Letters To The Editor

Cuts will inflict pain on families, higher education

We are very disturbed by Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s recent announcement that he intends to cut $450 million to $500 million from this year's budget.

Just over one month ago, the General Assembly, working closely with the governor, passed a balanced budget. In fact, this year's budget has a $34 million surplus, in addition to a rainy day fund balance of more than $500 million.

Part of the solution to the budget problem was a package of reasonable corporate tax provisions that brought fairness to our corporate tax structure. This was an effort to make out-of-state corporations (which currently avoid paying Maryland taxes) pay their fair share and to bring uniformity to our tax system. Currently, corporations bear less than 5 percent of Maryland's tax burden.

Unfortunately, Mr. Ehrlich is going to veto this modest package, which will blow a $135 million hole in the budget. He will use this veto to justify deep cuts to this year's budget, which will inflict unnecessary pain on Maryland families while protecting corporations that don't pay their fair share.

At the same time, the state's property tax rate will increase for the first time in decades, burdening Maryland families.

The details of the governor's plan have not yet been shared with the public. However, cuts to an already lean budget will surely impact the most vulnerable Marylanders. Recent reports have foreshadowed cuts to programs that benefit children and that protect access to health care for Marylanders.

The governor has specifically said that he intends to cut another $60 million from the University System of Maryland (USM). If he follows through on this threat, the USM will suffer total funding cuts of almost 20 percent this year - or more than $175 million. The result will be higher tuition costs for middle-class families, layoffs for hundreds of workers and permanent damage to our high-quality institutions.

And the problem doesn't end there. In Maryland, funding for community colleges and private institutions is directly tied to funding for the USM. Thus cuts to the university system lead directly to cuts to local community colleges and private institutions.

Tuition will go up again, placing a burden on middle-class families whose children want to attend a public school or the local community college. And our guiding principles of quality, access and affordability in higher education will be cast aside, unraveling years of work to gain national respect.

We understand the fiscal challenges the state faces, and the Senate of Maryland has been a responsible partner in the governor's efforts to bring stability to our budget situation. It disturbs us that he now intends to go around the General Assembly and unilaterally make budget cuts that will do lasting harm.

There is another way - the governor should accept the balanced budget he helped to develop and work with us to implement a long-term strategy when we convene in January 2004.

Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr.

Annapolis

The writer is president of the Maryland Senate. The letter was also signed by six other senior Senate Democrats.

Doling out perks to lawbreakers

The Sun's editorial "Are they Marylanders?" (May 19) manages to make a mockery of logic and reason as it tries to make a case for allowing illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates at Maryland's public colleges.

After a long spin on why this is such a great idea, the editorial states: "These students are, after all, actual if not legal residents of Maryland."

But this ridiculous statement brings us back to the real question: Are they Marylanders?

No, they are not.

Many of them are illegal immigrants, and all the hype and spin in the world cannot make a logical case for giving perks to people breaking the law.

Barbara Bona

Sykesville

Using wrong criteria to evaluate hospitals

House Speaker Michael E. Busch suggests that consumers have a choice in what hospital they go to ("New guide rates care at hospitals in Maryland," May 17). But it is usually the doctors who decide what hospital a patient is admitted to. Consumers rarely have this choice.

And the behaviors listed in the Maryland Hospital Assessments are those of physicians, not the hospitals themselves. If the Maryland Health Care Commission (MHCC) wants to offer useful information to consumers, it should be rating physicians, not hospitals.

If the MHCC wants to rate hospitals, it should use the following criteria: patient satisfaction, billing errors, costs not covered by insurance, amount of charity care provided, rate of hospital-acquired infections, rate of medication administration errors, delays in treatment, waiting times in emergency rooms and clinics, and effectiveness of patient education.

David Plaut

Reisterstown

Canton criticism crosses the line