By Donald C. Fry

Baltimore City’s precipitous-but-slowing population decline over the past 50 years is not a new problem. But Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, in her December 6 inauguration speech, made it a keynote challenge by setting a goal of attracting 10,000 families into the city during the next 10 years.

Though there are not yet any official plans for how to lure new residents to Baltimore City, one core strategy well worth considering should be to improve rail connectivity, especially between the city and the Washington D.C. area.

In an age where high-speed rail technology exists to enable travel times as short as 18 minutes to the D.C. region, with an overall population of nearly 5.6 million, the seventh-largest metropolitan area in the U.S., we must seriously consider pursuing it.

Many businesses already consider the D.C.-Baltimore corridor to be one market, and their CEOs frequently express frustration over the challenge of easily getting from one city to the other. Improving rail connectivity would more readily open up Baltimore to a vast region of people, many of whom are looking for lower housing costs and would welcome quicker commutes to work in D.C.

Baltimore could also greatly benefit from better rail connections to northeast Maryland in order to better serve commuters in the increasingly busy BRAC corridor between D.C., Baltimore and Aberdeen Proving Ground.

For example, limited MARC rail commuter service between Aberdeen and Baltimore dampened what could have been a larger influx of BRAC-related residents to the city, where only 2.5 percent of out-of-state workers whose jobs relocated to APG decided to live.

“We could have put a lot more people into Canton if we had more trains to Aberdeen,” says Jim Richardson, Harford County’s executive director of economic development.

Currently, rail commuters to APG from the city have only two MARC options — trains that arrive at APG at 6:06 a.m. and 7:42 a.m. and leave at 5:19 p.m. and 6:33 p.m.

A better-functioning, faster and more efficient rail commuter system would encourage more D.C. and APG workers to move to Baltimore City. Even for northern Virginians who chose not to relocate for BRAC jobs in central Maryland, better rail connectivity would at the very least improve their quality of life.

High-speed rail is the means to achieve such connectivity. Maryland has had a program to develop maglev – now a federally-recognized part of high-speed rail technology – in place for more than 20 years. During that time, advocates in Baltimore have been the driving force behind the effort to make Baltimore-Washington the first site in the U.S. to take advantage of maglev technology.

The project currently has a federally-approved draft environmental impact statement, and is pursuing final environmental impact approval from the Federal Railroad Administration.

In Congress, Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, has singled out the Boston-to-Washington corridor as the most practical location for a high-speed rail system, contrasting the Obama administration’s nationwide approach.

Meanwhile, the Maryland Department of Transportation is working on ways to shorten or eliminate a Baltimore layover for MARC rail commuters from Aberdeen to the District, which could shave at least an hour off workers’ travel times to destinations south of Baltimore.

Baltimore can only benefit from finding ways to make rail commutes in Central Maryland more palatable and even, dare we think it, convenient.

Mobility is a core pillar of a city or region’s business environment and quality of life. Significantly strengthening rail connectivity to and from Baltimore would make the city exponentially more attractive as a place to live.

It would help jump start the residential rebound the city is seeking.

Donald C. Fry is president and CEO of the Greater Baltimore Committee. He is a regular contributor to Center Maryland.

Recent Center Maryland columns by Donald C. Fry:

Talking past each other in Annapolis

Government and business teamwork: an essential prerequisite for economic growth

The things people say on Opening Day in Annapolis

Maryland Stadium Authority detractors prove spectacularly inaccurate

In 2012 only one thing should matter for state lawmakers: jobs

USM decision aims for something better than a merger

Recognizing selfless acts of community service in the private sector

Deadline approaches for businesses to suggest regulations to change or eliminate

Minority and women entrepreneurs provide lessons in seizing opportunity

Anyone rooting for Maryland to make a difference in the Republican presidential nomination fight had better pray for a closer-than-expected finish in today’s Florida primary.

By all accounts, Mitt Romney is widening the gap over Newt Gingrich in the Sunshine State and should win rather handily. Already you can hear the pundits declaring that Romney has “righted his ship” and will now cruise to the nomination.

