Ten Questions…MGA Debate (part 1)

Ok, I didn’t wait long but it IS tomorrow. Frankly, I have more interest in the local races because of the people who have submitted their answers to me, most of them have a good to great chance of winning come September 12th. It’s not like I’m getting sort of the dregs like I did for the U.S. Senate.

In this case I’m not doing a random order except where more than one contestant in a particular district is featured (such is the case for Districts 37B and 38B). The answers will be grouped by contest, starting with District 37 races.

Also, because of the untimely death of District 38A hopeful Tony Bruce, I’ve decided to omit him from the debate despite the fact I got his answers just days before his passing. We can’t count on his successor (the Democrat Central Committees from Wicomico and Somerset Counties get to select the nominee should Bruce win posthumously) to hold the same beliefs that Bruce did, which is too bad because he had some good answers.

Here’s the scorecard for those of you playing along at home:

Senate District 37:

Rich Colburn, Republican – website and original responses.

House of Delegates District 37A: no responses.

House of Delegates District 37B:

Jim Adkins, Democrat – website and original responses.
Addie Eckardt, Republican – website and original responses.

Senate District 38: no responses.

House of Delegates District 38A:

Patrick Armstrong, Democrat – website and original responses.

House of Delegates District 38B:

Sonny Bloxom, Republican – website and original responses.
Michael James, Republican – website and original responses.
Jack Lord, Republican – website and original responses.

In this case, I don’t think there were as many gratuitous website references and the answers were generally much shorter than the U.S. Senate version below. So I’ve done less editing to the responses and because Colburn is unopposed in his primary, I have at least one advancing to November like the Senate version.

Enjoy the debate!

Question #1:

Some of you participated in the recent special session to modify the large rate hikes that were to be enacted by Baltimore Gas & Electric. However, our electrical rates from the local Eastern Shore suppliers went unchanged. With that in mind, would you be more in favor of a total repeal of the 1999 deregulation laws, or do you believe the concept is sound and only needs a few guardrails and rate safeguards?

Colburn: The Special Session did not address the interests of Eastern Shore residents. Experience has taught us that deregulation has not benefited the consumer in the State of Maryland. However, with that in mind, we should move carefully in regards to totally repealing the 1999 deregulation laws.

Adkins: I, like many other Maryland consumers, have yet to see the benefit of deregulation. The restructuring that took place in the late 90’s has failed to provide the consumer with the desired results. Unfortunately, the Public Service Commission may have also failed to represent the consumer as well as it could have. This is a very complicated matter and will have to reviewed and addressed in 2007 and beyond to ensure that whatever is done protects the consumer and strikes a balance between what is fair for the consumer and what is fair for the providers of electricity.

Eckardt: I did participate in the special session and did not vote for the bill that was presented and ultimately passed. During my tenure as Delegate I have closely followed the deregulation process. My understanding of the issue is that since the market in which Maryland is a player is mostly deregulated and the cost of power was increasing, deregulation in Maryland would bring the cost to consumers down and offer choices in the market place. Some legislators were not in favor of deregulation from the beginning and put many roadblocks to the plan. One was to put caps in place so that constituents would be guaranteed a stable low rate and the caps would come off in a defined period of time in a phased-in process according to the geographic areas of the state. In the meantime, costs across the county continued to rise due to increased usage. Other influencing factors contributing to the consumption of global resources were 9/11, the War, Katrina, Rita, and China. Maryland’s rates have remained artificially low because of the cap and I do believe lawmakers never anticipated the situation to turn out the way it did given the multiple catastrophes in play. I did not support the caps because I was concerned that the longer we delayed implementation of deregulation, the greater the possibility of interference would delay competition in the market place. In other words, the Maryland legislature in 1999 gave the marketplace a double message- come to Maryland and do business but wait 6 years to do it. At the time companies were ready to do business but when legislators began to intervene, the interest waned. The new legislation has increased the cost of doing business in Maryland. The Governor and the industry were developing a phase-in of the rates which I believe could have worked. Since then I am very concerned because citizens have again a fixed rate which may help for now but the cost over time will be greater than if completion had been encouraged and choices given.

