Insurance 'Reform'
Like a faithful old geyser, The Sun seems bent on periodically gushing forth with a call for "insurance reform," with specific attention directed to Baltimore City and other urbanized areas of the state.
Regrettably, as usual, the call for reform as articulated in your Jan. 29 editorial reflects little insight as to the problem and its solution (or solutions).
The quest of both Gov. Parris Glendening and Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke is a significant reduction in the cost of auto insurance in specified areas of the state.
And we can't blame them. In some places, car insurance rates are extremely high.
The solution to this dilemma, however, does not rest in forcing companies to write in these areas. As a matter of fact, the availability of insurance providers is not an issue.
Cost is, and until we can address many socio-economic problems and the frailties of the present system of compensating accident victims, insurance consumers will continue to be straddled with high premium levels.
Rather than unnecessarily infusing the urban areas with more competing companies, we should consider what the impact will be on existing companies.
We question the logic that forcing companies to alter and disrupt long standing and justifiable marketing practices will make the product any cheaper. This is ill-advised social manipulation at its worst.
The very minimum that should be stated is that it will accomplish little benefit, but will visit adversely on most of the Maryland insurance consumers.
Much could also be said of the distorted perceptions of the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund and its current operations. In the interest of brevity, we will merely note that no comparable agency in the nation contains such a small percentage (4.3 percent) of the driving population (mostly outside Baltimore) and yet functions with so little financial impact on the good drivers.
Before its dismantling, we urgently request an intense study of the mission of MAIF and extreme caution in tampering with its present status.
The automobile insurance industry supports reform, but let's do it right.
Leo W. Doyle
Annapolis
The writer is counsel for the National Association of Independent Insurers.
Grandmother
Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend was admirably candid in relating some of her fond childhood memories (Opinion * Commentary article, Jan. 31).
Today, however, a baby sitter who forced her charges to eat spilled Cream of Wheat off the floor, together with whatever dirt it now contained ("you have to eat six packs of dirt before you get into heaven") could rightly be accused of child abuse.
Imagine the case-worker's report if a poor woman receiving public assistance were observed in such behavior: ("unsanitary, tyrannical, abusive, likely to cause severe eating disorder in later life . . .").
Ms. Townsend also characterizes her grandmother as showing "concern and respect" in the incident when she left officers at a celebration to dance with enlisted men, commenting ". . . they'll remember and they vote."
To me this sounds like typical Kennedy manipulative politics rather than genuine concern and respect. She danced for the votes, not the people.
I wish Ms. Townsend well in her new office, as she and the rest of the "second generation" carry out the family's intention of spreading themselves around in as many states as they can gain a political foothold.
Rose Kennedy undoubtedly had many valuable lessons to teach. But with such guidelines as this granddaughter cites as worthy of emulation, we may be in for some interesting years ahead.
Judy Chernak
Pikesville
Broad Goals
Tim Baker's Jan. 30 column on the difficulties being faced by higher education as a result first of the recession and now the governor's budget priorities is on target.
However, he focused only on the College Park and Baltimore County campuses of the University of Maryland.
The problem is much broader and so was the intent of the 1988 higher education reorganization legislation to which he refers.
The 1988 legislation was intended to improve the entire Maryland public system of higher education.
It specifically provided for the development of the University of Maryland College Park as the state's flagship campus and of Morgan State University as Maryland's public urban university.
Further emphasis was given to the overall enhancement of Maryland's other three historically black campuses and to the development of a graduate center in Baltimore.
However, the onset of the recession soon after the legislation passed impeded significant progress toward the development envisioned.
Mr. Baker is correct in pointing out the extreme problems now faced by campuses as they are being ordered to take additional budget reductions.
As the governor revisits the budget, however, he must not focus only on the College Park and Baltimore County campuses.
He must recognize that all campuses serve an important role in educating the citizens of Maryland and all have suffered due to state fiscal difficulties.
The governor must ensure that significant progress is made toward fulfilling the broad goals of the legislation that is the basis for our current system of higher education.
Edgar D. Draper
Baltimore
Representing Marylanders
In her Feb. 1 Opinion * Commentary article, former Democratic state senator and gubernatorial candidate Mary Boergers questions my ability to "represent [my] working class constituents" in a Republican-dominated House of Representatives under the leadership of Speaker Newt Gingrich.
In 1994 I ran a campaign for Congress that focused heavily on issues important to the working people of the Second Congressional District.
As a result, we won 155 of 170 precincts. Our campaign took large majorities of the vote in conservative Harford and northern Baltimore counties as well as traditionally Democratic eastern Baltimore County.
We succeeded because the issues we addressed lower taxes, smaller government, support for small business and personal responsibility are priority concerns with the vast majority of people who view themselves as working/middle-class citizens.
Moreover, as I am the product of a working family, I know first-hand how important these issues are to working people.
Ms. Boergers also believes I will be unable to vote against Speaker Gingrich even when I personally disagree with the leadership's position. I found this observation to be particularly surprising.
As a congressional candidate I was a vocal opponent of term limits a reform strongly desired by most of my House partisans.
I have also made known my disagreements with a number of the other provisions outlined in the Republican "Contract With America," including the adoption of the so-called "English Rule" (loser pays) in federal civil diversity cases.
In the state legislature I routinely worked with legislators of both parties on issues where we agreed. The fact that I won endorsements from so many of my Democratic colleagues is a testament to my ability to put party aside when necessary in order to do what I believe is right.
Ms. Boergers is correct when she observes that the competitive party system is on the decline in the United States.
One of the primary reasons for this development is the erosion of Democratic core constituencies in federal elections over the past 25 years.
The recent voting history of conservative "blue collar" areas such as Dundalk, Essex, Rosedale and my native Arbutus supports this view.
Quite simply, people who work for a living have grown weary of a national party they regard as a creature of big government and higher taxes and a prisoner of its own special interests.
Perhaps my friend and former colleague Mary Boergers should spend some time examining the reasons behind this phenomenon and the results of the last election before deciding whose views are truly representative of working Americans.
Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr.
Washington.
The writer is a member of Congress from Maryland's Second District.