My choice for the House of Representatives is Andy Harris. I interviewed both the Congressman and his opponent, Jesse Colvin, for the Spy and I encourage anyone reading this column to watch the interviews here and here.
I tried to approach the interviews with an open mind. Many of my Republican friends support Jesse, and I have immense respect for his service as an Army Ranger. The pages of the Star-Democrat and the Spy are full of complaints about Andy, though he has voted consistently in support of President Trump’s program.
The impressions I came away with were not what I expected. I have testified before Congressional Committees and worked with Members of Congress for over 40 years, and Andy Harris impressed me as one of the best-informed and articulate Members of Congress that I have ever met.
He addressed my questions thoroughly, stated his opinions clearly, and gave logical and factual explanations of his positions. We covered subjects from tax policy to the Chesapeake Bay, and I have rarely met a Congressman who was as well-informed about such a wide range of topics.
I discovered that I agree with his positions and votes on most issues, and that even on topics where we disagree, he had good and thoughtful reasons for his positions. Andy also rebutted quite thoroughly some of the complaints about his effectiveness in representing the Eastern Shore and false accusations that have been circulated.
Jesse Colvin is a bright and dedicated young man. I like him and I agree that we should elect many more veterans to positions in local, state, and national government. The number of veterans in Congress has declined from over 75% between 1971-1980 to under 20%. The effect of that decline on Congress’s maturity, competence and dedication to the good of the country is obvious.
My disappointment was that it was almost impossible to get a clear, specific answer to any question about his positions on major policy issues.
Jesse gave one of three responses to most of my questions: 1. I am supported by the With Honor PAC and will work with the other veterans now running for Congress to devise bipartisan solutions for the issues that now divide the country; 2. My service as an Army officer prepared me for dealing with critical issues and accomplishing difficult tasks or 3. I will look at the facts and make up my mind.
Those are all admirable intentions, but they do not reveal Jesse’s knowledge or position on issues. Andy’s answers made his knowledge and positions very clear. These are the specifics of Andy’s responses:
HealthCare: Andy voted for the bill to replace ObamaCare that passed the House. He discussed his support for the block grant approach to states to fund insurance for high risk patients and existing conditions, that the high premiums under Obamacare for healthy young people make them unwilling to buy any insurance, and that he believes that those recipients of Medicaid who are able should satisfy some kind of work requirement.
The economy: Andy said that he supported lowering taxes and easing regulatory burdens because he expected those two actions to reduce burdens on business, especially small business, increase income for wage-earners and stimulate employment and growth. He spent some time discussing how he expects tax cuts to stimulate the economy without serious harm to the deficit, and gave a very knowledgeable discussion of the arcane subject of how the CBO estimates revenues.
The environment: As a physician, Andy described how he looks at all the health implications of environmental policy, because the economic burden of environmental policies can have health effects that offset direct health benefits of the policies. He described his job as a Congressman as one of balancing the benefits and costs of environmental laws and regulations, to determine what is beneficial overall.
Debt ceiling and government shutdown: Asked about whether his votes against debt ceiling increases and emergency appropriations were obstructionism, Andy replied that he had voted for those measures under Speaker Boehner because they also contained spending cuts; he would not support them last year because they contained no spending discipline to offset the increased debt.
Gun control: The NRA gives Andy an A rating, and he advocates improving the background check system to ensure that relevant mental health information gets there. Andy also discussed his concerns, as a physician, about patient privacy and the potential abuse of Red Flag laws by those with a grudge against a gun-owner, tradeoffs that we must make as a society.
Representation of the Eastern Shore: Andy pointed out that his influence in Congress comes from his position on the House Appropriations Committee, and that he has used that influence to benefit this region by putting amendments into appropriations bills. This is what he did to restore the exemption from the H2b visa quota for returning workers that were needed by the seafood industry. He disagreed with the President about appropriating funds for Chesapeake Bay cleanup. When asked about his vote against the 2018 Farm Bill, Andy explained that most of the money in the bill is for the Food Stamp program, and that he favored deeper cuts in that program than were in the bill.
