Don't blame BGE for the rising costs
When did it become shameful for a company to make a profit ("Power politics in play," March 30)?
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. and Constellation Energy Group are not to blame for the prices in today's market for energy. Nor should they be portrayed as snake-oil salesmen who sold deregulation to the local rubes.
Lawmakers such as Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller and House Speaker Michael E. Busch can shoulder a lot of the blame for our current mess.
And now just watch them scrambling around trying to put the pin back in the hand grenade that they tossed themselves - all the while trying to lay the blame on the Ehrlich administration.
Listening to them, along with The Sun's usual one-sided reporting, you would think that they didn't even know how to spell BGE when the deregulation bill was signed.
But Constellation Energy and BGE and their employees are good citizens and neighbors to the local community. And who would benefit if BGE were forced to operate at a loss the way utilities in California were forced to do a few years ago?
The only ones who would benefit, in the short term, are the state lawmakers who are saying and doing anything they can right now in their shortsighted attempt to save face, save their necks and save their jobs.
Michael Ziegler
Monkton
BGE doesn't need huge rate increase
As profit-making entities responsible to their stockholders, electric utilities constantly search for reasons to jack up rates and make excess profits. And with the increase in oil and natural gas prices, Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. thinks it has found an excuse for higher electricity rates. However, a cursory investigation of the company's claims shows them to be misleading.
Consider the following. In a period of rising oil and gas prices, BGE's earnings improved, rising from $150 million in 2003 to $176 million in 2005. Return on investment was a healthy 11 percent, and BGE paid $319 million in cash dividends to its parent over that three-year period.
Is this a firm that needs a 72 percent rate increase to survive?
Over the last 12 months, wholesale "off-peak" electricity prices in the Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland grid showed, on average, no change, despite higher fuel prices. "On-peak" prices rose 50 percent during the unusually hot summer months but then reverted to prior levels.
Indeed, with all the changes in energy prices over the last 25 years, the average electric utility rate increase has been about 8 percent annually.
Limiting electricity price increases to this level must be the goal of our elected officials.
Anything more would have to be seen as a capitulation to the moneyed interests at BGE, Constellation Energy and Florida's FPL Group, who seek to put a stranglehold on the everyday electricity consumer.
Jeff Hooke
Chevy Chase
The writer is chairman of the Maryland Tax Education Foundation.
'Progress' in Iraq takes terrible toll
Recently, President Bush urged us all to look past the bloodshed to see the signs of progress in Iraq.
So, apparently, we are to avert our eyes when we see the dead and dying and wounded who are guilty only of living in the wrong place during Mr. Bush's reign. We are to close our ears every time we hear another news report about innocent children killed in the name of progress.
We are to ignore the hypocrisy of a president who says that abortion is murder but the loss of thousands of innocent souls is justified in the name of progress. We are to ignore the swelling ranks of the terrorists who now feel justified in their fight against our evil empire.
But terrorists come in all kinds of disguises, and waging terror in the name of democracy is still terrorism.
We will not achieve peace by killing more people or perfecting our methods of torture.
Indeed, the most dishonest terrorist comes in sheep's clothing - offering democracy and freedom.
Life is sacred. Yet this administration urges us to look past that sacredness in the name of progress.
Nancy Arnold
Union Bridge
A distorted account of student loan woes
Alan Collinge's column "Student borrowers over a barrel" (Opinion
Commentary, March 22) omitted far more facts than it contained.
Put aside Mr. Collinge's outrageous and false claims about our employees' salaries, which should strike even a lay person as preposterous. Let us also dismiss his delusional notions, laced with incorrect data, that we have somehow "bought" Congress - after it just cut $12 billion from the student loan program. Instead, let's take a look at just a few facts that Mr. Collinge conveniently omitted.
Mr. Collinge borrowed more than $40,000 in government-backed loans to help finance a bachelor's degree and a master's degree in engineering.
Despite being offered many options to help pay his loans back, Mr. Collinge has never paid back more than a small fraction of that debt.
At the same time, he lashes out at my company over his refusal to repay his student loans.
It is disappointing that The Sun chose to spotlight Mr. Collinge's off-base and one-sided attack, which certainly does not reflect the experiences of the overwhelming majority of college graduates - people who work hard, pay their bills and live up to their responsibilities.
Tom Joyce
Reston, Va.
The writer is vice president for corporate communications at Sallie Mae.
