Newman for Maryland

Unenforceable Legislation

2009-10-02T15:50:00.000-04:00

Maryland recently changed the law to ban the use of text messaging while driving an automobile. This law went into effect on October 1, 2009. Though that is not the entire story. The law only bans the sending of text messages. It does not prohibit the reading / review of incoming text messages. Also, the law does not prohibit the use of cell phones for normal calling use. The officer will have to witness a person typing a text message to another in order to actually enforce this law. This law is unenforceable.

What is to stop a person from claiming that they were merely making a phone call or reading a text message when the officer witnessed them looking at their phone? The officer can not prove whether or not the person is telling the truth and can not merely take a person's cell phone. Unless the person is driving recklessly while texting, which is a different fine altogether, there is no way this can be enforced.

As I have mentioned in the past, we can not begin to micromanage people's lives. You can't legislate intelligence. Drivers must learn how to deal with distractions, it's not something you can regulate. Texting while driving is a massive distraction and unsafe, but if a person drives recklessly then the crime is reckless driving. Enforce the law as written and, perhaps, increase penalties for those who drive recklessly while using their cell phone.

I for one hope that in the future our state legislature and our Governor review the laws they are voting upon. Try to determine the enforcability of such legislation. If the point was to make the roads safer with fewer people texting while driving - then they have failed. If instead this was an attempt to raise state revenue, then they also failed. Even if a person is fined for driving while texting, the defense is so simple and difficult to disprove that a person with a competent lawyer should be able to readily fight such a charge with ease.

Once again, this law is unenforceable and I hope our legislators learn from this mistake.

On Parental Consent

2009-09-02T12:20:00.004-04:00

On this blog, I have not always ventured into the controversial. I feel that it is important, though, that certain issues be discussed. The topic of abortion is a touchy subject to most. It is a topic that divides the American public fairly evenly - with nearly as many in favor as against.

Maryland has very permissive abortion laws. In fact, our ranking by NARAL Pro-Choice America is higher than generally viewed as liberal areas such as New York, Vermont, and the District of Columbia. As one who's views on this issue tend to fall to the right, I can't help but wonder what that means.

As I began to delve deeper into this, I noticed one of the simplest and most clear cut in my mind aspect of abortion regulations: parental consent. Parental consent for abortion for minors is an unnecessarily controversial issue. If an abortion is to be viewed as those on the left would have us view it - abortion is merely a medical procedure. If that is the case, then abortions must be treated as any other medical procedure. In Maryland, a minor is unable to get a tattoo even with parental consent. Why then should a potentially invasive, damaging, and emotionally strenuous medical procedure be allowed to be performed on a minor without no notification of a parent if a physician feels that "...[t]he minor is mature and capable of giving informed consent to an abortion." It may not be perfect, but parental notification and consent is the current standard for medical procedures. To feel we must treat one controversial procedure differently, which the many on the left want us to view clinically as a medical procedure, is inconsistent and illogical.

As such, I would propose the following to adjust Maryland law with regards to parental consent. I would propose to amend General- - Health Section 20-103 to read as follows -

(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, a physician may not perform an abortion on an unmarried minor unless the physician has first gives consent from a parent or guardian of the minor.
(b) The physician may perform the abortion without consent of a parent or guardian if the minor does not live with a parent or guardian.
(c)
(1) The physician may perform the abortion, without consent of a parent or guardian of a minor if, in the professional judgment of the physician notice to the parent or guardian may lead to physical or emotional abuse of the minor.
(2) The physician is not liable for civil damages or subject to a criminal penalty for a decision under this subsection not to request consent.

(d) A signed statement granting consent for the procedure from the parent or guardian of the minor will be considered conclusive evidence of consent.

Please review my proposal and consider this option. It provides regulations requiring parental consent as required for all other medical procedures. It allows a physician who truly believes that the minor's life is in danger if consent is sought to perform the procedure without consent and protects those doctors under the law.

Those on the left will say that I have gone too far, those on the right will say that I have not gone far enough. Yet, I think this minor reform would be a positive step forward. As always, opinions are always welcome.

Suggestions for Budget Cuts

2009-07-30T22:13:00.004-04:00

Governor Martin O'Malley is looking suggestions through the state website for budgetary cuts. You can provide your suggestions here. As our budget in the State of Maryland requires quite a bit of cutting - I have offered some suggestions to the Governor.