Travel to Czechoslovakia: When asked about accusations that he joined a Congressional delegation to meet with a far-right leader in Czechoslovakia, Andy replied, “It never happened.” He stated that the trip was cancelled, and he would not have participated in such a meeting in any event.
After discussing his service, I asked Jesse Colvin about defense and foreign policy, the state of the economy, gun control, abortion, and how he could vote against the Democrat leadership. His answers almost all sounded to me like rehearsed talking points, and were rarely responsive. To get a better fix on his positions, I have included some of the answers he gave to a Baltimore Sun interview.
Health care: Although we did not discuss it, in a Baltimore Sun interview Jesse advocated bundling Medicaid into Medicare and allow anyone to purchase insurance through Medicare.
Foreign policy: Jesse first discussed what a disaster war with North Korea would be, but he had no suggestions of what would be better than our current approach to dealing with that rogue regime.
Defense: Jesse mentioned that sometimes he had enough resources and sometimes he had too few to do his job as a soldier. He said that he did not equate patriotism with higher defense funding, because a great deal being funded today is not needed is. He looked forward to giving a soldier’s perspective.
Economy: Jesse talked about how economic conditions on the Eastern Shore are worse than in the rest of the economy. In a Baltimore Sun interview, he attacked President Trump’s tax cuts on the grounds that they helped the rich more than the poor.
Abortion: Jesse stated his support for a woman’s right to choose.
Gun Control: In his Baltimore Sun interview, Jesse supported bans on bump stocks, better information sharing, universal background checks, and Red Flag laws. He and I discussed how he would apply his expert knowledge of firearms to correct the misinformation most politicians rely on.
Independence of the leadership: When asked about how a first term congressman from a contested district could stand up to pressure from Nancy Pelosi, Jesse did not answer directly. Instead, he said that he would like to see new leadership in Congress. He did not see himself standing alone, because he expected there to be a group of veterans elected to the next Congress who would stand together for bipartisan, centrist solutions.
The best part of my talk with Jesse was when he mentioned the need for veterans in Congress and I replied with a quote from Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers. That led us to talk about decay in the moral character of Jesse’s contemporaries who did not serve and the desirability of compulsory national service. I will write in another column about this topic, on which I agree with him completely.
In reviewing these two debates, it was clear to me that Andy Harris voted my way on almost every issue and delivered effectively for his constituents. I did not agree with Jesse Colvin’s positions on the key economic issues of health care and tax policy that he stated to the Baltimore Sun, and I could not find enough specifics in Jesse Colvin’s responses in most other areas to tell how he would vote. I was disappointed that he brought up the false accusation about a nonexistent trip to the Czech Republic.
Two additional points were critical to my conclusion that I could not vote for Jesse. For one, Colvin passed the Democratic litmus test by stating his unambiguous opposition to restrictions on abortion. That by itself would make it impossible for me as a Catholic to vote for him instead of Andy Harris, who would at minimum restrict abortions after the first trimester and clearly respects life from conception to natural death.
My support for Harris does not depend on that issue along. Even if Jesse and Andy had identical positions on abortion, Harris would be my choice. Being a veteran is not sufficient by itself to make someone the best candidate. I am voting for someone to represent me, and that makes me want to select the candidate whose votes will be most consistent with my preferences for public policy.
I do not believe Jesse Colvin would be able to vote in that way, even if his policy priorities agreed with mine. It is naïve for him to think that a group of veterans who have been supported by the With Honor PAC will be able to change or defy a Democrat leader who controls campaign funding and committee assignments. Even if they are united, this group will have a small fraction of the votes needed to pass legislation and few resources of their own until they advance considerably in seniority. And to be re-elected and gain influence, they must cultivate the goodwill of the leadership. The idea that the leadership will give them, or tolerate them taking, the role of centrist dealmakers ignores how Congress works.
Certainly, the leadership would understand the nature of his district and let a Rep. Colvin vote his conscience if there were a large margin for or against a bill. But it strains credibility to believe that on an issue where his vote would make a difference, a freshman Congressman could withstand the pressure to vote the party line or give up any hope of decent committee assignments or campaign funding.
