It may be the height of naivete to expect either major political party to do anything much beyond raising money and loosely structuring a process to nominate national candidates.  A Senator who doesn’t even call himself a Democrat is now running for President with the full expectation that if he wins the primary process, he will be the party’s nominee. In 2016, candidate Trump declined to promise to support the party’s nominee and has routinely attacked Republican legislators that disagree with him.  And, with rare exceptions, neither party does much in the way of ethics. State, local and national candidates can fudge the truth with the full confidence of no pushback from the national party.

The fruit of this sad situation is declining respect for the national parties.  Even energetic Democrats, for example, will tell you they understand why Bernie Sanders declines to align himself as a co-partyist with a moderate like Joe Manchin.  Similarly, Trump’s base readily buys into the President’s claim that that George W. Bush administration was “corrupt.” He has stepped in, without so much as a hint of opposition, and redefined the party’s long-standing positions on trade while at the same time openly exhibiting conduct and endorsing policies viewed as racist by at least some of his fellow Republicans.

Many today suggest the parties are “imploding” and becoming progressively less important to American Democracy.  In part, this is because the traditional role of the party as a fundraising organization is being supplanted by the internet.  Candidates like Sanders and Warren both appeal to and solicit funds from voters directly, using the internet as the means. The party neither polices their efforts nor does anything else relevant to it. The fundraising itself is measured by the Federal Election Commission. The messaging’s effectiveness is measured in national polls.

If this trend continues, its only a matter of time that a successful third party or independent candidate emerges.  It could happen sooner than one might assume, especially if the dysfunction of both parties results in the nomination of candidates viewed by a critical mass as “out of the mainstream” or otherwise unacceptable.  Next year’s elections could see this scenario. Just think of a Trump v. Warren election.

The deterioration of parties could have catastrophic effects on how the American Democracy works.  Think of a Congress with several parties holding sizable voting blocks but with no majority. Think of a President freed from any thought of the impact of her actions on state and local elections.  And think of the scenario where an independent President dies in office and a virtual unknown, a vice president selected with little thought or diligence, suddenly assumes office.  

Examples of the benefits of having two, well-established national parties structure elections go far beyond my two examples. But, I would argue, their role does not go far enough.  And, if you agree the current system is breaking apart, rapidly but not irreversibly, it may be time to ask the national parties to assume a much larger role in policing elections.

Here are a few suggestions:

The parties should be required to comment on accuracy of fact assertions made by their own candidates.  If Trump claims Chinese imports exceed $ 10 trillion per year, the Republican party should call him on it.  Few candidates will want to be corrected by their own party. Most likely a trend towards more research and diligence will follow. 

The parties should issue budget estimates for all policy proposals put forth by major candidates.  If the numbers do not add up, as is the case for Elizabeth Warren’s many “plans,” the party would say so, perhaps issuing its own estimates.

Candidates that violate a specified set of party values would lose their right to run as a candidate of the party.  For example, if the Republicans adopted a “value” condemning racism, a suggestion that most Mexicans are rapists would get a candidate making such a statement tossed from the party. 

Candidates would have to meet minimum qualifications and meet specified requirements to run for President. Candidates failing would be denied the support of the party.   An example of how this might work may be found in national parties establishing rules for which candidates get to participate in national debates. Among the requirements would be the release of 10 years of tax returns. Specifying qualifications is more complex but perhaps should include things such as a minimum number of years in government or working closely with it.  

I could go on with the list, but the idea is simple.  Political parties must take ownership of the candidates that run under their banner.  While this might cause some attractive candidates to defect and possibly run as independents, the long-term impact would be to make the party label mean something. Voters could be confident that if candidate X was the Democratic candidate, an organization of competent, publicly minded experts have reviewed them and found them meritorious. Think of this as an imprimatur for candidates or and endorsement from Consumer Reports.

What happens if parties take on the task of better policing candidates and their proposals and do so incompetently or with bias?  Count on the press to call them on it. A party guilty of not performing these new roles would be identified as a failure by the press, something that hopefully would jeopardize their existence and encourage candidates to look elsewhere for a party with which to affiliate. 

Is all this naïve?  Maybe. But what is definitely naïve is to let the current system, the one that brought us Trump and that might very well have resulted in a giant like Beto O’Rourke getting a national nomination for President, continue to operate the way it does.

American Democracy needs parties, but those parties are not doing their job. They could soon disappear if they don’t embrace accountability.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. He is a former counsel to the House Committee on Education and Labor.  For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.

