Published Letters from Baltimore County Members
February 2005
Maryland chooses to support slots
Date: February 24, 2005
Publication: The Baltimore Sun
Author: Paul Bunting, Arbutus
It's not often I read anything from Michael Olesker that I find agreeable. But his column "Politics' best return for third round of arguing over slots" (Feb. 18) did have one thing I found palatable. He stated that the argument for the immorality of gambling disappeared a long time ago - and that is correct.
It comes down to a matter of choice. Choice is a word the Democrats are familiar with and like to throw around.
Marylanders made a choice when they elected Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. The polls indicate that Marylanders now make a choice for slots. And Marylanders make a choice to spend their money in other states that do have slots.
Perhaps the House of Delegate should make a choice and listen to its constituents. If not, the citizens of Maryland can make a choice next year and decide to clean House.
Democrats' bluster undermines civility
Date: February 15, 2005
Publication: The Baltimore Sun
Author: Al Mendelsohn, Reisterstown
In one news cycle, the mayor of Baltimore equated the president with the murdering terrorists of Sept. 11, 2001 ("Mayor clarifies remark linking Bush cuts, 9/11 attacks," Feb. 10), House Speaker Michael E. Busch referred to rumors and innuendo passed by a mid-level gubernatorial appointee as "Gestapo-like" ("Ehrlich associate targeted O'Malley," Feb. 9), and Del. Galen R. Clagett compared the hiring activities of Maryland's governor to "the cell system in the Communist Party" ("Firings decried as partisan politics," Feb. 9).
If there are policy differences, let's argue and use rhetoric about them. But don't heighten the torturous pain of families who have suffered, or distract from the true horrors of history by the despotic tyrants of al-Qaida or the Nazis or the Communists, by comparing them to minor issues of the day. These trifling comparisons are not a crime against humanity but a crime against civility.
Two accounts of delegates' vote raises questions
Date: February 9, 2005
Publication: The Arbutus Times and The Catonsville Times
Author: Robert Farrow, Halethorpe
It was pointed out to me by a friend of mine the discrepancies between the Arbutus Times and the Jeffersonian's coverage of the events concerning the election of Del. Steven DeBoy to the vice chairman position of the Baltimore County House of Delegates.
According to the Arbutus Times, he was unanimously elected by delegates from both parties. Even after a quick reading of the Jeffersonian, it appears this was not the case.
I e-mailed Del. Pat McDonough to get his take on the events. According to Mr. McDonough, all members of the Republican delegation in Baltimore County supported Wade Kach for chairman except for J. B. Jennings. Del. Jennings voted for Del. Sonny Minnick.
It appears that after a power sharing deal was rejected, there was a power struggle between the two parties, and the GOP lost. This fact is also not covered in the Arbutus Times.
The differences in the story between the two papers is striking and raises questions about the Arbutus Times commitment to thorough coverage.
Malpractice bill was bad, even if a Republican says so
Date: February 9, 2005
Publication: The Catonsville Times
Author: Al Nalley, Baltimore County Republican Committee
I want to thank Del. DeBoy for promoting my resume ("Letter writers should report their partisan memberships," Feb. 2).
Yes, I am an elected member of the Baltimore County Republican Central Committee and vice president of the Patapsco Valley Republican Club. I am also chairman of the Committee for Voter Registration and a member of the Finance Committee for the Baltimore Republican Central Committee. I worked as district coordinator for E.J. Pipkin's Senate campaign and was involved in the congressional campaigns for Tony Salazar and Bob Duckworth.
So, what does my partisanship have to do with my opposition to legislation that increases insurance cost for many in Maryland? I wasn't a fan of the governor's bill either. What is needed is more comprehensive tort reform to have a lasting impact on medical malpractice.
I'm glad Del. DeBoy admits the malpractice bill was not a good law, but he still voted for it. What about all the good tort reform that Speaker Busch and Del. DeBoy speak of. Why was it allowed to be removed?
With this legislation we, as citizens of Maryland, get two things: lawyers that do not have to worry about correcting an obvious imbalance in the tort system and doctors who will become addicted to the state subsidizing their insurance.