I urge every Republican and Independent who is considering voting for Colvin to consider the implications of a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.
Vote for Colvin if you support the actions of the Democratic leadership in Congress. But do not vote for Colvin in the hope that he will be able to vote independently of Nancy Pelosi when it matters or because you hate Donald Trump.
It will not be Jesse Colvin’s fault, but if the current Democratic leadership takes over, it will mean two more years of encouragement of mob rule, threats of impeachment, and escalated attacks on the President, his nominees, and members of Congress who support them. He just might be the swing vote that keeps that leadership in place.
I am confident that judges appointed by President Trump will protect our freedom of religion and expression and the Constitution, and we need more like them. I am convinced that his tax and regulatory policies strengthen our economy and that his actions to increase defense spending and in foreign policy make us more secure. If you agree with me, remember that it requires a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress to keep on that course.
David Montgomery is retired from a career of teaching, government service and consulting, during which he became internationally recognized as an expert on energy, environmental and climate policy. He has a PhD in economics from Harvard University and also studied economics at Cambridge University and theology at the Catholic University of America, David and his wife Esther live in St Michaels, and he now spends his time in front of the computer writing about economic, political and religious topics and the rest of the day outdoors engaged in politically incorrect activities.
Kitty Maynard says
Whether you’re a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or something in between, you are being poorly represented in the US Congress by Andy Harris. As the representative for the first Congressional District of Maryland, Dr. Harris should be looking out for our environment and our health. Instead, he is pandering to the political agenda of the “Freedom Caucus” and big donors while doing damage to our community.
In recent months, he voted for a healthcare bill that had the potential to take away health care—including Medicaid—from over 900 people in our county. No surprise that in 2015-2016, Harris received over $75,000 from PACS from the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries. He voted for them, not for us.
Harris also voted for legislation that would turn back years of progress by the Clear Air and Clean Water Acts. No surprise that in 2015-2016, he received $10,000 from Koch Industries. Polluting our air and water and endangering the Bay is a vote for Kochs and their big oil interests, not for us.
Gren Whitman says
Mr. Montgomery, a Trump toadie, lost me at “mob rule.”
The only mobs these days are the mobs incited by our hysterical president at rally after rally after rally.
Carla Massoni says
I am not surprised by this” opinion.” Mr. Montgomery sold his soul to Mr. Trump long ago and now has no choice but to embrace Mr. Harris. Mr. Montgomery tells us he is a Catholic. How he can embrace Mr. Trump is beyond my ability to fathom. I, too, am a Catholic but of the Dorothy Day persuasion.
What concerns me is why the Spy allowed Mr. Montgomery (do you see how nice I am behaving?) – who has clearly stated his positions and support of the Trump agenda – conduct these “interviews” in the first place. He writes “opinion” pieces. He is not a journalist. Next time, have Mr. Wheelan conduct the interviews. Then he can publish Mr. Montgomery’s opinions without insulting his readership. I will vote for both Democrats and Republicans on the 6th. Jesse Colvin’s generation and his son’s after him will inherit this very special place on earth. I want someone to fight the fierce fight to protect the Bay and all of her citizens. That is why I will vote for Jesse Colvin.
Clark Bjorke says
” The pages of the Star-Democrat and the Spy are full of complaints about Andy, though he has voted consistently in support of President Trump’s program.”
Dude, the complaints are, at least in part, BECAUSE he has voted consistently in support of President Trump’s program.
Valerie Overton says
I am mystified as to how one persons personal political opinion piece can be offered as an impartial vetting of two candidates for Maryland’s First Congressional district. And why would the Spy agree to serve as the platform?
Congressman Harris has a record—both statements and previous votes. The Eastern Shore (and Maryland) deserves actual support for the things our communities need—support for proven substance abuse interventions and mental health treatment to tackle opioid abuse and addiction, support for working families including education, healthcare coverage of preeexisting conditions and stability in health insurance coverage and pricing, a functioning hospital in Kent County, and support to businesses and organizations that employ our residents closer to home. These are not areas where Rep Harris has historically rolled up his sleeves and shown leadership, and I’m guessing after four terms in Washington he’s unlikely to change.