Dear Governor O'Malley,

I propose the following suggestions -
Cut State Legislator income by $5,000 per year
Cut your own income by $20,000 per year
Cut $70 million from the teacher's pension fund
Freeze "Assistance Payments" and "Home Energy Programs" to fiscal year 2009 levels (Cut approximately $100 million)

This is a start, but should not be the end of spending cuts. I suggest the State hires an independent auditor to review every single State department's budget line by line. Thank you and good luck.

Matthew Newman

I have a feeling that he won't listen.

On Conservatism

2009-07-17T15:25:00.001-04:00

It is a sad state when we witness how the media peg those of us on the right. Conservatives are too often treated as unwavering supporters of the agenda of the Republican party; blind adherents to the ideology of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, never considering the consequences of these ideas. Yet this is not the case.

From differing conservative perspectives, a tapestry of ideas are bred. These conservatives range from the the libertarian leans of the Ron Paul revolutionaries to the neo-conservative thought of the ditto-heads. All claim the mantle of conservative and all of them are. Conservative means many different things to many different people within the movement, yet to the outside world it is embodied not in the idealistic vision of Adam Smith but in the leadership of former President Bush.

We as conservatives need to break the mold and coalesce around our commonalities to show a wanting world that we understand their troubles. We understand the turmoils of modern society and have answers that have succeeded in the past. Let us remind Americans of all stripes why they had allowed us to lead in the past - they agree with us.

A cult of personality has overtaken our nation and the facade is beginning to dwindle as a true call to arms against government intervention begins. The people of this great nation are realizing that individual freedoms and limited government are the answer and that waste and greed are more common among government than among the governed.

The people want less, not more from our government. They want a lean machine that is freed from politics as usual and meets its Constitutional functions. If we conservatives return as the purveyors of freedom, liberty, and limited governance then we can win elections and we will bring our nation back on the right course. If those who claim the mantle of conservative do not live up to these values, then we must find those who will.

Conservatism upholds traditional limitations of government and in so doing allows it to function properly. That is the ultimate goal of conservatives - a Constitutionally limited government serving the people and providing freedom and liberty to the greatest extent possible. That is how we must act and serve in office. If we do not, we will be cast aside remembered not as the defenders of freedom but as those who stood idly by as it crumbled.

I call upon the Republican Party to stand tall and proudly. Do not waver in your support of limited government and do not falter in your opposition to the waste they call a stimulus. Stand proudly against the growing tide of expanded government and as they hear your call, the American people will stand up with you.

2010 Draft Suggestions

2009-07-15T14:54:00.002-04:00

Over at my primary blog, I posted some suggestions of potential candidates in Maryland that I feel the State Republican Party should consider drafting for office. Feel free to comment at Old Line Elephant.

On Fair Taxation

2009-07-13T11:42:00.003-04:00

If we are all to be taxed in order to pay for our government, then we must all be taxed fairly. I propose sweeping changes to our tax code in order to make it fair and equitable to all citizens of this great state. I propose a flat income tax.

Flat taxes are used currently in 7 states. Under a flat tax proposal, everyone pays the same rate. Our current tax brackets require everyone who makes up to $150,000 annually to pay 4.75% of their income. I say we keep it that way for everyone - at the top and at the bottom. Those who make less than $2,000 a year shall be exempt from paying income taxes.

The concept seems simple and that is why it works. With a flat income tax rate, everyone pays the same percentage of their income. The flat rate allows for equality while retaining the "progressive" concept of the income tax whereby those who can pay more, do. At 4.75% those who annual incomes are $10,000 or $100,000 will pay $475 or $4,750 respectively.

Incumbent 6th District Delegate John Olszewski wants to increase the income tax on a regular basis based on inflation. This would increase the income tax rate based on the CPI. I do not see the utility in modify the income tax rate based on inflation. If the worth of the dollar changes based on CPI then a percentage of that dollar will change in worth to the same degree. This feels like an attempt at generating revenue for the State more than an attempt to keep up with inflation. It is not a fair income tax system and I oppose it.

My proposal will keep the income tax rate the same for everyone. It is fair to all citizens, including those millionaires who we want to keep living here in Maryland. As always, opinions are welcome.

On Independence Day

2009-07-05T14:35:00.003-04:00

Yesterday was Independence Day, a celebration of the freedoms of our great nation and the rich history of our republican democracy. Our nation was born alone in freedom. It provides greater opportunity for people than any other nation in the world.

These United States provide us with the independence to do for ourselves as we see fit. This God given freedom is not granted to all mankind out in the greater world. Cherish your freedoms and the blessings of this great nation. Remember those who gave their lives for our freedom.