 

The Kirwan Commission’s real aim is hiking teacher pay by $3 billion a year, and it is why the state teachers’ unions are so strongly backing it – more teacher pay. Kirwan aims at “making teacher salaries more competitive with other professions.”

The teachers’ unions, whose membership and coffers would boom, have even launched an expensive lobbying campaign to pressure political leaders to enact Kirwan’s pay hikes.

But Maryland’s teachers are not underpaid. Yes, some teachers, who are paid on a seniority rather than a performance basis, earn somewhat less than professionals with similar education and experience qualifications.

But most are highly overpaid. In aggregate, when all compensation (benefits, leave and job security) is accounted for, the average teacher earns as much as 40% more than those in comparable private sector professions.

No teacher shortage

Another false “crisis” that Kirwan’s massive pay hikes seek to remedy is the “teacher shortage,” with many teachers allegedly fleeing the profession. This is belied by the facts. Under 10% of Maryland’s teachers retired, quit, or were fired last year – less than half the leave rates for similar professional jobs. And they left the profession at a much lower rate than teachers across the country.

Maryland already spends a whopping 93 cents of every public K-12 education dollar on personnel (i.e., teachers and administrators) – not on instructional materials, facilities, or technology. That is the highest share by far in the country and 11% higher than the U.S. average (82%).

Statewide, Maryland’s per pupil spending averages about $16,000 per student, but the state’s economic and geographic diversity means district-level figures vary widely. Rural Talbot County spends very little compared to even the stingiest of states while Baltimore City spends the third most ($17,500) of the largest 100 districts nationwide, while ranking as the third worst in outcomes for all districts. Three other counties – Montgomery, Prince George’s and Howard – also rank in the top ten for per pupil spending nationally.

If one adds in the $5.3 billion in unfunded teacher retirement benefits (for generous pensions and healthcare) that Maryland school districts and state legislature fail to fund, the current real cost of a public school student’s instruction increases dramatically.

No meaningful reforms

Those figures are no matter to the teachers’ unions and the education bureaucracy who want $4 billion dollars a year more by 2030 – without meaningful governance or instructional reforms.

To fund the new expenditures, Baltimore City would be required to double its district’s spending share. That would require hiking Baltimore’s already burdensome property taxes on homeowners and businesses, driving them out of the city and further shrinking the tax base.

Meanwhile, two recent polls by University of Maryland-Washington Post and Goucher College suggest – erroneously – that Kirwan is a hit with the public. They claim to find that taxpayers are willing to pay higher taxes to improve public education – as if educational excellence can only be achieved through more spending.

But both polls find that over three-quarters of state residents know “nothing” about Kirwan. Seventy-four percent of Goucher’s respondents say they support “personally paying more in state taxes to improve [public education].” But Goucher never asks how much.

The Post poll introduces Kirwan’s recommendations as “major new programs aimed at improving Maryland’s public school system.” Even after such a leading prompt, only a small majority of Marylanders favor raising income taxes by even a quarter percent – which would fund only a tiny fraction of Kirwan’s cost – while a majority opposes a half-percent hike. By 2030, income taxes would have to rise by 40% — four times the half-percent increase offered in the Post poll.

A 2018 poll conducted by the Maryland Public Policy Institute found that, when given a choice, voters overwhelmingly oppose more spending as the primary means of improving education: 72% agreed that “to improve learning opportunities in public schools, policymakers should refocus on reallocating resources more efficiently and effectively, instead of continuously increasing the education budget.”

Tough choices avoided

Marylanders – unsurprisingly – want better, high-quality schools on the cheap. The tough choices are simply being avoided by Kirwan’s backers; the result would be cuts in other discretionary state and local spending or dramatic increases in income, property, and sales taxes.

Since Kirwan’s training, certification, and professional development programming have no consequences for poor-performing teachers or those who fail to improve, nothing will change in schools.

With union protections and a seniority-based pay scale, the rotten apples get the pay bump just the same and the beleaguered students can expect no real benefit.

But the teachers’ windfall – higher salaries and plumped up pensions – will carry a dramatic cost.

The Kirwan proposals will put the Old Line State into the red to the tune of $19 billion and increase the unfunded pension and healthcare liabilities owed by the state by billions more.

Maryland taxpayers will continue to feel the burn for decades to come as these new pay and pension entitlements cannot be easily clawed back unlike the necessary instructional or governance reforms – if those are ever enacted.

