Examiner State House Bureau Chief Len Lazarick sat down with Gov. Martin O?Malley in his State House office for a half-hour interview Tuesday morning.
Q: How is dealing with the Maryland legislature different from dealing with the City Council?
A: The diversity of this body ? geographically, politically, and the array of perspectives on every issue — is just so much broader. When I was mayor we were pretty successful at always finding a consensus around the things that were important, but we always lacked the [fiscal] capacity.
As governor of Maryland, you?re governing a state that has a tremendous amount of capacity, but because it is so diverse from Western Maryland, Eastern Shore, the Baltimore area, the Washington area ? it?s very difficult to find consensus. It?s kind of the opposite dynamic that was in play in Baltimore.
Q: Did you get much of the anger, the feedback about the tax increases?
A: I believe that no one ? Democrat, Republican or independent ? ever wants to pay more in taxes. Once the public came to understand the size of our problem and the potential depth of the hurt that would be caused to many people if we were to balance the budget entirely with cuts, I think a majority of the people became much more open to the reality that we have to pay a little more in taxes.
There will always be a certain core group of people who believe that taxes by their nature are the equivalent of pestilence, drought and famine. That belief, which many of them sincerely hold, I believe fuels the vitriol with which they choose to engage in public debate and public discussion.
Q: Did you sense that, receive that?
A: Absolutely. I ran into that at town halls, I ran into that going about my own business, ran into it in church. Also when I was taking my two boys to a football game.
Q: A Ravens game? And the guy was pretty abusive?
A: A Ravens game. Yeah, very, very abusive. Lots of expletives, ending up with “You?re a GD socialist.”
Sure, we saw those things. But I didn?t volunteer to do this because I thought it would be easy. For the most part, I think the public overall and their representatives handled this whole really difficult discussion and array of choices with a lot of civility and class.
Q: Dundalk Sen. Norman Stone told me last week: “If the governor would have said to each one of his Cabinet secretaries, look through your budget, cut that budget by whatever it took. I don?t think it would take over 2, 3 percent to make up this deficit or a good portion of it. And then if you had slots coming, you would probably be OK. I know they could have found whatever it takes to balance that budget.”
A: I have tremendous respect for Sen. Stone, but I believe his analysis is inaccurate. The biggest single driver of our budgetary problems was the actions taken by Democrats and Republicans alike in cutting income taxes, while increasing investments in public education. There is no way we could have maintained our investments in public education, which is the foundation of our state, without de-funding virtually every other function of our state government ? public safety, not to mention protection of our environment of the bay.
We actually did go through a lot of cuts. The final package ? while the unfortunate headline in your publication was that we?ve “raised taxes by the highest amount ever” [“Lawmakers OK largest tax hike in state?s history”?Examiner lead front page headline Tuesday] ? in dollar terms, I suppose that could be said, in percentage terms that?s certainly not true ? the largest tax increases happened under Republican Gov. Agnew. The headline could factually be written that we cut spending by the largest amount in Maryland history.
There was a lot of cutting before we got to this point.
Q: You sold the tax package saying 83 percent of Marylanders would pay less. But the legislature changed that and you signed it.
A: We addressed a very big structural deficit, and we did it in such a way that 46 percent of Marylanders will actually see their taxes go down or see no increase at all, and that?s not a small accomplishment.
Q: Some people say “Cure the deficit, if it really exists, but why do we have these new programs for health insurance and the Bay.”
A: The revenue reforms and the slots measure passed by one vote ? just one vote. In addressing this challenge and talking to all the legislators, it was our judgment that a significant enough number of delegates and senators felt that we should not only be restoring fiscal responsibility but while we were making these tough votes, we should also turn this challenge into an opportunity to make greater progress on health and the environment.
That?s why those measures were part of this package. You might say the same about transportation funding as well. The deficit that we experienced in our transportation trust fund came from the last few years of diverting funds out of it. The transportation system has a mountain of needs, yet the only thing that is growing is traffic congestion. There were also a significant number of legislators who felt strongly that while we were restoring fiscal responsibility, we also needed to make greater investments in relieving traffic congestion.
Q: What has surprised you about being governor now that you?ve been in office 10 months?
A: The tremendous diversity of perceptions and opinions within such a relatively small geographic area.
Q: You didn?t get a sense of that in the campaign?
A: I did, but it is exaggerated in the legislature, not mitigated.
Q: The extremes get represented.
A: Yes, especially within your own party. I guess that?s another thing that surprised me is how extreme and unshakable certain perceptions can be, even within a party that prides itself on its diversity and plurality and ability to accommodate differences.
Q: What about the Republicans?
A: On Veterans Day, shortly after the House had taken action on the package that we submitted, I had two Republican delegates come up to me and whisper: “We should have just gone with the package that you submitted. We like that one a lot better than what we did last night.”
Q: They might have voted against both.
A: The fact of the matter is that they probably would have voted against both. As Speaker Busch said yesterday, the civility with which the debate was handled was partly a reflection that even the Republican members who would not vote for any of these things understood the necessity of dealing with the fiscal challenge.
Q: How has your family adapted to the Annapolis fishbowl?
A: They?re doing well. Katie?s doing well. The kids are all doing well. There?s a lot more scrutiny all around. There?s much more of a fishbowl sort of aspect to this. The girls are in high school, and they crave their privacy.
William has madesome friends in the area, which is good. And Jack has friends nearby as well. They?re adjusting great.
We?re so lucky to have four healthy kids.
Q: What?s the thing with the Blackberries [PDA devices] that you and all your staff and Cabinet members carry?
A: They?d become kind of standard issue in Baltimore, and it?s a lot more efficient and much more timely than placing phone calls, writing letters, writing memos. In the course of your day, there are so many things that could be handled just by a text message, that don?t need a full blown placing of a call, standing there on hold until the call gets through, leaving a message, getting a call back. It?s just the way we operate.
It?s been hard for some Cabinet members that are new to this.
It?s also a pretty much a necessity after the attacks of Sept. 11 and what happens to phone lines and cell phones and the like. So it?s actually a pretty essential communications tool.
Q: Do people ask you about any national ambitions to be Hillary Clinton?s vice president or a Cabinet secretary and what do you say to them?
A: Not really. It something press people will sometimes ask and detractors use it to undermine our real motives in restoring fiscal responsibility.
I consider myself very, very lucky to be able to do this job for the people of our state. And I also consider myself very fortunate as a Marylander that we are such a strong state, and I?m going to do everything in my power to make the most of every day that I have the ability to serve. Whether that?s one more week and I get hit by a bus or whether that?s three more years and voters choose to replace me. Or whether it?s seven more years, that will be their decision. But I?m going to do my best every day here.
My purpose in supporting Sen. Clinton early was to do all that I couldto have once again a strong partner in our federal government, which has been really difficult.
I did not truly appreciate how important President Clinton?s help was to the progress our city was making until we no longer had the cops dollars to put 200 cops on the street, until we no longer had any dollars for those redevelopment efforts that were so key, until we no longer had the $40 million a year in workforce investment for young people.
My purpose in supporting her early is that I think she?d be the best president; I think she?s the best candidate in our party. I think she?ll beat any of the Republican challengers. We really need our federal government if we?re going to make the sort of progress we all want to make ? cleaning up the Bay, improving education, the affordability of college, and also improving public safety.
Q: What do you do to relax?
A: Boy, damn little.
