BlueRidgeForum

Scroll Down to see Brian Murphy’s Take on Maryland Illegal-Immigration - - Bob Ehrlich “has not studied the bill” - - Virginian Virgil Goode’s “The Real Immigration Solution” and Casa de Maryland’s 2006-2007 “Donors and Supporters”- - The House of Representatives RSC’s brief “Arizona Immigration Law: Picking up the Slack?”

As nearly everyone knows in Maryland, there are two Republican candidates contending for that party’s nomination for governor:  former governor Bob Ehrlich and Montgomery County business executive Brian Murphy.  A glance at their platforms here and here gives one at least a scent of where they promise to go in terms of governing. We didn’t see, however, the word “immigration” on either of their “issue” lists.

In these politically tumultuous times, concerned conservatives seek more than the usual Republican bromides. We are hopeful that candidates Ehrlich and Murphy will want to give us their specifics on all the key issues. 

This article considers how the candidates might come to grips with the estimated 250,000 illegal immigrants in Maryland.

Maryland As a Magnet State for Illegals

The state of Arizona has just enacted SB 1070 (”Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act”) which “declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona.  The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.”

“Attrition Through Enforcement” — Arizona’s 560,000 Illegals

Here and here are analyses of the new law itself by former Federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. Author Mark Krikorian expands on the policy behind the Arizona law and its possible effects.

Here is the Center for Immigration Studies “Fact Sheet” on the Arizona law.

E-Verify

Arizona, moreover, has had the E-Verify program in place since January 1, 2008.  According to scholar Krikorian, ” . . .an earlier Arizona law requir[ed] all employers to use E-Verify for new hires. Even the state’s chamber of commerce acknowledged that the E-Verify bill wasn’t as bad as their jeremiads during the debate would have suggested . . . .”

State Costs Arising from the Maryland Illegals

The Federation for American Immigration Reform declares “that Maryland’s illegal immigrant population costs the state’s taxpayers more than $1.4 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration. The annual fiscal burden amounts to about $790 per Maryland household headed by a native-born resident.”

A Menu of State and Local Actions

Visiting Heritage Fellow Matt Mayer listed possible state and local government steps to cope with illegal immigration.

Lawyer Mayer advised that “state and local government action should be aimed at ‘remov[ing] or reduc[ing] the economic incentives for unlawful presence.’”

A Few Questions for the Candidates

With the foregoing expert commentaries under our belts, all of us will be better prepared to ask some probing questions.

• Would candidate Ehrlich or Murphy, or both, propose as governor a similar attrition-through-enforcement law (paralleling Arizona’s SB 1070) for Maryland?

• Would candidate Ehrlich or Murphy, or both, propose as governor legislation requiring all Maryland employers to use E-Verify for new hires?

• What other steps would they propose as governor - - by legislation or administrative action - - effectively to cope with the problem of illegal immigrants in Maryland?

• Or does candidate Ehrlich or Murphy, or both, believe that concerns about so-called “undocumented immigrants” are much overblown?

What is important - - in these quite perilous times - - is that conservatives not shrink from asking hard questions at whatever gatherings they encounter these Republican aspirants to the governorship of Maryland.

Stay tuned for more possible Maryland gubernatorial candidate questions - - as well as questions about policies Virginia Republican governor Bob McDonnell should now be recommending to his Commonwealth.

* * * * *

Gubernatorial candidate Brian Murphy replies:

“Thanks for the questions.       

1)  Enforcing our laws and protecting our citizens will be a top priority of my administration. I am not opposed to steps as drastic as those taken in Arizona, but I am not sure they are warranted, yet, in Maryland. I look forward to working with Governor Brewer to understand what Arizona is facing, how they got there, and what policies we should enact in Maryland to avoid the same fate.

2)       I want to be careful that I fully understand the cost implications to employers (and therefore employees) of any system like e-Verify, but I fully support appropriate verification of all new hires in Maryland.  Maryland’s sanctuary status is immoral and unsustainable.”

* * * * * 

Bob Ehrlich: “Ehrlich spokesman Andy Barth said the former governor has not studied the Arizona bill, but opposes illegal immigration.”

 * * * * * 

Marylander Ann Corcoran at Refugee Resettlement Watch draws our attention to Virgil Goode’s “The Real Immigration Solution” posted here on FrontPage.com, and in her Potomac Tea Party Report the Washington County blogger points us to Casa de Maryland’s list of 2006-2007 “Donors & Supporters.”

* * * * *

Readers can also take in the House of Representatives Republican Study Committee’s (Updated) Policy Brief   - - “Arizona Immigration Law: Picking up the Slack?” 

 

 

UPDATE APRIL 30!  Yesterday the House of Representatives approved HR 2499, the so-called “Puerto Rico Democracy Act.” Here is the vote. By our quick count, of the 55 or so Republicans who initially were co-sponsors of the measure, around 31 came to a better mind when a broad spectrum of grass-roots and national conservatives gave them a more factual perspective. Of the initial 55 Republican co-sponsors, 26 voted against the measure - -  notably such conservatives as Todd Akin of Missouri, Trent Franks of Arizona, John Shadegg of Arizona, and Joe Wilson of South Carolina, and five — notably Ron Paul of Texas - - did not vote. Readers will note that while the House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio, and chairman of the Republican Study Committee Dr. Tom Price of Georgia, voted against the bill, Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia and Republican Conference chairman Mike Pence voted for it. By way of background, the current governor of Puerto Rico Luis Fortuño is a political favorite of Americans for Tax Reform chief Grover Norquist:  here is an interesting Newsweek post readers will enjoy.

Tomorrow the House of Representatives leadership proposes to bring to the floor a scheme known as the “Puerto Rico Democracy Act” (HR 2499) — front-loaded to advance statehood for the Island commonwealth of around 4,000,000 people which has been under the U.S. flag since 1898.  Quick links here and here give some basic facts about the Commonwealth as it presently known.

Readers can see the House Committee on Natural Resources Report here. Page seven shows Representative Paul Broun’s defeated committee amendment requiring

“that, if Puerto Rico were to become a State, its
official language would be English and all its official business would be conducted in English.”

A Stake in the Heart of Assimilation

English is the core cement of our American Commonwealth, enabling it to prosper and its heritage of individual enterprise and freedom to grow.  It is very clear that most citizens of Puerto Rico espouse, at best, a kind of bilingualism. According to the U.S. Census in 2000, about 72 per cent of the Island “spoke English less than ‘very well.’”

The conflict on the Island over English has been going on since 1898, as as Dr. Alicia Pousada of the University of Puerto Rico explained in 1999 - -

“In 1990, the College Board reported that Puerto Rican high school students attained a median score of 390 (out of 800) on the English test, evidence of significant problems in managing the language. Torruellas (1990) investigated three different private schools, supposed bastions of English teaching, and found that the level of mastery of English depended upon the social rank of the clientele of the particular private school. Only students in schools catering to the elite were actively striving to succeed in oral and written English. Students in middle class private schools had developed a sort of ‘counterculture’ of resistance toward the language and its teachers. Attitudes ranged from apathetic to openly hostile, and ridicule and mockery were used to censure students who attempted to excel.”

