RAIDING MISSION: MoCo Wants Corcoran Art Gallery in Wheaton // Virginia Pays $6.4 Million to "Retain" Redskins HQ

MOCO SEEKS TO LURE CORCORAN GALLERY TO WHEATON: The Washington Post's Jonathan O'Connell reported this week that DC's Corcoran Art Gallery and school (where Sam Arora recently got married), may be moving to a new location. The facility is apparently operating at a loss right now and hopes to cut expenses by selling their building. Montgomery County is now trying to lure Corcoran to the redevloping area near Wheaton, Maryland's Red Line metro station. See this excerpt from the Washington Post report:

WASHINGTON POST: When Corcoran’s board of trustees voted unanimously last week to authorize the shopping of the building, they said they had to do so to address its chronic operating losses, including $7.2 million for the fiscal year that ended last June....

Officials from neighboring jurisdictions have begun setting up meetings with Corcoran management to propose locations they hope could lure the museum — and, importantly, its art school — outside of the District....

“We have been in communication with them and expect that we will be visiting with them in the short term,” said Steve Silverman, director of economic development for Montgomery County.

Should the Corcoran move to a neighborhood such as Wheaton, Silverman said, it might help kick off a resurgence akin to the one Silver Spring experienced after the American Film Institute reopened there in 2003 after leaving the Kennedy Center....

DC-based land-use blogger Richard Layman analyzed some of the potential new sites for the Corcoran. He seems to be pessimistic about the idea of Corcoran moving to the 'burbs, unless a local jurisdiction can round up money to poach the institution. We shall see where this goes!


VIRGINIA GIVES REDSKINS $6.4 MILLION FROM TAXPAYERS TO DO NOTHING:  Meanwhile, unlike the Corcoran's very real attempt to re-locate, the Washington Redskins apparently have no plans to move their headquarters and training facilities out of neighboring Virginia. That didn't stop Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell from giving $6.4 million to the NFL's 2nd most profitable franchise -- just in case they might one day think about moving. *collective eye roll*

I could really care less what Virginia chooses to do with its tax money, but I thought this was a noteworthy story. After all, it seems to be a new regional phenomenon to see elected officials trying to give money to companies so that they won't move -- even if they never had plans to move. Read an excerpt from Laura Vozella's report in The Washington Post yesterday:

WASHINGTON POST: Gov. Robert F. McDonnell’s $6.4 million deal to keep the Washington Redskins’ corporate headquarters and August training camp in Virginia is not sitting well with House budget-writers....

Committee members also objected to McDonnell’s pursuit of the deal — without informing legislators, they contended — after House members had twice rejected similar plans during the General Assembly session.

“He’s making a decision that’s contrary to what the vast majority of House members thought was appropriate,” said Del. R. Steven Landes (R-Augusta)....

Said Landes: “There wasn’t a lot of support for using state tax dollars to help the company and keep them in the state. Not that folks don’t want them here . . . [but] because they’re the second most profitable NFL organization....”

Virginia Finance Secretary Richard D. Brown and Martin Kent, McDonnell’s chief of staff, appeared before the highly skeptical committee to answer questions about the deal....

Brown and Kent did not present the arrangement as one that would bring new jobs to Virginia, but one that would prevent them from leaving....

But committee members said they doubted the team would have left Virginia given the relatively high corporate and income tax rates in Maryland and the District....

LOCKHEED & BECHTEL DEJAVU: This new justification for crony capitalism and corporate welfare is very disturbing. Is the public really supposed to accept policymakers giving away tax dollars to profitable corporations, just in case they might one day think about leaving -- without any evidence of companies trying to leave? This seems absurd! And yet, MoCo tried this exact argument with Lockheed Martin when the County Executive tried to give away $1 million of the County's money. You may also recall that Maryland even gave defense contractor Bechtel a $9.5 million loan while it was packing up for Virginia!

