I still remember the day I first met one of the great masterminds of MoCo politics.
Moon was already a household name among MoCo activists at that point, having been the campaign manager behind Jamie Raskin’s 33-point State Senate victory two years before. But he was just getting started. Moon’s skills were put to the test during the two special elections that followed as he endured a close loss by Navarro the first time, followed by an even closer win the next year. I had been involved with union organizing and political campaigns during my time in the labor movement, but I had not met many campaigners of his caliber before. Moon was simultaneously creative and disciplined – a rare combination for anyone. He would do the tedious, mind-numbing work of producing the walk sheets and handling the follow-up data entry, and then turn around and come up with something new on the fly. He could think big picture and then slap Apple Ballot stickers on lit all night. He seemed to live on Diet Coke and junk food. If you wanted to find him, the best way was to locate the largest pile of empty cans and wrappers and see who was sitting in the middle of it. Most remarkable of all, Moon was almost without pretense. All campaign managers have egos and some are unbearable. But Moon would meet any suggestion, whether brilliant or stupid, with a shrug and grab the good ones while quietly disposing of the clunkers.
The David Moon of today was still evolving in the 2008-2010 period, but even then you could see where he was headed. Most operatives are motivated by some combination of the thrill of winning, wanting a job with the victorious candidate, wanting to run for office themselves or just the fun of the game. None of that was enough for Moon. He had a Plan, and it was wildly ambitious. He wanted to build a base for true progressivism in Montgomery County. And by that I don’t mean just electing people who toss goodies to liberal interest groups while trying to move up the ladder. Moon’s vision was to combine the political and economic forces of new residents, economic development, labor rights, people of color, environmentalism, smart growth and political reform into a movement for real change. For a while, he did that through running other candidates’ campaigns and working with organizations like Action Committee for Transit, Communities for Transit, Casa de Maryland and FairVote. But like most good quarterbacks, he eventually called his own number and ran for office himself. He outwitted, outlasted and outplayed a number of capable opponents on his way to Annapolis.
As a Delegate, Moon has not backed away from any of the causes he supported early in his career, but he picked a focus: social justice. Most freshman Delegates regard the House Judiciary Committee as a backwater. They have to deal with the dominance of crusty old committee chair Joe Vallario and they can’t get the fundraising connections that members of other committees can (especially Economic Matters). But Moon wanted to be on Judiciary; in fact, he actively lobbied for it because it is the place where criminal justice issues are decided. And that’s where Moon has planted his flag.
It’s time for a grown-up conversation about our criminal justice system. Maryland leads the nation in marijuana arrests, and black residents of Montgomery County are over 3 times more likely to be arrested for possession than white residents. This costs us between $100-$200 million a year and ruins the lives of young people by barring them from employment, student loan eligibility and more. Let’s look at the evidence and start rolling back the failed “War on Drugs” in Maryland.
Months later, the Baltimore riots erupted partly as a result of these issues. Moon has been advocating on them ever since. He has introduced numerous bills to rein in justice system excesses. In 2015, he passed a bill through the House that would have excluded possession of a small amount of pot as a reason for parole violation. (It died in the Senate.) He has proposed letting voters decide whether to legalize marijuana and fought against efforts to recriminalize it. Slowly but surely he is helping criminal justice reform advance, and in the years to come, the work of Moon and his allies will pay off.
Moon’s work on criminal justice has produced something that’s uncommon for MoCo legislators: growing collaboration on a key priority with lawmakers from the City of Baltimore and Prince George’s County, who often co-sponsor his bills. Moon has also helped create an informal group of cooperating progressives who resist reactionary bills no matter their source – even including the Democratic leadership. A progressive caucus is a long-time dream of the left, but Annapolis leaders have always prevented it through a combination of pressure and cooptation. Such tactics do not work on the indefatigable Moon. He will not and cannot be deterred.
