Ward 2 Candidates Forum

Scores of people sheltered their necks in scarves and braved the blustery, lip-chapping Monday night weather to attend the Ward 2 candidates forum sponsored by Paul Foer.

I thought the event went well, and the candidates did well to establish the themes of their candidacies:

Debbie McKerrow--Experience Counts.

Soundbite: In the last 12 years that I have lived in Admiral Heights, there has not been a Ward 2 related issue that I have not been involved in.

Mrs. McKerrow's mailers have emphasized here experience, and she wanted to hit that point at this forum. Debbie cataloged example after example of how she was active on issues from development of high-rises to construction of the stadium. This is all fine--good, even.* The general feeling is that there is no reason to dislike Debbie McKerrow.

(*Attention all "fair and balanced" people who have been mislead into believing that I should criticize or praise Republicans and Democrats equally: this one's for you.)

There is reason, however, to know she is not the right candidate. At one point in the evening, the candidates were asked how they felt about the Homestead Tax Credit. This is about property taxes, and goes something like this. If governments assessed property taxes based on appraised value, it would be highly detrimental to taxpayers, and highly difficult to plan budgets because tax revenue would vary widely with housing markets. The Homestead Tax Credit limits the growth of taxable property value at 10% each year. (I don't know why they call it a "credit"--I imagine it's because "credit" sounds better than "limit" and would get the creator re-elected). So, if you buy a house for $100,000, then you spend another $100,000 improving your house, for tax purposes it would be worth only $110,000.

So, local jurisdictions can lower this rate if they want. Anne Arundel County has generously cut this rate to 2%. Annapolis, naturally, allows the full 10% annual increase in taxable property value, which is poppycock. People's incomes don't increase by 10% each year, but the city seems to think that its income should increase by at least that much. The idea that a government earns income in the first place is equally poppycock-ish.

Anyway, like I was saying, the candidates were asked how they felt about this. Fred said he's open to discussions (although I know from speaking with him that he doesn't like it), and Karen said something of the like. But here is what Debbie said:

We each have our bills. Food expenses go up. Electricity
expenses go up. Health insurance costs go up. The city has to pay a
fair salary to its employees--all of these things cost money.

I am concerned about cutting revenue to the city, and I am not in favor of
cutting back.

The problem with this line of thinking was eloquently articulated to me by a friend of mine, and I'll try to do the same here. Debbie enjoys fixing problems in her neighborhood. She is running for office because she thinks that government can do more good than harm--because she thinks that being an Alderman will give her a larger platform to solve problems. Sadly, such a view is fatally flawed.

Government does not spend its own money, and therefore must be held to a higher standard
in terms of efficiency. A major facet of conservatism is that in almost every circumstance, government is an inferior caretaker of money and producer of goods/services relative to private industry. This is not to even mention the equity issue--government takes money from everyone, and spends it on things that sometimes benefit everyone, but other times benefit only certain people. It is not the role of government to redistribute wealth, and Debbie's philosophy of government cannot ensure such restraint in the function of government.

Karen Jennings--The Environmental Candidate, An Independent Voice.

Soundbite: We need a candidate to think out of the box.

Ms. Jennings is an environmental consultant, and bills herself as the environmental candidate. She also made a point to mention that she is from a third party; that she would be an independent voice; and that she would be uninterested in earning political points.

Outside of that, I struggle to understand the reason she is running. If I had to characterize the other 2 candidates: Debbie is running to further and heighten her ability to help in the ward, and Fred is running to restore common sense, focus, and tackle crime. In Karen's remarks, she stressed the importance of a long-term, comprehensive perspective when considering issues, which I believe is part of the Green Party's general platform, but I would hesitate to attribute that as her motivation.



Fred Paone!

Soundbite: We need to focus on real guns, not toy guns.

The theme of Fred's campaign is 'Stop the Bullshit'. After this theme is filtered through the censors and approved by the bigwigs, we end up with "Common Sense Leadership".