(Why are nautical terms so overused in politics? And why is it that when you think of Mitt Romney righting his ship, you immediately conjure up the image of a yacht, with the candidate dressed like “Junior,” the character Tony Curtis played in “Some Like It Hot” when he wasn’t in drag?)

Has Romney indeed secured the nomination? Maybe not yet. But it’s pretty likely that by the time the Maryland primary rolls around on April 3, it’ll be all over but the shouting. At the very least, it will require a few more unexpected twists and turns – and this nomination fight has already produced plenty – for Maryland to be relevant.

That’s too bad. Not only would it be great, for political junkies and average Marylanders alike, to see the state matter politically, if only for a little. But it would also be great to see all the tribes in Maryland Republican politics duke it out for their preferred candidates – and that might actually help the state GOP in the long run.

Maryland leaders hit upon a good thing when they arranged, with officials from Virginia and D.C., to stage a mini-regional primary in February 2008. Although it was wedged between more important contests, the Maryland primary provided some excitement, and Barack Obama’s victories over Hillary Clinton in Maryland, Virginia and D.C. – over the wishes of Martin O’Malley, among other party leaders – were further evidence of his candidacy’s potency. Candidates, operatives and the media paid close attention – if only for a few moments.

This time, the three jurisdictions did not set their primary dates together, though D.C.’s is coincidentally the same day as Maryland’s. But it’s probably too little, too late. Forget Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida – the U.S. Virgin Islands (March 10), Hawaii (March 13) and Puerto Rico (March 18) will have more say about the Republican presidential nominee than we will. Talk about indignities!

Which doesn’t mean the GOP contest is going to come to an end tonight. Gingrich will vow to fight on. Rick Santorum will try to identify more fertile territory for his low-budget social issues crusade. Ron Paul will keep running, because what has he got to lose? The fortunes of each will probably rise and fall a bit over the next few weeks.

Nevada, on Saturday, should be strong for Romney. Caucuses next Tuesday in Colorado and Minnesota, and a beauty contest primary that day in Missouri, are harder to read.

They will be followed by a three-week hiatus. What will the candidates be doing during that interregnum? Will the media be rushing to crown a nominee or trying to extend the fight? Will the so-called GOP establishment, whatever that is, be pushing ever harder for a Romney coronation? It’s safe to say that it will be tough for the candidates to build momentum during that period if they’ve had a few deflating performances in a row.

Primaries follow on Feb. 28 in Michigan – a strong Romney state for sure – and Arizona, where there is a sizeable Mormon population and where Romney’s decision to outflank Gingrich on the right on the issue of illegal immigration could make all the difference.

Super Tuesday is next on March 6, with voters in 10 states going to the polls, including four southern states (Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Virginia), which could help resuscitate Gingrich some if his campaign still has a pulse – and if he can turn the conversation away from moon colonies and his own transgressions and back to more fertile, demagogue-able territory like food stamps (African-Americans, bad) and Saul Alinsky (left-wing Jews, ditto).

If the conventional wisdom holds, Romney should have the nomination sewn up after Super Tuesday.

But suppose the contest goes longer than anyone imagined and Maryland (whose primary will be held the same day as Texas’, Wisconsin’s and D.C.’s) is suddenly important. What would the race here look like?

Like most everyplace else, much of the Maryland Republican establishment is with Romney. Bob “Read My Book and My Column” Ehrlich is his state chairman, whatever that means (Ehrlich’s initial preferences in the two most recent Republican presidential nominating fights: Rudy Giuliani and John Kasich, respectively). Louis Pope, the Republican national committeeman from Maryland, is also in Romney’s camp.

More significantly, so is Kevin Igoe, the talented GOP strategist who actually knows a thing or two about winning elections here. Others backing Romney include Audrey Scott, Joe Getty, Addie Eckardt, Al Redmer, Steve Schuh, Bryan Simonaire, Alan Kittleman, Howie Denis, Charles Lollar, Lee Cowen and Kathy Afzali.

