ANNAPOLIS, MD – Today at Prince George’s Community College, Governor Martin O’Malley highlighted the new Early College Innovation Fund – an initiative aimed to expand access to a college education across Maryland. The administration is investing $2 million in the fund to support creating and expanding early college access programs that provide accelerated pathways for [...]
Three Openly Gay California Public Officials Honored by the White House
California Natural Resources Secretary John Laird, Sen. Ricardo Lara and Redondo Beach Mayor Michael Gin will be honored by the White House May 22 as “Harvey Milk Champions of Change.”
The three are among 10 openly Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender public officials across the country being recognized at an event that falls on Harvey Milk Day, which commemorates the civil rights leader’s birthday.
John Laird
“These are LGBT leaders who have demonstrated a strong commitment to both equality and public service. They are citizen legislators, executives and appointees who serve honestly, openly and proudly,” said Chuck Wolfe, president of the Washington D.C.-based Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and Institute, which works to elect gay and lesbian candidates.
Laird is a former member of the Assembly. Among the 82 bills he had signed into law was creation of the landmark Sierra Conservancy. He has been Gov. Jerry Brown’s cabinet secretary for natural resources since January 2011.
A former Assemblyman, Lara is a Long Beach Democrat. He was elected to the Senate in 2012.
“I am humbled to be included among such an amazing array of LGBT leaders,” Lara said in a statement. “The fact that three Californians are being honored is telling of the essential role California plays in advancing equality.”
Michael Gin
City councilman from 1995 to 2003, Gin is completing his second four-year term as mayor of the South Coast city of 68,000.
The other Harvey Milk “Champions of Change” are:
Simone Bell, Georgia State Representative
Angie Buhl O’Donnell, South Dakota State Senator
Karen Clark, Minnesota State Representative
Kim Coco Iwamoto, Hawaii State Civil Rights Commissioner
Kim Painter, Johnson Country Recorder, Iowa City, Iowa
Ricardo Lara
Chris Seelbach, Cincinnati Ohio City Council Member
Pat Steadman, Colorado State Senator
The White House established its “Champions of Change” program in 2011 to honor ordinary citizens doing extraordinary things for their community, their country and their fellow citizens.
These are the first Harvey Milk Champions of Change awards.
President Obama created the special awards in 2009 when he posthumously gave Milk the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest civilian medal. The citation for Milk reads:
“Harvey Bernard Milk dedicated his life to shattering boundaries and challenging assumptions. As one of the first openly gay elected officials in this country, he changed the landscape of opportunity for the nation’s gay community.
“Throughout his life, he fought discrimination with visionary courage and conviction. Before his tragic death in 1978, he wisely noted, ‘Hope will never be silent,’ and called upon Americans to stay true to the guiding principles of equality and justice for all. Harvey Milk’s voice will forever echo in the hearts of all those who carry forward his timeless message.”
The bill creating Harvey Milk Day — SB 572 by Sen. Mark Leno, a San Francisco Democrat – offers a brief appreciation of his life and legacy.
-30-
Garcetti, Backed by Tenant Groups, Wins L.A. Mayor’s Race
By Randy Shaw
Eric Garcetti has won a 53%-46% victory in the Los Angeles mayor’s race following a tough campaign against Wendy Greuel. Greuel sought to become the city’s first female mayor, but was a bland candidate from the Valley who failed to energize women voters. Although the media framed the candidates as ideologically similar – the New York Times claimed they “did little to differentiate themselves on major issues like jobs and the city budget” – the city’s big landlord and realtor groups backed Greuel, while tenant groups like the Coalition for Economic Survival supported Garcetti. Greuel pledged to decimate the city’s vastly improved housing code enforcement program, while Garcetti has long backed tenants and affordable housing. I wrote on April 3 that Greuel faced an “uphill battle,” and that New York City’s Christine Quinn, another real estate-backed moderate woman candidate, had a greater chance of success. Quinn’s chances still look good, particularly because she does not face an opponent as strong as Garcetti.
Whitaker does a 180 on Obamacare – now favors full repeal
In a candid interview with Des Moines Register columnist Kathie Obradovich a couple of weeks ago, soon-to-be Republican U.S. candidate Matt Whitaker said that he opposed the outright repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
Instead, Whitaker told Obradovich that the law needed to be “reformed and fixed.” He went on to say, “We don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water. I think it’s a very easy sound bite to say repeal Obamacare, or repeal the Affordable Care Act, but there are actually some good things. Very few, but there are some good things.”