Armstrong: We have seen the effects of deregulation of energy across the country over the past several years and those who pay the bills have felt the pain in their wallet. I believe that deregulation was a mistake made several years ago by the General Assembly and I favor repealing that decision. I believe that energy is such a vital service that we must not allow shifting markets and unforeseeable problems to stand in the way of access to electricity. As it stands today I support efforts to reduce the strain of increased electricity costs to families on the shore. I do not believe re-regulation is likely to occur but I would support it and encourage it if elected. I also would have worked with the General Assembly and the Governor to address the rate hikes taking effect from Delmarva Power. We need a new leader who will stand up and give the lower shore a voice in the legislature.

Bloxom: I believe that the concept is sound but was poorly executed by the General Assembly (ie. artificially capping rates below market for such a long period). I think that some safeguards can be put into law, such as what costs are allowable to calculate the appropriate rates, which will make deregulation work.

James: I am in favor of deregulation as long as there is an adequate climate for competition. Obviously the utilities are essential to our society, so if there was a catastrophe or an accumulation of issues that forced costs to rise to the levels that harm the economy or create an unusual burden on our citizens, the Government would need to intervene until the market stabilized. The 1999 deregulation was odd in that it was accompanied by 1993 level price caps. The General Assembly should have known there would be unusually high increases once the caps expired. Instead, they ignored the issue until it could be called a “crisis”. They then used the PSE and its chairman Eastern Shoreman Ken Schisler as a scapegoat to divert attention away from their own mistakes.

Lord: No one could have predicted that Natural Gas or Coal and Gasoline would have increased so much in the past several years. The rates were capped for six years now it’s time to pay the piper. There was no relief for the customers of Delmarva Power here on the shore. It shows that an attempt to control business in this sate by the legislature usually ends in failure.

Question #2:

In the last two sessions of the General Assembly, the issue of health insurance and who pays for it has taken center stage. (Examples: the Fair Share Health Care Act and its proposed expansion with last year’s HB1510, which was sponsored by Delegate Hubbard and defeated in committee.) Recently the state of Massachusetts adopted legislation effective in 2007 mandating all residents secure coverage under some public or private health insurance plan or face a financial penalty. Do you see this concept as an idea Maryland should adopt?

Colburn: My major concern with the Massachusetts law is that I do not think government should mandate health care for everyone. However, despite the fact that I have not had the opportunity to thoroughly study the Mass law, I do see positive aspects. In regards to Massachusetts, the state acts as a conduit, or a large clearinghouse. As a result, there is a large clearinghouse with the insurance companies, so there are more people buying into the plans, it makes insurance more available, and keeps insurance costs down. In other words, the individual basically owns his/her insurance plan, and they pay a portion while the employer pays the rest. That in turn makes it easier for the employer to buy the employee’s health insurance. For instance, a cheap insurance policy would be more likely covered by the employer. Having said all of this, I want to emphasize that Maryland still needs meaningful, real tort reform to help keep insurance costs down, and the matter was not addressed during the 2004 Christmas Special Session as it should have been.

Adkins: There is a lot more to the bill than just mandating residents secure coverage. I believe businesses will have to pay $295/year for each individual that they employ but do not provide coverage for, if they have 11 or more employees. The program will also require Massachusetts to subsidize the coverage of many of its residents who cannot afford to pay for insurance. Others, who can afford health insurance but do not obtain it, could face significant fines. The devil is in the details on this one, but we will have to continue to watch for lessons learned from this intiative.

Eckardt: Health Care for all citizens has always been an important issue and one that I have worked on while a legislator. Having been a participant in the discussion of health care reform for the last 20 years, I find ourselves in a similar situation to the utility one – that in spite of all the effort to make health insurance available, affordable and accessible, more citizens find it increasingly harder to get access and the costs increase. Last year I put in a bill that was a modification of the Massachusetts plan but it didn’t get much attention because the Health care Commission didn’t think smart cards would work and did not want to provide incentives to small businesses to offer the coverage to employees. The Massachusetts plan has some excellent possibilities, for example, a central clearinghouse for the plan, but I do not think mandatory insurance with penalties is the way to go. Most citizens could afford a catastrophic plan, coupled with a health savings account in the consumer driven model. Make the premiums tax deductible. There is another proposal on the table from last session (HB1412) and I will be working on the introduction of it for the 07 session. Yes we will have this discussion and I am sure bills will be introduced (HB1412) that model the Massachusetts plan.

Armstrong: I think this idea should be given serious consideration by the General Assembly. While the infrastructure is not yet in place to a point where we can force individuals to purchase health care it is possible to however to work towards this goal. The high cost to Maryland taxpayers paying for emergency room visits by those who have no insurance must be addressed. This is an issue I feel should be taken up the legislature and I would support it with the proper safeguards in place to protect working families and the working poor.