One amusing aspect to this scenario is that Virginia lawmakers are even arguing that they don't need to use corporate welfare to retain companies, because their low corporate tax rates should take care of that problem. Amazingly, even that is not enough to stave off mindless corporate welfare in Virginia.

Lesson learned: Apparently, even if we lower tax rates, we can expect nonsense policymaking to continue. The Virginia example just proves that industry will simply make up arguments to try and squeeze resources from State and Local governments. Its obviously best to just treat these self-interested arguments as the rantings of craven political players.

Rep. Steny Hoyer May Face Leadership Challenge from Jim Clyburn // PLUS: MD Dems Divide on Ending Afghanistan War

PLUS: THE RETURN OF THE MOCO ANTI-WAR RESOLUTION & ROLL CALL VOTES ON ENDING THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN & INDEFINITE DETENTION (SEE BELOW)

POTENTIAL PELOSI RETIREMENT BREEDS ACTION FROM AMBITIOUS DEMS: Last February, Maryland Juice was very disappointed to see that Rep. Steny Hoyer (a Marylander and the #2 Democrat in the U.S. House) was endorsing centrist/corporate Democrats over progressives in out-of-state Congressional primaries. We speculated that he was trying to build a coalition of centrist Democrats to vie for a leadership post in the U.S. House.

The evidence of leadership jockeying among ambitious Democrats grows every day. Below, we print news that Rep. Jim Clyburn, a long-serving African American Congressman from South Carolina is publicly talking about challenging Mr. Hoyer for a leadership post. Mr. Clyburn is the #3 Democrat in the U.S. House and previously tried to challenge Mr. Hoyer for the #2 spot.

The trigger for the leadership shuffle is growing speculation that U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will retire from her post after this legislative session. Additionally, observant politicos will note the issue divisions that are beginning to underlie many of these leadership dynamics.

Maryland Juice is warning folks today, that the outcome of the Democratic leadership fight may have huge ramifications on policy going forward. Speak now or forever hold your peace. See a few items below:


JUICE #1: REP. STENY HOYER TO FACE LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE? - Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina is publicly discussing challenging Maryland's Rep. Steny Hoyer in a future leadership battle. The Hill recently reported on the story (excerpt below):

THE HILL: Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.) is considering a bid to be Speaker of the House or majority leader if the Democrats win the November election.

He would almost certainly not run against Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) if she decided to stay, but he hints strongly that he is ready for a showdown with Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.).

Asked whether he will seek a higher leadership post following the 2012 election, Clyburn told The Hill, “I might — sure. I’m not closing the door on anything.”

The highest-ranking African-American in Congress then detailed what could be his argument for a promotion: He has paid his dues, both literally and figuratively....

Hoyer, for his part, is not ceding any ground.

“Mr. Hoyer is focused on taking back the House and being the majority leader,” spokeswoman Katie Grant said Wednesday in an email.

Clyburn is not expected to challenge Pelosi, who has a firm grip on her caucus.

Yet there is widespread speculation that this Congress will be Pelosi’s last....

JUICE #2: CONGRESSMAN CLYBURN & HOYER SUDDENLY EVOLVE ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY - In the lead-up to the House Democratic leadership contest, Clyburn, Hoyer and several other Democrats are beginning to re-calibrate their positions on issues of importance to the Democratic base. Last Thursday, President Barack Obama endorsed marriage equality. The next day, Maryland Juice reported that Rep. Steny Hoyer's position changed to match President Obama's support for LGBT civil rights. The following Monday, Rep. Clyburn's position "evolved" to also support marriage equality. That leaves Maryland Senate President Mike Miller as one of the only Democratic leaders in Maryland (and now nationally) who are still opposed to marriage equality. In any case, see The Washington Post's coverage of the Democratic leadership "evolution" on marriage (excerpt below):

WASHINGTON POST: House Assistant Minority Leader James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that he believes same-sex marriage should be legal — and the No. 3 House Democrat appeared to go further than President Obama in suggesting that a national policy, rather than a state-by-state one, is needed on the issue.

