Out and About (Sort of): Call to Action is Urgent by Howard Freedlander

The Under Armour slogan, “Protect This House,” aptly characterizes the current campaign to fight the Trump Administration’s proposed cut of $73 million for continued cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay.

The Chesapeake Bay is the beating heart of Maryland. It requires constant attention. Keeping it alive despite relentless pollution warrants critical, if not acute care.

The bay, the largest estuary in the United States, provides measurable commercial and invaluable recreation opportunities for millions of residents in the Maryland-Pennsylvania-Virginia-Delaware region. Its upkeep is impossible without federal dollars.

It daily undergoes a stress test. In recent years, due largely to an expansive—and, yes, controversial cleanup based upon an oft-distasteful “pollution diet”—the bay has experienced a steady reduction in nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment that rob it of oxygen and destroy recreation and industry.

Ignoring slightly the emotional and cultural impact of a body of water that runs through the veins of those of us fortunate enough to live so closely to this generous force of nature, we residents of the Eastern Shore absolutely must fight hard to ensure that the Trump Administration’s intention to strike the $73 million from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) budget is a silly figment of a bean-counter’s mean-spirited imagination.

An argument that the state of Maryland, along with five other states and the District of Columbia in the 64,000-square-mile watershed, should shoulder the cost of improving and preserving the Bay’s fragile health ignores the federal government’s important role in forcing cooperation among independent-minded states lacking the financial means to fix a complex ecosystem.

EPA’s compulsory pollution diet, prescribed in 2010–and including the requirement of updated stormwater systems–upset local municipalities. It seemed unfair. It required local expenditures. It set deadlines. EPA understood that the Chesapeake Bay’s health could not survive on questionable and half-hearted life support. Immediate action was the cure.

While it’s true that a President’s budget document is merely a blueprint typically shunted aside by Congress, it nonetheless provides unmistakable insight into the thinking and priorities of an administration. Therefore, it cannot be ignored.
It calls for action.

I feel confident that Maryland’s congressional delegate will coalesce to oppose destruction of the embattled Chesapeake Bay. I feel confident that the argument for preservation and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay resonates in the halls of Congress, resulting in bi-partisan support of, and commitment to a future marked by abundant harvest of Blue crabs and the increasing health of long-endangered oysters. I trust my optimism is justified.

As stated in a March 22, 2017 editorial in The Washington Post, “It (Bay revival) will take a concerted political effort and public pressure to recover the funds eliminated in the administration’s proposed budget. It is critical that they succeed.”
The future of our Eastern Shore and the Chesapeake Bay are inextricably connected. As they must be.

If we care about the bay, then we must speak up. We must “Protect This House”(substitute “Bay”), to echo the assertive Under Armour slogan.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland.  Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He  also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer.  In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

Trump: Is He Teachable? By Al Sikes

Theories abound. Patients react. Markets signal. And so it goes as the debilitated Congress captured by a swirl of self-regarding interests attempts to re-engineer 20% of the economy, yet again. I am thankful for spring renewal and the promises of baseballs’ spring training.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been around for seven years. Its strengths and weaknesses have been exposed. Fix it.

President Trump has been around for sixty days or so and contrary to belief had a rather good week. Public embarrassment can teach a seventy-year-old who is said to be unteachable. If his experience in trying to co-lead, with Speaker Paul Ryan, the repeal, and replacement of the ACA didn’t teach him anything, he will not last four years.

The simplest message—build a majority, don’t count on one. The far right of the Republican Party and Trump share a Party but little else. And if Trump is going to shape bi-partisan coalitions, he will need a leader outside his current entourage.

Democrats seem gleeful; they should not be. Most importantly, having a weak President is debilitating internationally and they need to keep in mind that he is in his eighth week of two hundred and eight. Plus, their Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, seems intent on undermining the minority’s rights by trying to block the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch, by using the filibuster. If his colleagues follow his lead, then the Senate majority will repeal the rule that gives the minority what limited power they have.

The President I worked with, George H W Bush, allocated most of his time to national security and foreign policy. The President’s authority to deal overseas is much greater than his domestic reach. Senator John McCain, no Trump fan, nevertheless gives him high marks on assembling a strong team for work abroad. Trump needs to order his White House bureaucrats to speed the nomination of the next tier of leadership at the State and Defense Departments in particular.

If Trump’s leadership as Commander-in-Chief is successful, he will be in a stronger position with the Congress. If Trump continues to live up to his opponent’s characterizations, he will be weak both at home and abroad.

Recently a friend explained that his vote for Trump was a vote for Mike Pence. If Pence ends up taking over before Trump’s term expires, our Nation is in for an especially destructive swath of history. I hope the lessons of the last week prove beneficial.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al recently published Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

An Open Letter to the Freedom Caucus by David Montgomery

To my friends in the Freedom Caucus who would not agree to a replacement for Obamacare: I share your values and most of your policy preferences, but your legislative tactics are irresponsible and stupid. This is not Israel, where a tiny and extreme party can obtain major policy concessions as a condition for joining a coalition. Your unwillingness to reach a compromise simply guarantees the outcome that you like least.