But the list of Gingrich supporters, while not as long, is also noteworthy – and maybe more important, populated with some true brawlers. It’s headed by Andy Harris and Ellen Sauerbrey, and includes Ron George, Tony McConkey, Cathy Vitale, Ed Reilly, Warren Miller, Trent Kittleman – Alan Kittleman’s step-mother – and Eulalia Mooney, Alex Mooney’s mom.

One can almost imagine the current Romney-Gingrich dynamic playing out among their supporters here – and the byplay between longtime rivals and antagonists on behalf of their chosen candidates. But, alas, it is unlikely to happen.

Throughout this presidential campaign season, many Republicans have lamented that the party did not put its top tier of potential candidates on the playing field. Shame that our state leaders arranged things so we wouldn’t have a top-tier primary, either.

*******************

From the Republicans to the Democrats: Emerge America, a national group that trains Democratic women to run for office, is now coming to Maryland. Already up and running in nine states, the group’s immediate goal here is to boost the number of women running for and serving in the state legislature.

Heading the effort in Maryland are Susie Turnbull, the former state Democratic chairwoman and one-time Democratic National Committee vice chairwoman, and Martha McKenna, an accomplished operative most closely associated in Maryland with the political success of Sheila Dixon (McKenna, Roll Call reported yesterday, is also about to take over the independent expenditure operation for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee).

Emerge Maryland is hosting its first event Thursday evening – not in Maryland exactly, but in the Georgetown home of Edie Fraser, a philanthropist and political activist. A Who’s Who of Maryland Democrats – women and men – have given the group seed money, and U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) and U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nevada), who is running for Senate, are expected to be at the inaugural event.

We won’t know until late 2014 how effective Emerge Maryland is going to be on its first go-around. But whenever a national organization comes into Maryland and tries to replicate the success it’s had elsewhere, it’s worth watching.

Josh Kurtz is editor of Environment & Energy Daily, a Capitol Hill publication. He can be reached at joshkurtz92@gmail.com.

Recent Center Maryland columns by Josh Kurtz:

Free Shot

Miller’s Crossing

Can’t You Hear Me Knocking?

O’Malley and the Mod Squad

Jim Rosapepe’s Boot & Roscoe Bartlett’s Poll

Walter Dozier, RIP

Redistricting, By the Numbers and in Black and White

Living in Infamy

Holiday Green and Anthony Brown

All I Want for Christmas Is Bob Ehrlich’s Book (Plus: A Meditation on Tom Perez)

Check out Governor O’Malley’s appearance from Friday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” where he talked about such successful efforts as the public-private partnership that boosted the Port of Baltimore. O’Malley was joined by the Democratic governors of Illinois and Delaware during the appearance.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Walter Russell Mead writes in the The American Interest that we need to get beyond the dysfunctional and outdated ideas of 20th-century liberalism.

“The core institutions, ideas and expectations that shaped American life for the sixty years after the New Deal don’t work anymore. The gaps between the social system we inhabit and the one we now need are becoming so wide that we can no longer paper over them,” Mead writes. “But even as the failures of the old system become more inescapable and more damaging, our national discourse remains stuck in a bygone age. The end is here, but we can’t quite take it in.”

Read more here.

By Herbert Sweren and Barry Silverman

From Tea Party ralliers to The Occupy Movement, Americans share a common level of frustration not seen since the Great Depression. This frustration is at the core of dismal approval ratings for both the President and Congress and daily cries for better leadership and an end to “politics as usual.”

So if everyone agrees the system is broken, why can’t we fix it? While there is certainly no shortage of starting points, we would argue that to get better leadership in DC we need to elect better leaders at the local and state level. And to do that, we must turn the “war chest” mentality that currently rules political campaigns inside out.

For too long, smart, well-meaning – but underfunded – candidates lose in local elections to candidates who may not be well-versed in dealing with the issues, but are well-heeled in terms of financial backing. Too many times, the best candidate loses to an opponent whose only real advantage is money. In the 2010 elections, candidates who raised the most money won 80% of the time.