“I, like the president, have evolved to a point of marriage equality,” Clyburn said in an interview on MSNBC. “I have not always been there. I grew up in a parsonage, a fundamentalist Christian parsonage, and I grew up with that indoctrination. And I have grown to the point that I believe that we have evolved to marriage equality....”

The move makes Clyburn the latest member of Democratic leadership to come out in support of same-sex marriage in the wake of Obama’s announcement last week. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been a longtime backer of gay marriage, and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) last week announced for the first time that he, too, supports allowing same-sex couples to wed....

JUICE #3: DEMOCRATIC LEADERS DIVIDE OVER WAR IN AFGHANISTAN - Even though Democrats are now moving in lock-step to endorse marriage equality, many officials remain shockingly corrupt or naive about defense spending, foreign adventures and saber-rattling. The progressive bloggers at Down With Tyranny often highlight funky votes from Democrats, and today they too are noticing the new leadership dynamics emerging in the Party:

DOWN WITH TYRANNY: For those who keep track of this sort of detail, Barbara Lee (D-CA) introduced an amendment yesterday to end the occupation of Afghanistan.... 

It failed 113-303. Most Democrats-- 101 of them-- voted YES, to end the pointless occupation. They were joined by 12 Republicans. But 79 Democrats crossed the aisle to voted with Boehner and Cantor. Any interest in knowing which side your congresscritter was on? All the names are listed on the link above. A few highlights though: generally speaking Blue Dogs were pro-war and members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus were anti-war. And the Democratic House leaders... mostly pro-war. Let's look at some names worth remembering-- first candidates for higher office:

Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), and Chris Murphy (D-CT) are running for Senate and they voted to end the occupation. New Dems Shelley Berkley (NV) and Martin Heinrich (NM) and Blue Dog Joe Donnelly (IN) voted for more war.

Karen Bass (D-CA), Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Bruce Braley (D-IA), Donna Edwards (D-MD), John Larson (D-CT) and Jared Polis (D-CO) are either being groomed for Democratic leadership or are already junior leaders and they all voted to end the occupation. The top House leaders though, Clyburn, Hoyer, Israel, and even Pelosi, all voted for more war, as did wannabes Ron Kind (WI), Allyson Schwartz (PA) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD). Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL) "wisely" avoided voting at all.

JUICE #4: ROLL CALL // MD U.S. HOUSE MEMBERS VOTE ON WAR IN AFGHANISTAN - Below Maryland Juice lists the votes of Maryland's U.S. House members on whether or not to end the War in Afghanistan. The vote took place last Thursday, and notably, only two of Maryland's Democrats voted to end the war. What's up with that?

YES TO ENDING WAR: 

1. Elijah Cummings (Democrat)
2. Donna Edwards (Democrat)

NO TO ENDING WAR: 

1. Roscoe Bartlett (Republican)
2. Andy Harris (Republican)
3. Steny Hoyer (Democrat)
4. Dutch Ruppersberger (Democrat)
5. John Sarbanes (Democrat)
6. Chris Van Hollen (Democrat)

ANALYSIS: Maryland Juice has to imagine that these types of votes and issues may re-emerge in Maryland's future Democratic Primaries (ie: for U.S. Senate). The Free State has one of the most liberal electorates in the nation, and not a single Democratic House incumbent from Maryland is in danger of losing their primary or general election. So why the war-mongering? It is electorally unnecessary, and a potential liability in the future. The Internet (and oppo researchers) have a long memory. You've been warned!


JUICE #5: REP. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER & ANDY HARRIS VOTE FOR INDEFINITE DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL (IE: NDAA) - Maryland Juice has been persistently dismayed that Democrats around the nation who claimed to believe in civil liberties during the Bush-era have continued the Republican assault on civil liberties, due process and privacy. Last December, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (who voted to continue the war in Afghanistan - *cough*) explained one of the more troubling problems, involving the idea that the Government can detain people within the United States, and hold them indefinitely without trail:

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: It is with great regret that I rise to oppose this Defense Authorization Conference Report.  This is the first Defense Authorization Conference Report I have opposed since I was first elected in 2002. 