Sean Kennedy is a visiting fellow at the Maryland Public Policy Institute, a non-partisan public policy organization based in Rockville, Md.

Among the dozen Democrats who debated earlier this month in Ohio, one of the least known is Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. This piece is about a bizarre story that appeared in the news last week involving her, Hillary Clinton, the Russians, and a complete lack of judgment.  If you missed it, you are forgiven. Our President and his team dominated the news with statements and actions that may very well signal the end of the Trump era. Tulsi Gabbard’s actions, by comparison, were nothing. It was just her blowing up her own credibility, conclusively ending a campaign for President that was going nowhere anyway.

At first, I thought it was amateurish fake news. The title was, “Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Has Harsh Words for Hillary Clinton: ‘You, the Queen of Warmongers, Embodiment of Corruption.”  Strange. Then I noticed the story was in Newsweek. I soon realized dozens of other reputable publications were carrying the same story. Could it be that an exchange between Gabbard and Clinton so juvenile and nasty as to defy belief had occurred?

First, it’s worth noting that the language of Hillary was restrained in contrast with the all-out war of words launched by the Hawaiian Congresswoman. Hillary, in a podcast with David Plouffe, suggested Gabbard had backers in Moscow.  While not mentioning Gabbard by name, she commented, “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate, . . . She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”

This wasn’t the first time Hillary Clinton accused Trump supporters, including the Russians, of backing a spoiler candidate. In 2016, she claimed that Moscow and others were supporting Green Party candidate Jill Stein.  While this accusation is not proven, a Senate investigation and the Mueller report found that it held some credence. Russians, as part of their overall, well-documented efforts to elect Trump, sought to persuade African American voters that voting for Jill Stein was a good alternative to voting for Clinton. In so doing, they hoped to indirectly help Trump win. Interesting.

Clinton’s accusation, based on her 2016 comments and evidence indicating she may have been right, is not surprising.  Gabbard’s response to it was. It was a melt-down. It was behavior that was unjustified under any circumstances. It was behavior establishing beyond a doubt that Gabbard does not have the temperament to be President.

Her complete explosion, documented for history in the form of three tweets, reads in whole as follows: “Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why.

Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.”  

In fairness to Gabbard, please note that she indicates she will not run as a third-party candidate. Let’s hope this is true. 

In hindsight, anyone who entertained Gabbard as the nominee, however briefly, should reexamine how they look at candidates.  I am among those in this category. I saw an articulate, energetic veteran running for President. She contrasted well to entrants like Beto O’Rourke, Marianne Williamson, and even, Kirsten Gillibrand.   It was not until I read about her bizarre support for al Assad in Syria that I took the trouble to learn more. Once I did, my antennas went up.   

The more you examine her positions, especially those relating to foreign policy, the more curious she becomes.  A prime example was her statement on Syria during the last debate. She offered, “Donald Trump has the blood of the Kurds on his hand, but so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have supported this ongoing regime change war in Syria that started in 2011.” She was corrected by Pete Buttigieg, who described her perspective as “dead wrong.”  She has also harshly criticized President Obama when he was in office for not using the term “radical Islamist.”

It is not uncommon to witness candidates blowing themselves up in the course of the grueling two years of campaigning that proceeds getting elected as President, but it seems each instance offers a separate lesson.  Whether it is Muskie crying publicly, Tom Eagleton’s mental health issues being disclosed, or Gary Hart getting exposed in a different way, Gabbard offers a clear lesson: If you want to be President, demonstrate Presidential poise and judgment on the campaign trail.  This means reacting with restraint even if you believe you have been attacked unfairly.

I will leave it to others to determine whether Gabbard is a “favorite of the Russians.”  If Putin is backing her, he made a bad choice. It’s also worth noting that some of Gabbard’s competitors have questioned the allegation she is working for the Russians, including Beto O’Rourke, Buttigieg, Williamson and Yang. But the issue is not whether Clinton’s claim is true, its how Gabbard responded to it. 

The Republican party has its mad tweeter. The Democratic party doesn’t need one.  

 J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. He is a former counsel to the House Committee on Education and Labor.  For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.

 

By now, I hope that you have heard about what Kirwan is. That is the short name for the Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education, which is the multi-billion dollar overhaul for how education will be funded in Maryland. As part of my duties for Talbot County and the Maryland Association of Counties (MACo), I have followed education legislation closely, especially since the “Maintenance of Effort” (MOE) law was passed in 2012.