One solution is to level the playing field by placing caps on campaign spending. But let’s be realistic: taking money out of the equation isn’t going to happen anytime soon. And while that idea may have merit, a preferable solution may be for politics to take a page from business. The past two decades have taught us that being the biggest company and spending the most money doesn’t necessarily translate into business success. Look at the many upstart companies that have managed to combine technology with good old-fashioned smarts to outmaneuver larger, better established competitors.

To neutralize the biggest campaign war chests, candidates need to take advantage of the technology at their disposal and surround themselves with street-smart political advisors who know how to interpret that technology and work it to their advantage.

Reasonably-priced technology now allows candidates to break down a jurisdiction by likely voters, categorized by party, age, gender, etc. This information allows candidates to allocate their time and resources more effectively, while eliminating the time, effort, and staff needed to pore over maps the old-fashioned way to determine where likely voters are. Software is also available to organize door-to-door canvassing and see how residents voted in the previous election. Additional information such as whether residents at a particular address want a lawn sign or wish to volunteer can easily be gathered and added to a central database.

Technology also can be used to efficiently manage an election-day strategy so that sufficient numbers of volunteers are assigned to polling sites with the most voter-rich precincts. Costs associated with holding town hall meetings can be vastly reduced by holding video town halls via the campaign website. Smart candidates can also harness the power of social media to take grassroots campaigning to a whole new level.

Technology alone cannot do the job. But combining election-tested political acumen with available technology can go a long way toward reducing the impact money has on political campaigns. And that, in turn, can mean that better candidates – not just better financed candidates – will stand a better chance of being elected, making a difference, and ultimately turning frustration into fulfillment.

Herbert Sweren and Barry Silverman are co-founders of the campaign-management solutions company, CampaignON.

By Donald C. Fry

The dramatically contrasting philosophies in Annapolis regarding addressing the state’s transportation funding crisis and other issues were on full display Monday at the Greater Baltimore Committee’s 2012 General Assembly Legislative Forum in Baltimore.

The compelling disagreement between the leaders of the Democratic majority and Republican minority on a broad array of important fiscal and policy issues facing the state reminds us all of how stiflingly contentious and intransigent it has become in the State House these days.

On issues relating directly to having a competitive business environment, there is precious little agreement on anything, but lawmakers have plenty to say about everything – some of it not entirely factual, some of it just simply ambiguous – as they basically talk past each other.

For example, they even argue over the state’s No. 1 ranking for education, something for which lawmakers in both parties have voted to increase spending by billions over the last decade. Majority party leaders point to that funding commitment as largely responsible for a continuing No. 1 national ranking for Maryland’s public schools.

Minority leaders, however, argue that our state’s No. 1 ranking is tainted by comparatively lower achievement in the state’s urban school districts and by the large percentage of Maryland high school graduates who need remedial English or math when they get to college. These may be arguable, but the legislator who told the GBC audience that Maryland high schools only graduate 50 percent of students was dead wrong. State data show a graduation rate of 87 percent in 2011.

On state spending, majority party leaders told GBC members that the state is reducing operating spending, contending that hundreds of millions of dollars have been “cut” from state budgets over the last several years and that this year’s general fund budget submitted by Governor O’Malley is less than the one he proposed last year.

Minority leaders say the budget is increasing, not decreasing. The governor’s budget summary, which shows a 1.9 percent increase in the general fund budget he submitted, appears to substantiate the minority lawmakers’ assertion on this one.

On energy, the administration is aggressively pushing for development of offshore wind power as a core strategy to lowering long-term energy costs. Opponents label the idea a boondoggle that will only increase energy costs – not lower them.

I could go on, but the most virulent crossfire this year breaks out over the issue of increasing funding for transportation infrastructure. Virtually everyone agrees on the basic facts:

• Maryland has a multi-billion backlog of unfunded-but-needed transportation projects.