Business dominates Board of Regents
The recent controversies about the state's Public Service Commission and the University System of Maryland's Board of Regents reveal that what these groups have in common is that both are dominated by business interests and philosophy ("Panel OKs bill blocking regent political actions," March 24).
The Board of Regents, for example, has a chairman (David H. Nevins) who is also chairman of a public relations firm, and a vice chairman (Robert L. Pevenstein) who is, according to the university system's Web site, president of a "merger & acquisition and business consulting firm."
Other members of the board include Thomas B. Finan Jr., an independent business consultant; R. Michael Gill, chairman of an investment and consulting corporation; Richard E. Hug, who was chairman of a technology firm; Orlan M. Johnson, a lawyer who co-heads an energy regulatory practice; Francis X. Kelly Jr., the chairman of an insurance group; and Marvin Mandel, a former governor, lobbyist and lawyer who was once convicted of a felony (though that conviction was later overturned).
Those on the board who are neither lawyers nor businessmen are student regent Joel Willcher, former academic Patricia S. Florestano, school administrator Alicia Coro Hoffman, and Lewis R. Riley, a former state secretary of agriculture.
So the board has only four members who are not part of the legal-business complex. And nowhere on the list of its members is a novelist, poet, painter, musician, filmmaker, museum curator, current faculty member, philosopher or environmentalist.
Our universities are increasingly being controlled by the corporate model.
But I wonder if the regents ever consider how effective and efficient such corporations as Enron and General Motors have been. And it's a curious contradiction that while business people are on the regents, artists, philosophers and academics are seldom on this board or on those of the GMs and the Enrons of the world.
William Wordsworth said in one of his poems, "The world is too much with us; late and soon, getting and spending, we lay waste our powers."
The BGE fiasco and the regents' philosophy remind us that today it is business that is too much with us, laying waste our powers.
Paul Douglas
Reisterstown
The writer is a professor of English at Towson University.
LNG terminal poses a permanent threat
The Virginia-based project manager for the proposed Sparrows Point LNG terminal, in his letter "LNG plan will pump resources into area" (March 18), chastises our congressman for losing sight of the "vast labyrinth of federal - as well as state and local - regulations that govern all natural gas and LNG facilities in the United States."
Perhaps the author is not aware that the statements of our elected representatives are the first step in that regulatory process; that their comments are part of that public record; and that, in making such remarks, they are performing their primary duty: protecting their constituents and carrying out their wishes.
And one could argue that it takes a breathtaking level of temerity to attack our elected representatives and to tell the people of Maryland what's good for them from an office in Alexandria.
Indeed, if the project is so beneficial, it should be rather easy for AES Corp. to bestow its corporate largess elsewhere. It is not wanted here.
The accident record of the LNG industry is a well-known matter of public record. It does not need further debate or "education."
Our public officials have not been gulled by unctuous arguments about how this nightmarish project will create jobs and pump prosperity into our community. They know that a sword of Damocles is about to be hung forever over the heads of the citizens of Baltimore.
We rely on their continued good sense and that of the federal government to protect our lives and property from this unwanted and dangerous intrusion.
Dan Krepp
Baltimore
The writer is a member of the board of the Greater Dundalk Alliance.
More public gunplay won't add to safety
Predictably enough, some gun rights advocates in the area are hailing the fatal shooting of a would-be robber in Cross Keys as an example of how much safer we'd all be if we carried handguns ("Fear of guns makes criminals move on," March 23).
Threatened by hooligans of any stripe, we could, they suggest, whip out our firearms and neutralize them.
Much, however, is left out of this scenario.
For instance, the Bel Air man who defended his money by shooting two robbers (one to death) is mighty lucky that there weren't innocent bystanders in the crowded parking lot at the time.
Had there been civilians in his line of fire, the tragedy in that parking lot could have been compounded, innocent people could be dead or injured and the shooter would almost certainly be facing criminal charges.
Most civilians who have handguns don't practice with them often enough to use them safely in public.
Even the police, who go through rigorous training and are required to maintain a high level of proficiency, aren't supposed to shoot in public areas where bystanders might be hit.
So where's the logic in permitting untrained, nonproficient, possibly hotheaded or simply frightened civilians to brandish guns in public?
This doesn't make us safer; it makes us all more vulnerable.
Nobody's money is important enough to risk maiming or killing innocent civilians.