Unfortunately, Mr. Montgomery’s preoccupation with Trump appointed judges and Nancy Pelosi are a clear signal that he may not be well equipped to offer a coherent viewpoint of the regions’ needs in Congress.
Tom Steele says
“I urge every Republican and Independent who is considering voting for Colvin to consider the implications of a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. ”
Yeah, me too, though likely for very different reasons. The sooner we rid ourselves of the spineless GOP majority, the better.
Joel Richmond says
I concur with Valerie Eaton that Mr. Montgomery approached these interviews with an obvious bias. Knowing where the interviewer stood prior to his discussions with the candidates the editors stacked the deck against Mr. Colvin right out of the starting gate. In so doing, the editors have failed the many readers who expected and believed a neutral arbiter would be given this assignment.
I take issue with much of the writer’s endorsement. With the limitations of space and time, I will address just two. First, I am appalled that Mr. Montgomery allows Rep. Harris to get away with his tale about the Czechoslovakia trip. The Congressman was slated to travel to Prague with other GOP members to meet the leader of a far right wing party. He was to travel with Steve King, the most ardent racist in Congress as well as Dana Rohrabacher who is well known as the most ardent supporter of Putin in the Congress. The trip was aborted at the last moment only because of the budget fight in Congress this past January and the threat of a government shutdown. Mr. Harris’ inclination to meet with such people is not surprising given his on the record comments concerning Hungary.
As most First District constituents know, Congressman Harris’ father escaped Communist controlled Hungary to find freedom in the United States. In the late 8os Communist rule ended there and was optimism abounded with free elections. Regrettably Hungary regressed and within a decade evolved into an authoritarian state under the leadership of Victor Orban who has suppressed freedom of the press and undermined the independence of the courts. Many live in fear. Yet, Rep. Harris is a strong supporter of Orban and has called Hungary ” a vibrant democratic state.” Such comments do not reflect well on Mr. Harris and these are just a few. I urge voters in the First District to read the column of Dan Rodricks which appeared in the Baltimore Sun on March 4, 2018 as a primer on the Congressman’s strange affinity for a man known far and wide as a despot.
I also take issue with Mr. Montgomery’s discussion about “the implications of a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.” His conclusions on this issue demonstrate a total disregard of what has transpired in Washington since January 2016. In the House, a Devin Nunes disrupts the workings of the House Intelligence Committee because its findings about Russian interference might hurt Donald Trump. Or when a Jim Jordan and other Republicans maneuver to impeach Rod Rosenstein at the Justice Department because of the ongoing Mueller probe. Or simply the lack of any real response by the GOP to the autocratic musings of Mr. Trump on Twitter, his unfounded criticism of the US Intel community, not to mention his obsequious groveling to Putin in Helsinki in July. True conservatives have joined Democrats in believing that the only remedy to such atrocious behavior is a divided government, that is, where at least one chamber is controlled by the party out of power. Among other things, such an alignment encourages bipartisanship, and makes our system of checks and balances work in the manner envisioned by the Founders. A muted, push over Congress does not do our country any favors although Mr. Montgomery wants more of the same.
There is so much more to challenge here. It is a pity that these interviews were conducted in this fashion. In the words of Mr. Montgomery’s and Mr. Harris’s hero, this process was “rigged.”
Gretchen Stroh says
Mr. Montgomery, if you as a Catholic can’t support abortion rights, because it is taking a life, how do you feel about the Republican’s support of the death penalty? I am always confounded that Republicans appear “anti abortion/pro death penalty” and the Democrats are Pro Choice/anti death penalty. I personally have not found Mr. Harris supportive or informed about small online businesses who will be put out of business if they enforce online sales taxation which he supported. I’m disappointed in any elected representative who follows sheep like along the party line, instead of voting how his constituents would want. Also, while I respect your right to be against abortion since you are a Catholic, isn’t that imposing your religious beliefs (in a political/medical matter) upon everyone. Our country is built on seperation of church and state, so religion should not even be part of the “right to life/pro choice” legislative/legal decisions.
