Sunday, April 30, 2006
The Post sounds the alarm about the Maryland GOP
The Washington Post writers Matthew Mosk and John Wagner sound the alarm today about the dangers that Republican success at the Maryland polls this November could bring. As currently made up, the legislature is overwhelmingly Democratic – to the extent that they can override any veto by Governor Ehrlich on a simple party-line vote. But just a few GOP pick-ups in November (and the re-election of Governor Ehrlich) and the tenor of legislation being imposed on Marylanders could change.
Now, I can appreciate that covering Maryland politics has been a pretty sweet gig for awhile now. Just check in with Senate President Mike Miller and House Speaker Mike Busch to find out what’s going to happen; your article is posted by two and you’re at Middleton’s for an early happy hour. But can’t the authors at least pay lip service to the concept of balanced reporting? The subject is the Governor’s vetoes; so far, he has had 37 of them overridden:
“The impact of the overrides cannot be understated, Ehrlich said. Had the GOP numbers been slightly greater, the minimum wage in Maryland might still be $5.15 an hour instead of $6.15. Montgomery County might not have been permitted to install speed cameras.
Voters might not have been allowed to cast ballots early in this year's election. And a high-profile bill seeking to make Wal-Mart improve its employee health benefits almost certainly would not have become law.”
Somehow, I don’t think the Governor quite described the impact that way. The authors make it sound like the legislation was all quite benign without even mentioning why the Governor issued the vetoes in the first place but let’s remember:
And, just in case we haven’t got the message that Bob Ehrlich is a meanie, the Post writers remind us:
“The lopsided Democratic majority in the House has also vexed Ehrlich, particularly last year, when delegates mustered the bare minimum of votes needed to override Ehrlich's veto of a bill providing relief to doctors facing escalating medical malpractice bills.”
The authors should know better. The Governor didn’t veto the bill because it offered malpractice bill relief but vetoed it in spite of that fact. In January 2005 they reported on this very issue:
"The net result of this exercise is a tax bill," Ehrlich told reporters, pointing to the Democrats' plan to reduce the doctors' insurance burden by levying a 2 percent tax on HMO premiums. "We didn't call these folks into special session so they could pass a regressive tax that will be passed on to those who can least afford to pay it."
Is there any reason to suppose that the Post endorsement for Maryland Governor in November is up for grabs?
Now, I can appreciate that covering Maryland politics has been a pretty sweet gig for awhile now. Just check in with Senate President Mike Miller and House Speaker Mike Busch to find out what’s going to happen; your article is posted by two and you’re at Middleton’s for an early happy hour. But can’t the authors at least pay lip service to the concept of balanced reporting? The subject is the Governor’s vetoes; so far, he has had 37 of them overridden:
“The impact of the overrides cannot be understated, Ehrlich said. Had the GOP numbers been slightly greater, the minimum wage in Maryland might still be $5.15 an hour instead of $6.15. Montgomery County might not have been permitted to install speed cameras.
Voters might not have been allowed to cast ballots early in this year's election. And a high-profile bill seeking to make Wal-Mart improve its employee health benefits almost certainly would not have become law.”
Somehow, I don’t think the Governor quite described the impact that way. The authors make it sound like the legislation was all quite benign without even mentioning why the Governor issued the vetoes in the first place but let’s remember:
- Raising the minimum wage does nothing to help business prospects in the poorer areas of the state and does nothing to improve employment prospects among Maryland’s unemployed. This is instead nothing but a sop to union interests.
- Speed cameras allow you to be photographed and fined without anyone actually witnessing your digression. This is a government fund raiser – pure and simple. I would think the civil liberty aspect of the Governor’s veto would have had some resonance.
- It’s just not that voters are casting early ballots but that the early ballot boxes have all been set up in predominantly Democratic districts. Interesting that they didn’t attempt the same stunt with primary voting (in which they probably couldn’t figure out just who it would help).
- Yet unexplained by the Maryland Democratic legislators is why Wal-Mart employees, alone among the state’s workers, are so deserving of their attention. The Wal-Mart bill had nothing to do with improving employee health benefits and everything to do with hurting Wal-Mart. The unions have had no success with Wal-Mart employees and all recognize that the union contracts put unionized companies at a disadvantage vis-à-vis Wal-Mart.
And, just in case we haven’t got the message that Bob Ehrlich is a meanie, the Post writers remind us:
“The lopsided Democratic majority in the House has also vexed Ehrlich, particularly last year, when delegates mustered the bare minimum of votes needed to override Ehrlich's veto of a bill providing relief to doctors facing escalating medical malpractice bills.”
The authors should know better. The Governor didn’t veto the bill because it offered malpractice bill relief but vetoed it in spite of that fact. In January 2005 they reported on this very issue:
"The net result of this exercise is a tax bill," Ehrlich told reporters, pointing to the Democrats' plan to reduce the doctors' insurance burden by levying a 2 percent tax on HMO premiums. "We didn't call these folks into special session so they could pass a regressive tax that will be passed on to those who can least afford to pay it."
Is there any reason to suppose that the Post endorsement for Maryland Governor in November is up for grabs?