An advantage for Mr. Paone is that he has 30 years of first hand experience with the issue that most Annapolitans list as most important: crime. He did a good job of exploiting this difference, at one point calling the crime suggestions of McKerrow and Jennings "balderdash", which the loyal readers of this blog will know is just a polite way to say bullshit. Mr. Paone emphasized the need to fill the vacancies in the police department, and cautioned that the unintended consequences of "revitalization" (as opposed to punishment, I think) are million dollar condos that force the former residents to the outskirts of town.

Fred is a lawyer, and his comfort with public speaking was apparent. Fred stood up and engaged the audience with every response, a technique that the other candidates mimicked to some extent as the forum went on.

"While the city council focused on plastic bags, toy guns, and the United States Navy's discipline of a former star quarterback, 8 young men were murdered on our streets, Fred pointed out. He promised to restore focus to the council and provide some much needed "adult supervision".

Questions asked by actual Ward 2 residents addressed crime, frustration with the justice system's failure to 'put away' suspected criminals, and the traffic congestion that overflows into ward 2 from both highway travelers and downtown patrons.

The next forum is on Monday, at 7 pm at West Annapolis Elementary.

Interesting Tax Chart

I came across this chart while patrolling my normal rotation of economics blogs today:

(I know it's hard to read--if you want to look at the clearer version, click here.)

It shows that since Harry Truman, every Republican has left office with a lower tax burden as a % of GDP than when he took office, and every Democrat just the opposite.

The most optimistic view: Republican policies keep taxes low and spur the economy. Another view: Republicans have enough understanding of economic cycles to make tax policies that do not outpace the growth of the economy. An unlikely view: total luck.

It's easy to imagine a coincidence explaining this phenomenon over a short amount of time, but after 60 years, I think we are establishing a pattern.

Tax and Spin

Former District 30 Delegate and Ward 5 Alderman Herb McMillan published a guest column in The Capital recently, and at the request of the author I will now-republish the article and offer commentary--more like affirmation--of the points contained therein.

(You are probably thinking: "Hey, wait a minute, we are the sharpest, most intelligent, and now that you mention it, the most handsome blog readers and political activists that there are. We already know about this; heck, we read it last week." I can assure you, loyal readers, stories like this need to be told whenever possible.)



TAX AND SPIN: MARYLAND’S BUDGET DRAMA

It’s a time-tested script. Liberals enact mandated spending increases and create a structural deficit, while claiming to be fiscally responsible. The structural deficit becomes a real deficit, and we have a budget crisis. The Governor makes minor budget reductions.

Let's talk about the current Governor's minor budget reductions. He created something like 1000 new jobs, eliminated 200 or so of those, and proclaimed to make 'painstaking cuts that took real political courage'--neglecting the fact that on net he was still plus 800 jobs! This is not a cut!

The drumbeat for higher taxes begins. The Governor calls a special session. Increased taxes and expanded gambling are rolled out as a “Progressive Revenue Reform Package.” Progressives (liberals) bicker over slots. Finally, they reunite to “compromise” and “courageously” pass a revenue (tax) package.


First of all, if you aren't frustrated by the partisan bullshit of slots in Maryland, then I have to believe that your blood runs cold. Here is what has happened in the last 5 years with slots:

4 years ago: ( Republican Governor Ehrlich) Can we have slots? (General Assembly) NO.
3 years ago: (Republican Governor Ehrlich) Can we have slots? (General Assembly) NO.
2 years ago: (Republican Governor Ehrlich) Can we have slots? (General Assembly) NO.
1 year ago: (Republican Governor Ehrlich) Can we have slots? (General Assembly) NO.
This year: (Democrat Governor MOM) Can we have slots? (General Assembly) Yes.

Secondly, Herb makes a very good point about the words used for political spin. Before, it was conservatives and liberals. But apparently it has been determined that liberal is too derogatory of a term, and now the term 'progressive' is popping up everywhere. And our subconscious tells us that progressive means 'cutting edge', and we are less likely to get mad when the government steals our money and redistributes it.


Which brings us to the second example of spin: 'revenue package'. Governments do not earn revenue. They do not have financial interests of their own. Governments are funded by taxes and taxes only, that they collect from us against our will to serve the interest of the public. If a private company raises prices as part of a 'revenue package', we can choose not to buy that company's product if we don't want to pay such a high price. If the government raises taxes, what can we do?