God bless these United States of America and God bless her people.

Business Friendliness

2009-07-05T12:58:00.000-04:00

The Maryland Business for Responsive Government, a fiscal watchdog organization which focuses in on business friendly measures, recently released their 2009 legislative rankings. Those who represent the 6th District in the House of Delegates did not receive good rankings. In 2009, 6th District Delegates Olszewski and Weir voted with the MBRG 20% of the time and Delegate Minnick, who generally has a more conservative streak, voted with the MBRG only 50% of the time.

During an economic downturn is the worst time to impose additional requirements on businesses. We deserve a more business friendly Maryland and with our current representation, we will not get such an environment. We deserve representation who will strive to make our state more friendly to businesses. This will only boost the economy of our state.

We need to free Maryland businesses so that they are able to grow and create wealth in our state. Maryland residents may not be ready to deregulate our economy just yet - but we must not restrict them further. If I were a member of the House of Delegates, I would vote against any further restrictions or penalties on businesses. I would push to keep our regulations the same.

Thoughts are always welcome.

Trust and the Right

2009-06-25T10:39:00.002-04:00

The recent admission by Mark Sanford of his infidelity was incredibly disappointing to me. As a Republican who believes in limited government, I had watched Governor Sanford govern as such and was inspired by the way he articulated my conservative values. I thought for sure that he would be one of the top tier candidates for the 2012 Republican Party Presidential nomination. No longer.

I find myself incredibly disappointed and I've come to a realization as to why. I had this same feeling back in 2006 when the Republican candidate for Governor of New York that I had supported, Pat Manning, turned out to have been unfaithful to his wife and had done immoral and potentially illegal acts to obtain private information about his opponent when he ran for State Assembly. The reason is simple - because they betrayed our trust.

Why is trust so important to me? As a man who finds his home on the political right, I am a supporter of limited government - a government whereby the people have more freedoms and rights than the government has to over them. This type of a government requires an informed and responsible public; it requires us to trust each person to do what is right for themselves and their family. In order to have a limited government, you have to hold a great deal of trust in the average person. I trust that I know better for myself than my Senator or my President. I feel the same way about my neighbors and my friends. This is part of why I am a conservative. This inherent public trust carries over into our politicians. Ronald Reagan was a big time truster - according to Reagan speechwriter Peter Robinson, Reagan would trust those he appointed to do their job according to their ability and where they were the experts, he would trust their knowledge and their judgment. We on the right want to trust our political leaders. We are appalled when politicians prove untrustworthy and in most cases the grassroots will go after our own. Forgiveness for betrayal of trust takes a long time - hence why Newt Gingrich has only begun to regain traction as a viable voice in the mid-2000s.

Perhaps this above anything else is why we on the right are hurt so much when a politician shows an unsavory side. It has been ingrained in our psyche that trust is the foundation for good government - trust in the people and trust in our political leaders to not abuse what little power we have allotted to them. When they fall - when they steal, lie, cheat, or all around violate the public trust conservatives are heartbroken. At least, I know that I am.

We rally towards people who give the appearance of all around trustworthiness. This is why Mitt Romney faltered in 2008, conservatives did not trust that he was honest about his opinions. This is why Mike Huckabee failed to gain traction in 2008, conservatives did not trust him to be fiscally conservative. This is why even Republicans began to have a low opinion of George W. Bush, because he did not follow through on all the limits to our government that he had promised. This is part of why John McCain succeeded - he was trustworthy, always sticking to his opinion and his values even in the face of ridicule.

This is the problem with playing with the politics of trust. "Do as I say, not as I do" will never work for a Republican. It should not for anyone, for that matter - but it becomes especially problematic when you run on a platform of family values and trust in the people.

This has been cross-posted at Old Line Elephant

On Political Views

2009-06-21T19:10:00.004-04:00

A person's political beliefs change throughout their lives. Most people are more liberal in their youth and become more conservative as they age. Winston Churchill once said, "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

Before I could vote, at 17, I flirted with anarchism. I believed in my heart that government does not matter, so long as the people are of a strong moral character. I believed that our nation could succeed without a government. I was mistaken - not everyone has a strong moral character. As such, we need laws to protect us from one another - straightforward laws protecting us from attack, murder, or theft. From there, the natural progression of my opinions shifted in an unnatural direction - directly to liberalism.