. . . . . . . . . .

“Other interesting findings–93% of the sample answered that they would never give up the Spanish language even if the island became a state and even if English were established as the sole official language. 91% considered themselves to be Puerto Ricans first and Americans next. 87% claimed to feel strong patriotic attachment to the Puerto Rican flag. 95% felt a strong attachment to the island . . . .”

In the meantime, the U.S. taxpayer has spent substantial treasure on the Puerto Rican education system.  According to the OMB Watch’s FedSpending.org calculations, the U.S. spent in FY 2007 about $16.4 billion in Puerto Rico on all programs, and apparently well over $1 billion on education from K through 16.

Our point is not to criticize the people of Puerto Rico for keeping a predominantly Spanish-speaking culture — they have done so in the context of their “Associated Free State” or Commonwealth. Rather it is to sound the alarm about this stealth Congressional attempt to make the United States a bi-lingual country via Puerto Rico statehood and about some leading Republicans (see co-sponsor list) treating “assimilation” as a process of no consequence.  Some of these Republican members just haven’t been paying attention or they wouldn’t have gone along with their co-sponsorships, but, we suspect, for some “assimilation” is not a goal to be taken seriously. It is merely a slogan for the GOP Establishment to jolly their conservative base.

There are many other flaws in the current Puerto Rico legislation which, if enacted, would likely ignore the preferences of a plurality of Puerto Ricans many of whom are now burdened with around 16 percent unemployment in an economy where there is one public worker for every twenty residents in a government with a fragile credit rating.

Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly has a number of cogent objections to the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, among them - -

“H.R. 2499 is stealth legislation designed to lead to the admission of Spanish-speaking Puerto Rico as the 51^st state, thereby making us a de facto bilingual nation, like Canada.  The U.S. Congress should not be forcing Puerto Ricans to vote on statehood, especially since the Puerto Rican people have rejected statehood three times since 1991!”

No Member of Congress who describes himself as a limited government, fiscal conservative should be casting a YEA vote for H.R. 2499, as Puerto Rican statehood would cause an immediate increase in federal expenditures, particularly for taxpayer-funded welfare state services.

Tell Congress not to override the wishes of Americans and Puerto Ricans who want to maintain the current commonwealth status of Puerto Rico by forcing a vote on rigged referenda.

Cautions Michael Barone - -

“I have been following Puerto Rico issues for many years, and I think the Times misses one important point against this bill. And that is that statehood has traditionally been granted only to territories whose residents show, in referendum or otherwise, overwhelming support for statehood. There is no such support in Puerto Rico. Status—whether Puerto Rico should become a state, should become independent or should retain in current terms or somewhat modified terms the current status which in English is called commonwealth but in Spanish the more descriptive estado liberado asociado—has been the single most important issue in Puerto Rican politics since the 1940s. The electorate is closely split (as the figures cited by the Times show) between statehood and commonwealth and between the pro-statehood New Progressive party and the pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic party. Only a small percentage of voters, most of them university students it seems, support independence. I think it would be very unwise to grant statehood to a territory where there is not a strong consensus for statehood, as there was in the Alaska and Hawaii territories in the 1950s.”

Heritage’s Michael Darling makes a number of similar points:

“The Puerto Rico Democracy Act has some serious flaws.  The votes seem to be set up in a way that favors statehood.  The two provisions that allow a plurality of Puerto Ricans to vote for statehood to be ratified and the allowing of non-resident Puerto Ricans to vote in the plebiscite is of deep concern to those who favor a fair vote and referendum on statehood.  A vote by members of Congress is not enough to indicate consent of the American people for Puerto Rican statehood.  If the Obamacare vote and secretive procedure is instructive, many Members of Congress are willing to defy the will of their own constituents.”

Of course, we expect government-enlarging, culture-corrosive legislation from the Other Team - - that is lamentably what they more and more frequently do.

What is puzzling is why some well-known Republicans (see Puerto Rico Democracy Act sponsors) endorse such unconservative moves.

To understand the back story, maybe it would be profitable for readers to visit Ramesh Ponnuru’s 1997 National Review article “Buying Statehood” - -

”THERE are more lobbyists working on this bill than I’ve ever seen on anything,’ says Eric Pelletier, a counsel to the powerful House Rules Committee. ‘I get more calls from lobbyists on this bill than on anything else — whether it’s FDA reform or tax issues.’ He’s talking about HR-856, the United States - Puerto Rico Political Status Act,” which has become the subject of a fierce, mostly behind-the-scenes debate.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Don Young (R., Alaska) and co-sponsored by 87 others, would have Puerto Ricans decide in a referendum whether they want the island to remain a commonwealth, become the 51st state, or declare independence. The vote could come as early as next year, the centenary of America’s conquest of Puerto Rico in the Spanish - American War.

Its supporters have a lot of clout. Speaker Newt Gingrich rarely even votes on bills, but he is the lead co-sponsor for HR-856. At least two dozen firms are lobbying for it, and both Haley Barbour and Harold Ickes are working for it. Not to mention former Sen. Bennett Johnston (D., La.) and former Rep. Robert Garcia (D., N.Y.).

Much of this politicking is tax-funded. The governor of Puerto Rico has a $250-million fund to play with, and the legislature, dominated by the pro-statehood New Progressive Party (PNP), has given each department of the government money with which to lobby. How many of the departments push statehood? None of them, technically; all of them, practically.”

The new pro-statehood bill seems to evoke some of the same concerns the old one did.  But at least then a senior Republican - -

“House Rules Committee chairman Gerry Solomon (R., N.Y.) scuttled it in the last Congress by insisting on an official-English amendment which supporters regarded as unacceptable. That got Solomon labeled ‘a Nazi’ on the floor of the Puerto Rican House of Representatives by its Majority Leader.”

Full disclosure:  the author has worked as a Washington, D.C. aide to a statehood-oriented governor, Luis Ferre, and later as chief of staff to a Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, Jaime Benitez, a major developer of Commonwealth thinking.

By many accounts, New Jersey Republican governor Chris Christie is doing an heroic job in starting to turn around an out-of-control government in a very heavily Democratic polity.

There are lessons for the Maryland GOP in all of this. But first, what do some wise men say about the new Republican governor - -

George Will . . .

Venerable commentator George Will declares this morning in his “Bringing Thunder-ous change to New Jersey” - -

“There are 700,000 more Democrats than Republicans in New Jersey, but in November Christie flattened the Democratic incumbent, Jon Corzine. Christie is built like a burly baseball catcher, and since his inauguration just 13 weeks ago, he has earned the name of the local minor-league team — the Trenton Thunder.”

No GOP excuses here about the limitations of campaigning and governing in a traditionally Democratic state!

Long-time conservative Will reports that former prosecutor Christie faced right up to the runaway costs of public employees - -

“Government employees’ health benefits are, he says, ‘41 percent more expensive’ than those of the average Fortune 500 company. Without changes in current law, ’spending will have increased 322 percent in 20 years — over 16 percent a year.’ There is, he says, a connection between the state’s being No. 1 in total tax burden and being No. 1 in the proportion of college students who, after graduating, leave the state.”

. . . . . . . . . .

