the road. At the same time, it just doesn’t feel like a Paul revolution is imminent.

The candidate that no one is talking about is Jon Huntsman. There seems to be an enthusiasm gap, and in turn, a funding gap with Huntsman. It is a shame, because Huntsman seems to have the most level-headed approach to the race. Of course, when one is a non-entity in Iowa, other candidates probably don’t feel the need to lob insults in their direction.

Huntsman has a unique qualification that is simultaneously an advantage and a disadvantage. As Ambassador to China under President Obama, Huntsman probably has the clearest indication of who the opponent is. GOP hardliners might accuse Huntsman of cavorting with the enemy while the moderates might say “Hey, if anyone ought to know what makes this administration so ineffective, maybe it’s him.” Serving as ambassador to China and also as ambassador to Singapore, Huntsman also possesses a hybrid of foreign relations experience and insight into emerging Asian economic might.

Other than Mitt Romney, Huntsman is the only candidate who posted a respectable number, and has executive experience. Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum all cut their teeth in the Legislature. Huntsman served as governor of Utah. His ability to garner nearly seventy-eight percent of the vote in his 2008 re-election bid (not a banner year for red staters) shows an ability to strike a balance between right/left and fiscal/social. Huntsman seems to be the lone candidate who is talking about tying spending to the GDP and reforming the tax code. On the other hand, Huntsman does have a record of flip-flops on environmental issues and insurance mandates. In this capacity, the only thing that makes him a non-Romney is the fact that he is not Mitt Romney.

While Jon Huntsman lacks the name recognition to make a serious run at the White House, he does have the potential to play Jerry Brown to Mitt Romey’s Bill Clinton. Huntsman will have appeal in certain States that will keep him afloat throughout the primary season. He is also non-threatening enough that the GOP won’t have to worry about any type of convention bloodbath, while at the same time, making sure that Romney stays sharp. He has VP written all over him. But he’ll likely get passed over for the office that nobody wants. Even Romney knows that one Romney is enough. I suppose there is always 2016 – if he feels like getting trampled by the proverbial elephant in the GOP’s room.

So it is Romney’s nomination to lose. Most voters have come to grips with this, yet reserve the right to cast their vote as they see fit. It’s healthy to have a nomination process, as opposed to a coronation process. Presumably, a lot of cars sporting Obama 2012 bumper stickers are driven by folks who voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary. Keep in mind that Romney’s poll numbers have stayed in the 25-30% range while flavors of the month surged to 30%, only to find themselves back in the teens. Besides, if Romney is “too left” for some voters, what’s the alternative? Water seeks its own level.

Is this Heaven? Nope, it’s Iowa. Or maybe Shoeless Joe Jackson and Ray Kinsella had it all wrong. It seems to be a cold day in you know where. Rick Santorum just became a serious candidate for President of the United States. Well, serious to half of the electorate.

Had this process started two and a half years ago, we could have gone through all the Baskin Robbins flavors before realizing that there are two serious candidates for the position. Instead, the GOP is still breaking out the sampling spoons when it’s time to place an order. I think I can hear Judge Smails in the back of line saying, “Well…we’re waiting…” If you ever wanted to know how to skilffully weave together Caddyshack and Field of Dreams, that’s how.

If you don’t know about Rick Santorum, he’s the guy often on the left hand side of the dais during these endless debates. He hasn’t said much, because debates one through googleplex have pit Mitt Romney against the Flavor of the Week. America will finally get a chance to see him in action when he takes center stage for debate googleplex plus one.

In an attempt to contrast himself with Mitt Romney, Santorum noted “We are not looking for a chief executive officer for this country. We’re looking for a commander in chief.” This quote implies that superior business acumen is not what’s needed in the White House, and that the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW is unfit as commander in chief. Osama Bin Laden would probably beg to differ with that sentiment. Perhaps Santorum is playing the reverse-psychology card. The current President was elected on a hope and change platform, has provided neither, yet has succeeded in ousting high value targets. Perhaps we need someone who will talk about everything but the economy, and then that someone could stumble and bumble to five percent growth.

So far it has been surmised that Rick Santorum’s platform will not be painted with a ROYGBIV color scheme. It would appear that with the debt ceiling being reached once again, a tax structure not indicative of our economic activity, underfunded entitlements, chronic unemployment, and a massive health insurance albatross about to be placed around our neck, the biggest problem we face is gay people wanting to be in the military. Even if it isn’t true of Santorum, has he gone out of his way to dispel this notion? Does he at least have a catchy tax plan/pizza special to sell to the Nation?

One would have to go pretty far down the list to find “gays in the military” as one of my talking points. In fact, one would have to flip the paper over a few times and check for the invisible ink before telling me that I’ve missed something. If you have ever seen your columnist (and if you have, please stop stop stalking me), I’m like Steve Rogers before he gets the Captain America serum. If the Nation’s future lies in the hands of Neil Patrick Harris or myself, we probably have a better shot if we send Doogie to destroy the oncoming asteroid. I’m guessing that if a legion of men come under fire, and one has to depend on another to get them out of a sitting duck position, the injured soldier isn’t going to say, “Hey real quick. Robert Pattinson or Kristen Stewart?” It is in that sense that I was never offended by the prior DADT policy, as a military recruiter had no more of a right to ask that question of someone than the head of HR at a private company.