It may seem as an odd shift, from an anarchist to a liberal. Yet, I shifted towards the liberal end of the spectrum entirely because of my views on social issues. I was a "social progressive" at 18 who believed in legalization of anything and everything to a fault. My thoughts never visited the fiscal end of the spectrum and on foreign policy, I was mostly apathetic but leaned towards opposition to the views of the Republican President who our nation had just elected. I was angry and still felt that the election was stolen by the corrupt President Bush. If I had allowed my anger to subside and had thought about the situation I would have realized something important. Vice President Gore had served in office for 8 years of relative peace and economic prosperity - the fact that the election was close showed a weakness in his candidacy that should have made me, as a liberal, angry at him. But, I digress.

There are some who became neo-conservatives after September 11, 2001. I was not among those people, but the event did change me. I was a freshman in college when it happened. It scared me - and I was happy that we had a President who acted decisively in the face of danger. I still disagreed with him, but he was the President and I supported him in the defense of our nation. A few weeks after September 11th, I saw the media go from fawning over the President to attacking him at every turn. We had went from a nation united - into one being torn apart by unnecessary attacks on the intelligence and honesty of our President. It upset me and I began to feel sorry for this man whom I used to despise. I was not yet on the right, but I was moving there. Around this same time, my faith began to shift and be tested. I began to doubt the divinity of Jesus Christ. For a while, I believed that my Messiah was merely a man, not man and divine. What was interesting about that - I never once doubted the resurrection of Christ.

Towards the end of my sophomore year in college, I made a great many mistakes. I was in a relationship with a woman who consumed my life and it led to my ignoring the things which mattered most - my family, my faith, and my studies. After we broke up, I took inventory and had an epiphany. I realized there are certain important parts of my life and that they are to be treasured. The seeds of social conservatism were laid and I began to question much of what I thought about politics. My crisis of faith came to an end as well and I never again questioned the divinity of Christ.

As time progressed, my views became more and more socially conservative and hawkish in my views of foreign policy. My views on abortion became more complicated by the realization that I could not with a clean conscience define when a life began myself. My views on same-sex marriage became changed as I came to the mindset that the Constitution did not ban the act of legislating morality - merely it banned the intervention of the government into church affairs. By the 2004 election - I had changed my voter registration to Republican and voted proudly for President George W. Bush.

Through my introduction into social conservatism I began to look into all that I could read. I read about all manner of conservative thought - from libertarianism to modern Dixicrat thought. This continued as I joined the College Republicans my senior year of college and remained modestly active during my two years of graduate school. My march towards conservativism had become complete. Towards the end of my graduate career - I had begun shifting towards the view of that the government which governs best, governs least. I began to realize that private solutions always work better than public / governmental solutions. In that vein - certain parts of my social conservatism primarily with regards to my views on drug legalization and same-sex marriage began to subside and while my views on foreign policy had not changed much, I became more libertarian in my thinking on the whole. Which is where I sit today.

I consider myself a pragmatic strict constructionist. I believe in a stricter interpretation of our Constitution, but I believe we must be pragmatic in our approach to governence. My views on particular issues - they are defined here. Why do I tell this story? Because it helps to paint a picture and lets my readers know who I am as a person. I'm a man - I'm not perfect and my thoughts have changed over time. I have not always been the man I am today and I'm proud that I've been able to grow and change over time. I may not always hold the exact same views I hold today - but I have finally reached a point where I understand my values. I hope this helps my readers understand me a little better. Thank you.

Cross posted at Old Line Elephant

On Fiscal Responsibility

2009-06-16T12:14:00.001-04:00

Fiscal responsibility is a term which has varied meanings depending on who you ask. In some circles, it implies the implementation of "pay as you go" programs where you make certain you have the money to pay for a government program, or increase taxes to pay for it. In others, it implies fiscal conservatism and government trimming of excess. In both cases, government is striving to make certain that a balanced budget is maintained - but the means and outcome are not always the same.

In the case of the first definition - it is considered okay to expand government programs so long as you are willing to increase taxes or divert the money from another forum. This is not something I find acceptable. On a regular basis, our government does not run 100% efficiently. This can be seen in the audits performed every three years by the Office of Legislative Audits (example - Maryland Energy Administration). The additional problem is that the same problems appear to continue to snowball year after year with little to no enforcement of the results of the audits. This is a problem which leads to wasted time and money. That said, the first definition is how the State of Maryland prepares its budget, with their own brand of "fiscal responsibility." The Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute prepared a nice summary of the fiscal year 2010 budget for the state of Maryland. You may not notice one major issue in the state budget. The budget is still spending $2.5 billion more than it is taking in using the stimulus money to fill the holes in the budget. This serves as a temporary patch, but if funding is not cut or trimmed in any way, down the line this will become a problem. O'Malley doesn't seem to mind, because this means his budget will be good to go through the end of his term in office - and will only begin to sour after the 2010 gubernatorial election. This will allow him to coast through a reelection campaign with a seemingly "balanced budget" with little to no care taken to actually fix the budgetary issues. We need to fix this and I have a few suggestions.