...certain provisions leave open the possibility that innocent U.S. citizens could be wrongfully and indefinitely detained at the direction of the president without appropriate access to civilian courts....    

If Congress is going to spell out the rules of arrest and detention, it should have made clear that American citizens may not be indefinitely detained without due process of law.  

How U.S. citizens are to be treated when detained as terror suspects and the question of jurisdictional leadership during terror-related arrests are matters of such supreme national consequence that they should not have been expeditiously appended to a National Defense Authorization Conference Report.

TEA PARTY REP. ANDY HARRIS BACKSTABS VOTERS ON NDAA, DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER JOINS:  Last February, Maryland Juice applauded the return of civil liberties when Rep. Chris Van Hollen and Tea Party Rep. Andy Harris introduced legislation to eliminate the horrifying prospect of indefinite detention without due process in the United States. Last week the U.S. House voted once again to try and eliminate the power of indefinite detention in America -- but amazingly, Rep. Andy Harris voted against the amendment, and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger was one of only nineteen Democrats to join him! Not even, Roscoe Bartlett supported indefinite detention. See our summary of the fairly close Roll Call Vote (182-238):

YES TO ELIMINATING DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL:

1. Roscoe Bartlett (Republican)
2. Elijah Cummings (Democrat)
3. Donna Edwards (Democrat)
4. Steny Hoyer (Democrat)
5. John Sarbanes (Democrat)
6. Chris Van Hollen (Democrat)

NO TO ELIMINATING DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL:

1. Andy Harris (Republican)
2. Dutch Ruppersberger (Democrat)

The unfortunate aspect to Mr. Harris' refusal to support the elimination of the indefinite detention problem in the United States is that the effort was broadly supported by Tea Party members. In fact, this is one of the few issues where the Tea Party and Democrats could work together. The New York Times reported:

NEW YORK TIMES: The Defense Authorization Act is required each year to set Pentagon policy and spending levels, but House Republicans have turned it into a showcase for their opposition to Obama administration policies. This year, Democratic leaders had some surprise support. Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, a Tea Party-backed freshman Republican, teamed up with Representative Adam Smith, Democrat of Washington, to declare that terrorism suspects apprehended on United States soil should no longer be detained indefinitely without charge or trial.

But the left-right coalition fizzled in the face of charges that the two lawmakers were coddling terrorists. On the 238-to-182 vote against the amendment, as many Democrats — 19 — voted against it as Republicans voted for it.

“We’ve got a ways to go still, but there are a lot of Republicans who are listening now,” Mr. Amash said. “I’m confident that most of them are going to go back to their districts, and they are going to get hammered on this issue.”

JUICE #6: THE RETURN OF THE MOCO ANTI-WAR RESOLUTION - With the ridiculous voting behavior coming from Maryland's members of Congress, including those representing Montgomery County, it is no wonder that the anti-war group Montgomery County Peace Action continues to ramp up its activities. Maryland Juice attended their annual luncheon this weekend, and noted that Peace Action appears ready to make another push to persuade the MoCo County Council to pass a resolution asking our Congressional delegation to steer dollars toward services instead of military spending. The effort previously stalled after lobbying from MoCo-based Lockheed Martin. See some documents I picked up at the Peace Action event below:

MONTGOMERY COUNTY PEACE ACTION LUNCHEON - SAT 5/19/2012

Montgomery County Council Map (Peace Action Montgomery)

TOMORROW: Montgomery County Council Debates Leggett's Controversial Corporate Welfare Plans for Lockheed & COSTCO

PLUS: Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez & Kensington Residents Sound Off

[ WATCH THE COUNTY COUNCIL SESSION LIVE ONLINE ]