(Answer: we can write blogs.)


They slightly reduce two taxes, raise every other tax, pass slots, and tell you that only the rich will pay more.


This is a grave offense, and The Capital is a grave offender. Let me tell you something--if the government is collecting $1,700,000,000 more in taxes than it was before, we will be paying more taxes. I once thought that a parallelogram is what the Pony Express delivered, but even I know that if the government raises taxes, we pay more.

Democrats haven’t deviated from this script yet. Governor O’Malley’s “centrist” budget created 1000 new state jobs, increased spending by 7.6%, exceeded tax receipts by a billion dollars, and consumed Ehrlich’s billion dollar surplus. Yet Speaker Mike Busch called it a “fiscally responsible budget that limited growth.” Ignoring fiscal reality, the General Assembly cut O’Malley’s budget by less than 1% (200 million) and added millions in new mandated spending to next year’s 1.5 billion deficit.

Maryland's total budget is about $30 billion per year. $1.5 billion represents a deficit of about 5% of the total budget. I submit that every person reading this blog has had to cut 5% from their budget at one point or another. I have seen prices for certain foods--tomatoes, lettuce, and milk to give examples from the last couple of years--double in price within 6 months! I don't have the luxury of being able to raise prices that quickly--I have to cut my spending. The state should learn to do the same.

The legislature had barely adjourned when calls for a special session started. Governor O’Malley cut a few of the 1000 new vacant jobs created in his budget. He labeled additional reductions as “threats to our quality of life.” Then O’Malley hit the campaign trail, pitching Maryland as a lightly taxed, revenue starved state. Government needed to “create more revenue”. Taxpayers “got their money’s worth”, and higher taxes would “maintain our quality of life”.

The special session thing is total balderdash. The legislature celebrated like they had just cured cancer when the session ended...and what did they accomplish? Now we have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a special session that promises to make us spend even more? Fantastic.

The facts contradict O’Malley’s tax and spin roadshow. Maryland has the 9th highest total tax burden per person, and the 3rd highest income tax in America. Those who claim Maryland taxes are “low as a percentage of income” should remember people, not percentages of income, pay taxes.

I am actually fine with evaluating things based on percentages...

Maryland’s cost of living is high.

This is the point we really need to worry about. We could be the richest state in nominal (non-price level adjusted) terms, but in real terms, it's a different story.

BG&E, despite O’Malley’s campaign promises, increased power bills by 50% in June; gas prices are near $3 per gallon; and property tax assessments increase annually. Working families, small businesses, and retirees not only deserve to keep their hard earned dollars; they need them.

O’Malley’s wrong about revenue. Government doesn’t create revenue. It simply consumes the tax dollars you earn. Maryland doesn’t have a deficit because we fail to tax enough - Maryland has a deficit because we spend to much. State spending has increased 15.3 billion in 10 years – over 100%.

Amen. Herb is honest in his disdain for unrestrained spending growth--he voted against Governor Ehrlich's last budget for precisely that reason.

Do Anne Arundel County residents “get their money’s worth” from state taxes? Anne Arundel County gets 24 cents in state aid for each dollar of state taxes collected within our county. We received $4,356 in state education aid per pupil. Baltimore City received $11, 235 per pupil. We’re fourth from the bottom in state aid. The same formulas that mandate increased state spending, including Thornton funding, also distribute more of your tax dollars to other counties. We pay more state taxes, and we receive less. That’s “progressive?”

After reading this, do you have any confidence that governments spend your money fairly, or wisely? I have an idea, let's have government be in charge of our health care--I bet they could do a better job than the private market. (Even though you cannot hear the tone of my voice, I trust that the sarcasm was conveyed.)

Are your taxes well spent? Three years ago, Baltimore City couldn’t account for 40 million in state education money. It disappeared. The non-profit Advocates for Children and Youth discovered that $500 million of Thornton funding slated for summer school and tutoring had been used instead for general budget items, including health benefits, salary increases, and heating. They also noted that Maryland student scores on independent national tests had failed to improve, despite a 2.2 billion increase in education funding since 2002. Students have performed only marginally better on state tests.