I cannot understand your motivation. Obamacare is not just a step toward socialized medicine to be opposed in principle; it is a growing catastrophe of rising premiums and reduced choice. I agree that my first preference would be to turn the clock back and prevent Obamacare from being created in the first place. But you can’t be foolish enough to think that you could achieve the same result by bludgeoning your Republican colleagues into total repeal after it has been in effect for 7 years.

Until now, the Democrats that designed and voted for Obamacare owned it, making Obamacare one of the issues that put you in office. But you have very nicely relieved Democrats of the onus of fixing Obamacare and saddled the Republican Party with blame for all its problems. Faced with a Democratic majority that will not agree to any Republican proposals, compromise among Republicans is indispensable. We cannot let Obamacare explode and expect out-of-power Democrats to take the blame. Getting moving toward replacing Obamacare is a political necessity. Otherwise, all you will accomplish in the remaining two years is proving that Republicans can only oppose, and that we are not fit to be put in charge of the country.

What set of moral absolutes could lead you to oppose changes in Obamacare that were clearly moving in the right direction? Even those of us who believe, for example, that the intentional killing of an unborn child is always gravely immoral will vote for legislation that restricts abortion even if it does not do away with Roe vs Wade completely. I share the principles that lead you to oppose Obamacare root and branch, but I cannot see how anyone with the responsibility of elected office could refuse a good compromise in favor of the status quo. This is the same self-serving ego gratification that progressives get from voting for useless gun control laws – it may make you feel good but it makes matters objectively worse. At this point, I would not vote for a single one of you, and would do my best to support primary challengers who understand that a Republican representative should aim to achieve the best outcome possible in a flawed system.

I am glad that Speaker Ryan is not the tyrant that Nancy Pelosi was. But it is frustrating that you take such advantage of Speaker Ryan’s wish to maintain democracy and respect for all members’ opinions within the Republican delegation. Until now, I have thought that Steve Bannon would provide a useful reminder of conservative principles to a President who is more a negotiator than committed conservative. But I would want his head on a platter if he had anything to do with a plot to replace Speaker Ryan with a leader of the Freedom Caucus.

How would you expect a more conservative (and less experienced and nowhere near as bright) leader to achieve more of your agenda? You drove Speaker Boehner out with complaints that he was not taking a hard enough line in opposing the Obama Administration on budgets and debt. Now there seems to be a wish to drive out Speaker Ryan. Is your idea that an uncompromising conservative could whip the Republican delegation into line behind your ideas, in the same way that the uncompromising leftist Nancy Pelosi did?

That is surely wishful thinking. Leaving aside the question of who would want to be elected as a Republican if they were going to be forced to vote for a bill they never read, you don’t have Nancy’s tools. She did not succeed in browbeating her colleagues by sheer nastiness. She controlled the pursestrings of campaign finance, and her purse was filled by George Soros and his friends. No matter what the liberal media claim, we Republicans have no such sugar daddies. You in the Freedom Caucus were elected by a popular groundswell and spent far less on your campaigns than your Democrat opponents. The Republican National Committee and the House and Senate Campaign Committees are run in a pretty democratic way, compared to the authoritarian thought police who dole out money to Democrat candidates. So you will fail to impose your ideas on a Republican delegation that is both more centrist and more realistic than you.

It is nearing midnight on the political clock, and you need to get the message now. You will double-down on disaster if you decide to follow your perverse victory on Obamacare with the same stance on tax reform. Speaker Ryan and Chairman Brady have crafted a tax reform package that will reduce the burden of taxation on American businesses and families, fix the perverse tax policies that drive companies and investment overseas, and stimulate much faster economic growth. Whose side will you be on? Is it really that important to remind the world that you stand for lower taxes and reduced spending and are not happy that tax reform is revenue neutral? Will you help the Democrats stop tax reform or will you vote for a great tax package even though it does not achieve the full Conservative agenda of reducing taxes and cutting spending?

We have a historic opportunity to put the United States back on the right track, with majorities in the House and Senate and a President able to sit down and negotiate. Are you enjoying the gloating of the progressives that the Trump Administration is a failure before even 100 days elapse?

Stop acting like snowflakes who need time off from exams to weep when they do not get what they want in politics. Man up, and take your responsibilities not just to the Republican Party but to the people of the United States seriously. If you remain intransigent, all you will do is return power to those who want to restrict our religious freedom, tax us into submission, and let other countries rule the world. Call President Trump and ask him to sit down with you, Speaker Ryan and Secretary Price to work out a new deal on replacing Obamacare. It is almost too late.

David Montgomery was formerly Senior Vice President of NERA Economic Consulting. He also served as assistant director of the US Congressional Budget Office and deputy assistant secretary for policy in the US Department of Energy. He taught economics at the California Institute of Technology and Stanford University and was a senior fellow at Resources for the Future.