Whitaker has since reversed is position on the Affordable Care Act and now favors its outright repeal. Whitaker explained his position change at a conservative breakfast club in Des Moines on Tuesday.
Whitaker explained that he likes how Obamacare allows you keep your own doctor. He also appreciated that Obamacare was not a tax, despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was. Whitaker then admitted that after examining the new law closer, there is nothing good about it, and thus joined every Republican member in congress in calling for its full repeal.
Whitaker also made an argument that the new healthcare law is unconstitutional because it did not originate in the U.S. House of Representative. Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states that “all bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” Whitaker noted that since the bill originated in the U.S. Senate and not the U.S. House, the controversial law ought to be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the interview with Obradovich, Whitaker also said, “People know my reputation and who I am. And I think it is one of the many things that is wrong with politics right now is candidates holding up a mirror to voters and repeating what they are told by those voters. I’m just going to be a different kind of politician.”
Some voters may know who Whitaker is, but his little flip-flop on Obamacare demonstrates that they might not know exactly where he stands on some significant issues. It is also apparent that the blowback he received from the interview he gave to Obradovich caused him to reconsider his position.
To be fair, Whitaker isn’t the only likely Republican U.S. candidate having a change of heart on an issue. State Senator Joni Ernst, once a supporter of raising the state’s gas tax, now opposes the idea. Ernst told Mike Wiser of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, “I think there are other ways to pay for road repairs than raising taxes.”
Whitaker claims to have been targeted by IRS
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Matt Whitaker contends that the IRS audited both him and his law partner because of their association with various conservative organizations. Whitaker made the allegation while speaking to a few dozen Republican activists Tuesday morning at a Des Moines area conservative breakfast club.
Whitaker and Bill Gustoff, one of the partners in his law firm, are the registered agents for at least three conservative organizations that were established in 2010. Whitaker is listed as the registered agent for Iowans for Prosperity. Gustoff is listed as the registered agent for The Des Moines Tea Party and Iowa Firearms Coalition. Whitaker says that the IRS has recently audited both him and Gustoff.
Whitaker said that he recently settled his audit with the IRS and it was determined that he did not own any additional money.
Do economic development incentives work?
Judging the effectiveness of economic development incentives requires looking for the unseen effects as well as what is easily seen. It’s easy to see the groundbreaking and ribbon cutting ceremonies that commemorate government intervention — politicians and bureaucrats are drawn to them, and will spend taxpayer funds to make sure you’re aware. It’s more difficult to see that the harm that government intervention causes.
That’s assuming that the incentives even work as advertised in the first place. Alan Peters and Peter Fisher, in their paper titled The Failures of Economic Development Incentives published in Journal of the American Planning Association, wrote on the effects of incentives. A few quotes from the study, with emphasis added:
Given the weak effects of incentives on the location choices of businesses at the interstate level, state governments and their local governments in the aggregate probably lose far more revenue, by cutting taxes to firms that would have located in that state anyway than they gain from the few firms induced to change location.
On the three major questions — Do economic development incentives create new jobs? Are those jobs taken by targeted populations in targeted places? Are incentives, at worst, only moderately revenue negative? — traditional economic development incentives do not fare well. It is possible that incentives do induce significant new growth, that the beneficiaries of that growth are mainly those who have greatest difficulty in the labor market, and that both states and local governments benefit fiscally from that growth. But after decades of policy experimentation and literally hundreds of scholarly studies, none of these claims is clearly substantiated. Indeed, as we have argued in this article, there is a good chance that all of these claims are false.
The most fundamental problem is that many public officials appear to believe that they can influence the course of their state or local economies through incentives and subsidies to a degree far beyond anything supported by even the most optimistic evidence. We need to begin by lowering their expectations about their ability to micromanage economic growth and making the case for a more sensible view of the role of government — providing the foundations for growth through sound fiscal practices, quality public infrastructure, and good education systems — and then letting the economy take care of itself.
Following is the full paper, or click here.
MD Democratic Chair Statement On The Passing Of Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee Member Karla Walker
Maryland Democrat Party Chair, Yvette Lewis, released the follow statement on the passing of Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee member, Karla Walker: “I would like to extend my deepest condolences to the family and loved ones of Karla Walker as they mourn her passing. Karla was a wonderful friend, colleague, and committee member. Maryland has [...]