First, as I mentioned before - if we cut a mere $1,000 from everyone state legislator and the Governor's annual income, we can save over $180,000 a year. I say we start by being even bolder - I propose cutting $20,000 from the Governor's income and $5,000 from each state legislator. That will total an annual savings of $960,000. It's less than a million, but it's a start. Next - freeze "Assistance Payments" and "Home Energy Programs" to fiscal year 2009 levels (page 26). This provides a net savings of approximately $100 million without severely handicapping the organizations. Cut the increase from the fiscal year 2009 teacher pension contribution levels in half to $70 million dollars. Between these three items that I have come up with, without a complete understanding of all the ins and outs of the state budget - I have found $171 million dollars of savings without even meeting with an auditor and with minimal overall impact on the function of the State.

Next, I have two audit related suggestions. We need to provide teeth to our statewide audits. We should cut appropriate funding levels for individual departments based on audit findings. Grant the Comptroller, Governor, or State Legislature (however would be the most practical) the ability to pull portions of a department's funding if they do not comply with the findings of their regular audits in a reasonable timeframe. I also propose that every 6 years, a statewide audit should be performed by an independent organization. Bidding for the audit contract should be open to Maryland based firms or nationwide firms with Maryland offices that have been active for at least 2 years. Contracts will be reviewed 2 years prior to the required audit date by a committee composed of the Comptroller and legislators from the Office of Legislative Audits.

My final suggestion is simple - if state funding is not used by a department by the end of the fiscal year, that money will not be reallocated to the department. It can be added to the General Fund or immediately put into the State Reserve Fund. Either way works. Funding for subsequent years for departments that use less money than allocated will be decreased proportionately unless mitigating circumstances require a change.

Between the cuts, the audit reform suggestions, and the reallocation of saved funds - we can find ways to balance our budget after the stimulus money has run dry so that by 2011 we will not be $713 million in debt as the Governor predicts. As always, suggestions are welcome and encouraged. I do not fully know the budgetary process and may be a bit naïve in my suggestions - feel free to tell me so. Thank you for your time.

A Compromise on Same-Sex Marriage

2009-05-26T14:41:00.002-04:00

When noted conservative thinker Cal Thomas suggests that it may time to give up the ghost on same-sex marriage, those on the right need to consider a compromise. As one who considers himself conservative on many of the great issues of the day, I feel we need to compromise and find a common ground. Those on the right need to provide solutions and not merely stand against the changing tide. This is not a fight they can win merely by saying, "don't do that." To begin to move forward, I propose what I will be calling the Vermont-Connecticut Plan. In both Vermont and Connecticut, same-sex marriage is on a clear path to legality. Yet, at the same time, traditional religious institutions which oppose same-sex marriage are being protected under the law. I shall explain.

Same-sex marriage is legalized, even if in name only, as an institution that can be performed by any justice of the peace. But, religious organizations which hold contrary beliefs and oppose same-sex marriage are protected and not required to perform such ceremonies. One may argue that this is unfair and allows for bigotry to flourish. I disagree. We do not require Roman Catholic hospitals to perform abortions and we do not require Jewish butchers to sell pork. Why then should we require Roman Catholic or Southern Baptist churches (for example) to perform marriage ceremonies that they diagree with. We do not intervene if a Roman Catholic church decides not to marry a couple because one of them had a divorce? Why then should the state intervene here? Vermont's religious clause is exactly the type of wording that would make sense and provide a solution that is the best for all parties. It will allow same-sex marriage to be legal, but would allow for traditional religious institutions to remain unaffected by the new requirements.

One of the fears of social conservatives with regards to same-sex marriage is potential harm it could have on the traditional family structure. I do not believe it poses a grave threat to the traditional family. I feel that if there were more prominent same-sex couples allowed to have traditional families with two parents and children, it may strengthen the American family and our State. The benefits of marriage include on average higher incomes, decreased cases of domestic violence, increased overall happiness, and it becomes less likely that their children will be involved with drugs and / or fail in school. These benefits extending into the homosexual community can only strengthen the family unit and the State as a whole. There are also increased tax revenue benefits, as discussed in a detailed study by New York City Comptroller William Thompson, but I digress.