“Saying ’subtlety is not going to win this fight,’ Christie notes that New Jersey’s police officers, the nation’s highest paid, can retire after 25 years at 65 percent of their highest salary. In the state that has the nation’s fourth-highest percentage (66) of public employees who are unionized, he has joined the struggle that will dominate the nation’s domestic policymaking in this decade — to break the ruinous collaboration between elected officials and unionized state and local workers whose affections the officials purchase with taxpayers’ money.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)

 John Fund . . .

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund called “Gov. Christie - the Non-Crist” - -

“Overtaxed New Jersey voters sent a clear message in yesterday’s voting on 479 public school budgets: Enough is enough. A stunning 54% of the budgets went down to defeat, the most since the recession year of 1976. The results have clear implications for a bitter power struggle between New Jersey GOP Governor Chris Christie and the state’s powerful 200,000-member New Jersey Education Association.”

. . . . . . . . . .

“But local school districts have balked at any changes, even though New Jersey has the fourth-highest teacher salaries in the nation. More than 80% of school budgets put before voters instead demanded property tax increases on homeowners at a time when many families are financially strapped. Few of the budgets reflected any of the shared sacrifice the governor asked for.”

Manhattan Institute’s Josh Barro . . .

Manhattan Institute senior fellow Josh Barro last March 30 explained in a Real Clear Politics post how “Christie Moves Boldly to Fix Jersey’s Budget” - -

“Here’s some good news for New Jersey residents, who pay more in state and local taxes than people anywhere else in the United States: earlier this month, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie released a budget proposal that contains no tax increases. He would even sunset, on schedule, a one-year ‘temporary’ increase in the state’s income tax.

This is a refreshing shift for the Garden State, where thirty years of governance by Republicans and Democrats has pushed state and local taxes ever higher, from the 10th-most taxed state in 1980 to #1 today, according to the Tax Foundation. And it means Christie has made an impressively austere proposal, given that New Jersey’s $10.7 billion budget gap is one of the country’s largest, on a percentage basis.

The best thing about Christie’s approach is its comprehensiveness. He’s not just saying ‘cut spending’ — though of course, he is saying that, in all areas of the state’s budget. He also recognizes that state and local spending are interrelated issues, so he’s proposed a property tax cap to make sure that state spending cuts don’t just drive up local property taxes. And he’s proposing institutional reforms that will enable localities to cope with aid cuts by reducing spending.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)

Analyst Barro contrasted the situation in Maryland in a National Review on Line post of the same day - -

“In Maryland, they are borrowing to cover current obligations. And in doing so, they are piling one problem on top of another, reducing the creditworthiness of their state, and creating a crisis that will be larger in the future. Hey, we’ve done that already, too. Today we live with the choking debt service that this failed policy has wrought.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)

Faithful readers will recall Josh Barro’s (and Stuart Buck’s) eye-opening report “UNDERFUNDED TEACHER PENSION PLANS: It’s Worse Than You Think” which we drew on in our April 15 post Tea Partiers: Be Wary of “Delayed Action” Tax Bombs.

Governor Christie laid out some simple but specific principles in his inaugural address last January 19 - -

“Together, we can build a stronger economy. Yes, we will have to cut some programs and transform others to get our budget in balance. Yes, we will have to curb municipal spending where there has been too little control. Yes, we will have to restrain State government. But we can do these things—and once again be a home for growth.

Together, we can build better schools that train our students for a brighter future. Yes, we will have to make better use of the resources showered on education. Yes, we will have to hold schools accountable and give people the choice to pursue alternatives to schools that fail our children. Yes, we will have to reward excellence, and not tolerate failure. But we can do these things—and once again become a home for growth.

Together, we can cut red tape and make it easier for the entrepreneur to create new jobs and the business owner to keep them. With Lt. Governor Guadagno [link added] in the lead, we must revisit the complex web of rules woven by various special interests over many years. But that is a long overdue visit if we are once again going to be the home for growth.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)

Perhaps Maryland already has a GOP gubernatorial candidate with Christie’s vision and grit. Those voters who do not think so, however, may keep on looking. They have until July 6 to complete their search for another candidate.

One thing we can likely agree on is that the Christie model — to date — is both a good benchmark to judge Republican gubernatorial aspirants in Maryland, and as a point of comparison for nearby Republican governors.

UPDATE APRIL 22! Nicole Gelinas reveals today in the New York Post “O’s hollow promises: His ‘reforms’ won’t fix finance.”  Readers should eyeball the entire post.

Last January 13, we wrote  - -

Governor-elect Bob McDonnell’s political capital is now substantial. Consequently we suggest that he very publicly urge the Commonwealth’s two senators to join him in a bi-partisan effort to send Obamacare back to the drawing board . . . .

Today Governor McDonnell’s political capital may be somewhat eroded, but he still is in a strong position lead a band of influential citizens very publicly to urge the Commonwealth’s two senators to stand fast against the Obama-Dodd measure known as the ‘‘Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010’’.

Across the Potomac in Maryland there are (at least) two GOP primary candidates for governor: former governor Bob Ehrlich and Montgomery County business leader Brian Murphy.  Voters in the Old Line State need to hear from both candidates on Obama-Dodd, as we struggle against the imposition of yet another layer of statism leading to fewer real jobs.

Losing Jobs Through Crony Capitalism

“While the U.S. economy undoubtedly is righting itself from the most severe recession since the 1930s, it is doing so at a glacial pace. Clearly, the burden of public policies that reduce the free use of personal property and retard the unsubsidized risk taking of entrepreneurs are lengthening the recovery process. The real cost of this sluggishness are the millions of unemployed Americans who continue to wait for the return of economic spring and the millions more who hope for a better economic times. The real source of this human cost – the real driver of persistent economic want – is the erosion of our economic freedom caused by these government policies.” Bill Beach - -quoted in today’s Heritage Foundation post “The Crony Capitalist Threat to Our Economic Freedom” (Underscoring Forum’s.)

 John Berlau: “Center-Right Concerns in ‘Financial Reform’ Bill”

John Berlau, chief of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs, has been tracking the Dodd scheme from its earliest iterations. 

Here follows prize-winning journalist Berlau’s take on how the Dodd bill raises grave concerns across the center-right spectrum - -

• “Main Street non-financial businesses would be hit with taxation, regulation,and possible nationalization by the Federal Reserve.

The Obama administration puts much stock in the fact that the $50 billion resolution (bailout) fund comes not from general taxpayer funds but fees on ‘financial institutions.’ But putting aside the fact that even taxes on big banks would be passed on to depositors and borrowers, the bill’s definition of financial institution subject to the fee and regulation by the Federal Reserve goes far beyond a bank or stockbroker. 

• Life, home and auto insurers — such as Geico, Progressive, and State Farm — would be subject to this bailout fund fee even though they already pay into state funds for insolvent insurance companies, and the fee would then be passed on to their policy holders. And the Federal Reserve would have the power to define a ‘nonbank financial company.’ The National Association of Manufacturers and others have warned that ‘manufacturers that engage in routine financial activities as a small part of their main business, e.g., a global manufacturer that manages a foreign exchange trading operation, an equipment manufacturer that provides financing for customers, are concerned that they could be pulled into the systemic risk regulatory regime.’