At this point, I don't even have to say anything...Herb is on a roll.

O’Malley claims his revenue reforms put money in your pocket. But it doesn’t stay there long. His income tax restructuring reduces taxes for family’s making between $50,000 and $125,000 by $176. Property taxes on a $350,000 home are reduced $105 for a total savings of $281. However, O’Malley’s 1.3 billion in regressive taxes (sales, gas, car titling) born by 2.1 million Maryland households, costs an average of $585 per household. On average, each household is now out $304. That’s not even considering the adverse impact of O’Malley’s taxes on businesses and jobs.

Bottom line: nearly $2 billion in new taxes is not good for the economy.

The political success of O’Malley’s regressive-progressive tax increase hinges on convincing us that only the rich pay more. Unfortunately, there aren’t enough wealthy people in Maryland to cover a $1.5 billion tax increase. The next best thing is to make it appear there are, by “progressively” raising their taxes and slightly reducing middle class income taxes. But that only generates $163 million in revenue. The sales tax and other regressive taxes generate $1.3 billion in revenue. Sure the wealthy pay higher taxes; but so will everyone else. Just follow the money.

It would be nice if this show had a happy ending. But with this cast of characters, what did you expect?

Herb McMillan represented Annapolis in the House of Delegates from 2003-2007. Unless otherwise noted, data utilized comes from the Maryland Department of Legislative Services.

9//28/07

Does a 'Rain Garden Specialist' Serve The Public Good

I was browsing the city's website, as I often do for fun, and noticed something peculiar.

(I know that many of you are calling me a dork for looking at the city's website for fun, and, well, you are right. I do a lot of odd things for fun. In fact, here are my top 5 leisure activities:
1. riding my bike
2. bowling
3. browsing the city's web site
4. following sports, especially American football and also European football. Go Barca!
5. continue my life-long mission to mandate that people pronounce the words 'sword' and 'soared' differently)

I noticed that the city employs a Rain Garden Specialist:

One way to help save time and benefit plantings is to prepare a Rain Garden. Our Rain Garden Brochure is available by clicking on these links:

Rain Garden Brochure - Page One
Rain Garden Brochure - Page Two

For more information, call Harry Sandrouni, our City's Rain Garden Specialist, at 410-263-7949.

This blog questioned whether the city should be spending money on a Director of Health and Aquatics--and some people thought: yes, we should.

But a Rain Garden Specialist? Is this position really on the city payroll? I am hoping that this guy is a volunteer. Because if he's not, what's to say the city couldn't have any of the following specialists:

1. Dogfighting specialist
2. Global warming specialist
3. Sister City Specialist
4. Navy vs. St. John's annual croquet (sp. edited!) match specialist
5. etc.

(Edit: it has been pointed out that the gentleman in question is a stormwater management specialist, which would make sense.)

The question of 'when to stop' has to be answered by governments all the time....take minimum wage--why stop at $11.25/hr? Why not $100/hr?

This is a basic illustration of the conservative view of government. Government should exist to enforce contracts and laws, provide public safety, and operate where the private market fails to provide the correct goods and services. If the government tries to expand beyond this, we get waste, and things we don't need.

A Healthy Debate

I must admit, that although this blog generally purports to cover local issues, it sometimes ventures in to other realms of discussion. Capital Punishment, which does a very good job in staying local and is the only other blog that I know of that covers Annapolis city issues, has offered some comments regarding posts that I have made. This is exiting to me, and hopefully is to you also, because now I can post some comments on the previous comments, and before you know it we've got interested people debating how to make the city better (rather than blaming various people for various things in press releases)!!

To begin, CP wonders what if any good a low interest rate on bonds is for we citizens. He is referring to a 4.27% interest rate that the city recently got on some $29 million in bonds:

This sounds like great news, and CP is sure every homeowner can appreciate what a good rate such as this means, but not being an economist, it is very hard to say how this translates into solid benefits for taxpayers. CP inquired of Mr. Weaver in his role as PIO, but was told to contact the Finance Director for such details. Perhaps staff reporters at newspapers, or maybe even ERIC SMITH, can take the time to delve into this, but CP thinks it is incumbent upon our own government to explain this is real terms to real people. What standard ratios are used in small cities to determine solvency and debt ratios? Will this mean our budget growth is slowed? How many dollars per year does it save over having a higher rate?