Then there’s the marriage debate. We know where Santorum sits on this. If he doesn’t trust a person to go where other men dare not go (the battlefield), then he’ll keep his hands tightly gripped on DOMA until the day he dies. I suppose he is entitled to his beliefs, but I take the “John Boehner option C” on this issue. Since marriage is not an enumerated right in the US Constitution, the many States should have latitude in defining marriage. Of course this means that States could recognize no marriages at all. If the State does not dictate that a church must perform a gay wedding, nor does it compel me to marry a man, then I don’t think anyone’s rights are being invaded.

Which brings us to the great irony in all of this “values voter” talk. These folks identify with the party that rejects bureaucracy and legislating behavior by the force of law, yet who do they run to when they see behavior that they feel ought to be dictated? It’s okay to be against California’s new curriculum on the grounds that the contributions of one group of people should be considered equal to other groups. It’s okay if people have beliefs. It’s even okay if said people wish to purchase an advertisement to tell us about them. But there’s a credibility gap if this “Santorum in the middle of the dais” thing leaves Iowa.

The pundits will probably harp on the values voter narrative. What must be remembered is that seventy-five percent of caucus voters weren’t in favor of a Rick Santorum nomination. Here’s hoping that phrase “Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks Presidents” rings true. Ultimately, sanity will be restored in the Granite State.

In the original Star Wars trilogy, Luke Skywalker is pressed into action as the last of the Jedi, tasked with defeating the Sith and lifting the veil of the dark side off the old Galactic Republic. In order to accomplish this, Luke must be trained to resist the temptations of the dark side. In order to destroy the Sith, Luke would have to tap into the emotions that lead to the dark side. Wow, did Joseph Heller get a writing credit for this script? Luke comes to learn that if he is to destroy the dark side, he will have to invent an option C. Option C was to appeal to Darth Vader’s light side, so that he could destroy the Emperor in a final act of self-sacrifice.

Meanwhile, in a galaxy not as far, far away, John Boehner was presented with an option C and committed his own act of self-sacrifice. The argument seemed simple enough. On one side, keep the employee payroll tax rate the same in 2012 as it was in 2011. On the other hand, lower paychecks by forty dollars a month. At least that’s the dark side’s way of framing the issue.

Remember in September when the payroll tax debate was part of a jobs plan, and not some political tool to be used as part of some populist (your crude verb here) contest? Perhaps this bait and switch was the intention all along. The White House certainly grinned when Eric Cantor declared that there were elements of the American Jobs Act that could be adopted.

Few places outside of this slice of bandwidth have discussed the concepts of the employer portion of the payroll tax, or adjusting the benefits funded by the payroll tax as critical components of the discussion. Instead, Washington is focused on seizing the opportunity to impact 160 million paychecks. Media outlets are doing their best to advance this narrative.

Adjusting the employee portion of the payroll tax does nothing to address the jobs issue. The tax is withheld from an already agreed upon salary. Now don’t mistake me for some kind of ingrate. I benefit from the current rate, and I’m not giving the money back. The extra funds are just about equal to a broadband connection (much to some readers’ chagrin, I’m sure). Multiply this effect by 160 million, and you have an economic benefit. But if the goal is to increase the frequency of payrolls, adjusting the magnitude of my check is not a means to that end.

With the clock ticking on the 2011 Congressional session, Speaker Boehner made a push to make this debate about jobs. He tied the tax rate vote to approval of the Keystone pipeline. While not the alpha and the omega to the jobs problem, the pipeline would address jobs and energy independence. The Speaker should have known that the pipeline was a non-starter. By attaching a rider to the issue, he allowed the Democratic party to position themselves as the party of tax cutters.

At the tenth hour there appeared to be two options. The first would be to extend the current rate with no other conditions. This would be viewed as a win for the White House. Alternatively, let the rates revert to 2010 rates. This would be a loss for all, but easily spun as “the Tea Party did it.”

At the eleventh hour, Speaker Boehner embraced option C. Option C was a two-month extension of the 2011 rate with a rider that compels the President to make a decision on the Keystone pipeline. This is pretty much where the Star Wars analogy ends. Option C just strengthens the dark side. I suppose if Obama is defeated in 2012, it could be said that the Speaker committed an act of self-sacrifice, because having a “go along to get along” Speaker would no longer be necessary.

What if the private sector ran like this? Could anyone imagine Subway’s CFO saying that Footlongs will be $7 if the CEO doesn’t make a statement on whether or not they will start selling pizzas? If so, the CEO would spend months meeting with food distributors hawking their cheeses and sauces. Then if the answer is no, would the CFO add another two months to the current price if the CEO explored cheeseburgers?

Wait a second. You don’t think the payroll tax issue could have been used by the fine folks in DC, do you? Would it be overly cynical to suggest that environmentalists will occupy the left side of K Street, while the energy sector occupies the right side? And in an election year to boot! You have to wonder if Pelosi, Reid, McConnell, and Obama take the rear car on the Red Line’s midnight train, just cooking up this stuff. If demanding that the government sets its tax policy on a yearly basis (at the least) is Tea Partyish, then I’ll order a shipload. Maybe it doesn’t need a label. Maybe it’s just common sense.

Troup’s Corner Non-Sequitur – The Kent Center: Due to my temporary condition, participating in the 2011 Goosebump Jump would have been a b-a-a-a-d idea. Because I was unable to participate in this worthy endeavor, I thought I would dedicate a few column inches to tell people about the valuable work this outfit does. Through various fundraising efforts, banquet hall rentals, and its store, the Kent Center provides employment opportunities and an improved quality of life for the developmentally disabled. With just a few days left in the year for those tax deductions, if you have a few spare dollars or items to donate, think of the Kent Center. If you have some piece-rate labor that your small business doesn’t have enough time to finish, think of the Kent Center. Or you could do it “just because.”