Excellence
Recently there seems to be a groundswell among Baltimoreans to be defensive about the quality of The Baltimore Sun.
Over the last few years, I have had the opportunity to read the New York Times on a regular basis, along with more than occasional readings of the Boston Globe, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal.
The recent series on the social welfare system is just one example of the excellent journalism that "our" newspaper is capable of producing and in which the community should take pride.
The local business and sports coverage and the Opinion * Commentary page have continued to be "beefed up" and the quality of writing improved.
In this era of cynicism and intellectual elitism, this letter is simply a strong compliment. Keep up the good work!
Herbert B. Mittenthal
Baltimore
Bad Arithmetic
This is in reference to Robert Reno' column headed "Apres Nous, Le Deluge" on the OpinionCommentary page Jan. 16.
Mr. Reno is in favor of raising the minimum wage. He says, in part: "... These people can't have the slightest idea of what it's like to live on $14,875, which is roughly what you get if you work 35 hours a week for the current federal minimum wage."
Because of bad arithmetic, Mr. Reno has greatly overstated the earning of people working for the minimum wage.
$4.25 per hour times 35 hours equals $148.75 per week. $148.75 times 52 weeks equals $7,735 not $14,875.
The corrected figures add strength to Mr. Reno's argument for raising the minmum wage.
Joseph Wine
Randallstown
Learning Center
In his Jan. 28 column, "The Necessities of a Jewish Home," editorial writer Antero Pietila commented thoughtfully upon major demographic shifts and developments in Baltimore's Jewish community.
Hats off to the writer for noting Baltimore's enormous attraction to new families, the history and dynamics of growth of the Jewish community within and beyond the city of Baltimore and the developing close relationship between the Reform Congregation Har Sinai and the Orthodox day school, Yeshivat Rambam.
Mr. Pietila's observation, however, that "another leading Reform congregation, Baltimore Hebrew . . . is building a new day school at Park Heights and Slade avenues," is off the mark.
Baltimore Hebrew Congregation Day School currently flourishes in its fourth year of operation at the congregation's Park Heights and Smith Avenue location.
Sixty-eight students attend kindergarten through fourth grades. Next year's enrollment, including the school's first fifth grade, will reach 100 students.
Recently, Baltimore Hebrew completed substantial renovations and improvements to the day school facilities. The congregation now nears completion of its modern, fully-equipped learning center and library.
There are, however, no plans at present to build a new day school.
Carl S. Silverman
Baltimore
The writer is vice president of the Baltimore Hebrew Congregation Day School.
Auto Insurance
Gov. Parris Glendening wasted no time attacking the problem of the high cost of auto insurance in Baltimore (article, Jan. 25). Unfortunately, most of his plan is an attempt to regulate an industry he does not understand fully.
The governor proposed requiring Maryland insurers to cover a percentage of Baltimore drivers. By doing this, he hopes to lower rates in the city.
However, insurance companies cannot merely absorb the extra risk attached to most Baltimore drivers. This risk would have to be spread throughout the state, thereby raising the rates in the rest of Maryland.
I am sure if you talked to someone in Hagerstown, they would not be pleased at the prospect of subsidizing Baltimore insurance premiums. It is tantamount to sacrificing the good of the whole for that of a few.
He also suggested mandating that insurance companies insure drivers from the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund (MAIF). Companies would have to write coverage for drivers who have had a clean record for three years.
However, regulation is not necessary. The governor failed to recognize that drivers can leave the MAIF pool at any time.
The real problem is that many drivers do not realize they can find affordable insurance if they maintain a clean record.
The practical solution is an education campaign. MAIF drivers need to know that they should check with private insurers annually to try to obtain private coverage. There is no need to implement costly regulation when there is a simple, cost-effective solution.
However, not all of the governor's proposal was misguided. The insurance industry applauds his idea to raise $1 million to combat the problem of insurance fraud in Baltimore.
Insurance fraud coupled with a high rate of auto theft are major reasons for the high cost of auto insurance in Baltimore. Successful steps to eradicate fraud will go a long way toward reducing premiums.
The governor should learn a lesson from this. Regulation is not always the answer.
There are less invasive solutions that work just as well -- if not better. He should try them first before resorting to knee-jerk regulation.
Kristin Young
Washington, D.C.
The writer represents the Insurance Information Institute.
VEIP Issues
Defenders of the vehicle emissions inspection program (VEIP) program, such as columnist Tom Horton and letter writer Terry J. Harris on Jan. 28, seem to be operating under two misconceptions.
The first is that opponents of the program are against efforts to clean the air. Hence, the bulk of their argument is a recitation of facts and figures regarding air pollution in the Baltimore area.
The truth is, they're preaching to the choir. We are in favor of cleaner air. Many of us are even in favor of more stringent emissions testing. We are not, however, in favor of the centralized IM240 program.
The second errant assumption is their blind faith in the "facts" from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) on which they base their arguments.
No one disputes that cars play a role in pollution. However, there are many reputable, expert and informed sources which take issue with the EPA data and conclusions.
More importantly, those sources do not have the financial or political axes to grind that EPA/MDE have.
When Congress passed the Clean Air Act, it clearly intended to allow the states flexibility in choosing between centralized testing and other alternatives. The EPA, however, unilaterally attempted to impose centralized testing.
Virtually all states surrounding Maryland balked, saying they can meet the more stringent emission requirements without resorting exclusively to the intrusive "IM240 only" system.
The EPA apparently agrees, as it has relaxed requirements for those states.
In looking at EPA/MDE data defending IM240 in Maryland, I have to factor in that they have already hoodwinked us into a $97 million financial commitment, and I would hardly expect them to say "oops" at this point.
However, those with blind faith in EPA/MDE continue to argue based on information from an agency which has not been dealing from the top of the deck from the start (most of the public hearings were in parts of the state which didn't have the program).
They cite the cost effectiveness of IM240, comparing its relative benefits versus the cost of theoxygenated gas program. Apples and oranges!
Most non-biased technical sources say that the IM240 program is not so cost effective when compared with other emissions testing programs, such as those the EPA has now blessed for Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
Opponents of the program have been called whiners. Tell you what: You grant me my right to whine and I'll defend your right to be gullible.
Todd L. Brace
Ellicott City