To strengthen the American family unit, we need to focus more attention on prevention of familial collapse. How do we do this? One way is to make it all around more difficult to get a divorce. Maryland currently allows no-fault divorce. Removing these laws may deter some people from jumping into marriage to quickly and without thought. A waiting period for obtaining a marriage license may also help. A more practical approach may be through the institution of covenant marriage legislation. A covenant marriage is a stricter marriage where both parties agree that divorce can only be obtained for very few circumstances - primarily abuse, conviction of a felony with jailtime, or adultery. Allow both heterosexual and same-sex couples to participate and provide them with some added tax benefit to entering into such a contract. A marriage contract that has fewer means of termination would promote seeking marriage counseling before immediately giving up on a marriage.

Now, I cover a great number of topics - so allow me to summarize my thoughts. As a state we should grant legal recognition of same-sex marriage, but allow religious institutions to maintain independence and never force them to perform ceremonies. In addition, we should redouble our efforts to protect the family unit by allowing all couples to enter into covenant marriages if they so choose and considering a longer waiting period before a marriage license can be obtained / go into effect. As always, opinions are not only welcomed, but encouraged. I hope to spark debate and discussion on this topic so that we can move forward with compromise that is amenable to all groups.

On a State Language

2009-05-22T07:31:00.000-04:00

The State of Maryland, as with our union as a whole, does not have an official unifying language. I believe that it should. I believe that language should be English and it should be codified as such by law, Constitutionally if required. My reasons are many, but we will limit this discussion to the most important.

Few would argue that English is not the unifying language of these United States. It is on our money, our roadways, our laws, and our Constitution. It has been the language taught in our schools since our founding. Immigrants for generations learned English as their second language in order to more easily function in our society. The rich history of the English language as the primary spoken language in our nation is enough of a reason to implement English as a national and State language here in Maryland. In order to understand our history, to understand our laws, to understand our Constitution - a fundamental understanding of the English language is required.

But, this goes further. International business has shifted towards a common language - English is being taught as a second language in India, Japan, and most of Europe. English has become one of the more universal languages in part because of these United States. We have dominated international trade for so long that in order to function and continue trade with us the people of the world began to learn the dominant language of our great nation. English is fastly becoming the language of international business - so why not continue its use in our schools and emphasize that the primary language spoken in our nation is the official language.

Before continuing on with my discussion, I pose a scenario. Suppose you were to move to Germany. The language is foreign to you at first, but you enjoy the country and want to live there. To become a German citizen, will the German government provide you with paperwork in English for you to complete or would documentation be in German? Of course there are people in Germany who can speak any number of languages, but the dominant language is German, the official language is German, and all documentation required to become a citizen will be in German. Why then should we treat things differently in our nation?

Overwhelming majorities of the American public support making English the official language of this nation. This is not a controversial viewpoint to hold. In fact, 77% of the largest growing minority which speaks a different language, Latinos, support the establishment of English as the official language of government operations. 65% of Latinos, according to another poll from Zogby International, support making English the official overall language of these United States. This should not be controversial and is a logical step towards the primary goal of our nation - the establishment of a more perfect union. What better way to unite than through unity in the manner in which our people speak.

On Redistricting

2009-05-07T14:22:00.000-04:00

The problem with redistricting in a State such as Maryland is that with one party dominating, minority parties are left out in the cold. The chances for retention of districts with varieties of opinions begin to dim under one party rule. Partisanship takes the front line with fairness being pushed into the background. Sadly, that is what we currently have in the State of Maryland. This is where HB284 comes into play to help account for this.

Co-Drafted by 6th District Delegate Joseph Minnick, HB284 would establish a Legislative Districting and Apportionment Commission under the State Constitution. Who is on this Commission and what do they do? The Commission redistricts our state following the decennial census. The Court of Appeals compiles a list of 30 qualified persons, 10 of which from the majority party, 10 of which from the principal minority party, and 10 of which are independent of party or affiliated with a 3rd party. These people have to have been Maryland voters for the previous three years and may not have held elected office, run for elected office, or been a registered lobbyist. The majority and minority leader of the Senate and House of Delegates each select one member from this pool of 30. Then the Secretary of State serves as leader of a meeting of these four commission members, who then select from the remaining 26 people an additional 3 members of the Commission. What is very interesting about the 3 persons the Commission shall select to add to their membership is the following line - "The three additional members may not result in the Commission having more than two members who are affiliated with the same political party or who are not affiliated with any political party." For a total of 7 members in the Commission, this would allow for 2 Republicans, 2 Democrats, 2 unaffiliated members, and 1 member of a 3rd party. What this Constitutional amendment does that is most important is create checks and balances in the redistricting process here in Maryland. This is exactly the type of innovation we need in legislative proposals. It's only fitting that the proposal was drafted by a Democrat and Republican working together; it was drafted in collaboration between Republican Delegate Steve Schuh and, as mentioned previously, Democratic Delegate Joseph Minnick.