I have attended all of the smaller funding workgroup meetings from July through October. After the full Kirwan Commission issued their recommendations last year, but never discussed how it would be paid for or how it might be split between the State and Counties, this workgroup was formed to make funding recommendations to the full commission. That commission will reconvene in a couple weeks and then issue their final recommendations to the legislature in Annapolis for the 2020 session. One thing to keep in mind is that it was not the charge of the Kirwan commission to address actual curriculum in our school systems. I would encourage you to read the full report online to find out specifically the policy areas they addressed.

The first six meetings consisted of background information on the education recommendations and how funding formulas work. I wrote in depth on that subject for the Star Democrat in their September 1st edition. The charge of this group was to figure out how to split cost equitably between the State and Counties and how it could be paid for by considering various formulas and data.

The vast majority of the conversation throughout was on the “counties’ ability to pay.” There was very little, if any, discussion on how the State was going to be able to afford their share. The sense was that the counties would be able to contribute more and there were not any numbers even provided to the workgroup until just one week ago, at their October 8th meeting. Then they were expected to vote on the entire package on October 15th, only having seen the final numbers for a few hours.

The articles that have been written across the state so far have reported that the State would fund about $2.8 billion more for a total after 10 years of $10.2 billion per year. The counties would fund an additional $1.2 billion for a total by 2030 of about $9.2 billion. This is a bit misleading because current 2020 funding from the counties combined is $6.7 billion, for an actual increase by 2030 of $2.5 billion.

So, why is there a discrepancy between the two numbers? The current MOE law mandates an automatic escalator for counties that have funded below the statewide average. Therefore, costs were going to go up significantly every year anyway. The total projected by DLS (Dept of Legislative Services) rose to $8 billion by 2030. The figures that are being reported are based on that number of $8 billion growing to $9.2 billion paid for by the local jurisdictions. But it only tells half the story.

Since Tuesday, MACo has recalculated what that MOE number would actually be under current law based on using the best data available. DLS used a “trendline” assumption. Since many counties have contributed well above what was actually required, this was not the most accurate number to base a projection on 10 years out. The MOE amount required for all 24 jurisdictions combined is $7.1 billion, not $8 billion. This changes what the counties increase is from $1.2 to $1.9 billion in additional state mandated increases.

This is the largest unfunded state mandate placed on the counties in history. If the State leaders think that it such a good idea and are really committed to doing all these things for the schools across the state, maybe this should just be a STATE plan and let them pay for it. I’m not sure why we are all taking for granted that this has to be funded by the county governments at all.

But what people really want to know is how much their taxes may have to go up to pay for it. I can’t tell you what the State’s plan is to pay for their $2.8 billion share. All I can speak to are the limited revenue sources for the counties and our only real means to pay for the increase is through property tax. Keep in mind, these amounts are only to pay for the local share, the State still has to figure out to pay their part, which may require additional State tax increases.

Why would the counties be forced to raise taxes? The numbers are so big for every county, that there isn’t any way to “cut” our way to be able to absorb these State mandated increases. County services would be almost non-existent in many cases. Most counties are maxed out in their income tax rate at or near 3.2%.

Let’s talk some numbers. In Talbot County, currently we fund our Board of Education $42.5 million per year, which accounts for over 70% of their total budget and about half of our total county budget. The MOE law, based on the MACo calculation over the next 10 years mandates a funding increase to $48.3 million per year, an increase of 13.6%. Under the Kirwan recommendations, that number balloons to $75.2 million per year, a total increase of 76% by the year 2030.

Assuming that the increased spending is funded only through property taxes, what might that mean to your tax rate? Currently our rate is just under 64 cents per hundred dollars of assessed value. Using the median house value in Talbot of $350,000, that homeowner is paying $2230 in property taxes each year. Under the Kirwan funding requirement, that same homeowner could pay an additional 48 cents per hundred or $1685 for a total of $3915, a potential rate of $1.12.

You may also ask, but Talbot (along with several other counties in the state) has a revenue cap on the property tax, how can you raise it? That does not apply when it comes to education spending. The MOE law of 2012 permits/requires a county to break their tax cap to pay for increased funding for education only.

While the numbers are big for every county in the State, Talbot’s numbers are completely out of step with other jurisdictions. The next highest local percentage (MOE + Kirwan) increases are Baltimore City at 43% and PG County at 42%.

On the Eastern Shore, Kent is the next highest at 38%. They currently fund $18 million per year, under MOE, that rises to $20.2 million and under Kirwan, the total becomes $29.7 million. This could equate into a property tax increase of 38 cents, from $1.02 to $1.40.