Lost and Found by George Merrill

I can’t find my cell phone. I misplace keys. I’ve often thought that glasses, wallets, pens, pencils, books, bills, shopping lists and magazines grow legs and wander off. Or are poltergeists and ghoulies responsible? No, this propensity is not spook-driven or even age-related. Losing things is normal. It’s just that in that regard, I’m particularly normal. I’m always losing things. I recently found bittersweet comfort in Kathryn Schulz’s searching essay called Losing Streak appearing recently in the New Yorker. She suffers from this maddening aberration or . . . is it an aberration?

One visit to the west coast was especially unsettling for Ms. Schulz. She left her car keys on a table following a visit to a coffee house. Leaving home the next day she’d left her house key in the front door. Leaving a café, she realizes on her way home that her long sleeve shirt was still on the back of a chair where she’d placed it. Returning to reclaim it she learns she also left her wallet at the same table. She parked her truck. When she went to get it she couldn’t find it for an hour or so. She assures us that this is a family trait and she’s inherited it. Writer Schulz’s sister is a cognitive scientist at M.I.T. Schulz describes her as “the most scatterbrained person I ever met.”

I cannot recall the passwords for computer sites that I have scrupulously fashioned from personal data that I am sure will make them easy for me to remember. I find Ms. Schulz sympathetic on this point. She likens computer passwords to the socks in a washing machine; when we go to retrieve them, they’re never there.

Being scatterbrained is often cited as the cause for misplacing things, like not paying adequate attention to what we’re about. I rate high on that score. Through my school years I was a notorious daydreamer and a lot of what people call the ‘real world’ slipped by me unnoticed. It’s terribly annoying to lose and misplace things, and I am twice bedeviled because what I’ve just lost is often right there in front of me. Ms. Schulz says there exists a rule that claims what you’ve lost is typically within an eighteen inch radius around you when you first become aware of the loss. For me, the rule has proved spot on.

Psychoanalysts have a field day with patients who misplace or lose things. They immediately want to examine such selective amnesia as they believe it may be informed by darker motives, some as simple as you don’t like what you’ve lost or have a conflicted feeling about it. My experience with that is different; those people whom I dislike or incidents in which I’d been involved that still make me cringe remain only too available to my recollection. I’d count it a blessing if I could just lose them.

I once had my mother’s old typewriter from secretarial school. Over successive moves it was lost. I was sentimentally attached to it and grieved the loss. But in this kind of loss there remained the possibility that, if not within an eighteen-inch radius, someday I might find it somewhere. The hope of reclaiming it never wholly went away and I lived in a vague hope of its return. I think antique shops and early attic stores appeal to this tendency.

But there are losses and there are losses.

Judith Viorst, in her book, Necessary Losses, writes: “For the road to human development is paved with renunciation. Throughout our life we grow by giving up.” It’s a hard saying, but one I know is true; that we lose is not an aberration, at all. It’s because we have things to lose. We were born to die, and whatever we have gained in the interim we will eventually have to surrender. It’s one of life’s realities we resist the most, usually by denial.

I recall vividly after my father’s death. I refused to accept it. He’d returned from the War in Europe in 1945 and suddenly died shortly thereafter. I remember feeling desolate and I began weaving a tale to myself. He was actually working for Army Intelligence, I told myself. In order to engage in a special mission he was ordered to feign his death to carry it out in secret. When he’d successfully accomplished the mission, he’d appear and things would return to what they had been before. I clung to that hope for a long time. I gave it up when I couldn’t fit into his old army jacket anymore.

As a hospice chaplain years ago the following was perhaps the most heartrending story of the many I heard from mourners suffering the loss of a spouse. It would go something like this: “I’d get home, open the door, walk into the kitchen and think of all the things I couldn’t wait to tell him. Then I’d remember he was not there any more.”
Photographs may be all that is left of lost loved on. They are often kept visible to see and also so that they can’t be lost. We don’t find what’s lost in a photograph, but we can take comfort in the stories they recall.

It is given to us as human beings to suffer losses. Is there any redeeming thought in all that? I think Ms. Schulz put it as well as anyone can. Our losses remain “a kind of external conscience, urging us to make better use of our finite days.” How then are we to live? The past is gone, the future uncertain. All we have for certain is now and our task is to live each and every now as consciously and fully as possible.

Columnist George Merrill is an Episcopal Church priest and pastoral psychotherapist. A writer and photographer, he’s authored two books on spirituality: Reflections: Psychological and Spiritual Images of the Heart and The Bay of the Mother of God: A Yankee Discovers the Chesapeake Bay. He is a native New Yorker, previously directing counseling services in Hartford, Connecticut, and in Baltimore. George’s essays, some award winning, have appeared in regional magazines and are broadcast twice monthly on Delmarva Public Radio.