And because they are a part of this regime, they could be seized — or nationalized — by the Fed under the bill if bureaucrats determine they pose a ’systemic financial risk.’ Recall how the supporters of this bill say in its favor that it would give to the government the same authority to seize financial firms as the FDIC has with banks, and remember the expanded definition of ‘financial institution.’ I don’t know how often this authority would be used, but I don’t really want to find out.”

• Permanent bailout fund would tax Main Street businesses to pay for failing Wall Street banks.

Although they maintain there is no bailout, Dodd and the administration still claim they need $50 billion to ‘resolve’ failing firms. What do they need all the billions for if the money is not going to the firm? Unless perhaps they want to siphon off the money to their own pet causes such as ACORN, maybe.

As had been said, having this pre-funded bailout mechanism is just an advertisement to engage in risky behavior because the government is ready and willing to bail you out.

And going to the last point on non-financial financial businesses.

• Proxy access remains and could further empower progressive interest groups — from unions to animal rights — when combined with other provisions.

The bill still has the ‘proxy access’ provisions that would empower union pension funds and other progressives by forcing companies to fund their Alinsky-style campaigns for a company’s board of directors. Combined with other requirements — like a mandated majority instead of plurality standard for voting for directors — this could really enable . . . trouble for ordinary shareholders and encourage corporate directors to cut deals . . . on things like card check, cap-and-trade, and removing conservative media personalities. Recall that some of the PETA resolutions got 3 percent of the vote. This is a very small minority, but in a director election with several candidates — all subsidized due to proxy access — a requirement for a majority vote would give them the same kind of status [that] splinter groups have in a European parliamentary election.”

• What’s not in the bill: any reform of Fannie and Freddie

“The bill ignores . . . two of the primary causes of the crisis: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They’re bigger than ever, and the Obama administration quietly lifted the $200 billion cap on government backing on Christmas Eve — the ‘Christmas bailout’ — so now taxpayers have unlimited liability for them.

Last week’s Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission hearing also revealed that Fannie and Freddie bought sub primes much earlier than thought and misclassified many of them as ‘prime.’ They held 40 percent of sub prime mortgages in 2003 and 2004, giving them a central role in the bubble.

Yet they also gave money and support to Frank and Dodd, so for some reason this bill — supposedly so urgently needed to prevent the next crisis — totally leaves them alone. I think it’s perfectly reasonable for Republicans and others to say — ‘No ‘reform’ without reform of Fannie and Freddie,’” concludes analyst Berlau. (Underscoring Forum’s throughout.)

A Look at the Darker Side

Seasoned investigator Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media (AIM) revealed yesterday that “Obama’s Wall Street Bill Lets Crooks Escape” - -

“The indictment of Goldman Sachs is as deceptive as the ‘financial reform’ bill that President Obama and the liberals are pushing on Capitol Hill, says Zubi Diamond, author of the blockbuster book, Wizards of Wall Street. Diamond is warning legislators not to fall for the Obama Administration’s claim that the legislation somehow punishes Wall Street for bad financial practices. 

Diamond, who has emerged as a major critic of the unregulated hedge fund industry, says he was not surprised that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) named hedge-fund short-seller John Paulson as a key player in the Goldman Sachs scheme to defraud investors but failed to indict him.

Diamond says that Paulson is being let off the hook because he is a member of the most powerful special interest group working the corridors of power in Washington, D.C.–the Managed Funds Association (MFA). He says the major media are afraid of taking on the MFA, which calls itself ‘the voice of the global alternative investment industry,’ because of its tremendous financial clout.”

Readers will find Accuracy in Media (AIM)’s Kincaid’s entire post disturbing, as well as the provocative AIM post by Zubi Diamond, entitled “The Dodd ‘Financial Reform’ Bill Lets Soros Off the Hook.” 

Author Diamond declares - -

“The bad Wall Street is the hedge fund short sellers. They destroy companies, take away liquidity, destroy investor capital and slow down the economy.

The bad Wall Street, in the form of the hedge fund short sellers, engineered the economic collapse, looted every portfolio that had exposure to the stock market, and blamed George Bush and the Republicans, enabling Barack Obama and his backers, including Soros, to take power.

The hedge fund short sellers, who are members of the Managed Funds Association, are running our government today. They are the ones who authored the Dodd bill. The Dodd bill is punishing the victims of the Hedge Fund short sellers. The Dodd bill is punishing the good Wall Street.

Unless the truth about the role of the MFA in our government policies and regulations is revealed, and some courageous lawmakers free our economic system from their grip, the United States is in for a long time of hurt and possible bankruptcy.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)

It is all very well for GOP governors and gubernatorial aspirants to appoint dirigiste commissions, and promise to cut sales-tax increases. The president’s efforts to “transform” America is not a struggle on another planet - - far from Richmond and Annapolis - - the responsibility for which falls solely on national GOP politicians some of whom may be losing their way.

As NRO’s Daniel Foster reports this afternoon - -

“Some have speculated that the Senate’s renewed taste for bipartisan talks is driven by a dilemma. On the one hand, both sides want to show voters they are ‘tough on Wall Street.’ On the other, both are competing for the lucrative political beneficence of the financial sector, which gave more heavily to Democrats in 2008, but which is seen as now being up for grabs.”

The threats to free-enterprise from the Obama-Dodd initiative are very high. From Tea-Partiers to statewide GOP politicians, we need to be fighting the Obama “transformations.” We cannot just walk away and leave the whole burden of stopping these Obama measures to the 30 or so reliably conservative GOP senators.

Smart Growth is an ideology that restricts land-use thereby making homes less affordable, and tries to diminish our mobility by discouraging automobile use.  It is a kind of collectivization with a seemingly kinder American face. Smart growth did not start with the Obama administration, but this administration has ardently embraced the approach and given it a new lease on life. Maryland lawmakers remain right in step.

As Frederick, Maryland-based transportation expert Peter Samuel explains - -

“Smart growth is the slogan driving most current central planning of land use and transportation in and around our cities. Like all central planning it claims for bureaucrats and elected officials a wisdom far superior to that of individuals interacting with one another in voluntary transactions.

But the trouble is, planning is never well-informed and generates unintended consequences. Moreover it is guided by fads and special interests.

The ’sprawl’ that is so despised by Smart Growth advocates was a product of earlier planners’ single-minded focus on adequate off-street parking that prohibited higher densities by regulation. Maximum floor/space ratios and minimum car-parking places per thousand square feet forced developers to build the very Tysons Corner VA style of development that was the embodiment of an earlier planning ‘fad’ dictating never having to search nor pay for parking.

Smart Growth reflects a strong aesthetic distaste among planners and professional elites for two aspects of American life - travel by automobile and life in single-family houses. It wants to engineer a far greater use of public transit, especially rail transit and walking and biking, and to have a much higher proportion of the population in town houses, and apartments. The planners think a more ‘urban’ lifestyle is so obviously superior that people will come to like it and want it. Meanwhile they use their planning powers to limit the land available for single-family houses, and they obstruct automobile use by resisting building roads large enough to accommodate automobile traffic, while subsidizing supposed ‘alternative’ modes.