Kim Johnson
Baltimore
Fire-safe cigarettes work to save lives
I applaud The Sun's editorial supporting legislation pending in Maryland that would require that all cigarettes sold in the state be certified as low-ignition - so-called fire-safe cigarettes. ("Where there's smokes," editorial, March 23).
Cigarettes are the leading cause of residential fire death across the country, killing 700 to 900 Americans each year. Additionally, thousands of victims suffer devastating injuries, and property losses total millions of dollars each year.
The technology for fire-safe cigarettes has existed for many years. However, tobacco companies have not made this safer alternative widely available.
If they won't act on their own, it is imperative that Maryland protect its citizens from needless death, disability and destruction caused by cigarette fires.
If the proposed fire-safe cigarette bill becomes law, the state will be in good company.
Legislative requirements for fire-safe cigarettes have been adopted in New York, Vermont and California, and a number of other states are currently considering such legislation.
Fire-safe cigarettes work. Initial research since the implementation of the statewide mandate in New York shows a decline in the number of fatalities caused by cigarette-ignited fires.
Research has also shown that these fire-safe cigarettes have not reduced sales or made cigarettes more toxic to smoke.
We join The Sun in urging the Maryland General Assembly to take a lifesaving step and enact the pending legislation.
James M. Shannon
Quincy, Mass.
The writer is president and CEO of the National Fire Protection Association.
Don't wreck school that models success
I read with interest and sadness the article about New Song Academy ("Successful school fighting to survive," March 26).
The fairness argument that the Baltimore education establishment throws out is a sure sign that city schools are doomed by uninspired and gutless management worried about parents of poorly educated students complaining about the good education of others.
That kind of reasoning will drag down the entire system to the lowest possible common denominator - and all in the interest of "fairness."
Is it fair that some schools prosper while others do not?
No, but if you don't give succeeding schools a chance to shine, you will not have models to look to in fixing the bottomless money pit of a mess so many city schools are in today.
A calculator could divide the city school budget by the number of students and come up with a "fair" number to spend on each student. But that is not the answer to this problem. And depriving New Song of the chance to continue will not help the many schools that have failed.
Rather than wreck what is good about successful city schools, we should encourage them, learn from them and create more of them.
Tracy Swindell
Baltimore
Connecting the dots to improve schools
In Sara Neufeld's penetrating article "Successful school fighting to survive," New Song Academy Principal Susan Tibbels is quoted as saying, "If we won't fund a school like New Song, there's no hope for change in Baltimore City."
In the same article, Ms. Neufeld notes Baltimore schools CEO Bonnie S. Copeland's explanation for withholding additional funding. And that explanation?
If New Song were to receive the funding it needs to retain its high staff level, and with that the means to continue delivering outstanding education, the school system would be obliged to provide every other school the same level of support.
Exactly.
Is it just a coincidence that we read of the conundrum facing Ms. Copeland and New Song within a few weeks of a student strike organized by the Algebra Project demanding that the school system, among other things, address the problem of classrooms having too many students and not enough teachers ("Protesting students say way blocked at school," March 4?
And what are we to make of these events in light of other articles about state government budget surpluses?
Isn't this where some dots ought to be connected?
Dot 1: New Song has succeeded primarily because it has been able to deliver individual attention to its students through a low student-to-teacher ratio.
Dot 2: City schools are a mess largely because funding is not available to hire enough well-qualified teachers.
Dot 3: Investing in our students' education today saves money tomorrow, and better-educated students become graduates prepared to enter the work force and adults capable of being productive members of society.
Dot 4: Visit Baltimore neighborhoods blighted by drug trade, crime, poor housing and few job opportunities, and you can see for yourself the results of inadequate educational investment.
My line of work - bringing art to underserved populations and using art to give voice to those who need it most - brings me in contact with many wonderful organizations and individuals who work tirelessly to right the wrongs staring us in the face.
But witness the situation New Song finds itself in, and we have no choice but to conclude that our work alone is not enough. Government must find the courage to take the lead. And what will it take for that to happen? Ordinary people - each of us - recognizing that it is in our collective best interest to have a well-educated citizenry.
And that should just be a matter of connecting the dots.
Peter Bruun
Brooklandville
The writer is an artist and the director of Art on Purpose.
Are vaccines making kids sick?
I must disagree with the thrust of The Sun's editorial "Vaccine jitters" (March 28).
The editorial suggests that if we take mercury out of the influenza shot, the vaccine supply will be diminished. Why should this be the case?