Letter to Editor: Local Groups Seek Answers from Congressman Harris March 31

This is an open letter from a number of constituent groups, all of whom share significant concerns about the many vital issues we face and the wholly inadequate amount of time you have allotted to the Town Hall on March 31. One hour doesn’t provide a fair chance to discuss our concerns and hear your views. We are concerned about these major items, among others:

Repeal of the Affordable Care Act and replacement with a bill that will cost Maryland $2 Billion annually, substantially increase those who are uninsured and increase the cost of health care. These are just a few of the many groups that oppose the current bill:
American Medical Association – “the replacement bill, as written, would reverse the coverage gains achieved under the ACA, causing many Americans to lose the health care coverage they have come to depend upon.”

American Hospital Association & Federation of American Hospitals: “As lawmakers work to re-examine this law, patients and the caregivers who serve them across America are depending on Congress to make continued coverage a priority. We believe that any changes to the ACA must be guided by ensuring that we continue to provide health care coverage for the tens of millions of Americans who have benefitted from the law. We are pleased that so many in Congress also recognize the need to preserve patient coverage.”

AARP “…opposes this legislation, as introduced, that would weaken Medicare, leaving the door open to a voucher program that shifts costs and risks to seniors.”
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network “ACS CAN has long advocated that any changes to the health care law should provide equal or better coverage for cancer prevention, treatment and follow-up care than what is currently available. These bills have the potential to significantly alter the affordability, availability and quality of health insurance available to cancer patients and survivors. Changing the income-based subsidy to a flat tax credit, combined with reducing the standards for quality insurance could return cancer patients to a world where many are unable to afford meaningful insurance or are left to buy coverage that doesn’t meet their health needs.”

“In 2015, approximately 1.5 million people with a history of cancer between 18-64 years old relied on Medicaid for their insurance. Nearly one-third of childhood cancer patients are insured through Medicaid at the time of diagnosis. The proposed repeal of Medicaid expansion along with significant federal funding changes could leave the nation’s lowest income cancer patients without access to preventive, c”rative and follow-up health care.”

National Partnership Women and Families: “House Republicans’ Affordable Care Act repeal bill would wreak havoc on our health care system by making health coverage more expensive and inadequate for millions of women and families. The shroud of secrecy surrounding the Republicans’ process and their attempt to sneak through a bill that would have such a devastating impact, without allowing anyone to review it, is shameful.”

“Now that the bill has been revealed, it is clear why Republicans didn’t want people to see it. Their proposal radically overhauls and cuts Medicaid while simultaneously gutting the ACA by repealing financial assistance for low-income families and making it harder for people to afford coverage. It also defunds Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program, denying 2.5 million people access to essential health care.”

“Moreover, the Republican bill interferes with women’s ability to make health care decisions by making abortion coverage inaccessible. It would harshen and expand already harmful abortion coverage restrictions, denying women the ability to access the care they need.”

Over 50 organizations oppose the proposed healthcare plan that will make Americans will pay more for less. The list includes nurses, doctors, hospitals, teachers, churches, and more. You can see a few here:

https://cooper.house.gov/groups-opposing-republican-health-plan

Why did you co-sponsor H.R. 610 to take funding away from public education through vouchers, repeal the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and limit the authority of the Department of Education (ED) to award block grants to qualified states. Why did you, as a physician, co-sponsor a Bill that repeals nutrition standards for national school lunch and breakfast programs? Why repeal standards that require schools to increase the availability of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat or fat free milk in school meals, reduce the levels of sodium, saturated fat, and trans fat and meet children’s nutritional needs? Whose side are you on?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/610

H.R.861 – a bill to terminate the Environmental Protection Agency. Your constituents are entitled to know where you stand on efforts to eliminate environmental protection of the Chesapeake Bay, its rivers, steams, and farmlands. Whose side are you on?

This is just a partial list of our concerns. If you have a genuine interest in listening to your constituents, we demand you allot at least 3 hours to the Town Hall to hear our concerns and explain your views.

We have sent copies of this letter to news organizations throughout the 1st District and expect your early and positive response.

Thank you.

Talbot Rising
Michael Pullen

Together We Will, Delmarva
Emily Jackson
Deborah Collins Krueger
Michele Copper

Together We Will, Harford County
DeLane Lewis

Easton Huddle
Naomi M. Hyman

Kent and Queen Anne’s County Indivisible
Erin Anderson
Kitty Maynard

Talbot County Democratic Women’s’ Club
Lesley Israel

The Eastern Shore PAC for Social And Economic Justice
Meredith Girard
Michele Drostin
Lauren Harton

Kent County Democratic Central Committee
Pamela White

Md. 1st Dist. Indivisible,
New Harford Dem. Club
Allison Galbraith

Md 1st Dist. Indivisible
Baltimore County
Kirk Fairfield

African American Democrats
of Maryland
James A. Sweeting, III, Esq.