As a citizen in the State of Maryland, I wholeheartedly support this Constitutional amendment. It is a solution to the problem of partisanhip in redistricting, and I welcome any reasonable idea to diminish the effects of partisanship on our nation. As always, your opinions are more than welcome. Thank you.

On Freedoms in Maryland

2009-04-28T12:46:00.000-04:00

We the people of Maryland live in what is called the "Free State." Yet, if we were to adjust our nickname based on the findings of the quantitative study performed by George Mason University Professors William P. Ruger and Jason Sorens, Maryland should be called the "Restricted State." If you turn to the 33rd page of the linked PDF, you can read the executive summary of the lack of economic and personal freedoms in the state of Maryland. To directly quote the Professors, "Maryland’s impositions on personal freedom include the second-strictest gun laws in the country, and marijuana laws are fairly harsh (except that the first offense of high-level possession is a misdemeanor, and there is a weak medical marijuana law), motorists’ freedoms are highly restricted, gambling laws are tight, home schooling laws are burdensome (curricula must be approved by the government), centralized land-use planning is very advanced, eminent domain abuse is totally unreformed, victimless crimes arrest rates are high, and civil unions are not recognized." Our state restricts many of the individual freedoms endowed by our Creator and codified in our Constitution. How should we address these issues? I will focus on a two of these freedoms today - eminent domain and motorist freedoms. Same-sex marriage will be a topic for another day.

Following the decision of Kelo v. New London, the entire nation attempted to repair the assumed freedom from eminent domain laws that had been torn asunder by this ruling. In Maryland, the Property Protection Act of 2006 was proposed. This would have amended the State Constitution to abolish the act of taking private property for private economic development. State seizure of property would be limited only to public use of the property such as schools, parks, or roads. Under the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR), the person would also be compensated for said seizure. The amendment never came to pass and was never brought before the voters. This is an important issue. Property rights need to be protected or they will become so diluted that the government can seize your house by a vote of a County Council in order to make way for a new shopping plaza. Since the federal Constitution allows it, according to the Supreme Court, we must act at home to make certain that our State Constitution is clear. I would support a reintroduction of this amendment to protect our property rights.

Motorist rights are not an issue frequently brought up in the defense of the motorist. Motorist freedoms basically boil down to the right to do what you please in the confines of your own vehicle. So long as your actions do not cause harm to others, this seems fair to me. The legislature has been proposing restrictions on smoking and texting while driving. There is a part of me that would like to see the road decongested with those who drive unsafely removed from the road, but in the end legislation can only go so far. You can not legislate intelligence. Some people are able to drive their vehicle and make a phone call, with no interruptions and no problems in their driving skills. Some are unable to hold a conversation with the person in the vehicle without it impairing their driving to some degree. Some people have their driving impaired when they adjust the radio, while others are fine. Distractions exist and can pose problems during driving - this is why we have driver's education for those learning to drive and reward those who take defensive driving courses. Dealing with distractions, which include everything from the radio to other drivers, is something a driver must learn and not something you can regulate.

Also, on the smoking ban - this is a follow up to the indoor clean air act passed in many states throughout these United States. The Indoor Clean Air act prohibits smoking in bars and restaurants. The proposed smoking ban listed previously would ban smoking in your own vehicle if a child is present. Frankly, if a smoker has a child - that child is going to be exposed to smoke at home or somewhere within the vicinity of their parent. If you are going to ban the act in ones automobile, then you need to ban it in their homes as well. Since, we never will go that far - I propose we do neither. There are far more pressing issues facing our State than whether or not when a smoker gives birth they continue their habit in their own car. And to followup on smoking bans in restaurants and bars. I freely admit that I am not a smoker and thoroughly enjoy dining in a smoke-free environment. That said, I would seek out smoke-free restaurants if smoking was allowed in some. Just as I know there are those who would enjoy being able to smoke in a restaurant while enjoying their dinner. That's fine and those on staff know the risks of working in an environment that's filled with smoke. They can choose to leave and work a different job. This is why I opposed the indoor clean air act in New York and why I still oppose it here in Maryland.