Deirdre LaMotte says
This Mr. Montgomery is only on The Spy because certain people are impressed with his “pedigree”. This is what happens when a man moves to a rural area where he can be a big fish in a tiny pond.
So rediculous considering most people role their eyes about this man….any hoo, he is a mysonginist. For this he should be shamed. A woman’s reproductive choice is economic
freedom. Period. When a woman decides FOR HERSELF
when and if she conceives, she becomes a better contributor to herself and society. This silly man sits and pontificates
and is irrelivent. His type is an anagonism and that is why he is so strident.
Grow up Spy. Focus on the future and not the ugly past.
Heather Dove says
If someone is so concerned about a fetus’s health, they should be supporting the highest environmental protections possible. Air pollution harms fetuses. So does inadequate access to healthcare. So does working overtime to make ends meet because the cost of living has risen but wages have not kept up. Andy Harris does not care about any of these things. If you do not believe in abortion, do not get one. How dare you, Mr. Montgomery, try to control my body from behind your “computer writing about economic, political and religious topics.”
George R. Shivers says
Knowing where Mr. Montgomery is coming from ideologically, it is not surprising that he came away from interviewing Congressman Harris and Democrat Jesse Colvin supporting the former. Having said that, I have to say that it is apparent that Mr. Montgomery has never attended a public event at which Jesse Colvin spoke and gave very clear statements on his positions. Was Mr. Montgomery at the League of Women Voters’ Forum on Sunday? Congressman Harris, to my knowledge, has never presented his own bill in Congress. His service on the Appropriations Committee did apparently result in the granting of more H2b visas, but not enough to prevent some crab houses from having to close down. Further, his opposition to a comprehensive and humane immigration policy is well know. Mr. Montgomery supports Harris because Harris has voted with the Republican majority to repeal the Affordable Care Act multiple times with no indication of a better plan to replace it. Had it been repealed, thousands of District 1 residents would have found themselves without health insurance. Jesse Colvin would never countenance such folly. Jesse Colvin has traveled up and down the district these past months, showing the citizens who he is and what he represents with complete integrity and apparently without feeling the need for bodyguards. Furthermore, he pledges to be in continual touch with his constituents, after he is elected. Harris has been virtually invisible on the Eastern Shore, and when he does come, he is so concerned about his safety that he feels the need to surround himself with a small army of guardians! Harris does not represent the interests of the citizens of District 1, and we should send him back to his medical practice at which I hope he was more effective than he had been in Congress.
Mr. Montgomery, why go through the pretense of interviewing both candidates, when it is apparent that your right-wing mind was closed to anything Colvin had to say. You came out of the interview with the same positions with which you went into it, and again that doesn’t surprise me; it only saddens me.
Michael H C McDowell says
David Montgomery, truly beggars belief in saying he approached interviews with Democrat Jesse Colvin, particularly, but also Republican incumbent Congressman, Andy Harris: “WITH AN OPEN MIND” (my emphasis).
Montgomery’s mind is/was..as…open…as…a… trap!
The Spy should never have allowed a hard line conservative, and openly-declared fan of Harris, to interview Harris. Now Montgomery officially endorses Harris.
As a senior editorial executive with the CBC, and BBC, etc, for 25 years, I would never have allowed an interviewer with a hard-right view to interview a political candidate with a hard-right view. What was necessary, for fair commentary, in the public interest, was to have an INDEPENDENT person interview BOTH, or for a conservative to interview the Democrat, and a progressive to have interviewed the Republican. That would have been the best approach. Now, Montgomery gets two full bites of the apple and not simply on the lesser-read letters/comments page.
Montgomery acted as a virtual Amen Chorus to Tea Party/”Freedom” Caucus extremist Harris’s waffling, weaving and dodging. Montgomery should be on Harris’s campaign payroll. He deserves a lot of back-pay from the Harris campaign.