Dorchester Indivisible
Mike Brown

Indivisible Worcester Maryland
Susan Buyer, Toby Perkins

Maryland 1st Congressional District Resistance
Joseph Riedel

Bipartisan Alliance for Democracy, Eastern Shore
Maureen Johnston

Queen Anne’s Co. Dem. Central Committee
Elaine Mcneil

Indivisible, Harford County
Irene Whalen

Wicomico County Progressive Caucus
Michael A. Feldman

UMBC Progressives

Miserable Realities and Consequences by Al Sikes

At the beginning, I am biased. I live on the Chesapeake Bay. The extent of my bias does not stop there; I am on the board of the Midshore Riverkeepers Conservancy.

Our nation’s finances remind me of where I live. The Bay, like our nation’s finances, has been used and abused. Hundreds of thousands of acres of forest land were converted to cities, suburbs, and a wide range of commercial, agricultural and residential uses. Generations of persons fortunate enough to live along a watershed that extends from Cooperstown, NY to Norfolk, VA paid too little attention to what washed into the Bay. We are now making progress on the recovery of its water quality and dependent flora and fauna.

Not content with earlier budget priorities, the Trump Administration recommends that the cleanup fund for the Bay be reduced from $73 million a year in 2016, to zero. President Trump, at the same time, put off reform in what are called entitlement programs. It is these entitlement programs, up and down the various layers of local, state and federal budgets that pillory our nation’s economic strength just as aggressive development attacked the Bay’s watershed.

Benefits to be paid in the future have with few exceptions been underestimated and underfunded. Social Security and Medicare are just the most evident national examples. This underfunded liability distorts budgets and often pinches needed programs and reforms. And as the cost of servicing the debt increases, the pain of profligacy will get worse.

Tomorrow is not unconnected from today. If we mess things up, we have to pay. When we fail to fully fund our promises, the liability becomes a dead weight on the backs of our progeny and trust in the full faith and credit of the United States.

**********
Speaking of trust, in an especially deft phrase, Tom Friedman, columnist for the New York Times, noted that “government moves at the speed of trust.”

The trust that is being squandered by the President’s erratic use of insults, slights, fights and worse will be a dead weight in the years to come. International allies will first be wrong-footed and then will attempt to avoid meaningful collaboration.

His political competitor’s will, to their eventual damage, simply be anti-Trump as if that is all the public needs to know.

Most media will specialize in criticism while the few that are more comfortable with the President will risk their reputations. Both versions will further discredit an important institution–the media that needs repaired.

It is hard to know how this ends or whether there is any possibility that Trump will cease to manufacture and distribute weapons to those who relish the chance to use them.
Since I believe both Parties are disintegrating, I am looking for new political leadership that will offer a way out of this mess. Hopefully leadership will emerge that is honest about the nation’s finances. Most importantly we need to speak truth to power about our fiscal mess and not just the part that interests us.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al recently published Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

Out and About (Sort of): Tubman Museum Captures Relentless Determination by Howard Freedlander

For 45 minutes I felt transfixed by a museum exhibit focused entirely on a simple, driven black woman who refused to accept the scourge of slavery as an impenetrable part of American life in the mid-19th century. Through guile and gumption, in the 1850s, she helped 70 people flee the Eastern Shore for freedom in the north.

By now, many of us have learned how “Tubman ensconced herself in the anti-slavery networks in Philadelphia, New York City and Boston, where she found respect and the financial support she needed to pursue her private war against slavery on the Eastern Shore,” according to Dr. Kate Clifford Larsen, author of Bound for the Promised Land, a biography about Harriet Tubman.

In her shrewd use of Underground Railroad; this extraordinary woman used disguises; depended on reliable people who hid her; walked, rode horses and used wagons; sailed on boats and rode on trains; used certain songs to mark danger or safety; used letters written for her by others to send to trusted allies as well as personal communication; bribed people; followed rivers coursing their way north; used the stars and other natural means to lead her north and had faith in her instincts and God to support her crusade.

For me, the museum bore similarities to the much larger and more complex United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC. I’ll explain.

For several minutes, I sat on a bench at the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad Visitor Center in Church Creek in Dorchester County. Seated with me was a bronze statue of Harriet Tubman, as I listened to people like the Civil Rights-era icon and United States Congressman, John Lewis, U.S. Senator Ben Cardin and others commend Tubman. It was funny, but I kept looking at the statue, engrossed in the moment, moved by the inanimate object on the bench.

Strange emotions can overcome you, unexpectedly.

As I sat on the bench, I remembered visiting the Holocaust Memorial Museum, sitting in an unadorned room and listening to the “voices of Auschwitz.” I was equally moved by the power of the moment. I didn’t expect to be so utterly engaged.

The Holocaust Museum chronicles horrendous mental and physical slavery, unprecedented depravity and enormous, senseless death. American slaves died too, often at the hands of their merciless masters, or from malnutrition. Deaths of slaves didn’t matter, except to their families.

The voices that emanated from a small video at the Tubman Visitor Center—and the beautifully designed and somber exhibits– portrayed steel-like courage—and described a person who refused to be shackled by an inhumane system prevalent in our young country. Harriet Tubman set an example with no intention to do so.