• Revenue to Maryland’s transportation fund has severely stagnated primarily because its largest source of revenue – the gas tax – has not been increased in 20 years, a period of time during which 37 other states have found a way to increase their gas tax.

Almost everyone in Annapolis agrees that something must be done about transportation infrastructure sometime.

Most legislative leaders say the time is now, a position that a very large contingent of business advocates agree with. Leading lawmakers say they are poised to support measures, including potentially a gas tax increase, to generate between $500 million and $800 million in new revenue to the transportation fund and more than 30,000 new jobs in construction and related industries. All are awaiting a proposal from the governor.

Minority opponents virulently oppose the notion of a gas tax increase and virtually any other measures to increase transportation funding. Among other things, they tell audiences that all of the increased funding will go to transit projects in the Baltimore and D.C. regions, implying that none of it will go to rural road projects or that transit projects are not deserving of state funding or serve a legitimate purpose for a segment of our state’s citizens.

This harkens back to 25-year-old rural-versus-urban battles in Annapolis.

In the middle of all of this, a top legislative leader in Annapolis tells the media that a transportation funding measure is not likely to pass this year, even before a specific funding proposal has been made.

Meanwhile, on the topic of “raiding” the transportation fund for other uses, General Assembly leaders say all raided funds have been repaid over the years. Minority lawmakers say not so. One says that transportation funding should not be increased because he doesn’t trust his fellow lawmakers not to raid the fund even if they pass a law to prohibit it.

These are just examples of what passes for public dialogue among lawmakers so far in 2012. There are many others. The best we can hope for is that our elected leaders can find a way to talk to each other, not around each other, between now and April 9 when the session ends.

Donald C. Fry is president and CEO of the Greater Baltimore Committee. He is a regular contributor to Center Maryland.

Recent Center Maryland columns by Donald C. Fry:

Government and business teamwork: an essential prerequisite for economic growth

The things people say on Opening Day in Annapolis

Maryland Stadium Authority detractors prove spectacularly inaccurate

In 2012 only one thing should matter for state lawmakers: jobs

USM decision aims for something better than a merger

Recognizing selfless acts of community service in the private sector

Deadline approaches for businesses to suggest regulations to change or eliminate

Minority and women entrepreneurs provide lessons in seizing opportunity

Aberdeen Proving Ground: Maryland’s newest economic powerhouse

Baltimore region endures recession losses, but drives state’s modest jobs comeback

Back in 2004, at an evening reception in Annapolis a couple of weeks before the Maryland primary, I was surprised to find myself right behind state Sen. Richard Colburn in the buffet line.

Colburn was trying to oust Congressman Wayne Gilchrest in the Republican primary that year, and I figured he’d be spending every free hour meeting voters in the 1st Congressional district. So I asked him why he was in the Loews Hotel in Annapolis instead of in Romancoke or Salisbury or Denton. Colburn looked down at the steam table of stuffed ham before him and then gave me a “you’ve got to be kidding” look.

“Free food,” he replied with succinct eloquence.

No one was surprised when Colburn went on to lose to Gilchrest by 24 points.
So here we are in another presidential election year, and seven Maryland state legislators are running for Congress. Most have about as much chance as Colburn of winding up there.

But all are chasing the dream, however far-fetched, seizing on the quadrennial opportunity in presidential years that enables members of the legislature to seek federal office without risking their seats in Annapolis.

Maryland state legislators are elected to Congress all the time. At present, half of the members of the state’s congressional delegation — Sen. Ben Cardin (D) and Reps. Andy Harris (R ), Steny Hoyer (D), Elijah Cummings (D) and Chris Van Hollen (D) — are Annapolis alumni. Of that group, only Cummings — in a special election that did not require him to sacrifice his seat in the House of Delegates — was sent to Congress in a presidential year.

Far longer is the list of Maryland legislators who ran futile campaigns for Congress, particularly in years that coincided with a White House election.