The inevitable result of the Smart Growth ideology is a planned scarcity of land zoned for single-family housing and a planned scarcity of road space, all of which means higher costs of family living and diminished mobility.”

“Smart, Green, and Growing - Maryland Sustainable Growth Commission”

The Maryland General Assembly just approved this policy panel which, according to the “MDP [Maryland Department of Planning] advises that the Maryland Sustainable Growth Commission will provide the State with a broad representation of stakeholders who can continue to promote a smart and sustainable growth agenda,” the Fiscal and Policy Note explains.

Readers will also note that “Commission members who represent a region of the State must have knowledge of smart growth and planning issues [no dissenters allowed?].”

While 20 out of the 37 House of Delegates Republicans voted against this anti-consumer and anti-private-property panel, only two out of 14 Republican state senators voted against it:  Alex Mooney and Richard Colburn. Out of 51 nominal Republicans in the Maryland General Assembly, only 22 or 43 per cent voted “no.” The House of Delegates Republicans have sharpened up on many critical issues, but too many Maryland Senate Republicans remain content-light - - to put the matter charitably.

In the Senate Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee, no Republican voted against the Commission.

The Heritage Foundation, and Randal O’Toole’s Anti-Planner  have written extensively on the goals and consequences of Smart Growth: here, here, and here for example, and shockingly - -

Ron Utt: “Obama Administration’s Plan to Coerce People out of Their Cars”

“Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood remarked in May [2009] that his livability initiative ‘is a way to coerce people out of their cars.’ When asked if this was government intrusion into people’s lives, LaHood responded that ‘about everything we do around here is government intrusion in people’s lives,’ a sentiment that would have certainly surprised the authors of the United States Constitution, a document whose major purpose was to restrain government.

LaHood’s endorsement of government coercion comes as no surprise to those who have been tracking the Obama Administration’s incremental endorsements of the environmentalists’ smart growth strategies to slow growth, crowd development, and deter automobile use. And with LaHood’s most recent presentation, the Administration has formally embarked on an unprecedented and costly exercise in social engineering to alter the way Americans live and travel.”

Here is Randal O’Toole’s October 1, 2009 Cato analysis “How Urban Planners Caused the Housing Bubble.” 

Many in the Maryland Senate GOP apparently have trouble getting their arms around personal-freedom and smaller-government concerns. In 2008, only five Maryland Republican state senators voted against the very dangerous “cultural diversity” legislation touching most Maryland universities and colleges.

But, Party stalwarts might say, aren’t these GOP state senators changing in response to the Old Line State’s fiscal excesses? They surely now “get it” on spending–don’t they?  Well, only if “get it” means just eight GOP senators out of 14 voting “no” on the state’s operating budget, and just four GOP senators voting “no” on the egregiously porcine capital budget. On the key tax and spending panel, here are the votes of GOP senators on the operating budget and here are their votes on the capital budget. No GOP senator voted “no” in the Budget and Taxation Committee on either budget bill. 

Our Maryland Republican state senators can do far better. 

Stay tuned for details on the budget bills.

On this Tax Day, Tea Partiers might also want to begin examining state “delayed action tax bombs” - -  reckless, already-enacted state legislation that may soon explode our pocketbooks.

For example, this week the Manhattan Institute analyzed the liabilities of the fifty-nine pension funds that cover most public school teachers in America. The eye-opening report,  “UNDERFUNDED TEACHER PENSION PLANS: It’s Worse Than You Think,”explains that - - -

“Although it is generally acknowledged that education is the foundation of every modern society’s future prosperity, schools unfortunately will have to compete with retirees for scarce dollars. This competition is uneven, because retirees have a legal claim on promised pension benefits that supersedes schools’ budgetary needs. Consequently, Americans can look forward to higher taxes and cuts in services, resulting in fewer teachers, bigger classes, and facilities that are allowed to deteriorate. In several states, these developments have already arrived.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)

Josh Barro and Stuart Buck, the report’s authors, reveal that - -

“The crux of the problem is the gap between assets and liabilities affecting the fifty-nine pension funds that cover most public school teachers in America. Some of these are general state-employee pension funds, while others cover only teachers.”

* * * * *

“The general picture is not a good one. According to the fifty-nine funds’own financial statements:

• Total unfunded liabilities to teachers—i.e., the gap between existing plan assets and the present value of benefits accrued by plan participants —are $332 billion.
  

According to our more conservative calculations:

These plans’ unfunded liabilities total about $933 billion.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)

Analyst Barro gave a plain-words account of the consequences in yesterday’s Forbes - -

“So, what are the implications for school boards and state lawmakers? First, they should take a step back and realize how huge this problem is. The unfunded teacher liability of $933 billion represents about 38% more debt on top of all outstanding state and local bonds.

And while the problem in teacher plans puts unique pressure on schools, similar problems exist in all kinds of public pensions. Other reports have put the total public pension funding gap at $2 trillion or more, approximately doubling state indebtedness. So, state legislators are in a much deeper fiscal hole than they realize.”(Underscoring Forum’s.)

Adds Stuart Buck on his blog - -

 “The meat of what we did is this: Most state plans assume that their current investments will get about an 8% rate of return in perpetuity. So that means that they set aside less money now to cover the pensions that will be paid in 2015, 2020, 2025, etc. But the 8% assumption is wrong, we argue, for two reasons: First, recent history shows that it may be too optimistic. Second, investments that have an 8% expected rate of return necessarily carry some risk — risk that the plan will actually fall short in a given year or even decade. And when a plan falls short, the burden falls to the taxpayer to make up the difference.

So we reanalyzed the teacher pension plans using the same interest rate that private plans are allowed to use — about 6%, based on corporate bond rates. When we do that, it turns out that pension plans are way more underfunded than they are publicly admitting.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)

In February, the Pew Center on the States released a survey (The Trillion Dollar Gap) on overall state pension liabilities, not on just teachers’ plans.  The Pew findings for Maryland and Virginia are here and here.

State Liabilities Expanded - - Local Benefits Already Squeezing Taxpayers

In 2006 in Maryland, as we have recently written - -

No member of either chamber of the Maryland General Assembly voted against the State Employees’ and Teachers’ Retirement Enhancement Benefit Act of 2006 which increased state pension liabilities by $1.9 billion.- - HB 1737.

This year in one of Virginia’s mega-counties, premier Old Dominion budget watchdog Arthur Purves reported “School board urges higher taxes to pay for pensions” - -

“FCTA [Fairfax County Taxpayers Alliance] board members attended today’s Fairfax County Public Schools budget forum, held at Marshall High School.

The FCTA asked why the school board is urging the supervisors to raise taxes by $81.9M although only $9M is needed to pay for next year’s expected increase in student enrollment.

The school superintendent acknowledged that the reason is the increased cost in employee benefits, especially pensions.  According to the schools’ proposed FY2011 budget, employee benefits costs are increasing by  $98M, of which $71M is for pensions and another $15M is for retiree medical benefits.

The school board has been less than straightforward with the community about this.  During her opening remarks at the forum, school board chairman Kathy Smith talked about cuts to band and sports, and bigger class sizes, but never acknowledged that the cuts were being made to pay for increased benefits costs.  School board members urged the audience to ask the supervisors to raise taxes.  If taxes are not raised, then the board will cut band and sports and increase class size to make the pension payments.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)

Taxpayer advocate Purves had earlier warned that “America’s biggest industry [is] state and local government.”

