From Amy Alexander's interesting piece, 'Black Women Talk Barack,' in the current edition of The Nation: "Lester Spence, a Johns Hopkins political scientist, mentioned something that instantly, viscerally resonated with me, as the mother of an 8-year-old black girl and a 4-year-old black boy: 'If [the] voter is a black woman who is a bit younger, who is working hard to keep it together, and especially if she has sons, her support will be for Barack. Especially if she has sons.'"

Reaction to Sunday's column ran from, "I've changed my mind about this," to , "You're as crazy as Alonso." The reaction that is particularly noteworthy is that of middle class and even affluent suburbanites who were annoyed at the suggestion that, back in the day, they received reward from their parents for good grades -- or that they have rewarded their own children for academic achievement. Nothing of the kind, they say. Never happened. Dear old dad never bribed us to get good grades.

It may not have been the case for everyone -- some of us actually grew up near the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder and learned to expect nothing for good grades. (In my family, the restraint of an angry father and the absence of a beating usually was reward enough.) But it's hard to believe most people -- and, once upon a time in America, most people were middle class -- when they can't come up with a single example of reward for achievement.

The other striking thing about some of the e-mails I received on this column is the almost breathtaking cluelessness of some (fortunately, not all) suburban readers on the subject of Baltimore poverty. People who are making the strongest judgements about Alonso's proposal don't appear to have any understanding of the facts about the lives of the majority of Baltimore's public school children.

Eighty-five percent of them are on a free or reduced-price school lunch plan; that means their families can't afford to send them to school with lunch, or the govenment allows them that relatively modest measure of support because of their low income levels. While poverty nationally has dropped, and in Maryland, the nation's wealthiest state, poverty among children has fallen, poverty remains concentrated in Baltimore, where percent of families live below the government-set poverty line of $20,444.

"The problem isn't a lack of opportunity," one reader wrote last night, "the problem is a monstrous sense of entitlement among too many of our inner city residents. They don't lack for the necessities of life, and they don't lack an opportunity to get an education."

That's what I mean by cluelessness -- or the refusal to acknowledge a reality in our midst that contributes, for one thing, to low academic achievement among kids. To this reader, it's the welfare mindset at play, not circumstances.

The Census Bureau considers a person poor if he makes under $10,488 a year. (That's for men and women under 65; for those over 65, the threshold is $9,699.) For a family of four, poverty
is a household income of $20,444 or less.
   That's $393 a week.
   Imagine trying to get by on that.
   Imagine trying to get by on, say, $480 a week. That's what a family of four
living on $25,000 a year would have, and they would not be considered in the
official poverty count.
   Add this to the equation, also from the Census Bureau: The number of people
without health insurance coverage rose from 44.8 million (15.3 percent) in
2005 to 47 million (15.8 percent) in 2006.

"I don't pay my kids to get good grades," wrote another reader. "They are rewarded for going above and beyond satisfactory. My kids have been A students for their entire formal education years (5th grade and 7th grade). They have earned Ipods, Nintendo DS, trips to Hershey Park and other payola for their efforts. Isn't that life? Work hard and excel and you will be rewarded with the finer things life has to offer. Cruise along just getting by and expect those things the achiever has, all the while blaming society for your short comings."

I published this letter so you can see the garbled logic -- I don't pay my kids to get good grades, but I reward them when they do. What's the difference? However you scratch it, it's still an incentive package. And this same person, apparently able to afford these things for his kids, doesn't want the Baltimore school's chief to slip a few bucks to city kids who pass their state assessments.

 

I would prefer not to give my vote to any politician who supports the death penalty, which limits my choices in the presidential field of 2008 to Barack Obama (though he's not really a fervent opponent; his position on state executions strikes me as ambiguous), Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Mitt Romney wanted to reinstate the death penalty in Massachusetts while the commonwealth's governor, but he wanted the state to pick and chose only certain types of killers for the ultimate punishment. Hillary Clinton, like her husband, supports the death penalty so she can't be accused by the right of being too soft on crime. (Bill Clinton in 1992 signed the death warrant for a brain-damaged inmate on Arkansas's death row.) It's the height of intellectual dishonesty for the Clintons to support the death penalty, being liberals posing as neo-cons and being students of the law and knowing, as I'm certain they do, that the application of capital punishment in the United States is, to use author Scott Turow's phrase from Thursday's column, "wildly inconsistent." And wildly unfair.

Here's a great resource that explains where the GOP and Dem prez candidates stand on the issue. 