David Moon is an unusual elected official. His experience as one of MoCo’s top campaigners has given him the ability to pursue big picture goals through patience, methodical assemblage of leverage and the implementation of tactics designed to build momentum. He has demonstrated that capacity throughout his entire career, both in office and out. He has worked on nearly the entire spectrum of progressive issues. His priorities are perfectly in line with District 20 Democrats, who are probably the most progressive constituency in the entire state. He is the natural heir to Jamie Raskin. While I can appreciate the perspective of those who would like to appoint a caretaker to serve out the rest of Senator Raskin’s term and there are other good people available, the prospect of sending Moon to the upper chamber has too much upside to resist.
After losing a close race for the Sixth Congressional District, Dan Bongino self-deported to Florida, where this self-proclaimed non-politician has decided to run for Congress again.
Showing the cool calm when under fire for which former members of Secret Service are known, Bongino lashed out when a reporter accused him of being a carpetbagger. Apparently, he asked the reporter repeatedly “to carry out a sexual act that is not physically possible” as well as using much other ungentlemanly vocabulary that doesn’t exactly read grace under pressure.
If you’re hoping that Donald Trump falls into the category of “this too shall pass,” you need look no further than the Montgomery County Republican Party to see that Trumpism isn’t an aberration but is the Republican Party.
The Montgomery County Republican Party and 7S have been having a lively debate on Twitter (140 characters being so amenable to thoughtful discussion) about the relative importance of Clinton’s emails versus Trump’s willingness to give Crimea to Putin and his hiring of a campaign manager illegally.
These sinister accusations rest solely on a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations of members of Huma’s family, none of which have been shown to harm or threaten the United States in any way. These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis, and no merit. And they need to stop now.
Ultimately, what is at stake in this matter is larger even than the reputation of one person. This is about who we are as a nation, and who we still aspire to be. What makes America exceptional among the countries of the world is that we are bound together as citizens not by blood or class, not by sect or ethnicity, but by a set of enduring, universal, and equal rights that are the foundation of our constitution, our laws, our citizenry, and our identity. When anyone, not least a member of Congress, launches specious and degrading attacks against fellow Americans on the basis of nothing more than fear of who they are and ignorance of what they stand for, it defames the spirit of our nation, and we all grow poorer because of it.
Our reputations, our character, are the only things we leave behind when we depart this earth, and unjust attacks that malign the good name of a decent and honorable person is not only wrong; it is contrary to everything we hold dear as Americans.
Yet the Montgomery County Republicans continue to promote this scurrilous agitprop.
The relationship between Donald Trump and the Maryland Republican Party is the love that dare not speak its name. Donald Trump is all but an unperson on the Maryland Republican Party twitter account, @mdreps.
Though Trump gets mentioned in the next tweet only in the cited article description, it’s worth a mention if only because the Maryland Republican Party’s own words, “It’s about ideas, not race,” are as Orwellian as they come.
The next day they retweeted an innocuous shout out to the Republican delegation in Cleveland that copied Trump.
In short, you’d never guess that the a thumping majority of Maryland Republicans support Donald Trump. There is not one picture. No tweets proudly touting his latest utterance.
I imagine some Republicans will claim they’re just too focused on state issues to mention Trump. Except that you may’ve noticed that their logo is a “Stop Hillary” sign. Maryland Republicans also have no problem using @mdreps to attack Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama.
The lack of Trump mentions is really a good sign. Shame is the right emotion if Donald Trump is your party’s nominee. Let’s hope the second stage of grief for the party entails repudiation.
That’s a reasonable point of view. Here’s a proposal to End the Monopoly without taking a financial hit.
First, let’s recall that the goal of last winter’s End the Monopoly campaign was never to abolish the Department of Liquor Control (DLC). Rather, we were seeking to allow private sector competition with the DLC at both the wholesale and retail levels. Licensees would be able to buy from the county, private wholesalers or both and consumers would be able to buy all beverages, including spirits, from county stores, private stores or both. That does not mean that DLC would get wiped out. Indeed, it has one competitive advantage that no private wholesaler has: it is a one-stop shop for all alcoholic beverages. Some licensees are willing to tolerate DLC’s problems in return for the convenience of dealing with one bill and one truck. DLC’s Acting Director claims that their performance is improving and the county employee union President told the latest meeting of the task force that he has spoken to dozens of retailers who wish to stay with DLC. If they are correct, private competition will not eliminate DLC, but it could reduce its revenues.