CORPORATE WELFARE ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA: Tomorrow, the Montgomery County Council is taking up a package of budget items requested by County Executive Ike Leggett. Two readers flagged that at 10:20 am TOMORROW, the Councilmembers will be taking up items #62-63, labeled simply Economic Development and Economic Development Fund:

VIDEO: Montgomery Councilmember George Leventhal Slams Steve Silverman on Ike Leggett's Lockheed Martin Welfare Plan

PLUS:  SEE VIDEO COMMENTARY FROM VARIOUS COUNCILMEMBERS ON LEGGETT'S PLAN

BACKGROUND: Maryland Juice has been tracking the strange saga of Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett's repeated efforts to give Lockheed Martin nearly $1 million from the government treasury -- in exchange for nothing at all. He previously sought County Council approval for his corporate welfare plan, but the nine-member body balked at the idea. Two years later, he has re-packaged the welfare plan as an economic stimulus measure, and is trying once again to spend money on mindless corporate welfare. Montgomery County resident Jean Athey, has a new column at the Foreign Policy in Focus website, that explains some of the political context to the Lockheed controversy.

Most County Councilmembers have expressed disapproval at the idea of using economic stimulus dollars to give a single, profitable corporation a tax rebate. But even some who oppose the Leggett plan are still open to the idea of permanently implementing a tax break for Lockheed Martin. Below, we provide several video clips of Councilmembers expressing their opinions on the Lockheed welfare plan:

MARYLAND JUICE CAMEO AT COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING: Last week, Maryland Juice reported that the proposed Lockheed tax giveaway was debated during a County Council PHED committee meeting. We have now obtained video footage of the April 26th meeting and are amused to see that Maryland Juice's advocacy against the Lockheed welfare plan was a topic of discussion (see below).

READ: Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett's Constituent Letter to Opponents of Corporate Welfare for Lockheed Martin

BACKGROUND: Maryland Juice is not quite sure why Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett is obsessed with giving away nearly $1 million of tax cuts to profitable defense contractor Lockheed Martin -- in exchange for nothing. The County Council previously rejected this idea, but Mr. Leggett tried to push the pork barrel line item through the back door by calling it an "economic development" grant. Notably, the expenditure of tax dollars is not expected to generate any new jobs or economic activity. In a letter that appeared in The Washington Post, Council President Roger Berliner noted that this defect would make Mr. Leggett's proposed welfare plan an inappropriate use of economic development dollars.

But the Leggett administration doesn't want to let this issue go. Maryland Juice just received the following copy of a letter that County Executive Ike Leggett is sending to residents who wrote letters of complaint about the Lockheed welfare plan. Note that many of the arguments in Mr. Leggett's letter have been roundly addressed in Council President Berliner's response. In a new argument, Mr. Leggett suggests that those who oppose his corporate welfare plan are somehow being "unfair" and taking out their anti-war feelings on Lockheed Martin. Well, I never....

In any case, Leggett's letter is being circulated by the County's Economic Development Director Steve Silverman (see email and letter below).

Montgomery County Workers Pound Ike Leggett Over $900,000 Tax Cut Plan for Lockheed Martin // #OccupyMoCo Plans Protest

A source within Montgomery County's government reports that MCGEO -- the union representing thousands of county government employees -- is generating a large number of emails to county politicians today: "FYI. The email below was just sent out and the emails are already flooding into the council."

The trigger for MCGEO's advocacy campaign is a proposal from County Executive Ike Leggett to give defense contractor Lockheed Martin nearly one million dollars a year in tax cuts. In an email blast today, the government workers condemn Leggett's proposal and ask members to write to county officials. They also invite readers to attend a protest this Thursday at the County Council that is being organized by a local #Occupy group. Notably, the Council is holding public hearings on the budget this week. Maryland Juice prints MCGEO's email blast and the #Occupy invitation below:

April 11, 2012 Oppose Corporate Welfare to Lockheed Martin! Mr. Leggett is at it again. The County Executive has proposed a corporate welfare package totalling $5 MILLION dollars - giving a $900,000 grant to corporate giant Lockheed Martin, no strings attached! Read more here. Two years ago, the Montgomery County Council tried to pass a bill that would forgive $450,000 in hotel taxes to Lockheed. Because of community outrage, the Council tabled the bill and the proposal failed! This latest attempt at coddling  an ultra-rich corporation without regard to the County's taxpayers who end up paying the freight is downright outrageous! MCGEO is testifying against this ridiculous example of corporate welfare on tomorrow at 1:30pm when the County Council will take up Mr. Leggett’s budget.  It is outrageous to offer this super-rich corporation a gift of almost a million dollars when Montgomery County is cutting all kinds of services and is asking the average taxpayer to pay more. Click here to tell Mr. Leggett and the County Council that you object to this proposal. Unjustifiable Corporate Welfare "The only justification – ever – for corporate welfare is ironclad proof that the alternative is a net loss of wealth – in jobs and tax revenue – for the unwealthy. Not an iota of evidence exits for either in this case." The "Lockheed Tax" Most of Lockheed's revenue comes from contracts with the federal government. In 2008, $36 billion of their sales came from federal contracts and $29 billion from the Pentagon. One expert calculated that each taxpaying household contributes roughly $260 in the “Lockheed tax.” And Mr. Leggett wants US TO SUBSIDIZE THEM MORE? Click here to tell Mr. Leggett and the County Council that you object to this proposal. Send a letter! Tell the county council you object to this corporate give-away! Click here to send a letter to the County Council. Protest this plan! Occupy Montgomery County is organizing a protest outside the Council offices, 100 Maryland Avenue, Rockville. Join the protest outside, from 6 to 8 p.m.

MEDIA ADVISORY for Thursday April 12, 2012

Occupy Montgomery County To Protest Tax Giveaway To Lockheed Martin

As schools are forced to trim budgets, county considers cutting taxes for war profiteer

ROCKVILLE, MD – Occupy Montgomery County, a group of residents who have joined together to build community and amplify voices of the 99% in America’s 12th richest county, are protesting a proposed tax giveaway to Lockheed Martin in the 2013 county budget.

The Montgomery County Council is holding public hearings this week on County Executive Ike Leggett’s 2013 budget proposal. Among Leggett’s proposals is a recommendation to grant Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin a controversial $900,000 tax grant. The county council has rejected such giveaways for the company in the past. And the newly formed Occupy Montgomery County will be taking action to make sure they do the same this year.

The following is a statement from the group:

 “A company that in 2010 derived fully 84 percent of its profit from taxpayer dollars has absolutely no business siphoning much-needed resources from the people of Montgomery County. At a time when teachers are being laid off and schoolchildren are being stuffed into overcrowded classrooms, Lockheed Martin needs to pay its fair share. They can certainly afford to: the company paid its CEO $21.9 million and spent another $15.9 million on lobbying. The question is this: will our elected county officials invest in war profiteering merchants of death? Or a future for our children? We intend to make sure they make the right choice.”

WHERE: 100 Maryland Ave, Stella B. Werner Council Office Building, Rockville, MD

WHEN: Thursday, April 12 6 pm

FOR MORE INFORMATION: visit www.occupymocomd.org

MoCo Executive Ike Leggett Seeks $900K Tax Break for Lockheed Martin // ACT NOW: No New Jobs Projected!

UPDATE: A local activist points out that the County Council has scheduled public hearings on these budget proposals at 100 Maryland Avenue, Rockville, MD.  The dates and times are: 1) TUE 4/10 @ 7:00 pm, 2) WED 4/11 @ 1:30 pm, 3) WED 4/11 7:00 pm, 4) THU 4/12 @ 1:30 pm, and 5) THU 4/12 @ 7:00 pm. You can sign up to testify in advance by calling (240) 777-7803.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? - The Examiner's Rachel Baye reports that Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett is proposing a $900,000 taxpayer subsidy for defense contractor Lockheed Martin. Notably, the successful multinational company had four back-to-back profitable quarters in 2011, during the recession. Their revenue every quarter last year ranged from $548 million to $698 million. Meanwhile, the County Executive is slashing services for the needy, struggling to find money to revitalize Wheaton, and undermining the county's commitment to smart growth and transit funding. Are they really now proposing taxpayer-funded corporate welfare for Lockheed Martin? REALLY?