What: Scott Turow, a former prosecutor and author of several best-selling novels, will speak about his opposition to the death penalty, hosted by Marylanders Citizens Against State Executions
Where: Miller Senate Office Building, President's Conference Center
When: Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2008. Talk at 6 p.m.; Reception at 5:30 p.m.

       Turow, the acclaimed suspense novelist, is the author of the book "Ultimate Punishment," an exploration of the death penalty that he wrote after serving on the governor's special commission that examined Illinois' death penalty. (I've just finished it and will have a column on it tomorrow.)
       Once a proponent of capital punishment, Turow has determined that the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent to crime, costs more than other punishments and does a disservice to the relatives of murder victims.  As a prosecutor, Turow had been a supporter of the death penalty but came to oppose its use after serving on the Illinois commission.  The commission found major problems with Illinois' death penalty system and recommended a series of 85 sweeping reforms. Illinois has not executed anyone since the commission released its report in 2002.
Turow's talk comes as policymakers are considering following New Jersey's lead and repealing capital punishment in Maryland.  Turow is the author of several novels, including "Presumed Innocent," and "Reversible Errors."

Research shows drug treatment reduces crime: In Maryland, increased availability of treatment improves public safety. Del. Bill Bronrott, chairman of the House Committee on Drug and Alcohol Abuse, wants to increase the tax on booze in Maryland for the first time in decades in order to raise money for more drug treatment. He forwarded this report from the Justice Policy Institute (JPI), posted yesterday. 
 
Community-based substance abuse treatment reduces crime rates and helps states reduce corrections costs, according to a new policy brief released by the Justice Policy Institute (JPI).
 
The Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety brief found that the sooner substance abuse is treated, the bigger the long-term cost savings and public safety benefits. At a time when some have raised concerns about the release of people convicted of drug offenses from federal prison due to U.S. Sentencing Commission reforms, the research shows that substance abuse treatment helps individuals transition successfully from the criminal justice system to the community. Maryland lawmakers are also debating ways of making bigger investments in drug treatment and drug sentencing reform.
 
"This new report confirms that investing in drug and alcohol treatment is both socially responsible and fiscally prudent and should be a top public policy priority," said Bronrott. "The report documents the tangible results of treatment, such as cutting crime, reclaiming lives, and making healthier families and safer communities. More investments in these lifesaving and cost effective services are needed now to expand the benefits of treatment that this report so clearly demonstrates."
 
The policy brief -- the last in a series that examines the impact of positive social investments on public safety -- found that:
 
Increases in admissions to substance abuse treatment are associated with reductions in crime rates. Admissions to drug treatment increased 37.4 percent nationally and federal spending on drug treatment increased 14.6 percent from 1995 to 2005. During the same period, violent crime fell 31.5 percent. Notably, in Maryland, counties that relied on drug treatment were more likely to achieve significant crime rate reductions than those that relied on drug imprisonment. Eight of the 12 jurisdictions that made greater use of treatment have seen crime rates fall by 10 percent or more compared to just two of the jurisdictions that made greater use of imprisonment.
 
Increased admissions to drug treatment are associated with reduced incarceration rates. States with a higher drug treatment admission rate than the national average send, on average, 100 fewer people to prison per 100,000 in the population than states that have lower than average drug treatment admissions. California, in particular, experienced decreases in incarceration rates when jurisdictions increased the number of people sent to drug treatment.
 
Substance abuse treatment prior to contact with the justice system yields public safety benefits early on. Research has shown that drug treatment programs improve life outcomes for individuals and decrease the likelihood that a drug-involved person will be admitted to the criminal justice system.
 
Substance abuse treatment helps individuals transition successfully from the criminal justice system to the community. Community-based drug treatment programs reduce the chance that a person will become involved in the criminal justice system after release from prison. 
 
Substance abuse treatment is more cost-effective than prison or other punitive measures. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) found that community-based drug treatment is extremely beneficial in terms of cost, especially compared to prison. Every dollar spent on drug treatment in the community is estimated to return $18.52 in benefits to society in terms of reduced crime costs to taxpayer.
 
Maryland continues to spend far more to imprison people convicted of drug offenses than it spends to treat drug abusers referred by the criminal justice system. In 2006, for every dollar spent on drug imprisonment, the state of Maryland invested an estimated 26 cents on the treatment of drug abusers referred by the criminal justice system.
 