The closest relevant example to what would happen if DLC were exposed to competition is Worcester County, Maryland, which opened up its spirits monopoly in 2014. Worcester’s DLC Director testified to the MoCo Delegation that within a year, the county had lost 42% of its wholesale business to private competition but had kept 96% of its retail business. Now Worcester County’s monopoly was run far more poorly than MoCo’s DLC as it was found guilty of massive violations of state law back in 2010, so MoCo’s DLC could fare much better with competition. But for the sake of argument, let’s use its experience as a starting point.
Any analysis of what would happen to MoCo’s DLC under competition must recognize that the liquor monopoly makes two payments to the county: a direct return to its general fund and debt service paid on bonds guaranteed by liquor profits. Potential shortfalls in both those areas must be addressed.
DLC’s operating profits, projected to be $20.7 million in FY17, are paid directly into the county’s general fund. That amount accounts for 0.4% of the county’s $5.3 billion operating budget. What would happen to those profits if the private sector were allowed to compete with DLC? According to the county’s Office of Legislative Oversight, DLC’s FY14 revenues were split pretty evenly between wholesale ($136 million) and retail ($127 million) operations. If Worcester County’s experience occurred in MoCo, 42% of the wholesale revenue and 4% of the retail revenue would be at risk from competition, so DLC’s total revenue would decline by 24%. If DLC’s operating costs scale with its operating revenues, its net income would fall by $5 million.
How do we make up that money?
First, the county could open up more county liquor stores. (Indeed, it is already doing so.) In FY13, the county earned $795,000 in annual gross profit per liquor store. So if that gross profit figure still holds, seven new liquor stores could cover a $5 million gap.
Second, new tax revenues will be available in a world of competition. The state’s Bureau of Revenue Estimates released a report last year finding that if DLC were completely abolished, $22.8 million in tax revenues would be generated, mostly from customer repatriation. (That is actually larger than DLC’s return to the county’s general fund.) The problem is that only $1.8 million would accrue to the county in local income taxes, while the rest would go to the state (primarily through sales taxes). The solution is to have the state share its incremental revenue increase with the county for a period of time. After all, if the county is giving up a financial asset, it should share in the returns from that.
A formula could be constructed that ties incremental increases in state revenue from alcohol sales in MoCo to DLC’s reduced income. For example, in Year X, if DLC earns $5 million less than its baseline and the state earns $6 million more than its baseline, up to $5 million could be returned to the county. The formula should cap returned receipts to the county at the amount that the state gains so that the state doesn’t lose money. And it could be temporary and transitional since at some point MoCo would be expected to behave like nearly all other counties in the nation and pay its bills with no liquor monopoly.
The math is clear: it’s entirely possible for the county to suffer no net losses at no cost to the state with incremental revenue sharing and a few more liquor stores.
The county has issued three tranches of revenue bonds guaranteed by liquor profits, the last of which matures in FY33. The outstanding balance on the bonds is $114 million as of June 30, 2014 and DLC is projected to pay $10.9 million in debt service on them in the current fiscal year. If the liquor profits available to pay for these bonds were to disappear, another source of revenue must be found to replace them.
Such a revenue source can be easily found in the county’s budget: county cable franchise fees. Federal law allows local jurisdictions to charge cable companies in return for using public right-of-way. The maximum amount allowed by federal law – 5% of cable bills – is contained in the franchise agreements the county negotiates with Verizon, Comcast and RCN. Because cable bills rise every year, the county gets more money out of this as time passes. Also, because this money is unencumbered by DLC’s employee and capital expenses, it is not subject to cost changes like DLC’s profits are. Cable franchise fees are actually a more stable revenue source to guarantee bonds than are liquor profits.