It’s hard to run for Congress under any circumstance. In Maryland, it’s particularly hard for legislators to run in presidential years.

Over the last several cycles, the primaries in presidential years have taken place anywhere from February to April — in the dead of winter or early spring, when lawmakers are buried in their work in Annapolis, and voters and the media are preoccupied by the ongoing presidential race. It’s hard for a congressional candidate who’s a state legislator to raise money, put together a campaign apparatus, and spend significant time on the campaign trail while he or she is stuck in Annapolis.

Yet many do it — lured, no doubt, by the knowledge that even if they fail spectacularly, they still have their State House sinecures to fall back on. All are no doubt serious about wanting to serve in Congress. But that doesn’t mean that they’re all serious about doing what they need to do to get there.

This year, state Senate Majority Leader Rob Garagiola has an even chance — maybe even a better than even chance — in the newly-drawn 6th congressional district, which is now highly favorable for Democrats.

Two other Annapolis lawmakers, state Sen. David Brinkley and Del. Kathy Afzali, are trying to oust veteran Congressman Roscoe Bartlett in the 6th district Republican primary. Both are appealing political commodities who would probably make fine members of Congress — and many political insiders, both Republicans and Democrats, believe Brinkley would make a stronger candidate than Bartlett in the general election given the district’s new contours and demographics.

But both have precious little time to make their case against the entrenched incumbent, whatever his political shortcomings. And the fact that they’re both running means they’ll be splitting the anti-Bartlett vote.

In the 2nd congressional district, state Sen. Nancy Jacobs and Del. Rick Impallaria are competing in the April 3 Republican primary for the right to take on Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D). The winner will then have seven months to convince voters to fire the incumbent.

The same is true in the 5th congressional district, where state House Minority Leader Tony O’Donnell (R) is taking on Hoyer. Hoyer and Ruppersberger remain strong favorites for re-election, but the legislators represent their toughest opponents in years. If things go badly for the Democrats in this legislative session, if a national Republican wave suddenly materializes in the fall, those races could get interesting.

Then there is the quixotic campaign of state Sen. Anthony Muse, who is trying to upend Cardin the Democratic Senate primary. Kweisi Mfume, a leading figure in Maryland and national politics, couldn’t beat Cardin six years ago, so there’s no reason to believe Muse can.

Assuming that most of these legislators are going to return to Annapolis rather than advance to Capitol Hill, let’s take a quick look at the last five presidential election cycles and see what current and former colleagues they’ll be joining in the losers’ circle. You may be surprised by some of the names you see as we take this little walk down Memory Lane.

In 1992, right after a round of redistricting, U.S. Rep. Tom McMillen (D) was forced to run for re-election in mostly unfamiliar territory. He wound up drawing several Democratic primary challengers, including then-Dels. Samuel Q. Johnson III and John Astle. McMillen won the primary with 55 percent of the vote to 24 for Johnson and 14 for Astle. McMillen went on to lose the general election to Gilchrest in a member vs. member contest; Astle was elected to the state Senate two years later.

That same year, in a newly-drawn congressional district designed to elect an African-American, then-state Sen. Albert Wynn narrowly won a crowded Democratic primary. Also running, as the most prominent white candidate in the race, was then-Del. Dana Dembrow, who finished third.

In 1996, a conservative first-term delegate, Barrie Ciliberti, ran against then-U.S. Rep. Connie Morella in the 8th district Republican primary. He lost by 38 points and quickly faded into obscurity. That same year, then-Del. John Morgan was the Republican nominee against Hoyer, taking 43 percent of the vote — one of the best showings ever by a Hoyer GOP challenger.

But the big scrum involving state legislators that year was the 20-candidate Democratic primary in the spring special election to replace Mfume, when he left Congress to become president of the NAACP. Cummings, then the state House speaker pro tem, finished at the top of the heap, with 37 percent. Baltimore minister Frank Reid was his closest competition, taking 24 percent. Democratic primary also-rans included state Sen. Delores Kelley (10 percent), then-Del. Ken Montague (3 percent), then-Del. Tiger Davis (2 percent) and then-Del. Salima Siler Marriott (2 percent).