"This research confirms that incarcerating people who live with addiction is both costly and ineffective," says JPI Executive Director Sheila Bedi. "At a time when Maryland's prison population is on the rise, we need to help individuals struggling to overcome substance abuse receive treatment in their communities in order to save on prison costs and promote public safety."
 
In 2008, the legislature and administration will have another opportunity to revise Maryland's drug laws. In Maryland, reforms to the state's drug sentencing guidelines are needed. A sub-committee of the Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy is reviewing how guideline reforms might keep people who commit low-level, nonviolent drug offenses in the public health system rather than jail or prison.
 
After four years of declining prison populations, the most recent national prison survey showed Maryland's prison population is, again, on the rise.
 
"We are glad to see the research documenting the benefit of funding drug treatment programs, including promoting public safety," says Naomi Long, director of the DC Metro Project of the Drug Policy Alliance. "However, until the state reforms its drug laws, we will continue to needlessly waste money on prison beds."
 
For more information on this or other JPI research, contact LaWanda Johnson at 202-558-7974 ext. 308.
 
The Justice Policy Institute is a non-profit public policy and research institute dedicated to ending society's reliance on incarceration and promoting effective and just solutions to social problems. To learn more about our research and publications visit www.justicepolicy.org

Readers get very, very uncomfortable when I start pushing for a return to the draft to make sure that all American families, including the ones who most vigorously support our wars and our military-industrial complex, share in the effort to safeguard the nation and its friends around the world. George Bush's war in Iraq does not directly affect as many Americans as did Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon's war in Vietnam. We have not had a draft since 1973. Because of this, the country is divided in a way we are only starting to appreciate. "The real `two Americas,' wrote Jacob Weisberg, the editor of Slate, "are not rich versus poor or religious versus secular but military versus civilian." He added, "There is not even a pretense of shared responsibility for defending the country." And so the war in Iraq continues. We don't like this war, and we want the troops home, but we're only willing to go so far with our efforts as citizens to make this happen. Not enough of us have a son or daughter in the fight. Even with manpower and resources stretched thin, the Bush administration really doesn't want to inconvenience anyone but military families; the president and vice president, the chicken hawks in chief, know that a draft would have further diminished support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. With more Americans serving the country in the military, Congress might not be so compromising, and there would be a greater sense of urgency to reach a settlement. We have a new divide in America, highlighted by the war in Iraq. Where once the nation asked everyone to sacrifice in some way for a greater and verifiable good, we now send only those who have volunteered into battle, however dubious. Most of the rest of us have other things to do.

See the post below on a report on class and military recruiting.

 

This Just In:

ARMY MISSES RECRUITMENT BENCHMARKS BY GREATER MARGIN;
RECRUITS FROM WEALTHIER AREAS DROP FURTHER, says public-interest research group
 
The Army failed to meet its 90 percent benchmark for new recruits having at least a regular high school diploma by nearly 20 percentage points, with a rate of 70.7 percent in 2007, according to a county and state-level report on 2007 military recruits released today by the National Priorities Project (NPP), a non-profit research group releasing its fourth annual analysis of military recruits.  

NPP based this analysis on military recruitment data obtained from the Department of Defense through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Since 2005, the percentage of recruits with at least a high school diploma dropped almost 12 percentage points in two years, according to NPP.  Department of Defense (DoD) studies have shown that a high school diploma is a powerful indicator for recruits' success, with around 80 percent of those with regular high school diplomas finishing the first term of enlistment compared to only half of those without a diploma.  

At the same time, the percentage of 'high quality' recruits continued their downward trend, dropping 12 percentage points since 2004, from 60.9 percent in 2004 to 44.6 percent in 2007.  The DoD defines 'high quality' to include recruits who have at least a regular high school diploma and have scored in the upper half of the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT).  

"The Army's increased failure to meet its own benchmarks really speaks to the much larger failure of the Iraq War," said Greg Speeter, executive director of the National Priorities Project.  "Young people are naturally thinking twice before signing up to fight an unnecessary war with no end in sight," Speeter continued.

National Priorities Project's analysis also found that in 2007, upper-middle and high-income neighborhoods, or those with median household incomes of $60,000 and greater, were under-represented by an even larger margin than in 2004.  Meanwhile, the percentage of recruits from low and middle-income neighborhoods ($30,000 to $54,999) grew since 2004. Click here for income breakdowns by neighborhood.

"Once again, we're staring at the painful story of young people with fewer options bearing the greatest burden," Speeter noted.   "Instead of spending millions more on new enlistment bonuses, we need to change the terms of  where these soldiers are fighting and why they're taking the risk of never coming home."