For a handy reference to our earlier posts on pension and related concerns, readers can turn to - -

• Maryland Pension Crisis: Where Do GOP Politicians Stand?

• Local Pols’ Pensions May Open A Pandora’s Box of Questions

• Will public-employee costs ‘crush’ us with property taxes?

Tea Partiers - - whose time and resources are both valuable but not infinite - - need to get their arms around big abuses in runaway state budgets - - and in the mega-counties, which are counties with budgets approaching those of small states. Even if more fiscally conservative candidates are elected to state legislatures and the Congress in November, the grass roots will have to work right along with them — after the election - - to help clean up the big-government mess. Such a Tea Partier-incumbent partnership will indeed be a new paradigm. Even in the best case next November, the hard work of fiscal reform will just be getting underway.

As we all struggle with how best to repeal radical Obamacare, or speculate on who the president might send to the Senate as his next Supreme Court nominee, or wonder if our state-level GOP establishments will ever “get it” — there is also a wider world we conservatives have to face.

This wider world requires the care of reliable and often long-time allies, and the maintenance a well-run and effective “common defense,” to use the precise phrase from the preamble to the Constitution of the United States.

But, unfortunately, in this wider world, strengthening our national security — as the phrase is traditionally understood — is not the objective of this administration.

“It’s a campaign to cut America down to size.”

Distinguished military historian and classicist Victor Davis Hanson asked Saturday on National Review on Line (NRO)  “Is There a Rhyme or Reason to U.S. Foreign Policy?”

Replied counter-terrorism and Iran expert Michael Ledeen yesterday, Obama’s approach to foreign policy is “Not Inadvertent at All“ - -

“Obama sure rhymes, even if we find it unreasonable. He is not an admirer of America. He believes that America’s past behavior is the root cause of the world’s problems, and he wants to bring America under control by making it just another European country: impotent in world affairs (except for spreading the wealth) and stripped of its traditional exceptionalism at home.”

. . . . .

“It’s worse than you thought, Victor. It’s not confusion at all. It’s a campaign to cut America down to size.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)

* * * * *

General David Petraeus
“O put not your trust in princes. . .” – Psalm 146

Diana West declared last March 15 in her “Is Petraeus an Islamic Tool? Part 2″ - -

“Last June, I noted Gen. David Petraeus’s MoveOn.org-like take on Guantanamo Bay — close it because it causes us problems and violates (unspecified) Geneva Conventions — and his willingness to attribute to the Palestinian war on Israel “justifications” for the existence of Hezbollah.”

. . . . .

“The dhimmi-hostage message [now] carried by Gen.Petraeus being that Israel building 1,600 apartments in Jerusalem places US troops’ lives in danger in the wider region (Iraq and Afghanistan). Such appeasement, this time at the expense of the Israelis, will only embolden all of our jihadist enemies to make more and more outrageous demands.”

She followed up on March 18 - - -

“There is an intensifying debate over how exactly Gen. David Petraeus regards Israel. (I have written about it here, here  and here.) On the one hand are the general’s words — first, as related in a blog posted at Foreign Policy, and, later, in the general’s own written statement recently submitted to the US Senate Armed Services Committee. On the other hand are his supporters, who don’t believe his words, either as reported in Foreign Policy (which they don’t believe, either) or even as presented to the Senate.”

On March 31, Dick Morris revealed “Obama’s Goal: Regime Change (in Israel)” - -

“Why is President Obama so obviously humiliating Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu? Why is Secretary of State Clinton negating everything she said when she represented New York state and piling on the Jewish state?

They want Benjamin Netanyahu out. Specifically, they want him to feel such pressure that he dumps his right-wing coalition partners and forms a new government with the center-left party Kadima headed by former Prime Minister Tzipi Livni. Livni, who thinks nothing of trading land for peace, no matter how flawed the peace might be, will then hold Netanyahu’s government hostage and force it to bend to the will of Washington and sign a deal with the Palestinians that cedes them land in return for a handful of vague vapors and promises none of which will be kept.”

Commentator Morris concluded - -

“Gen. David Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee that ‘Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples (in the region)…. Enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the area of responsibility.’ In other words, blame Israel.

And ultimately, the administration agenda may be to explain its withdrawal of support for Israel by blaming its stubborn insistence on housing construction. One can well see the Obama administration learning to live with an Iranian nuclear weapon while blaming Israel for fomenting Iranian hostility by building housing.

All the while, through American aid to Gaza, the Obama administration is helping Hamas to solidify its position in Gaza and lengthen its lease on political power — the very power it is using to torpedo the peace process.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)

On April 8, Andrew McCarthy in his “Petraeus’s Israel Problem: His policy is to turn our back on a staunch ally” weighed in on - -

“… a surpassingly foolish statement in which Gen. David Petraeus cast Israel as the source of all America’s woes in the Middle East. To his great discredit, the general — in a Clintonesque fashion which, as we shall see, is probably not a coincidence — simultaneously denied making the statement, grudgingly admitted making it while minimizing its significance, and accused West and others of misrepresenting his views. In fact, the general’s critics quoted his words at length, placed them in unmistakable context, and drew from them the same commonsense conclusion drawn by Israel’s gleeful critics — for whom Petraeus is the hero of the moment.”

. . . . .

“General Petraeus is a uniquely gifted warrior and intellect. He is also a major enthusiast of the Islamic Democracy Project. As Mark Bowden’s revealing profile in Vanity Fair recounts, the general’s embrace of nation-building put him at odds with the Bush administration, which initially was resistant to the concept of a long-term civil-society project in Iraq. And that’s what Petraeus’s counter-insurgency theory is: a civil-society strategy for an America that no longer believes we have to defeat our enemies first, that pretends most of our enemies are actually our friends, and that thinks we not only owe the world another Marshall Plan but one that starts in 1944 instead of 1947.”

. . . . . . 

“In his approach, Islam is not a daunting challenge to us but a valuable asset.”

Readers are strongly encouraged to walk through all of former Federal prosecutor McCarthy’s article to get a plain-words picture of the policy conflicts underlying the Petraeus controversy. This is no inside-the-beltway rumble.  According to the Petraeus Senate Armed Services panel testimony, “there are currently over 220,000 Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen serving in the” U.S. Central Command Area of Responsibility. “It stretches across more than 4.6 million square miles and 20 countries in the Middle East and South and Central Asia. . . .”

More later on this . .  and in the interim stay tuned to Diana West’s blog and Andrew McCarthy on The Corner!

* * * * *

Frank Gaffney Decries Denuclearization

Premier defense watchdog  Frank Gaffney paints a disheartening picture in his “Obama, unilateral Denuclearizer-in-Chief” of the president’s degrading our nuclear deterrent.

There will always be innocents among our fellow citizens (as well as factions who simply want to justify minimalist defense spending) who believe or who declare that a warm, welcoming world of enlightened nations will treat the U.S. with new respect and deference when it becomes clear that our nuclear deterrent is fading away.