As my granny used to say, some of these statements supporting Harris, by Montgomery, “would make a cat laugh.” To wit: “Andy Harris impressed me as one of the best informed and articulate Members of Congress that I have ever met”; again: “I have rarely met a Congressman who was as well-informed about such a wide range of topics.” Mr. Montgomery needs to get out more. Harris has one of the worst legislative records of the 435 members of the House, and a threadbare positive v. negative political career trail.
Montgomery, who I would say is about my age (66), patronisingly refers to Jesse Colvin as a “bright and dedicated young man.” So, ageism lives? But Harris, at 61, at least doesn’t get the “experienced and tested” encomium from Montgomery. We must be grateful for small mercies.
I critiqued Montgomery’s so-called “interview” of soft-ball, we-think-alike questions earlier this week (please see Spy of Oct. 23: https://chestertownspy.org/2018/10/23/a-conversation-with-spy-columnist-david-montgomery-and-1st-district-candidate-andy-harris/#comments ), and in detail, but, to single out just one example of inaccuracies, he is flat out wrong about Harris not intending to travel with extreme right Congressmen like the appalling Steve King of Iowa, and California Putin-supporter, Dana Rorabacher, to meet with neo-fascists in the Czech Republic. Fact checking this was not. Harris didn’t go, simply because the trip was cancelled but because of a Congressional scheduling conflict. However, Montgomery happily gives Harris the benefit of the doubt; this is the same Andy Harris who supports Hungarian strongman, Viktor Orban, who the late Senator John McCain rightly labelled a “neo-fascist.” https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/dan-rodricks-blog/bs-md-rodricks-0304-story.html
https://www.stardem.com/print/lettereditor/harris-planned-to-meet-with-right-wing-czech-extremist/article_f68ac53f-7027-5d17-b2cb-9b36347e8c54.html
Montgomery should never again be allowed by The Spy to do an interview with any Democratic Congressional candidate. He has no credibility and now he is on record for enthusiastically supporting one of the personally nastiest (to those who differ with him, however politely), mendacious, arrogant, patronising, lazy Members of Congress in the entire country.
Harris deserves David Montgomery and Montgomery deserves him.The rest of us in District 1 do not.
Michael H.C. McDOWELL
Chris Souza says
I beg to differ regarding the case for Mr. Harris as representative of MD-01 having the opportunity to return for another term. It’s clear to me that Mr. Montgomery has long been a Republican of the modern sort, and this is unfortunate. I once named myself a Republican, of the Lincoln variety, for it was Lincoln who once said, in his letter to Joshua Speed in 1855, “As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic].” To put a modern context to this, simply replace “Catholics” with Muslims, or LGBT+ citizens, or, even, women. That we can leave the reference to our African-American fellows in the statement shows just how far the Republicans have fallen.
The problem with Mr. Montgomery’s position is that he makes the graves mistake; he suggests that, contrary to Constitutional principles, how Mr. Harris would vote on the issues he himself would also vote for is of such import. Unfortunately, those issues are rife with items in direct contravention to Constitutional principles and, further, should be abhorrent to anyone who dreads an overstep of government power, or excessive government intrusion into the lives of its citizens. As Mr. Montgomery has shown, it seems the Republican party has become the Know-Nothings Lincoln himself feared; the hypocrisy of despots demonstrating the pretense of loving liberty. Mr. Harris has voted in lockstep with the ultra-conservative GOP for his entire time in office, ignoring the interests and will of a not insignificant portion of his constituency. This is an abrogation of his responsibilities as a representative of the entire district, not just the interests of those who share his ideology. Liberty, it seems, is only for those who look and think like Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Harris.
How, under traditional Republican reasoning of reducing interference in people’s lives, can a Republican advocate against the right of a woman to make her own determinations over the products of her body, be it birth control, hormonal control which prevents implantation or gestation, or even, should she desire it, termination of a pregnancy? That is literally one of the most intimate and personal details of an American citizen’s life, and Mr. Harris would see that end, in direct contravention to the first amendment to the Constitution, which plainly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” and what is the argument against reproductive right but one originating from a place of faith; a faith to which many Americans are not beholden? What party pleads for the life of the unborn to such a degree that it would devalue the living citizens? What party professes to care for the lives of the unborn, but treats it and its mother with flagrant disregard upon the child taking its first breath?