 County, city and state-level findings include:

• Harris County, TX, Maricopa County, AZ and Los Angeles County, CA had the highest absolute number of recruits.
• Edwards County, TX, Dixie County, FL, Galax city, VA and Turner County, GA had the highest recruitment rates, all over 10 per 1,000 youth.
• Alabama, Montana and Maine had the highest recruiting rates for the states. 
• Nevada, Montana and Mississippi had the lowest percentages of recruits with a regular high school diploma or better.
• Mississippi, Louisiana and Nevada had the lowest percentages of 'high quality' recruits.
• States with higher recruiting rates correlated with lower percentages of 'high quality' recruits.

Click here to find recruitment data on a particular county or state or to see the full analysis of  Fiscal Year 2007 active-duty Army recruits by ZIP code with data on race, ethnicity, age, citizenship, educational attainment and Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT).

The National Priorities Project (NPP) is a 501(c)(3) research organization that analyzes and clarifies federal data so that people can understand and influence how their tax dollars are spent.  Located in Northampton, MA, since 1983, NPP focuses on the impact of federal spending and other policies at the national, state, congressional district and local levels.  For more information, go to http://nationalpriorities.org.

I eulogized a friend once, the most talented friend I ever had. He could sing, he could dance, he could imitate great voices; he was one of the funniest people ever (Oscar Levant meets Conan O'Brien) and he was a gifted illustrator whose work was in demand. He burned out and died at 35. "The brightest stars burn fastest," I said at the funeral, as if that explained anything.

And here's the news today of the actor Heath Ledger, dead at 28, probably from drugs. Just last week, my son and I were YouTubin' Chris Farley, and then getting bummed about how he killed himself with opiates and died so young. And there was Belushi, of course, Kurt Cobain, and the promising River Phoenix (heroin and cocaine, 1993 at the age of 23). There are others I'm not thinking of. It seems we have lost a lot of them, from the time of Norma Jean Mortenson . . . Jim Morrison . . . Janis and Jimi . . . Keith Moon . . .   young stars burning out . . . self-medicating and self-extinguishing.

Here's a simple way to make a couple of pizzas -- and become the hero of your household on a snow day or winter evening.

• Get this: Two packages of yeast and mix it with 2 cups luke warm water. Get five cups of all-purpose flour (or, really, any kind of flour you have in the cupboard), some salt, some olive oil. This is enough for two thin-crust pizzas like the ones you see served in the trattorias of Italy.
• Get a big bowl: Mix the yeasty water with the flour slowly, using a rubber spatula or wooden spoon at first, then your hands. Add about a teaspoon and a half of salt, and about two tablespoons of olive oil. Have fun mixing the dough; it will feel warm and soon rubbery.
• Dust a large cutting board or clean kitchen counter with some flour, then work the dough there again until it feels smooth.
• Return it to the big bowl and cover it with a damp cloth or towel. Leave it in a warm place where the dog can't get into it.
• Come back in two hours with some tomato sauce and mozzarrella, or steamed, drained broccoli, or lighty sauteed garlic and onion, black olives, some pepperoni, whatever you want for a topping.
• Preheat the oven to 400 degrees F.
• Get two pizza pans or cookie sheets, whatever is available.
• Oil them up a little.
• Cut the risen dough in half with a sharp knife. Work one half onto the pan slowly and carefully, so that it stretches but doesn't tear. This takes a little patience. The dough may seem resistant to stretching at first, but your fingers will do the magic.
• Once the dough is spread nicely across the entire pan, add your toppings -- don't overdo it, this is supposed to be a thin-crust pizza and you don't want your sauce and cheese to drown it, nor do you want your toppings to tear through it.
• This pizza cooks quickly -- maybe 10 minutes tops -- so don't stray from the kitchen. If you want a thicker crust pizza, that's up to you, and you need to adjust the cooking time.
• Repeat the whole process with the remaining hunk of the dough.
  You'll make everyone in your house smile on a winter's evening.

Another good letter on slots, except the reader mistakes my current condition -- clinically-diagnosed ambivalence with complications of cynicism and issue fatigue -- as full-fledged opposition to the slots referendum that will be on the November ballot. (Actually, it's not full-fledged; it's thinly-veiled.) This is from Laurie Taylor-Mitchell:

"Thank you so much for reiterating your position against slots, again and again.  I find it incredibly depressing that most Marylanders seem poised to approve of slots. The moral arguments against slots are still the primary ones, but no politician dares to say them I guess. 
 
