| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Published Material from Baltimore County Members
These views are not necessarily the views of the organization as a whole.
Fill in the blanks regarding use of space by candidates
Recently, the Arbutus Times announced the creation of "Candidates Corner."
My understanding of its premise was to afford readers the opportunity to hear from candidates for public office, their opinions and/or positions regarding issues of interest to the electorate.
I understood that each candidate might publish in that space once each month.
Your effort to provide readers with pertinent and valuable insights necessary for making informed decisions essential to the proper functioning of our democratic process is commendable and, I trust, truly appreciated by your subscribers.
It appears, however, that your innovative attempt to provide us with important information has suffered from the time-honored wish of incumbents to avoid debate.
Challengers will discover, if they have not already, that incumbents appear to believe that they have naught to gain by engaging in debate or defending their positions. They will forego the opportunity to publicly declare on any issue for any of several reasons: unwillingness to acknowledge an unpopular stance; uncertainty as to the position they will be required to take by their incumbent party bosses, or uncertainty as to which way the wind blows on a given issue.
There is no incentive sufficient to drive them to debate, in your column, issues we are entitled to hear about. Nor is there any penalty associated with ignoring your attempt to provide a sorely needed service to your readers.
I suggest that, in order to create a reason for incumbents to openly declare their positions, you not allow a week without input to go by. If incumbents prefer to remain silent, their space should be made available for additional comments by challengers.
By that stratagem, not only would the value of your commendable civic contribution be enhanced, but the nature of incumbent reticence would be demonstrated more clearly.
Harry Korrell
Catonsville
Editor's note: Mr. Korrell is a member of the Republican Central Committee.
Party Line (R)
Dems use procedures to muzzle debates
By Chris Cavey
Last month I predicted that this legislative session in Annapolis would be gang warfare. I'm disappointed to say my predictions have come true.
Legislators are not dressed in gang colors, but partisan lines have certainly been drawn. The Democratic leadership has resorted to whipping their troops into line and demanding party loyalty above principle.
It doesn't appear to me that Senate President Mike Miller is aiming toward working together with the governor and Republicans. He wants a winner- take-all partisan war at all costs and isn't ashamed to let you know, because you can't stop him.
It has been said that Miller could muster enough votes to "burn down the Statehouse" if he wished. I think he is rallying the troops out of fear.
Speaker of the House Busch has created changes in the governing rules of the House of Delegates. He has pushed his partisan group to procedurally inhibit "the people's house." He also fought to uphold a procedure of disallowing hearings and votes on all bills presented to committees.
For those of you who only remember ninth-grade government class and how a bill is passed, well, it does not happen that way in real life.
Committee chairs can refuse to have or schedule hearings on any bill that is presented to their committee. Votes are never cast, the legislation then just dies by running out of time and your proposals are never heard. By the way, most of these bills, "in the drawer," have Republican sponsors. Are you surprised?
Seventeen bills that were vetoed by the governor last year were overridden. Basically votes were cast straight down partisan lines. To give you a perspective on this, in eight years former Gov. Schaefer had only two vetoes overridden and in eight years Gov.Glendening had a perfect record with no veto overrides. Think the Republicans are the partisan problem in this case?
Now, thanks to the Democrat-driven overrides, we have a greater chance for election fraud then ever in Maryland's history. You can now actually vote "early and often." Early voting, absentee ballots without proper reason and provisional ballots on demand at any Maryland precinct are now possible.
The administrator of the state Board of Elections testified she had concerns about the administrative feasibility of implementing early voting for 2006 but that if the law were passed, election administrators would "do all they can to implement early voting successfully."
All they can? What does that mean? Casting your vote with the knowledge that your vote is safe from fraud and that it will be recorded and counted accurately is the absolute core of our American form of government.
Doesn't the Democratic Party understand this? Its fear is driving it to pave the path toward using voter fraud to win an election. Are your legislators OK with this? Did they vote for increased possibilities for fraud? If they are Democrats, chances are they did.
Partisan ploys by the Democrats even include stooping to bills solely directed at single individuals. Senate Bill 99 was directed at one person. Can you believe that? Your tax dollars at work creating legislation to prevent a Baltimore County School Board member from holding a part-time job for a Republican legislator. What about all the legislators who are full-time county and state employeees outside their legislator jobs? (You realize we are paying them twice).
Del. Adrienne Jones has more than 24 years of service to Baltimore County in her "full-time" job, and Del. Jim Malone is a "full-time" Baltimore County firefighter, just to name two. I haven't heard any bills sponsored by Baltimore County's Democratic senators inhibiting the careers of full-time employed Democrats because of presumed conflict of interest or presumed overt influence over the legislature. Shouldn't it go both ways?
The Democrats are constantly proving that they are the "Party of Fear." They are afraid you will know too much. Currently the Dems are afraid they will get in a position where they will have to cast a vote on a marriage bill or constitutional amendment. They do not want a recorded vote for their opponents to use. That's why they let issues die in committee without a vote.
They want to be able to explain away their thoughts once they get home because they think you are blindly loyal to them. They are afraid because they have to vote with their liberal Democratic leaders or suffer the consequences, and that you, the not-so -liberal constituents, will later find out.
Oh, the price they pay for partisan politics - to sell your principles and to forget your constituents.
History shows that leaders are not afraid of being counted, regardless of political party. Democratic members in our legislature have forgotten that... or perhaps never knew.
This page last updated February 26, 2006
Site designed and developed by Sheila Faulstich