How, under traditional Republican reasoning of reducing interference in people’s lives can a Republican advocate against gay marriage and champion discrimination against the LGBT+ community, in direct contravention to the first, ninth, tenth, and fourteenth amendments? We confer certain rights to married couples and, again, it is a violation of the rights of others to deny them that union based on the tenets of your faith, when other faiths recognize such unions. It is a violation of the rights of others to deny extension of those marriage benefits conveyed by federal, state, and local agencies, as well as any business which operates within their purview. Note that at no time has there been any attempt to force churches themselves to provide marriage services; the people of those faiths must simply recognize the right of those LGBT+ couples to enjoy the same union and benefits they themselves enjoy, or plainly they violate the amendments referenced above.
How, under traditional Republican reasoning of reducing interference in people’s lives, can Republicans constantly push to disenfranchise the under-represented and otherwise voiceless, largely of the African-American community and the poor, by putting costly and time-consuming burdens of registration and voting that is absent in jurisdictions of predominantly white and wealthy citizens? Those white and wealthy, like myself, are never challenged at the polls, and have the means in time and finance to meet most requirements with little effort. The same is not the case for the poor; particularly the rural poor.
When it comes to health care, America is on an island of its own; an island upon which Americans demand they pay more for their own health care than risk so much as a dollar going to support their fellow citizens. In every other industrialized nation, citizens pay LESS for health care, and enjoy affordable and universal coverage. In the United States, on average, citizens pay approximately $542/week, including employer contributions, for health care, totaling $28,166/year (Source, Milliman Medical Index). By contrast, the average cost in OECD countries, to include the US cost, that weekly cost drops to an astonishing $79/week, for a total of $4096 (Source, OECD). Imagine the drop if we exclude US data for that! With that, our partner nations are able to pay less per citizen and cover every citizen.
I ask Mr. Montgomery, does refusing to care for those in need sit well with your Catholic faith? I fear I’m unable to see how it could, as my own Catholic upbringing finds the notion absolutely horrifying. One cannot justly claim to be a person of faith when he has utter contempt or disregard for his fellow man, whatever their status.
“But the tax burden of universal coverage will be enormous and unsustainable!” is the inevitable reply, to which I respond that our nation’s GDP is over $18 Trillion dollars, and our tax burden, at historic lows dating to before WWII, has resulted in government revenues of just over 16% of GDP. The money is there; people like Mr. Harris and Mr. Montgomery would simply rather see that wealth in the hands of the top 1% of income earners, rather than be reinvested in the infrastructure and citizenry of this nation, which produces tangible benefits to middle and lower income citizens. No doubt people hate taxes, but the greatest con pulled by the GOP has been to convince its faithful that they derive little to no benefit from expenditures made with such tax revenues, when nothing could be further from the truth. For example, the National Highway System cost over $550B to construct, and it has opened up the efficient, rapid, and economical transfer of goods, services, and individuals across our nation. Wyoming, for instance, has a population of about half a million people, yet it has several billion dollars worth of federally funded roadways, the cost of which the citizens of the state could not hope to afford on their own. This is because we, as a nation, saw the benefit in absorbing the cost to aid our fellows.
That’s what taxes do; they permit funding for research, development, and infrastructure, which are costly endeavours without direct or immediate financial return. In turn, this provides for opening new markets to individuals and corporation, through that investment. The highway system is only one such example. Further examples include space and satellite technologies, as well as the Internet, which started life as ARPANet, from the DoD Advanced Research Projects Agency. From that costly research endeavour, we have opened up countless opportunities for companies like Apple, Google, Verizon and Amazon; all of which would have been impossible, or a long time in coming on this scale, from private interests. Beyond that, it includes food and product safety, automotive safety, materials and job safety; the list is nearly boundless. Those regulations Republicans oft decry were not always present; rather, they are written in the blood and damaged lives of our fellow Americans, or their ancestors. At one time, without such regulation and oversight, people died or were harmed, necessitating those rules, because the market doesn’t care about the lives of a nation’s citizenry, but the society rightly should. How does that square with the Catholic faith of Mr. Montgomery?