Still fixated on the nexus between the slavery that stained our freedom-loving nation and Hitler’s systematic campaign to eradicate Jews, I believe that plantations too were work camps that forcibly and cruelly employed and repressed untold numbers of African-Americans. Life on plantations stilled spirits and deterred dreams.

While plantations may not have had prison-like barbed wire fences, the barriers for escape were invisible and insidious. Those who escaped faced death and persecution. They were considered mere chattel.

Harriet Tubman had incalculable willpower. Once her days as an invaluable conductor for the Underground Railroad ended, she served as a nurse, scout, cook and spy for the Union forces during the Civil War. She even participated with 150 black Union soldiers of the 2nd South Carolina Regiment in the Combahee River operation to destroy several estates owned by leading secessionists and free roughly 750 people. One of the more powerful exhibits captures this dangerous mission.

Living eventually in Auburn, NY, Tubman became involved in suffrage and civil rights activism.

Often an impatient visitor to museums, I found the Tubman visitors center soul-searchingly absorbing. I highly recommend it.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland.  Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He  also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer.  In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

Good or Bad Climate Policy by David Montgomery

A series of recent letters to the Chestertown Spy have castigated our Representative, Andy Harris, for sponsoring HR637, a bill that would change the way greenhouse gases can be regulated. The bill is a necessary step toward sensible and effective climate policies, and the depth of misunderstanding of the nature of greenhouses gases and the Clean Air Act evident in the letters makes them the subject of this column.

HR637 has 120 co-sponsors, and its purpose is to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. To do so, it changes the language of the Clean Air Act to remove the six greenhouse gases from EPA’s jurisdiction. The six are methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, carbon dioxide.

There are three reasons why I think the bill co-sponsored by Andy Harris is a good idea: 1. No one is harmed by breathing any of these compounds at concentrations they could reach in the atmosphere whether regulated or not. 2 Reliance on the Clean Air Act is a terrible way to deal with global warming. 3. There are much less costly and more effective ways to address global warming — like the carbon tax that I discussed several weeks ago.

First, we can all breathe freely if these compounds are unregulated. Leaving aside the personal animus expressed in many of the letters, their common error is in believing that the six compounds that would be removed from the list of “air pollutants” are themselves hazardous to human health. The repeated claim that “they will impact our crops, livestock, seafood, soil and waters that are the bounty of our Chesapeake Bay region, not to mention our lungs!” is simply untrue. The only reason that EPA is regulating those compounds is their suspected contribution to global warming.

A little history helps here.

In 2009, EPA issued a finding that these 6 compounds “endanger” public health and welfare due to their contribution to global warming. This is the “endangerment finding,” famous in some quarters and infamous in others. Nowhere in the endangerment finding does EPA mention any direct impacts of these compounds on health. That is because the current and future concentrations of these compounds in the atmosphere are far, far below any threshold at which they could be harmful. And some, like the two fluorocarbons and methane, are harmless propellants that have been used in hairspray. The only property that has led EPA to regulate them is their effect as greenhouse gases.

To make this perfectly clear, EPA is required under the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants. EPA’s current list includes 187 hazardous air pollutants. None of the greenhouse gases appear on this list. Nor are they in the list of criteria air pollutants (particulate matter, ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead) for which EPA is required to establish ambient air quality standards. If these compounds did pose dangers cited by the letter writers, they would have to be on one of these lists.

Second, the Clean Air Act was never intended to deal with problems like global warming. EPA relied on the endangerment finding to issue a rule requiring existing electric power plants to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide. EPA also issued a rule in 2016 to regulate methane emissions from oil and gas production as greenhouse gases. These rules will significantly increase costs of natural gas and electricity to consumers and do little to slow the pace of global warming. They are just targets of opportunity, singled out because the Clean Air Act does not give EPA the authority to utilize cost-effective, economy-wide policies that could achieve much greater results at much lower cost.

President Obama declared that “if Congress won’t act on global warming, I will use existing regulatory authorities to take action.” EPA chose the Clean Air Act to support its moves on global warming. But under the Clean Air Act, EPA can only issue performance or technology-based standards for particular categories of sources. So the methane rule applies only to oil and gas wells, and requires reductions in methane emissions that could be — and in fact are being — achieved at far lower cost by addressing leakage from transportation and use of natural gas. The Clean Power Plan is itself before the Supreme Court because of challenges upheld by the lower courts that EPA went beyond what the Clean Air Act allows in designing the rule. In particular, EPA based requirements not on what is technically feasible and economically justified “within the fence” of a power plant, but expected power plants to pay for emission reductions by others.

This kind of emission trading is in itself a very good idea, because it allows the market to find the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions. But under the Clean Air Act, the extent of that market is tightly circumscribed, so that EPA may have exceeded its authority even with the small amount of offsets it allowed in the Clean Power Plan. Even if the courts uphold the Clean Power Plan, its narrow focus on electric power plants means that there are widespread opportunities to reduce emissions more cost-effectively that it cannot touch.