In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Public Health Service issued a joint statement urging that the mercury preservative used in children's vaccines be removed "as soon as possible."
Here we are seven years later, and while mercury has been removed from other immunizations, it continues to be present in more than 90 percent of this year's influenza vaccine stock.
Furthermore, the recommendation for who should receive the influenza shot has been drastically expanded in recent years; the latest recommendations are that all children ages 6 months to 5 years should get the vaccine.
In 1999, when it was first publicly acknowledged that American children were getting more mercury from their vaccines than Environmental Protection Agency limits mandated, only children who were at high risk for respiratory disease got flu shots. Now all children are deemed to benefit from these shots.
There is a risk-benefit ratio for all medical procedures. And since mercury, by all accounts, is a poison, and there is no known threshold at which it can be considered safe, it makes no sense to expose an entire generation of children to this risk when there is a relatively low benefit to the average individual.
It makes no sense to have poison in vaccines.
And the public would have more trust in the National Immunization Program if vaccines were mercury-free.
Dr. Julia Whiting
Charlottesville, Va.
The writer is an emergency physician and the parent of an autistic child.
I read The Sun's editorial "Vaccine jitters" and was deeply disappointed in its lack of attention to the science regarding the potential dangers of mercury, even when taken in small doses.
Mercury is a known neurotoxin that is rapidly absorbed and accumulated in selected cells and tissues (the nervous system, kidneys, etc.)
Even at low levels, mercury can also act synergistically with other chemicals or factors to promote the development of diseases.
The belief that because thimerosal has been used in vaccines for years, it is therefore "safe" is a gross misconception.
We all must admit that "safety" is a relative concept.
Many chemicals or exposure levels considered "safe" in the past are now deemed to be health risks (for example, the "safety guidelines" for lead and arsenic, two other toxic metals, have been revised or updated multiple times in the past decade in response to public health concerns).
While these vaccines may have been considered "safe" years ago, with new information available, their health risks must seriously be questioned and addressed.
Joe Dent
Greenwood, Del.
The Sun's editorial "Vaccine jitters" urges the rejection of state legislation that would ban mercury from childhood vaccines, contending that no link between vaccines containing mercury and autism has been scientifically confirmed.
In fact, several studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals have concluded that vaccines containing mercury contributed to the autism epidemic in America.
A June 2000 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also found that vaccines containing mercury were linked to several developmental disabilities, including autism.
Autism rates skyrocketed in the 1990s, only to fall in recent years - a pattern that closely tracks the addition of mercury-based vaccines to the recommended vaccination schedule in the 1990s, then their phase-out beginning in 1999.
The Sun's contention that the legislation would lead to a vaccine shortage is belied by the fact that Maryland accounts for a trivial percentage of worldwide vaccine demand, by the two-year window before the legislation would take effect and by the opt-out provision in the event of a pandemic.
Removing mercury from vaccines would help protect our children and restore trust in the vaccination system.
Darren Tucker
Bethesda
I agree with The Sun's editorial opposing the attempt to pass legislation that would restrict the use of vaccines that contain thimerosal.
Thimerosal, which contains ethylmercury, is a preservative used to prevent contamination of some vaccines, most notably injectable influenza vaccine.
Erroneous information has implicated the ethylmercury contained in thimerosal as a cause of certain health problems.
However, there is abundant evidence that refutes the notion that the quantities of thimerosal in vaccines cause any risk to health.
These findings have been confirmed by the Institute of Medicine, a highly respected and independent national scientific body.
Concern over the ethylmercury in vaccines most likely arises because it is confused with methylmercury, which, in sufficient doses, has been shown to be neurotoxic.
It is the presence of methylmercury in certain fish and shellfish, for example, that has caused governments to caution pregnant women to limit consumption of these foods.
Influenza kills an average of 36,000 people in the United States per year, including between 75 and 150 children during the two most recent flu seasons.
The Maryland bill would restrict access to some of the injectable vaccines for influenza because they contain thimerosal as a preservative.
Enacting anti-thimerosal legislation would create the false impression that vaccines that contain thimerosal are not safe and should not be used.
On the contrary, vaccines - including vaccines that contain thimerosal - save lives and protect health.
If this legislation passes, it will put lives at risk.
Deborah L. Wexler
St. Paul, Minn.
The writer is executive director of the Immunization Action Coalition.