As Benjamin Franklin once said in his letter to Robert Morris, dated 25 December 1783, “He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.”
Vote for Mr. Harris if you want to continue the Republican tradition if implying only the rights of people who look and act like you do matter, but vote for Mr. Colvin if you see yourself and your fellow citizens as Americans, and worthy and deserving of the rights you enjoy, whether you agree with their exercise or not.
Kind regards,
Matt Chambers says
I rarely see such an amount of wasted ink (or pixels) as I do in this verbose and “expert” opinion.
Steve Payne says
Harris voted many times to repeal the ACA, NOT replace it.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-rodricks-0205-20150205-column.html
Kennard Wiggins says
“The pages of the Star-Democrat and the Spy are full of complaints about Andy, though he has voted consistently in support of President Trump’s program.” Well, despite the fact that he is a Trump man, people complain anyway. What’s wrong with this picture?
John Ames says
I have attended two “Town Hall” meetings which Congressman Harris has held in Chestertown in the last several years. In both cases he spoke mostly about the dangers of the huge deficit, which he blamed on Obama, and the necessity to reduce the national debt. Having voted FOR the President’s great tax cut for the very wealthy Dr. Harris no longer talks about the deficit – which has risen tremendously under Trump’s leadership.
I also object to Dr. Harris’ opposition to universal health care, freedom of reproductive choice, sensible gun control immigration reform, funding an expensive and horrible wall on the Southern border. In my opinion, Jesse Colvin is by far the better choice.
Gordon Koerner says
David failed to say anything about Harris being rank the least effective congressman in congress. Yes Harris has the talk but can’t produce .
Leslie Price says
Montgomery lauds Harris for being knowledgeable about the issues – shouldn’t we all be ready to fire any employee of 8 years who didn’t know what he was hired to accomplish? What Harris lacks is an understanding of what his employer (we the people of the first congressional district) want him to do because he doesn’t listen to us. He listens to the party generals with their well-financed media messaging and the various interests who provide him with the money to stay in office. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if our employee with all that knowledge had worked to find solutions to the many problems the country faces in a way that responds to the expressed choices of his employer by approaching them from a non-partisan roll up the sleeves and get it done attitude? Our elected representative has lost the conviction (if he ever had it) that his role is to participate in a government rather than to toe the party line.
In Jesse Colvin the first congressional district has the opportunity to elect a person who has not already decided the best answer that will get him elected but rather someone who wants to listen and wants to find solutions to the problems by working with fellow representatives in a bipartisan fashion. Montgomery criticizes him for not having concrete solutions but isn’t our biggest problem that the discussion is already set in concrete, one party vs. the other party’s approach? Colvin is bright and experienced in the consequences of our international positions having served four tours in Afghanistan as an Army Ranger. He will spend the time and effort to investigate alternatives and he is committed to representing us, not a party. We are fortunate to have such a good choice in this election.
Joseph T Coule, MD says
Harris ” looks at all the health implications of environmental policy, because the economic burden of environmental policies can have health effects that offset direct health benefits of the policies.”This statement is baffling. Harris, a physician with a deep background in physics, chemistry and biologic sciences, who is a climate change “sceptic”. This disbelief is maintained in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, not he least of which includes the more than doubling of atmospheric CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution. I am unaware of the health burdens that reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels entails.
Daniel Menefee says
Trump is a racist bully, he’s divisive, perverse and fills legions of ignorant uneducated minds with his perversions in a way that incites violence and hate, and he does it on purpose. He acts like a two-bit capo in the Russian syndicate and is why he won’t call out Putin on his chicanery. Harris is condoning Trump and therefore is Trump.