Former Reagan aide Gaffney explains - -

. . . [I]t appears to have taken the policy-equivalent of sustained waterboarding to bring the Pentagon leadership around to support much of Mr. Obama’s anti-nuclear agenda. The New York Times reported that it required 150 interagency meetings, including 30 by the National Security Council, to produce the new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and START follow-on treaty. Give the guys on the E-Ring credit for holding out as long as they did. But in the end, the Defense Department was reduced to agreeing to the following extraordinary decisions:

    * The United States will not design, produce or test any new nuclear weapons.  This condemns the nation to relying for the indefinite future (Mr. Obama says for more than his lifetime, and he’s a fairly young man) on an arsenal comprised of bombs and warheads that are, on average, already some 30 years old. There is no getting around it: They are obsolescing, increasingly unsupportable and, in any event, primarily designed to destroy super-hardened Soviet silos, not to perform the deterrent missions of today.

    * The United States will not test any of its old weapons, either - even when changes to their components have to be made to try to maintain their viability.  These are among the most complex pieces of equipment every manufactured.  In the absence of realistic underground nuclear testing, it is a leap of faith to believe that new components and materials can be introduced to replace old ones (including, in some cases, vacuum tubes!) without affecting the weapon’s performance and perhaps its safety.

* That safety, and indeed, the reliability and credibility of the nuclear deterrent will, accordingly, rely ever more critically on a dwindling number of highly skilled scientists, engineers and technicians in the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. It is unlikely they will be terribly motivated - or be, at least over time, the best and the brightest the country has to offer.  After all, pursuant to the NPR, the government will not only be hamstringing their work (see the above), but is determined to ‘devalue’ the role of such weapons.” (Underscoring Forum’s throughout.)

What to do? Anyone who has talked to dedicated Tea Partiers knows that defending America is a top concern.  Readers are also invited to visit the The Sam Adams Alliance report “The Early Adopters” (scroll to p. 19) to get their take on those priorities — like defense — important to Tea Partiers. Readers should continue to raise with U. S. Representatives and Senators their concerns about the role president Barack Obama seems to be seeking for the United States internationally; their concerns about how this administration is treating long-time allies like Israel, to say nothing of the United Kingdom and Poland and the Czech Republic and Honduras to name a few; their concerns about the fading away of the U.S. nuclear deterrent; and, right at home, the gross neglect of the security of our border with Mexico. 

Ann Corcoran is a friend and a serious blogger writing in nearby Washington County, Maryland.  She publishes both Refugee Resettlement Watch and The Potomac Tea Party Report.

Ann has just posted her very useful investigation into the use of Alinksy tactics - -coupled with a “stealth jihad” approach - - to attack Representative Michele Bachmann who is one of the “New Breed” of gifted conservatives in the House of Representatives.

Investigator Corcoran opens her post by declaring - -

“Luke Tripp and Mahmoud Mohamed are community agitators.  What is happening in St. Cloud, MN now and for the last few years is a perfect example of Saul Alinsky’s (Rules for Radicals) strategy being put into motion to bring about ‘change’ through creating crisis in communities.  It is no coincidence that one of the most outspoken conservative critics of the king of community organizers (Barack Obama) happens to be the Representative for this Congressional district which includes St. Cloud — Michele Bachmann. Tripp is a race baiter and he is using the recent Somali unrest to get Michele Bachmann.”

But read the whole story here.

Corcoran’s moral for Maryland and Virginia conservatives? 

She advises:  Let’s spotlight those who use Alinsky tactics to attack their opponents and create community chaos to try to achieve Hard Left wins. Find out the relationships of Hard Left advocates to the Obama machine.  Learn the political and policy backgrounds of these advocates. 

“Publish what you find! Go on the offensive!   And, whatever you do, do not cower when they start hurling racist epithets—this is not about you, this is about the future of America!“ - - Corcoran counsels.

UPDATE April 14!  Underfunded Teacher Pension Plans: It’s Worse Than You Think “Teacher pension funding gaps are three times greater than what states report, states a new Manhattan Institute/Foundation for Educational Choice study released yesterday. Authors Josh Barro and Stuart Buck reveal the major disparity between what states report and the true value of unfunded liabilities for teacher pensions. These liabilities for all 50 states now total almost $1 trillion - an unfunded burden that states must pay over time at taxpayer expense.”

“BREAKING THE BANK in Maryland has been a bipartisan, multilateral pursuit for years, backed by both parties at the state and local levels alike. When state lawmakers enacted a big increase in teachers’ pensions four years ago — an increase that freighted Annapolis with huge obligations to cover benefits negotiated by local school systems — the move was pushed by Democrats, signed by a Republican governor, cheered by localities and hailed by then-Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, now the national GOP party chairman.”
- - Washington Post editorial.

Maryland Republican politicians are the putative voices for a low-tax, light-regulation, free-market, smaller-government “opportunity society” in the Old Line State.  They haven’t done so well this decade in crafting, then trying to advance specific proposals to reach these goals. That is no news to Annapolis watchers.  Here is what is astounding. On the one hand, many national Republican voices readily admit since losing the Congress in 2006 that the Party had left its basic principles, but they resolved to do much better and, in fact, have been doing so this year, notably in the House of Representatives. We have, however, yet to hear elected Maryland Republicans take any responsibility for their 2006 gubernatorial and General Assembly losses. That posture doesn’t engender confidence among conservative voters across the board — whether Reagan Republicans, Reagan Democrats, or Independents - - in the Maryland GOP’s future performance.

For example, no member of either chamber of the Maryland General Assembly voted against the State Employees’ and Teachers’ Retirement Enhancement Benefit Act of 2006 which increased state pension liabilities by $1.9 billion.- - HB 1737.

George Will declared today that “Only a brave few acknowledge an entitlement crisis” - -

“A puzzle from Philosophy 101: If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? A puzzle from the prairie: If an earthquake occurs in Illinois and no one notices, is it really a seismic event?

Gov. Pat Quinn called it a ‘political earthquake’ when the state’s legislature recently voted — by margins of 92 to 17 in the House and 48 to 6 in the Senate — to reform pensions for state employees. There is now a cap on the amount of earnings that can be used as the basis for calculating benefits. In some states, employees game the system by ’spiking’ their last year’s earnings by accumulating vast amounts of overtime pay.

An even more important change — a harbinger of America’s future — is that most new Illinois state government employees must work until age 67 to be eligible for full retirement benefits. Those already on the state payroll can still retire at 55 with full benefits.”

Today the Washington Post editorializes in “Pretend Pensions” - -

“HERE’S MORE evidence that state governments are not leveling with their citizens about the costs of pensions for public employees:A new Stanford University study commissioned by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has found that that the state’s pension funds are understating their likely unfunded liabilities by almost half a trillion dollars.”

. . . . .

“It’s no mystery why states got into this fix. Politicians want to court public employee unions with generous promises without having to ask taxpayers for more money. Pretending that investment income will solve the equation helps them avoid hard choices — though it gives fund managers a strong perverse incentive to take excessive risks in hopes of meeting unrealistic targets. The GASB has been considering a change in its standards to bring them closer into line with requirements in the private sector. The California study provides another strong argument in favor of reform.”  (Underscoring Forum’s.)