Bloxom: Absolutely not! This would be the epitome of “big brother government” and smacks of socialism.

Lord: The proposal by Massachusetts will not work on the eastern shore until we bring in higher paying jobs so the lower middle income families can afford insurance.

James: NO. That would be too close to a nanny state.

Question #3:

Within our area, Somerset County traditionally has among the highest unemployment rates in the state of Maryland. In every election, well-paying jobs and how to secure them is an issue. If you are elected to the General Assembly, what policies would you favor commencing or retaining in an attempt to create or lure good-paying jobs for the Eastern Shore?

Colburn: First off, I would sight my experience in helping to create a good economic development program for the town of Federalsburg. Economic development flourishes when elected and community leaders work in harmony toward a pro-business atmosphere. In addition, we need to lessen, not increase, mandated costs to businesses on the Eastern Shore. There is a program called One Maryland, which covers counties like Somerset, Dorchester, and Caroline Counties. I helped sponsor and push this legislation through the General Assembly and I believe it is a good program and should be retained. The program is designed to provide incentives for large industries in these counties in order to also bring more jobs to the area.

Eckardt: Economic Development and good paying jobs have been and are an important of my platform since my election in 1994. I have been pleased with the progress but it is slow because retention of jobs is also important. When businesses are not domiciled in Maryland or on the Shore it is easy for them to pull out and move to where the cost of doing business is less. At least 85% of business in Maryland is small business and working with citizens to build small businesses is in a continual focus of the Department of Business and Economic Development – Small Business Administration, the regional economic councils, local economic development offices, and Minority business offices. The recruitment of business also means that our educational system is responsive to the need of the community and workforce preparedness is in place. Right now the Eastern Shore faces a severe shortage of health care professionals – nurses, dental hygienists, pharmacists, radiology technicians and others. I have been working with the Administration to provide resources for nursing education as well as clinical sites and experiences for the health care providers. In addition, there are many projects for agricultural based/resource based job opportunities and many high-tech business proposals being discussed. For example, I serve on a board that is recruiting some very exciting potential business that uses feathers for product. Venture capital is necessary and a greater focus on research and development through our local universities will facilitate the business development.

Adkins: This is a multifaceted issue. We must ensure the workforce is educated and trained to fill good-paying jobs. This means that we must ensure our schools are preparing their students for life after school. Good-paying jobs also means higher technology in some cases and we must ensure the Eastern Shore is “wired” so that new businesses, which require higher connectivity, can plug into the global market. More public-private partnerships will have to be established while taking advantage of our higher education resources here on the Shore to entice business to locate here.

Armstrong: I believe the eastern shore can thrive with the growth we are already seeing and that we can manage that growth to fit within our communities. I support business incentives to draw companies to the shore. I support easier access to community colleges and universities for our residents who wish to study a trade. I support an increase in job fairs and mobile job recruitment vans. I would support legislation to encourage businesses to invest in the shore and create infrastructure capable of allowing businesses to expand onto the shore. I believe growth and expansion must be managed keeping in mind the way of life of the communities involved and ensuring proper environmental protections as we try to bring new jobs and smart growth to the lower eastern shore.

Lord: Higher paying jobs and High Tech companies will not relocate to Maryland until we make Maryland more business friendly. That means changing the makeup of the legislature.

James: We need to work independently on the shore as well as work with The Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development to attract businesses to our area. I support tax incentives, tax credits for training and state grants for the county economic development efforts. I believe all three counties in District 38 have a lot to offer potential employers. I believe by working jointly the three counties have a story to tell and resources to market to future employers. The reason so many people want to relocate here are the same reasons this region would be attractive to growing companies.

Bloxom: We need to support high-speed broadband coverage for the entire shore; upgrade natural gas pipelines; need to market the region to potential new businesses and entrepreneurs.

******************************

After wading through the Senate answers this was a breeze, and a refreshing one at that. I did a quick count on the answers in both debate sets. For the U.S. Senate Republicans, their 8 total responses averaged about 5 lines each. Democrats (especially Lih Young) just went on and on and on, like they were paid by the word.

On the General Assembly debate, the average for both parties came in about 5 lines each. It made for a MUCH shorter post, but generally well written and to the point.

As with the U.S. Senate post below, the next installment of this debate comes on Wednesday the 6th.