In 2000, then-Del. Bennett Bozman was the Democratic nominee against Gilchrest, but he was clobbered, taking just 35 percent of the vote. Then-Del. Tim Hutchins had the same anemic percentage that year as the Republican nominee against Hoyer.

But the prize for futility in 2000 was then-Del. Jake Mohorovic, running in the 2nd district when Republican Bob Ehrlich was the congressman there. He lost the Democratic primary to farmer Ken Bosley, a frequent candidate, by 11 points.

In 2004, in addition to Colburn’s flame-out against Gilchrest, state Sen. E.J. Pipkin, just two years after winning his seat in Annapolis by ousting veteran Sen. Walter Baker (D), was the Republican nominee against popular U.S. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D). She beat him 2-1 even though he poured millions of dollars of his own into the campaign.

Pipkin tried again four years later, joining Andy Harris in the Republican primary against Gilchrest. The tally: Harris 43 percent, Gilchrest 33 percent and Pipkin 20 percent. Harris went on to lose narrowly to Democrat Frank Kratovil in the general election that year, but beat him in a rematch in 2010. And thanks to redistricting, it looks as if he’ll be in Congress for a long time.

So yes, there is sometimes a political afterlife for congressional losers who serve in the legislature. But just as often, there is political obscurity. You pays your money, you takes your chances.

Josh Kurtz is editor of Environment & Energy Daily, a Capitol Hill publication. He can be reached at joshkurtz92@gmail.com.

Recent Center Maryland columns by Josh Kurtz:

Miller’s Crossing

Can’t You Hear Me Knocking?

O’Malley and the Mod Squad

Jim Rosapepe’s Boot & Roscoe Bartlett’s Poll

Walter Dozier, RIP

Redistricting, By the Numbers and in Black and White

Living in Infamy

Holiday Green and Anthony Brown

All I Want for Christmas Is Bob Ehrlich’s Book (Plus: A Meditation on Tom Perez)

By Donald C. Fry

The road to job creation and economic recovery will be smoother and stronger if state government partners with business to develop policies rather than imposing policies on the private sector. There is an opportunity in the 2012 General Assembly session and going forward to not waste energy by having government and business work at odds with one another, which we all know does not work well for either party.

Everyone remembers the great tech tax battle of 2007-2008. A late-session attempt to plug a $200 million revenue hole during budget deliberations initiated an all-out pitched battle between the tech industry and the state legislature. The tax passed with no input from business, no hearings and no opportunity for industry to argue against it, much less be involved in developing it. A tremendous amount of effort was expended to get it repealed and the net result is a lingering sense of unease between the tech industry and government.

Scarcely a year later, the biotech industry went toe-to-toe with the Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development when it sought to issue new regulations regarding the way the biotech tax credit was administered to young biotechnology companies.

The tax credit is one of the sacred cows of the biotech industry and a model for the nation. Companies did not want anything changed. They were just happy to have it available to them. If, for the sake of efficiencies, changes had to be made, the biotech industry wanted to be right there at the crafting table helping and advising. As it turned out, the regulations were not changed, but Maryland’s young industry remains confused about why it had not been consulted.

The bottom line is that usually companies in an industry know what they want and need. They can be invaluable resources and formidable opponents. For the most part, neither government nor industry comes to negotiations with a negative intent. When government acts, it is legitimately trying to improve a process or solve a problem. The same is true of industry. When companies ask for tax relief, or regulatory relief, it is not out of greed. It stems from a sincere desire to improve the functioning and welfare of the industry and to create more jobs.

One of the Greater Baltimore Committee’s core pillars for a competitive business environment is “government leadership that unites with business as a partner.” This is neither an unlikely nor an unattainable goal. Both government and industry bring expertise, experience and expectations to any negotiations for change. But both have to be at the table from the beginning for the outcome to be positive. Business can’t be seen as an after-thought.