Third, there is a far better way to do all this. The Obama Administration’s devotion to regulation has done little or nothing for the environment, but it has put a stranglehold on economic growth. The Administration also issued rules for new car fuel economy that auto manufacturers cannot meet unless car owners sacrifice affordability and performance and other rules that require amounts of ethanol in gasoline that can harm older cars as well as boat and farm engines.

HR 637 is an important step toward dismantling this regulatory approach to climate policy, and it clears the way for building a consensus for a less intrusive and more effective one. Once this regulatory jungle is cleared away, my preference would be for a carbon tax set at a level that gives the best balance between risks to the US economy from global warming and the cost of reducing emissions. Another wise and cost-effective approach could be a technology strategy emphasizing basic and applied research to develop breakthrough clean energy technologies we cannot envision today.

What is most important is to settle on a policy that has sufficient political consensus to last from one Administration to another. One thing that this election should have proven to anyone is that the regulation that one Administration can impose, the next can undo. Global warming is a process that evolves slowly over time, that we do not understand well enough to predict with any confidence, and that will have to be addressed in a consistent manner for many decades to come. In particular, we will not get the kind of research and innovation necessary for a low carbon future unless we put in place long lasting policies that provide adequate rewards for innovation. Getting rid of hastily contrived and excessively costly regulations is a good first step. HR637 does not mean that global warming will not be dealt with, but it does ensure that global warming will no longer be dealt with quite so badly.

David Montgomery was formerly Senior Vice President of NERA Economic Consulting. He also served as assistant director of the US Congressional Budget Office and deputy assistant secretary for policy in the US Department of Energy. He taught economics at the California Institute of Technology and Stanford University and was a senior fellow at Resources for the Future.

Got A Attitude by George Merrill

Some years ago my wife and returned from Baltimore after visiting children. The traffic downtown was stop and go. We’d frequently be stalled. We wound up next to a car in which two young people were arguing about something. Finally one turned to the other and yelled loudly enough for us to hear: “You know what your problem is? You got a attitude.”

I think of attitude as a kind of atmospheric mist. We exude it. It surrounds us in the way mists hover over tidewater on fall mornings. Some call it an aura, others a spirit and still others, attitude. Writers call it a voice. It influences how we do things, as we negotiate life’s challenges. The quality of the aura or attitude contributes to creating a tone. Attitudes encourage one mood or another, say, of antagonism or conciliation, sympathy or contempt. Attitudes can hinder or facilitate cooperation. As a result of the incident in Baltimore, my wife and I created a functional buzzword to use when we get testy with one another. Then, one of us is sure to say, “You got a attitude.”

I think of “a attitude” as something distinctively acerbic and hostile. There are, however, all kinds of attitudes. It’s worth noting that for airplane pilots, as well as for many people, having the right attitude is matter of life and death. An ADI, an airplane instrument, or ‘attitude directional indicator,’ communicates to the pilot whether his plane has the proper attitude i.e., its correct position with reference to the horizon. On that score, pilots learn not to trust their instincts where attitude is concerned. If they do, they’ll develop a bad attitude, never know it, and ditch the plane.

Our daughter’s adolescence was prickly. She appeared one day in the living room looking especially defiant. She sported a T-shirt with “I Love My Attitude” prominently inscribed on it. She was making her point with what I would describe as “a attitude.” If only there had been ADI for teens. After a number of near crashes, in a year or so, she lost it; her attitude I mean.

Author and business consultant Steven Corey wrote a book. He noticed the habits of especially effective people. In particular, he identified attitudes, if you will, by which you and I approach our tasks. He calls one attitude, the scarcity mentality, the other, the abundance mentality. They shape personal inclinations and determine the actions that proceed from the mindset.

Covey believes most of us operate from a scarcity mentality. It’s an attitude toward life that insists there is only so much to go around. What you gain will necessarily deprive others. The scarcity mindset believes there will never be enough. Whether it’s money, food, emotions or something else entirely there’s always too little. We look at life from what we lack rather than what we have. It’s an anxious attitude that sees others as adversaries. The mindset breeds a climate of mistrust and it’s difficult to achieve cooperation.

An abundance mentality, on the other hand, flows out of a deep inner feeling of personal worth and security. It cultivates the sense that affirms the plenty available, how there’s enough to spare for everybody if we pull together. This attitude results in sharing of resources, prestige, recognition, profits, and decision-making. It opens up new possibilities while taking pleasure in the successes of others.

There are two highly visible world leaders today. They’re intent on addressing current inequities and deprivations – although not exactly the same ones. These men are regarded as rebels by their constituencies and both boldly challenge the status quo of their respective historic institutions. Donald Trump, a political rebel, addresses his tasks from a scarcity mentality. Pope Francis, a spiritual rebel, proceeds from a mentality of abundance. The former betrays “a attitude,” that there’s not enough and winners must grab what they can. The latter’s attitude is one of hope; there’s plenty, but we must learn to share it with others.