Here is the Pew Center’s entire February report “The Trillion Dollar Gap:  Pew Pensions and Retiree Health Care Report Tackles Underfunded State Retirement Systems and the Road to Reform.” Here is an illuminating state-by-state chart.

The Center’s fact sheet on Maryland reveals - -

“MARYLAND’s management of its long-term pension liability is cause for serious concern and the state needs to improve how it handles its retiree health care and other benefit obligations. As recently as 2000, 101 percentof the total pension liability was funded—well beyond the 80 percent benchmark that the U.S. Government Accountability Office says is preferred by experts. But at the end of fiscal year 2008, the Old Line State had dropped to a 78 percent funding level. The sharp decline coincides with a drop in the state’s annual contributions, falling to just over 81 percent of the actuarially required amount in 2007. Contributions began to rise in 2008 but still failed to exceed 90 percent of the required amount. Meanwhile, Maryland has a $14.8 billion bill coming due for retiree health care and other benefits. The state is one of 29 with any assets set aside to cover this long-term cost, but only $118.9 million—less than 1 percent of the total—has been funded.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)

Readers should click here to get the bigger Maryland picture.

Steve Bailey, co-chair of Americans for Prosperity (AFP) in Baltimore County, recently raised the issue of pensions for Maryland elected officials which we covered  in our Local Pols’ Pensions May Open A Pandora’s Box of Questions.  As we wrote - - Spotlighting the retirement costs of local elected officials is a dramatic way to turn our attention to the entire Maryland pension burden of public employees. The real test, however, is whether there is the political will to put all new public hires in 401k’s, to require current retirees to shoulder a larger part of their health-insurance costs, and to restrict the expansion of state and local public employees.

Maryland has a serious pension crisis. It didn’t arrive yesterday. Let’s see how Republican politicians promise to cope with it. 

Regrettably but necessarily in view of the wide public attention to Michael Steele’s most recent mishap, we have to say something about the current discontents with the Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman - - having already written so much about Mr. Steele’s policy missteps.  It is ironic that the “sex club scandal,” not serious policy blunders here and here and here and here now appear to be bringing the RNC chairman down.  But to paraphrase Machiavelli, it is the little but easily grasped errors that are often the most perilous politically.

Last year Maryland Republican leaders of many stripes appeared to celebrate their native son Steele’s selection as Republican National Committee chairman. Unfortunately the Old Line State’s former lieutenant governor’s faulty judgment as well as policy deafness have now come back to haunt them: at the kick-off today of former governor Bob Ehrlich’s campaign, as well as the Party itself during an election year. Let’s hope the fresh energy that the Tea Partiers can bring to the Maryland GOP will help head off future unwise selections.

 * * *

We began this post with “regrettably” because conservatives everywhere in the U.S. now need to focus on the grave threats the Obama Administration poses not just in domestic matters - - but also to our national safety.

As chief national-security-policy sentinel Frank Gaffney explained yesterday in his “Disarmer-in-Chief” on National Review on Line (NRO) - -

“I believe that the most alarming aspect of the Obama denuclearization program, however, is its explicit renunciation of new U.S. nuclear weapons — an outcome that required the president to overrule his own defense secretary. Even if there were no new START treaty, no further movement on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and no new wooly-headed declaratory policies, the mere fact that the United States will fail to reverse the steady obsolescence of its deterrent — and the atrophying of the skilled workforce needed to sustain it — will ineluctably achieve what is transparently President Obama’s ultimate goal: a world without American nuclear weapons.“ (Underscoring Forum’s.)

Former Reagan defense aide Gaffney earlier revealed in his “False START” - -

“[T]he newly unveiled START accord fails to take into account or otherwise limit several thousand Russian ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons.  The Kremlin has focused for twenty years on such low-yield devices; some with the explosive power of the Hiroshima weapon and fitted on submarine-launched cruise missiles are deployed off our coasts today.  While the administration says such armaments could be the subject of a future, bilateral treaty that makes still deeper reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear stocks, don’t count on it.  In any event, they will constitute a real, asymmetric advantage for Russia for many years to come. This is a particularly worrisome prospect to American allies in Europe who have long relied on America’s ‘extended deterrence’ to counteract such threatening Kremlin capabilities.

“Then, there is the matter of missile defense.  The Obama administration tried to finesse Russian insistence on including in the new accord language that would capture American defenses against missile attack by confining to the preamble an acknowledgement of a “relationship” between such systems and offensive forces.  The United States claims that, by its nature, such preambular language is not binding.  Yet, a Kremlin spokesman has already served notice that Moscow will feel free to abrogate the START follow-on treaty if it believes that U.S. missile defenses in Europe are a threat to its deterrent.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)

John Hinderaker at Power Line points to another danger in his “A Dumb Policy on Nuclear Weapons: Does It Matter? ” - -

“Does anyone doubt that the administration would use nukes in a heartbeat if it considered such measures necessary? I don’t. The problem is that when the time comes to actually use nuclear weapons, it is too late. The danger here is not that the Obama administration has really gone pacifist. On the contrary, the significance of today’s announcement appears to be entirely symbolic–just one more chance to preen. The problem is that our enemies understand symbolism and maybe take it too seriously. To them, today’s announcement is another sign that our government has gone soft, and one more inducement to undertake aggressive action against the United States.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)

Illustrating Hinderaker’s concern, Chuck Downs, in a 2000 Heritage lecture, explained how past U.S. foreign-policy misstatements contributed to disasters - -

“In a speech before Washington’s National Press Club on January 12, 1950, Secretary of State Dean Acheson described a ‘defensive perimeter of the Pacific’ encompassing countries like Japan and the Philippines which the United States would be compelled to defend. Korea, he said, was an area of ‘lesser’ interest, susceptible to ’subversion and penetration’ that ‘cannot be stopped by military means.’By 1950, the government of Syngman Rhee appeared to the North to be weak and fraught with internal disunity. Hearing Acheson’s public statements and seeing that the United States had not intervened when mainland China fell to the Communists, Communist leaders concluded that the United States would not support Syngman Rhee with troops. These indications of U.S. indifference to Korea are likely to have given weight to Kim Il Sung’s arguments in Moscow and Beijing. Finally, the Soviet Union and China gave in to Kim Il Sung’s persistent pleas to permit him to seize South Korea.His remarks earned intense public scrutiny. At the same time, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) concluded that the United States had ‘little strategic interest’ in its bases in Korea. The JCS conclusion was classified, but Soviet spy Kim Philby may have relayed it to Moscow.”

Herman Kahn used this sequence of events in his seminars as an example of the “inscrutable Occidental.”

But blogger Hinderaker assumes, of course, that, in his ultimate scenario, we would still have reliable nuclear weapons and delivery systems and well-trained operators.

Somehow in spite of all the other mischief from Team Obama - - and distractions from a few of our inept Republican friends, we have to keep watch on this administration’s undermining of our military capability, and guard our alliances - - yes, our ’special relationships’ with our long-time friends, as well as demanding vigilance on our southern border.  While first disabling, then repealing Obamacare will be a hard climb, the rebuilding of our alliances and upgrading our defenses could be an even harder one - - if we do not pay attention now and push back.