Mandate

A federally mandated tutoring program targeting thousands of students who attend Baltimore City's worst performing schools is shelling out millions of dollars annually to organizations that are operating in the district with little oversight and virtually no academic accountability measures, according to a report released Tuesday by the Abell Foundation. In the report, titled "Sending out an S.O.S. for the SES (Supplemental Educational Services)," researcher Joan Jacobson - whose complaints against her son's special education tutoring service resulted in the provider facing fraud charges and jail time - found that Baltimore is a burgeoning marketplace for the tutoring companies because it holds the bulk of the state's underperforming schools and low-income populations.

Stephanie Rawlings-Blake appears likely to win the Democratic primary for Baltimore mayor with the fewest votes of any successful candidate since at least 1983. She may clear 50 percent of those who went to the polls, but the message the voters sent this election is indifference. Turnout appears to have been a record low, perhaps as little as 20 percent. The city may not have been moved by the untested promise of Mayor Rawlings-Blake's challengers, but it didn't rally fully behind her steady but unimaginative leadership either.

In a dimly lit underground vault a block from Camden Yards, the Federal Reserve is holding millions of dollars in cash that nobody wants. The money - stored in cloth and plastic sacks piled high on metal shelving units - is in the unloved form of dollar coins, some of them never used. But a 2005 law requires the reserve bank to keep ordering coins regardless of its stockpile, and so vaults in Baltimore and around the country are filling up. "This is just a small portion of what there is nationwide," Dave Beck, senior vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond and regional executive for the Baltimore branch, said as he stood inside a small warehouse filled with money bags, each containing 2,000 coins.

Cedric Dark's suggestion that the federal health insurance mandate rests on the same legal basis as the state mandate for auto insurance is incorrect ("Beyond the individual mandate," Aug. 26). Unlike state governments, the federal government has no authority to makes laws regarding the general health or safety of the population that are not based on a specific authorization in the Constitution. Mr. Dark's analogy does, however, illustrate why the private health insurance mandate rests on shaky legal grounds.

There are pros and cons of using an individual mandate for health insurance as a policy lever to promote universal health care. From a pure policy standpoint, the argument for is simple. To get rid of "free riders" in the medical system and improve the efficiencies of the health insurance marketplace, something is necessary to compel everyone to purchase an insurance plan. An individual insurance mandate, while imperfect, is one such tool. Conceived by conservative thinkers Mark Pauly and Stuart Butler in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the individual mandate now faces attack from many who formerly supported it. The individual mandate would function much like others - such as that for car insurance - to compel people to purchase a product they otherwise might avoid.

Do you need a mandate to force you to buy something you want or need? This question isn't asked by those who support a health insurance mandate, such as Dr. Edward Miller and Scott A. Berkowitz of Johns Hopkins ("Hopkins leaders support health insurance mandate," Aug. 9). The reason we have so many uninsured Marylanders is that health insurance is either too unaffordable or it doesn't offer a good value to those who can afford it. A mandate won't solve either of those problems. Responding to self-interested lobbying groups, well-meaning legislators have mandated that any health insurance sold in Maryland must cover over 60 procedures, something that has dramatically raised the cost of insurance in this state.

Fairness is the key to the new health care law requiring everyone to purchase health care insurance. The Baltimore Sun article on June 9, "Harsh review for health law," cites questions posed by judges in the 11th U.S. Court of appeals in Atlanta concerning the legitimacy of "telling a private person they are compelled to purchase a product (i.e. health care insurance) in the open market. " In the same vein, should we not require persons who drive automobiles to carry liability insurance?

Last month, the Maryland General Assembly approved some of the deepest cuts ever made to the state's underfunded retirement system. As a result, most state employees will be paying more into the pension plan and receiving less when they retire. But there was one well-paid group not called upon to make a sacrifice: Maryland's judges, who enjoy some of the most lucrative pensions in the system at an average of $68,000 per year. That is two to three times what a typical public school teacher receives.

Baltimore County Council members are looking to amend a bill to permit controlled deer kills in certain public parks, but critics say the proposed changes don't go far enough. Council members said the changes are being formulated, but references to hunting have been deleted in favor of a "wildlife management program. " Other amendments would require the county to also explore alternative methods of deer control — including sterilization — and would clearly state that the bill would not allow open season in county parks.

It is not socially irresponsible to not buy health insurance, but it is unconstitutional to mandate people to purchase it ("Senate defeats bill opposing Obama health care rule," April 7). I understand that medical costs are inflated due to uncompensated care; however, Massachusetts has proven that a health care mandate is not a successful way to reform health care. Do we need reform? Yes, everyone agrees with that, but will costs go down with a health care mandate? I do not believe that based off of what I've read has happened in Massachusetts.