Delegate, you question my honesty about identifying myself as being a Republican Party official. You write, "I continue to be independent and take each issue on its merits, evaluating the quality to determine effects on people." But it took you about 15 minutes to change your committee vote on the $1.2 billion Busch tax increase in the 2004 session. Your vote change allowed the bill to move forward instead of dying in committee, as the slots bill did the last two years.
As the father of four daughters, I do not believe this legislation will allow my girls access to quality prenatal care and a professional ob/gyn. How many new ob/gyns will this bill cause to come to Maryland? How many medical students will take up the practice of an ob/gyn because of this bill?
Party Line (R) Solution to Social Security problem needn't be partisan
Date: February 8, 2005
Publication: The Jeffersonian
Author: Chris Cavey
This past week we heard President Bush deliver a clear and concise message to the American people in his State of the Union Address. Within his address he touched on many subjects, such as the economy, public safety, foreign policy and the federal budget. All ears were tuned, however, to what would be said concerning social security. The Democrats were preparing to spin George W. Bush into a man who would deny benefits to the entire senior population. Instead he presented the problem and offered to work toward a solution.
Dialogue about social security reforms is scary for most elected officials. Ever notice how real debate on Social Security comes only with a second-term president? It's because it's a tough and personal issue with moral implications. Citizens expect fiduciary accountability; they see dollars leaving their paychecks each week and eventually expect that their government - in which they invested by mandate not law - will be capable of returning those dollars at a later date, with interest. All of my adult life this debate has reared its head every so often. Behind all the questions and answers is simple math.
Forty-five million Americans are on social security benefits as of today and the baby-boomer generation is progressing toward retirement age. My generation will retire and expect the generations after them, including our children's generation, to foot the bill. The problem is there are smaller numbers in the future generations. Fewer workers with more retirees means less money paid into the system and more people drawing a monthly check. What is partisan about this simple math problem?
The president said that all ideas are on the table and he "...will listen to anyone who has a good idea to offer." I like the president's idea. Let me set aside my portion of social security and invest it myself. Just think of the benefit to our economy. Banks, the stock market, and the bond market will flourish. There will be more money poured into the monetary system which will cause interest rates to stabilize or fall. Businesses that work with investments and financial planning will grow and jobs will be created. People will be investing in America and in their own futures. It's the mechanics of the solution that will cause the partisanship and Congressional foot dragging.
You see, "personal accounts," as the president suggested, are not a new concept.
Basically this is what all federal employees already have in their Thrift Savings Plan. So members of Congress aren't in our Social Security system. They have their own. and they have only political and partisan concern for Social Security. Perhaps some have a moral concern, but I think they are few. This will be, for most, just another political battle. Democrats will hate whatever the president proposes. Republicans will like it, to varying degrees. Everyone up for re-election will have their constituency polled to figure how to play his or her cards to guarantee another term.
I feel confident that my eighth-grade algebra teacher, Mrs. Talbert, could have easily solved the math portion of this problem and perhaps the moral portion as well. Her advice was always: Do your daily drills to learn the skills, finish your homework, don't let me catch you cheating and no chewing gum in my class. Too bad she couldn't teach Congress for a semester.
Chris Cavey is chairman of the Baltimore County Republican Party.
Tough judge sends an overdue message
Date: February 3, 2005
Publication: The Baltimore Sun
Author: Joe Collins, Reisterstown
It is refreshing to finally have a judge who understands that the citizens of Maryland and Baltimore County want harsh sentences handed down to punks and thugs who terrorize the community with handguns ("Judge quickly earns his tough reputation," Jan. 30).
Circuit Judge Patrick Cavanaugh was true to his word when he gave a 100-year sentence to the thug who shot up Randallstown High School.
During the 2002 election campaign, Judge Cavanaugh promised to hand out hard sentences. Now, we are fortunate to have him as a judge in Baltimore County
The voters of Baltimore City should take note and get rid of those judges and politicians who fail to protect the citizens of Baltimore.