1) It is morally wrong to fund government, or any industry, including the horse-racing industry, with gambling.  I love horse racing but if it can't survive, I'd much rather pay higher taxes to save the land and the farms from development than to see gambling money do it.
 
"2) The very people who go to Delaware and West Virginia are no doubt some of the same ones that are screaming against higher taxes here in Maryland, and I hold them personally responsible for the fact that in Baltimore County, one of the wealthiest in the nation, some of the public schools are a disgrace, my son's middle school has classroom temperatures at 90 degrees or higher on the second floor and teachers and students sit in misery on hot days withough air conditioning, as they did at my son's elementary school, and next year my son may eat lunch at 10:30 a.m. because the high school is so overcrowded. . . . I also hold the tax naysayers personally responsible for the miserable state of the Chesapeake Bay, and many of the environmental problems in Baltimore County, because there are not enough inspectors and monitors because there is no money.  I hold them personally responsible for not voting for more park and recreational space for children.  I hold them partially responsible, including our President, for the fact that one in five children in the United States lives in poverty. . . . There are a lot of problems that money can't fix.  These are not among those problems.
 
"3) This complaint about attitudes regarding spending money on gambling versus investing it in one's community through paying taxes is nothing new.  In the 15th century, Saint Bernardino of Siena railed against these people in sermons, complaining that those who loved to gamble were the very same ones who cried out against taxes (source is Iris Origo, The World of San Bernardino.)  I think you would like this man, especially his sermons to merchants - i.e. Renaissance businessmen.  . . . . Here is a gem on gambling from one of Bernardino's sermons: A man, 'old and toothless, with his spectacles on his nose and his dice in his hand, and still happy to lose eight or ten florins - though if he had to pay a single one of them for a tax or for the needs of the Commune, his cries would shake the world!'  . . There is a wrong understanding which brings a blindness to the mind: the man who has eaten well cannot believe the one who has gone hungry, the rich man cannot believe the poor one.'

"Politicians cannot speak out against selfishness because they won't get elected if they do.  . . . Never stop railing against gambling to fund government.  Because you are right."

 

Here's another good letter in reaction to Thursday's column on Marylanders' attitudes toward legalizing slots. For the record, I did not pledge agreement with the 56 percent of Free Staters who think it's ill-advised for the state to share part of the slots revenue to support the horse racing industry here. I just said a tax on the poor and elderly (slots) is not the way to do it. Here's a letter from a W. Barron:
 
"I enjoyed your article.  However, I disagree with a key point.  The Maryland racing industry was doing fine, and Maryland was clearly the leading state for thoroughbreds in the Mid-Atlantic region.
Not equal to New York or California, but amazingly strong. . . . . Now, West Virginia, Delaware, and Pennsylvania have just about eliminated the Maryland harness racing industry, and they have done severe damage to the thoroughbreds.  This happened due to the actions of neighboring states....not the forces of the global economy.  Our politicians in Maryland sat on their hands on this for about a decade, and, by not reporting on the exact cause, many of the papers gave these political whimps in both parties a lot of cover for an extended period of time.  I particularly enjoy the moralists.... I actually think it's a lot more immoral to ignore the plight of anyone losing a job, but to allow our leaders to sit on their hands, as they do on so many issues, and to especially let them fail to react to the impact of neighboring states on a longstanding Maryalnd industry and tradition, that, to me is the pinnacle of immorality.  Sort of a modern twist on "let them eat cake." So if we  don't have the guts t o protect our own heritage and jobs from neighboring states, no wonder we have some of the problems we have....serious social and economic problems in Baltimore,  a polluted Bay, the Census Bureau says we have some of the worst traffic in the entire country....and the AARP says we had one of the highest tax burdens BEFORE the recent tax increases. . . . .  I would pay higher taxes for the causes I cited above, but if we aren't going to compete with neighboring states, and if we are just going to hand over Maryland history, heritage and jobs to neighboring states, than this life long resident of Maryalnd  is now ashamed to be a Marylander.  At least the sports pages had reporters with guts enough to report on this issue accurately.  Playing a slot machine, in and of itself, is not an immoral act.  Covering up the truth and giving cover to those who ignore the plight of  hard working people is a (sorry!) horse of a far different color!"