Tell the County Council & Economic Development Director Steve Silverman to reject Ike Leggett's proposed waste of tax dollars: The email address below will forward your message to all of them at one time.

Email All 9 Councilmembers & Steve Silverman using the address below:

MontgomeryCounty@LockheedWelfare.com

To be sure, the profitable multi-national company may be facing a reduction in Pentagon contracts -- but the wars had to end eventually, and hopefully they planned for that outcome, like a good corporate manager would, right?  Especially since the troop drawdowns have been discussed for years.

But even putting that aside --  Lockheed is not planning to add any jobs or increase spending in Montgomery County. That leaves many taxpayers wondering what is the purpose of a $900,000 taxpayer giveaway to a wildly profitable company? Can Economic Development Director Steve Silverman offer any articulable economic development or job-creation goals? Can they be backed by any metrics?

There are plenty of small businesses and local employers who are facing issues during the recession, but somehow Lockheed -- which has a much greater ability to weather tough times -- is the proposed recipient of limited County funds. Listen to the ridiculous rationale reported by Ms. Baye in the Examiner:

EXAMINER: Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett wants to give Bethesda defense giant Lockheed Martin a $900,000 tax break while raising taxes on residents and businesses.

Leggett proposed the grant in his fiscal 2013 budget to refund two years of county "hotel-motel" taxes, which Lockheed pays for its Center for Leadership Excellence, a 300,000-square-foot conference center and lodging facility that opened in March 2009. The taxes cost Lockheed about $450,000 a year, said county Finance Director Joe Beach.

The tax should not apply to Lockheed Martin because its facility is used for employees only, said company spokesman Chris Williams.

"We can't be in the business of having one of our major corporations believing that the county and the state is treating them in a way they believe is unfair," Leggett said. "It could have them decide that they're not going to build and enhance what they already have here."

Lockheed Martin does not have any current plans to expand, Williams said....

Leggett's new plan is a tax rebate that could be renewed annually.

In addition to the rebate, Leggett's budget proposal includes a property tax increase and energy tax extension, as well as higher bus and parking fees.

Amazing. Can County leaders really be this tone-deaf? We've seen multiple examples of corporate welfare from Maryland politicians for projects where there appears to be little to no provable benefit for taxpayers. Why is this administration hell-bent on giving money away to companies that aren't creating jobs? The Examiner provides a chart of the other amazing uses of MoCo's economic development dollars:

Source: Examiner.com, Rachel Baye "MontCo executive offers Lockheed Martin $900,000 tax break"

ACT NOW - EMAIL YOUR OFFICIALS: It seems the only accountability for this kind of ridiculous waste of tax dollars is political accountability. Maryland Juice has created an email address that allows you to email all nine members of the Montgomery County Council and Economic Development Director Steve Silverman. Please tell them to oppose welfare for Lockheed Martin:

Email the MoCo Councilmembers & 

Economic Development Director Steve Silverman: 

MontgomeryCounty@LockheedWelfare.com

"REJECT Welfare for Lockheed Martin" 

MontgomeryCounty@lockheedwelfare.com forwards to:

• MoCo Economic Development Director Steve Silverman
• Councilmember Phil Andrews
• Councilmember Roger Berliner
• Councilmember Marc Elrich
• Councilmember Valerie Ervin
• Councilmember Nancy Floreen
• Councilmember George Leventhal
• Councilmember Nancy Navarro
• Councilmember Craig Rice
• Councilmember Hans Riemer