Opinions are always welcome. I am looking forward to continue this discussion with the people of Maryland and the 6th legislative district.

On Political Careers

2009-04-25T22:33:00.000-04:00

There are many career paths in life. One can go to school to learn a trade, enter college to hone their skills, and enter into the world to provide for society. A career is not merely ones' job, it's the work path they choose to follow, define much of their life, and is commonly their passion. A career is a path one takes that is usually fulfilling to themselves and generally helps progress society in some way. The problem that has arisen in our government is that being a politician has become a career path for many.

Politics is not a career path. It is a means by which we are supposed to help our state, community, and our nation. It was never intended to be. George Washington was a General who became a politician temporarily because he knew that our nation needed his leadership. Fred Thompson was a lawyer and actor who temporarily became a politician because he felt he could help the people of Tennessee and provide them with good representation. When Zell Miller left the political arena, he went back to being a college professor. Politics was a part of their lives, not the only thing which defined them.

The problem with a person who treats politics as a career is that they lose site of the point of politics. It is not merely a job. It is not merely a career path to build up ones resume in order to one day become CEO. It is a civil service where one becomes a representative of the people, our envoy in this our republican democracy. Too many forget that as they continue with the day to day aspects of politicking and focus so much effort on being elected and reelected that they forget what they were chosen to do. Organizing a campaign and running for office can take up so much time, in fact, that many become negligent in their job duties. As much as I supported John McCain for President, both he and our current President were negligent in their duties as Senator during their Presidential campaign.

Now, the question arises, how do we prevent a person from becoming a "career politician?" The first is a simple solution - term limits. Limits are put in place to prevent one person from maintaining power indefinitely and allows for new people with new ideas to continue to populate our government. Here in Maryland, I would suggest limits of two terms for Governor, three terms for Delegate, and two terms for State Senator. These are not unreasonable restrictions; Governor and Senator would be given the same restriction as our President. If it is good enough for Washington, it is good enough for Ehrlich, O'Malley, Harris, and Miller.

In Maryland, our legislative session does not conflict with the traditional election season. Yet, with the changing face of electoral politics and the emergence of year long campaigning, this will become an issue. A second proposal would be to require a state legislator running for higher office to resign from their post in order to do so. If one wishes to run for Governor, Congress, or US Senate, then they should be willing to resign their post in the House of Delegates or State Senate. This is not an arrogance and belief that you will automatically win - it is merely an acknowledgment that a full time, year long campaign for higher office can not be waged while remaining in a legislative office.

My final idea is one which pertains to the purse. For each day the state budget is delayed, no elected official should be paid. In fact, during times of budget shortfall, before considering furloughs for state employee, our legislature should first consider cuts to the executive pay of our Governor or their own salaries. Our legislators make decent salaries considering the entire legislative session is a mere ninety days. Our legislators receive approximately $500 per day for their three months of actual work. Our governor makes approximately three times my annual salary. Assuming our Governor works year round, that averages to over $400 a day. None of these costs include the per diem that they all receive. If we cut merely $1,000 per year from the legislative and gubernatorial salaries - we could save $189,000 annually. In addition, it would show that our legislators and Governor are willing to make sacrifices during these rough economic times. But, that is a topic for another day.

Thoughts are not only welcomed, but encouraged. This is the beginning of my attempt to bring up new ideas for our state government. I welcome comments and criticism. Thank you and good night.

Welcome

2009-04-23T21:51:00.000-04:00

This website is the beginning of a conversation between me and the people of the 6th legislative district. Over the next year, I will begin to discuss the issues facing the people here in Maryland. I plan to discuss my thoughts on the state of our State and on my thoughts on what we as a people can do to become a stronger Maryland in the future.

To begin this open discussion, I should tell you about myself. My name is Matthew Newman and I am a 25 year old engineering consultant. I was raised in upstate New York and received my Bachelors and Masters in chemical engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. I met my wife in graduate school while completing my Masters work. We moved to Maryland in mid-2008 and are currently expecting our first child. We live in the 6th legislative district, which is currently represented by Delegates Weir, Minnick, and Olszewski.

I have not lived in this state long, but I already have ideas for my new home state. I want to share these thoughts for the place where I and my son will soon call home. I thank you for your and I hope to share more with the few readers I gather in the future.