Here's a letter from a reader who doesn't like hearing that a majority of Marylanders are OK with slot machines now -- or that most of us, including me, are so sick of the subject, or resigned to the reality -- or not so sure what the big deal is anymore -- that we've been rendered pretty much ambivalent. (Official ambivalence is supposedly the O'Governor's position.) Anyway, if you can stomach the sanctimony, here's a little Stop Slot Rag. (Pay particular attention to the phrase, "Maryland is messed up enough . . ."  Right. First in wealth, third in public education . . )

"Please keep your pessimism about slots to yourself. Its this aura of so-called inevitability that Stop Slots Md is trying to overcome, and publicly falling on your sword doesn't help. Should we give up on the Bay as well? After all, years after policies were implemented to clean it up, the Choptank and other rivers are worse off, not better. According to your logic then, we should just give up and pave the bay. Maryland is messed up enough without slots or your fatalism. There is room for optimism in the very source you cited to back up your doomsday argument. The poll mentioned also noted that a majority of Marylanders are against having slots in their own jurisdiction, and also that most Marylanders feel that slots will spread if the intial sites are approved in November. This implies that most people really oppose the slots referendum, because if passed slots will spread and likely infect their own locales. Cheer up. . . . John Bailey; Stop Slots Maryland."

Memo to newcomers to Maryland: Beware the TV and radio weather predictions. The people who run these stations like to scare you. It's good for ratings. The mere rumor of icy conditions or snow sparks several days of overwrought "weather coverage." We get contrived news reports about preparations for disaster and the usual advisories on keeping flashlight batteries and a supply of potable water on hand. You can hear blood pressures rising all over central Maryland.
   It's not all the meteorologists' fault. No matter how diligent and sober they might be, no matter how many qualifiers they use in their forecasts, they can't control their news departments. The meteorologist mentions "snow" or "ice" to some gamine assistant news director, and it's like Dr. Frankenstein screaming, "It's alive!" The news crews go into a predictable, nutty drill -- live shots from streets, reports from grim government officials on their emergency preparations, video clips
from previous storms, sensational graphics.
   Why should anyone be surprised that people hit the supermarkets -- and cancel dinner reservations and most of life -- when TV makes it sound like there's no tomorrow? Here's my winter weather advisory -- don't cancel your plans until it looks like you should. Go outside and take a look yourself and make your own judgement. Take long-range forecasts and TV and radio "news" reports with a grain of rock salt. Don't let 'em scare you. 

O'Governor's timing isn't exactly impeccable, is it? He decided to publicly slam Nancy Grasmick again and call for her ouster just as Education Week was ranking Maryland's schools No. 3 nationwide. A longtime state schools superintendent gets to take credit for that - not a first-term governor with only a limited track record of interest in public education.

But, look, children, it's not just bitter, personal partisan politics that motivates O'Governor to go after Nancy Grasmick, one of the most successful public school superintendents in the United States, but a crusade against "unfettered corporatism." Here's Sue Allison, Director of something called Marylanders Against High Stakes Testing, to explain:

"Dr. Grasmick is not only isolated from politics - she has completely isolated herself from the views and concerns of parents.   The legislature recently compelled her to do regional public hearings on the High School Assessment program, which she did.  But when one of the new O'Malley BOE appointees made the suggestion that they should not vote on the confirming the HSA requirement until all parent concerns raised at those hearings were addressed -this BOE member was quickly shut down by the old Ehrlich appointees.  So basically - parents WASTED their time when they traveled far distances to tell the BOE what was actually happening with their silver bullet HSA program.
 
"BOE members don't even share their email addresses with the public.   This set-up makes parents feel completely helpless in this policy making process.   We can't vote for anyone who has anything to do with education policy.   On the other hand - the Maryland Business Roundtable has complete and unfettered access to Dr. Grasmick and the Board.  In fact - the BOE often meets at the offices of the Maryland Business Roundtable.  It is the MBRT's views on high stakes testing that always carry the day - despite overwhelming opposition by other education advocacy organizations. 
 
"One person's 'partisan political influence' is another person's good old fashioned democracy.  I will take partisan politics over unfettered corporatism any day.  Dr. Grasmick is pushing forward to shred diplomas next spring, despite the fact that the BOE hasn't gotten its act together yet on modified assessments for special needs students - because this is what the BRT education agenda is demanding.  But I guess we're not supposed to worry about a few casualties here and there - right?   Just so its somebody else's kid who is cheated out of a diploma he or she earned fair and square.  And if a few kids lose diplomas because an unregulated private testing company screwed up -- whats the big deal - right?  Its's more important to protect Dr. Grasmick from 'partisan politics.' 
 