Trump’s public declarations are typically ominous and reflect his scarcity mentality. He scolds, warns and reminds us of the failure of our institutions, the catastrophes wrought by the previous administration, our ineffective policies and the inept public officials serving the country before his tenure. There are Muslims behind every tree ready to take what’s ours. In short, his pitch is that it’s a disgraceful country in a dog-eat-dog world but he’ll fix it.

In a striking move that was no less radical than John XXIII’s encyclical, Pacem in Terris, Pope Francis went over the heads of church traditionalists, when be began carrying out an inclusive agenda on migration, climate change and poverty. It made him a figure of unmatched global popularity. It touched the hearts of many, but offended others.

Pope’s vision of sharing abundance, caring for the earth, and bringing justice the poor, is considered by some Catholics (both lay and cleric) to be a betrayal of the West’s traditional Judeo-Christian values. There are politicians that believe that the pope is “seriously misguided” and is a “socialist.” It’s odd that informed people might regard Francis’ teaching as misguided. It’s the essence of Judeo Christian spirituality – although admittedly not always its practice. From the beginning, compassion and generosity have been a hard sell but thankfully never wholly forgotten.

What are we to make of it?

It’s about attitude. To approach the needs of our world with “a attitude,” polarizes and limits possibilities. We become mostly fearful and defensive. If we can alter our present course and its attitude of scarcity to one of abundance, new possibilities will open up naturally.

Columnist George Merrill is an Episcopal Church priest and pastoral psychotherapist.  A writer and photographer, he’s authored two books on spirituality: Reflections: Psychological and Spiritual Images of the Heart and The Bay of the Mother of God: A Yankee Discovers the Chesapeake Bay. He is a native New Yorker, previously directing counseling services in Hartford, Connecticut, and in Baltimore. George’s essays, some award winning, have appeared in regional magazines and are broadcast twice monthly on Delmarva Public Radio.

Op-Ed: Make Obamacare Work by Carol Voyles

“Rammed through Congress” after a year and a half of deliberations and seventy-nine congressional hearings, the Affordable Care Act has covered millions more of us. Now, after sixty knowingly futile attempts to repeal it, no viable replacement yet in sight, and just one hearing, we are being asked to believe promises to cover everyone at less cost will be kept.

This will likely take more time. Very few of us agree with Paul Ryan that 24 million losing coverage to save $300 billion over a decade “exceeds expectations.” Conservative Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan has surprised us. She has had enough and has recommended that Medicare be made available to many, many more of us.

We have made progress, though. Millions more of us have coverage, for now; and some health care costs are down; but there is clearly work to be done as long as better outcomes are delivered in other nations at less cost.

The National Academy of Medicine and Health has suggested that unnecessary care may account for up to half of our costs. We do know that no other nation performs surgical procedures at our rate. Cardiac bypass surgery also costs twice as much here as in Canada, although our clinical outcomes are virtually identical. Life expectancies are longer in Canada, too.

In 2009 our nation’s highest per capita Medicare costs were found in Miami, Fla. The population of second-place McAllen, Texas, better reflected our demographic average, and yet McAllen was spending double our nation’s average. Litigation was suggested as a cause, but a law limiting awards for medical damages had been passed, and lawsuits for malpractice had become nearly nonexistent in Texas.

They were doing more, but primary care was being overlooked. By 2011 the Affordable Care Act was encouraging any physician’s group with more than 5,000 Medicare patients to become an Accountable Care Organization, prioritize patient outcomes, and receive bonuses for the savings they produced.

Focusing more upon primary care and patient education, McAllen moved in a positive direction. By 2014 its ACOs had saved $26 million, 60 percent of which went back to the participants.
Health care insurance premiums were growing at slower rates than during the Bush administration, too, until it became clear that insurance doesn’t work efficiently when purchased only by those who need it.

Repealing the individual mandate is on the agenda now, and we have been advised that we might have “more skin in the game.” Our health care already costs us more, though, and prices aren’t likely to go down as long as we are driving farther to see fewer doctors less frequently. NationMaster finds proportionately more physicians in 51 other nations, and they are seeing their patients more often.

Having choices and a level playing field helps control prices, but when it comes to health care we may not only find ourselves with limited choices, we may not be up to the task of shopping around. In such cases oversight may be required. This is the role of government, and it’s up to us to make it work.

Concerning the repeal or reform of the ACA, President Obama has stated clearly, “If it works, I’m for it.” As long as patient outcomes are prioritized and more of us are covered at less cost, he welcomes change. We might let our representatives know that we would like them to move beyond ideology, work together, and do what works. Becoming a healthier nation at less cost is in all of our best interests.

Looking beyond our borders to see how things might work may be a leap, but hundreds of thousands of us are going abroad for more affordable care. Too bad we aren’t permitted to buy our medications abroad. That would bring our costs down, too.

Lower administrative costs would also be helpful, and for that we need look no further than our very own single payer base with private options. We love our Medicare. Allowing more of us to choose it would be a start.

Carol Voyles of Sherwood is treasurer of the Talbot County Democratic Central Committee and a board member of the Talbot County Democratic Forum.