As a degree-holding amateur economist, and as an amateur participant in the city's budget process, I will try and offer some understanding to the process.

Bonds are issued for capital projects---big ones, like rebuilding a parking garage or building the outer west street gateway. The city doesn't pay for these right away, and they are not paid for out of the general fund. When the city council approves a capital expenditure, the finance director basically plans that he will need this money eventually, and when the time comes, he issues bonds in the private market, at the market rate. For more on the bond process, click here.

So how does this affect taxpayers? Well, our property taxes go to the city's general fund, and a portion of the general fund goes to debt service. Just like we pay money every month for our credit cards, the city pays money every month (or year) for bonds. The bonds are money that the city borrows on credit, just like our credit cards. And just like our credit cards, if the interest rate is lower, the debt service that the city has to pay is lower.

As far as the standard ratios used to determine a municipality's solvency, its what you might expect. Property tax base, a good amount of debt in relation to annual taxes, and willingness by the city council to impose taxes even if they are unpopular are all some things used. As far as the benchmark statistics, I don't know, but the city is doing well here because we have the second best bond rating possible.

Most importantly, this absolutely does not mean that the rate of our budget growth will slow. Debt service is about 4% of the operating budget--around $3 million per year. (I couldn't look up the exact number because the PDF file on the city's web site was messed up.) Eliminating debt service completely would help, but paying a 4.27% interest rate as opposed to a 4.4% interest rate doesn't help much. For a $10 million bond amortized over 10 years, a 4.27% interest rate as opposed to a 4.4% rate would save the taxpayers about $74,850--over 10 years*. I would guess that if the city were to re-finance every penny of outstanding debt we had at the best rate ever--like the rate, say, Microsoft gets--we might be talking about saving $100,000 per year, or .1% of the annual budget.

(*I used an online mortgage calculator to figure this out. There are probably nuances that differentiate mortgage lending with bond financing, but I am confident that these numbers make my point just as well.)

A way more important factor is the city council and mayor spending so much money! If they didn't spend as much, we wouldn't have to issue as many bonds and we could really save some money.

So I guess this first part wasn't really a debate with CP as much as some general info on the subject.

Moving on, CP had this to say about one of my recent posts:

CP must respectfully disagree with AP. The R party is not a party of ideas, but like all parties, is a party with some ideas, but in the case of the R's, most of them are bad. For example, invading Iraq. Would that be under the good idea list or the bad idea list?

How about privatizing social security. Hmmm....social? private? social? private? Well, which one?

As for this supposed R belief in lack of governmental control wherever possible, that always seems to end when someone wants to, say for example, smoke a joint, or when a man wants to have sex with a man, or when an unmarried man and woman have sex, or when anyone wants to do anything in their bedroom or what an R thinks is immoral, etc., etc.....

And let's not forget that it was President Bill Clinton himself who said, "the era of big government is over" (not that we actually believed it, but he did bring the deficit to almost ZERO) while Dubya himself has presided over the largest military and bureaucratic expansion in history and raised our deficit to astronomic levels. Oh--and Bush did all this with R's running Congress. And finally, do you feel that our bigger and bigger government under all these years of R domination has led to more or to less governmental control in our lives???

Well, I will of course concede the the GOP does not have a monopoly on ideas, but the bigger point that I want to make is that we (at least I) would prefer to debate on ideas, and ideas only.

Take Martin O'Malley. By most accounts, his record as a public servant did not merit his election to governor--based on ideas, he was not the best candidate. Using the platform "I am a Democrat, GW Bush is a Republican, Ehrlich is a Republican", O'Malley won. Many politicians, admittedly R's also, refuse to talk about ideas and have these nonsense talking points that accomplish nothing.