"If you want to keep the structure the way it is - you tell me how a parent is supposed to advocate for fair and open testing in the state of Maryland. "

Of all the taxes O'Governor and the Maryland legislature could have raised in November's special session, the one on alcoholic beverages made the most sense, and it was the most overdue for a'raisin'.  We'd get more bang for the buck with an increase of just pennies on the booze tax -- put to good use, for drug and alcohol treatment programs -- than any other new tariff the state imposed. O'Malley has come forth with a pittance -- a $5 million increase for drug and alcohol treatment programs -- when we have a chronic, multigenerational heroin problem in Baltimore and its 'burbs that fuels crime, contributes to overcrowded court dockets and prisons, and is in large measure responsible for a costly recidivism rate of more than 50 percent. (Half of inmates released from the DOC this year will be back within three.) There are few things in which government dollars are more needed, and more effective -- one fewer addict in prison means a $25,000 annual savings in inmate warehousing alone. (Instead, we're still building prison space.)

Maryland's tax on alcohol sales have not been increased since 1955 for liquor and 1972 for beer and wine, and as a result we have one of lowest  rates in the nation.
 
Not that the General Assembly will be in the mood for raising another tax, but Delegate Bill Bronrott (D-District 16), chairman of the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Committee, is calling again for a small increase in the alcohol excise tax for treatment and prevention programs.

Here's his statement, released an hour ago:

“Governor O’Malley today proposed a budget that makes hard choices and some wise investments given that Maryland is trying to reduce its spending and eliminate its deficit.  In particular, the Governor’s decision to invest $5 million more into drug and alcohol treatment is a good first step since these services reduce the financial and human costs that addiction creates -- including crime, lost jobs and broken families.
 
“Untreated drug and alcohol addiction costs Maryland’s economy, budget and taxpayers almost $6 billion a year, and only one in four persons who needs addiction treatment gets it.  With such a huge price tag on the problem and so little access to the solution, much more must be done to improve and expand access to these lifesaving and cost effective services.
 
“However, because Maryland’s budget is so strapped, we must find responsible new sources of revenue to pay for program priorities.  In this case, one way to increase the investment in drug and alcohol treatment without cutting other critical programs would be to implement a pennies-per-drink tax on alcoholic beverages.  Such a tax could generate upwards of $60 million annually to help close this gaping hole in our public health and safety systems.
 
“No state has a lower excise tax on distilled spirits than Maryland – this tax costs only two cents per shot.  The last time it was raised, President Eisenhower was in his first term, the Orioles had just finished their first year in Baltimore, gasoline was 23 cents a gallon, and Elvis had not even been discovered yet.  The year was 1955.
 
“Maryland’s beer and wine taxes that were set in 1972 are among the lowest in the nation.  The beer tax is equivalent to only one cent per 12 ounce draft and the tax on wine is only two cents per glass.  Sadly, it is not unusual now for a six-pack of cola to cost more than a six-pack of beer.   
 
“Allowing addiction to remain untreated in Maryland is expensive and potentially dangerous since well over 50 percent of people admitted to trauma centers or arrested for jailable offenses are under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
 
“Investing in treatment saves lives and also saves money -- every $1 invested in addiction treatment saves $7 in reduced crime and criminal justice costs, which increases to $12 in savings when health care costs are factored in.
 
“As I have done in the past, I will introduce legislation to increase the alcohol excise tax by the equivalent of a few pennies per drink for the explicit purpose of dramatically expanding the availability of drug and alcohol treatment and prevention programs for adolescents and adults throughout Maryland.
 
“An independent statewide poll conducted by OpinionWorks in the summer of 2006 found that 67 percent of Marylanders support increasing the state alcohol excise tax, especially when revenues are designated for addiction treatment.  So, when the voters have spoken so clearly and Maryland is scrambling for new sources of funding, passing an alcohol tax is fiscally prudent and will help provide socially responsible services that make all of our communities more livable, healthy and safe.”

Here's some comment from Patrick Letts, a Baltimore-area resident who works as an account executive for D.C. United of Major League Soccer:

"I completely agree with you that we need the larger-sized arena for the future potential of an NBA or NFL team. Why not go after a top-level Arena football team? We do need someone with vision to help make others see. I am a huge soccer fan and would love to see Baltimore get an MLS team one day. The league will take off and will be extremely successful. It is laying the blocks now. The NFL wasn't built in 15 years. Baltimore gets knocked as a minor sports town even though we have the Ravens and O's. I think a major new arena would greatly enhance our perception."

