O’Malley’s Art of the Deal By Fletcher Hall

Generally the term “art of the deal” is associated with Donald Trump and the bestselling book he authored; however, this phrase can now be associated with former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley. O’Malley is currently a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States.

O’Malley proved he had learned the art of the deal as he and his wife Katie, a Baltimore City District Court judge, were preparing to leave the Governor’s Mansion after living there for eight years. Apparently they were in need of furniture for their new home in Baltimore City.

As if eight years of living in Government House with no rent, having a chef, free landscaping help, free transportation, and a security detail 24/7 were not enough benefits for the O’Malleys, they made a last minute deal to buy the Mansion furniture at a steep discount. A state agency declared the items “surplus,” a rather dubious claim. Knowing that some state bureaucrat showed positive support to the request of the governor and his wife should not surprise many Maryland voters. The old adage “birds of a feather flock together” may well apply here. These types of incidents exemplify the overly eager willingness of some in government to forget for whom they work. After all, their salaries are paid for by the tax-paying citizens of Maryland.

In too many incidents, in too many places today we see these types of deals being made. Not that this is a new phenomenon. Our history is full of incidents where we see that “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” To that one might add bureaucrats are always eager to please the boss.

With O’Malley saddled with over $300,000 in debt for educational bills for two of his children, perhaps he needed to find a source of “surplus” discounted furniture. Surely makes one speculate about the understanding of economics for a candidate for president of the United States.

Mr. O’Malley is strongly propounding an anti-Wall Street platform. Not surprising for a doctrinaire liberal with a political agenda. At the moment, that political agenda is to defeat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president; however, he knows that bashing Wall Street will provide political fodder in the battle with Clinton. Many of her top financial supporters have real ties to the money in New York. Would O’Malley turn down contributions from large banks and financial institutions? I think not.

This factor, along with O’Malley’s ability to make a deal for Government House furniture certainly are the types of actions that demonstrates that he is the same class with many others who have adopted the belief that they are somehow entitled. These actions have given rise to the belief by large segments of the American public that, indeed, all politicians have become corrupt.

O’Malley’s professed positions on financial institutions would increase taxes, add more regulations, and increase federal spending by enlarging several federal regulatory agencies.

This, at a time when banks are drowning under a sea of federal requirements and regulations, may cause some small institutions to actually fail.

Obviously Wall Street did need regulatory reforms and oversight as a result of the 2008 financial crises. However, as many “fixes” emanate from the federal government, kneejerk overreaction has caused problems. O’Malley’s proposals will add to existing frustration and unneeded federal intervention.

Making a questionable deal for “surplus” state-owned furniture and attacking already overburdened key economic institutions do not present the image nor vision of a candidate for the United States presidency.