Now take the state budget debate as an example. The governor is prepping us for a huge tax increase. The Republicans complained, but also came up with THEIR OWN IDEA for how to solve the problem without raising taxes. Does this matter to the Democrats in Maryland? We will see soon enough, but my guess is no.

Unfortunately the Republican party has been parting ways with some of its principles. However, using the same lesser of two evils argument that CP uses, the Republican party is clearly the party more likely to favor reduced government and individual responsibility. And while this may not be the fundamental Republican ideology, it certainly is the defining characteristic of conservative ideology, which is precisely the claim I made.

As for CP's contention that Republicans are not the 'stay out of your life' party because of ethical dictum on social issues, he is slightly off of my point. So said I:

The problem is: the social issues that the right of our party espouse in no way define a conservative, or a Republican. And if our party narrows the scope of our appeal, we have no chance in this state.

So let me repeat, moral superiority is not the platform of the Republican party. There is no way around the fact that all governments must make some social policies based on value judgements and morals held by individuals. Many such morals are based on religion, and in aknowledgement of the numerous world-wide discrepancies concerning what is right and wrong, a definition of one's political philosophy cannot be determined by his/her interpretation of moral correctness.

In other words, my views on many social issues are determined by my religion, and not by my political ideology. So yes, value judgements made by some Republicans may equate to restrictions of choice for some people. But in general, Democrats want way more controls on everything, which makes the Republican party the party of individual freedom, even if not perfectly so.

And lastly, a quick round-up of the national issues mentioned:
-Iraq: perhaps, repeat perhaps, a bad decision in hindsight, decision was made on best available info, can't surrender now.
-Social security: there is nothing "social" about a pay-as-you-go system that takes your money and gives it to someone else. You should not be forced to give your money to the government so they can promise to administer your retirement plan, then spend the money whatever they want.
-The Bush/Clinton deficit comparison is invalid because there is always a deficit in wartime.

I applaud CP, as he actually admitted that he does not hate either party, which many people cannot do. And as long as we debate in the realm of ideas (like me, the Republican!), we will be better off for it.

Role of Government is a Fundamental Philosophy

I would describe my political philosophy as relentlessly individualistic. I believe that individuals, given the proper information, can always make a better decision for their own welfare than the government can make for them. This leads me to be a conservative, small-government, personal responsibility, free-market type fellow.

I know this is not about local issues, per se. I am going to use the following letter to the editor to display my point, then I will attempt to relate that point to the local issues.

Regarding the Walter Williams column headlined "Socialized medicine won't work."

I agree with Walter Williams nearly 100% of the time. I cannot recall a disagreement I have ever had with him. You had better be on to something.

The motives of executives of insurance companies, health maintenance organizations and the like are to maximize profit and minimize cost. To survive, profit-driven businesses like food markets and computer manufacturers must deliver products and services that are competitive in price and quality.

I am with you so far. Do I sense a "but" coming?

But the bottom-line philosophy doesn't work so well in health care.

Yes I do. And, you are incorrect, the concept works perfectly well, as you will prove later in your own letter.

It is not uncommon for coverage of a procedure to be denied even if a doctor deems it necessary for the health of the patient. And the decision may be made by someone who is not even a doctor.

Let me make the first mega-important assertion of this post. The health care system is inefficient because there are people who make decisions other than YOU and YOUR DOCTOR. Think about it....if you buy a computer, or food from a market, you give your money directly to the person who made the computer or grew the food. The fact that you make a purchase conveys, via the price system of a free market, that you are satisfied with the people that you bought the things from and that their products provide a value to you as compared with another alternative.

Now think about health insurance. You pay your premiums every month, and then you have nothing to worry about. Except for your deductible, you don't have to pay at all when you receive medical treatment. So you get medical treatment all the time, which drives up the cost of insurance. Doctors--same thing. They get paid by the insurance company. So, when they treat you, they are not concerned about your financial situation at all (as long as you have insurance). The point is, doctors and patients have no incentive to negotiate and do not face normal free market forces that ensure efficiency, because there is a third party involved.