Governor Martin O’Malley’s indication last fall that business regulation reform will be a signature issue for this year’s legislative session is a good sign. This is an initiative that merits strong follow-up. It’s also an initiative to which business can and should have significant input and work in partnership with government for maximum benefit.

This can be the year that a new public-private team is formed to build a strong, smooth road to economic recovery. Let’s hope that this window of opportunity is not missed.

Donald C. Fry is president and CEO of the Greater Baltimore Committee. He is a regular contributor to Center Maryland.

Recent Center Maryland columns by Donald C. Fry:

The things people say on Opening Day in Annapolis

Maryland Stadium Authority detractors prove spectacularly inaccurate

In 2012 only one thing should matter for state lawmakers: jobs

USM decision aims for something better than a merger

Recognizing selfless acts of community service in the private sector

Deadline approaches for businesses to suggest regulations to change or eliminate

Minority and women entrepreneurs provide lessons in seizing opportunity

Aberdeen Proving Ground: Maryland’s newest economic powerhouse

Baltimore region endures recession losses, but drives state’s modest jobs comeback

Center Maryland columnist Josh Kurtz, the editor of the Capitol Hill publication Environment & Energy Daily, will be a featured guest on Thursday’s NewsTalk with Bruce DePuyt.

Topics are expected to include the upcoming gay marriage debate in the Maryland General Assembly, the DREAM Act, and other issues facing the legislature.

NewsChannel 8’s interview show airs each weekday morning at 10 a.m., and also streams live at news8.net. Daily replays are at 11:30 p.m.

By Delegate C. William Frick

Let me start with the bad news. By our best estimates, Maryland spends nearly $4 billion every year through tax expenditures – the panoply of credits, exemptions, deductions, and subtraction modifications that permeate our tax code, giving tax reductions or cash to select individuals and businesses.

Now here’s the really bad news. We can only rely on our “best estimates” because in many instances, Maryland does not even know how much it spends through tax expenditures, or who receives the benefit. There is often no way for taxpayers or policymakers to know whether these tax incentives are serving the public good.

This is the backdrop for legislation I have developed with colleagues on the Maryland House Ways and Means Committee. The Tax Credit Evaluation Act would force 29 of the state’s tax credits to undergo a simple cost-benefit analysis every five years. If this review demonstrates that the credit is inefficient or unnecessary, it would be allowed to expire. If the program is found to be effective, the Assembly would renew the program, and may choose to further enhance or expand it.

The Tax Credit Evaluation Act would help put tax expenditures on the same footing as traditional expenditures. When the state spends money directly, each dollar spent is scrutinized through the Governor’s budget and the General Assembly’s appropriations process. Tax credits, by contrast, sit safely away in the state tax code rewarding select taxpayers, and rarely face meaningful review.

This is common sense legislation. Government should always know that it is spending the public’s money wisely, whether through appropriations or tax credits. This obligation is even greater today, as we continue to face painful decisions about raising taxes or cutting services.

In her op-ed published January 9, Margie Anne Bonnett argues against this simple cost-benefit approach, because the mere possibility that business tax credits would expire would harm the state’s business climate. Bonnett asks, “Should Marylanders Get Mad?”

Absolutely. Marylanders should get mad. They should be upset that any state program would not be justified by a meaningful understanding of the program’s costs and benefits. And they should be outraged at the fiscal NIMBY-ism expressed by Bonnett, who would have us “investigate” general fund and transportation appropriations, but forbid similar treatment of tax expenditures for business. Are these credits really so sacred that we dare not put them up for review twice a decade?

Make no mistake, the Tax Credit Evaluation Act does not destroy tax incentives for businesses or any other taxpayers. It is just a first step toward accountability and transparency for millions in annual expenditures that face little of either.

A Maryland Daily Record editorial summarized the argument in its four-word headline: “tax giveaways need scrutiny.” Particularly in this period of strained budgets, they do indeed.

Delegate C. William Frick is a Democrat who represents District 16 in Montgomery County.