According to the county’s cable budget, the county is projected to collect $17.7 million in cable franchise fees in FY17. Of this amount, $3.8 million is passed on to the Cities of Rockville and Takoma Park and the Maryland Municipal League in compensation for use of municipal rights of way, leaving $13.9 million available. The county has obtained legal advice holding that the county can do virtually whatever it wants with the 5% cable franchise fees.
How is the cable money currently spent? Most of it is given out to the PEG (public/education/ government) TV channels. The two largest are the county’s in-house news channel, County Cable Montgomery, and the non-profit Montgomery Community Media, which is also financed by private sector contributions. The problem is that no one knows how many people actually watch this programming. The huge majority of their YouTube clips get a few dozen views each at best. Is this truly worth millions of dollars of public money?
The county could easily retire its current liquor bonds and replace them with new bonds that are guaranteed by both liquor profits and cable franchise fees. Liquor profits would be the first source of debt service payment, with any shortfall covered by cable fees as a supplement. Even if liquor profits entirely disappear, the $13.9 million in annual cable fees – an amount that has been growing steadily for years – could cover the $11 million in annual debt service by themselves. And over the long term, this arrangement would be temporary as the bonds will eventually be paid off.
There you have it. Through a combination of a few more stores, incremental revenue sharing with the state and restructuring of the liquor bonds, the county could free itself from its liquor monopoly with no significant financial consequences. No new taxes or fees are necessary. And the county would see the creation of new jobs, more income, more economic activity and greater competitiveness with its neighbors as a result.
It’s a huge opportunity. Will Montgomery County go for it?
In the wake of District Court Judge’s Richard Leon’s decision that the Purple Line Final Environmental Impact Study (FEIS) violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to take into account ongoing Metro problems in their ridership estimates, the defendants have several different options.
First, defendants can produce the Supplemental Environmental Impact Study (SEIS) required by the District Court. According to the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA), this would set the project back by six months and could unravel the public-private partnership. I suspect that this is hyperbole and that MTA would manage to do it more quickly, though the study would need to be substantial enough to satisfy Judge Leon.
Alternatively, the defendants can appeal. Maryland Secretary of Transportation Pete Rahn has said that Maryland will appeal the ruling. Except that the decision about any appeal rests with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Justice Department, as the federal government is the defendant in the lawsuit.
As a first step towards any appeal, the federal government would need to seek a stay of Judge Leon’s ruling. The decision on any request for a stay would be a critical moment. If appellants win their request, the Purple Line could continue to proceed even as the appeal moves forward.
In order to receive a stay, the federal government would like have to show substantial, irreparable harm from a delay and the appellate court would have to deem them likely to win their appeal. In my view, the first condition would not be hard to demonstrate. The second point also strikes me as winnable, if only because NEPA suits tend to fail. But I’m not a lawyer–I don’t even play one on TV–and the Judge’s decision increases uncertainty.
Whether they are granted a stay or not, MTA and FTA would most likely wisely start to produce an SEIS so that they are prepared regardless of the outcome of the appeal. If FTA wins an appeal, they won’t need it but the money is small beans in comparison to the overall cost of the project. The appeals process could well take longer to conclude than an SEIS.
Additionally, Purple Line advocates are in the uncomfortable position of explaining (1) their utter faith that Metro ridership will rise even though it has declined for several years despite strong regional growth, (2) why we should believe that the trend toward telecommuting and biking, which they use to explain the decline, will cease, and (3) why Metro’s deep problems will be solved anytime soon, despite the recent derailment of the brand new Silver Line.
Hillary Clinton has the knowledge, the experience, and the commitment to lead our country as president and Commander in Chief. She will reach out to every segment of our society to move our country forward. I have seen her work across the aisle to get things done and I know her lifelong commitment to families and children. Unlike her opponent, she will not divide, bully, or dismiss us. She is the right choice in this election and I wholeheartedly support her – and urge my fellow Republicans to look at the choice before them and do the same.