Whenever you lose accountability like this, things go to hell. Consider schools. If you paid a school directly, I promise you that school would be damn good at what they do. Otherwise, you would take your kid out of that school and pay another school. Instead, we pay taxes to the county, then the county gives money to the school board, then the school board gives it to the schools. And what is the result? Everybody complains about the schools.

People who have no health coverage go to emergency rooms, which are required to treat them. This is probably more costly than health insurance.

Clearly. If emergency rooms were cheaper then insurance than nobody would get insurance.

Newsweek (July 30) reported that "the United States spent 15.3% of GDP on health care (Medicare) for some of us. France spent 10.7% and covered everyone." And other European countries with universal health care spent less than France! Other objections to universal health care are debunked in that article.

First of all, friend, if you like Europe so much you can go live there. (Disclaimer: This line is required by the Republican National Committee as the standard response to comparisons with other countries. We can now continue our discussion.)

Let's start with other European countries. Britain has the largest health care system in the world. In fact, it's health care system is the third largest employer in the world--behind only the railway systems of China and India. And what do they get for their great system? Rationing of service, low quality doctors, and poor results.

And what about health care in France? Everybody gets it, but at the expense of the economy. Higher taxes, especially employment taxes, cause higher unemployment and contribute to a per capita GDP in France some 40%-50% lower than here in this fine land. I would rather make 40-50% more money, and spend it buying my own health insurance (or paying my own doctors directly). I know it's cliche to say 'if you don't like it here move', but in actuality if you favor heavy government involvement to fulfill social goals, then this is probably not the place for you. (Although, you may want to stick around to see who gets elected President.)

However, you are correct that France has a highly rated health care system. So why is this? Well, doctors in France insist on retaining all the decisions concerning whether or not a treatment is administered, and the Medicare system there is very streamlined so filling out claims is very easy. In other words, they kept the good stuff and reduced the bullshit! And in the opinion of this blog, bullshit reduction is next to Godliness, as the saying goes.

Our government is inefficiently administering Medicare.

Agreed....you have a chance to redeem yourself and bring this one home....

Efficiently managed universal coverage via a Medicare-type coverage might allow extending coverage to all citizens at at reasonable cost, if our inept government would swallow its pride and see how other countries do it.

You blew it. First of all, AP doubts that the government can efficiently manage anything. If you want an example of this, look what happened when the Annapolis city government tried to enter the landlord business at the Market House. If you want another example, read anything else about any government, anywhere. Second of all, this is just a difference in philosophy. Here is what you say:

Problem: Government mis-manages health care. Government is inept.
Solution: Do what France does to make our government less inept.

And here is what I would say:

Problem: Government................inept.
Solution: Don't let the government run this activity. Find a private market solution.

There are all manner of subsidies and tax breaks afforded to corporations, farmers, and the dairy industry. So why not help the helpless as well as the wealthy?
BARRY FLIEDER, Annapolis

Again, terrible. You say help everybody, whereas conservatives would say help nobody. It sounds mean, but in the long run everybody is better off: there is no time wasted by politicians trying to figure out which people to help (because if you help one special interest group there are like 3 ka-billion more that want handouts), and you eliminate the equity problem that we have now from our (everyone's) taxes being taken and given out to particular industries (not everyone.)

So, how does this relate to Annapolis? Frankly, I don't remember everything I wanted to say about this. You see, I started this post yesterday, then drove to Ocean City for a bachelor party type event, and am continuing this post today. Sufficent to say I am working with fewer brain cells today than I was yesterday. (Do they re-grow?)

I suppose my main points as they relate to our city are role of government and accountability. I don't believe the government should be ever-reaching into our lives. I don't believe they should be spending our money on 'economic development'. I don't think they should be apologizing for slavery. As Ronald Regan said, government should be funded through the strength of the people.

(Disclaimer #2: The above Ronald Regan quote is only marginally relevant, but was used to fulfill another Republican National Committee Mandate.)

And for accountability--follow the money, as they say. Any time the government becomes the middle man between us and our money, we lose accountability and we cannot control what happens to us (at least to the same degree). So we need to make sure, when the city takes our money, that they are using it correctly.

Man, I hope the coffee is ready........