 

As Governor Snide continues his campaign to dump Nancy Grasmick, Maryland's longtime schools superintendent, and return power over her position to his office, we get this on-point letter from Robert Dubel, who served for 16 years as Baltimore County's school superintendent:

Congratulations to the Maryland State Board of Education for fulfilling its most important statutory responsibility by re-appointing Dr. Nancy S. Grasmick to another term as State Superintendent of Schools.  The attempt by the Governor and some legislative leaders to roll back the appointment process to the mode of the early 1900s (is) chilling.
 
In 1915, Abraham Flexner was brought here from New York (then the Mecca of public education) to study a problem-ridden Maryland School System. He quickly concluded that Maryland schools were "infested with the vicissitudes of partisan politics."  A major recommendation of the Flexner Report, which was enacted by the 1916 General Assembly, was to take the appointment of the State Superintendent of Schools from the Governor's Green Bag and vest it with the State Board of Education.  The 1916 legislative reforms conveyed many other responsibilites to  the State Board of Education (which remain today). 
 
Dr. Thomas G. Pullen, who served as State Superintendent in the 1940s and 1950s, often applauded the structure of the Maryland Public Schools, observing that schools were "insulated" but not "isolated" from the partisan political process.
 
Unless the present State Board of Education wanted to appoint a new Superintendent on July1, 2008 without a search, it had no choice but to inform Dr. Grasmick that she would be re-appointed or that the Board was going to search for a new Superintendent.  Fortunately, they chose to re-appoint a highly successful State Superintendent of Schools.  This issue, however, transcends the status of Dr. Grasmick.
 
Any governor is free to share his vision for public schools with the State Board of Education, the State Superintendent of Schools, and the public, but the State Board of Education is required by statute to:  "Determine the elementary and secondary educational policies of the State...."
 
It is incredible that anyone wants to revert to the 1915 process when Maryland schools were controlled by governors.  In the 1910 census, Maryland ranked "among the states of the Union as thirty-first in point of illiteracy." (Flexner)
 
The Maryland reforms of 1916 have been emulated in many states. It is vital to protect a beacon system from the shifting winds of decision making through partisan politics.

From Larry Rank, a reader in Arizona:

I read with interest your column in the Baltimore Sun on Sunday, January 13, 2008, regarding a new arena for Baltimore.  Although I now live in Phoenix, Arizona, I was a resident of Baltimore from 1958 to 1998 and lived there when the decision to build the old Civic Center was made.  When the powers in charge decided to build a stage in the building and eliminate 3 to 4,000 seats, it was short sighted and a minor league decision.  It probably prevented Baltimore from getting an NHL team and from keeping the Bullets in Baltimore.  They wanted to draw concerts and thought they needed a stage.  It never occurred to them that they could put a revolving stage in the center of the floor for concerts.  Duh!  Even if the chances of Baltimore getting an NHL or NBA team in the future are slim, there are many opportunities to attract many big league events, as you point out, like NCAA tournaments, major concerts, conventions, etc.  Lets hope the current decision makers don't make the same mistake that their predecessors did back in the early 60's.  Small thinking did not produce the Inner Harbor, Oriole Park and the Raven's Stadium.  If Baltimore really is a big league city, as it claims to be, it needs a first class arena that seats 18-20,000.  Anything less makes no sense.  I hope you keep lobbing for it.  Good luck.

Here's another reader, Lee Parsons, pointing to another flaw in our voluntary recycling efforts:

You made some good points in your column regarding recycling and restaurants.  HOWEVER, if you want to take on a really BIG issue - check out the situation for condos.  I lived in condos in Harford County and/or Baltimore County for the last twelve years.  To my knowledge, NO condos offer recycling. 
 
When I inquired, I was told the trash is picked by private contractors, not the county (even though all condo owners pay county taxes).  There are no paper, glass or any other day! I think all condos should be required by law to offer recycling - and did I already point out we're paying county taxes!
 
Being a big newspaper and magazine reader, I recycle my paper by taking it to my daughter's house (also in Baltimore County) where she has convenient curbside pick-up.
 
Just look at the condos in the Reisterstown-Owings Mills-Randallstown area alone - then multiply that.  Recyling plans are MISSING A LOT OF PEOPLE!
 
My condo in Harford County was in Havre de Grace - the historic stone building next to the Decoy Museum where you did a live TV show several years ago. I enjoy your column, but this is the first time to contact you - you must have touched a nerve!

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 6:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)