For Caroline, the increase is 33%. Current funding is $15.2 million, under MOE that actually decreases to $14.6 million and under Kirwan, the total becomes $23.7 million. This could equate into a property tax increase of 32 cents, from 98 cents to $1.30.

In Dorchester county, the increase is 23%. They currently fund $20.1 million per year, under MOE, that rises to $24.4 million and under Kirwan, the total becomes $26.9 million. This could equate into a property tax increase of 23 cents, from $1.00 to $1.23.

We, the counties are not being given a choice and very little voice, when the legislature in Annapolis will vote on these recommendations and mandate that the counties must pay for them. This is not a judgement on whether we believe in better education for our children; this is just the reality of what it will mean to the average taxpayer across the State of Maryland.

Laura Price, a member of the Talbot County Council, serves on the executive board of directors for the Maryland Association of Counties (MACo). She is chairman of MACo’s Budget & Tax Committee and also serves on MACo’s Legislative Initiatives Committee.

Analysis of the Kirwan Recommendations
Kirwan Preliminary Report 

Until recently, I was not in favor of impeaching President Trump for the very good reason that, while impeachment seems all but certain in the House of Representatives, conviction and removal from office is a long shot in the Senate. And as we have seen in the culmination of the Mueller investigation, Trump will declare such a result “complete exoneration.” 

What changed my mind, as well as Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s, was the whistleblower alert to Trump’s phone call to Ukrainian President Zelensky, who said he’d like to buy American-made Javelin missiles to help repel Russian-backed insurrection in his country. Trump replied that “I need a favor from you though.” Two favors, actually. The first was for Zelensky to order an investigation into the far-fetched theory that Democrats conspired with Ukraine to hack the party’s own emails as an “insurance policy” against Hillary Clinton losing the 2016 presidential election. Under this scenario, Democrats, seeking to nullify Trump’s election, accuse him of colluding with Russia. The other favor Trump asked of Zelensky was to collect “dirt” on former vice president/current presidential hopeful Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who served on a Ukrainian energy company’s board.

Sound familiar? Donald Jr. told a Russian intermediary who promised “dirt” on Hillary Clinton that he would “love it.” Yet we’re asked to believe that nothing ever came of that exchange, even after we heard candidate Trump implore Russia on national TV to find his opponent’s “30,000 missing emails.” Next day, hacked Democratic Party emails embarrassing to Clinton were released by WikiLeaks. For arcane legal reasons, Robert Mueller’s Russian-interference investigation failed to make a prosecutable case against Trump while leaving no doubt that Russia meddled in the 2016 election. 

But there’s nothing arcane about Trump’s Ukraine shakedown. The president used an implied threat to withhold a request for missiles as well as an actual delay in releasing $391 million in congressionally authorized military aid to coerce foreign-manufactured political dirt.

Republicans argue there’s no quid pro quo in the president’s words, though he repeated on TV his appeals—both to Ukraine and China—to investigate the Bidens (promising Chinese President Xi to forsake Hong Kong). Inviting foreign interference in U.S. elections is illegal. It’s also a highly impeachable crime. Trump’s defenders change the subject by equating his Ukrainian conversations with Biden’s, though no one accuses Biden of recruiting foreigners to smear American presidential candidates. Another diversionary tactic, employed by Republican Rep. Andy Harris at his Easton town hall, is that the impeachment inquiry is an unconstitutional effort to overturn the 2016 election. 

Ken Starr, whose investigation of President Clinton resulted in his impeachment, calls the current Democratic-led probe a “star chamber.” He and other Trump defenders demand that the House hold open hearings. Now. They question the fairness of an inquiry based on hearings behind closed doors. But similar inquiries happen every day in our judicial system—and for good reason. Grand jury proceedings are secret in order to prevent various witnesses from readily aligning their testimony.

This is particularly relevant in an impeachment proceeding in which the president claims blanket executive privilege and orders even associates who don’t work for the White House not to testify or cooperate in producing documents. Further, the usual investigatory options are unavailable to this impeachment inquiry. Attorney General William Barr has proved himself to be the president’s legal protector. Never mind his misrepresentation of the Mueller report before its release and hearings on its content. He’s more recently embarked on international missions to revive the aforementioned, long-debunked conspiracy theories espoused by Rudy Giuliani and his jailed Fraud Guarantee cohorts. Not even the FBI can be trusted as long as its director reports, ultimately, to this compromised attorney general.

If this sounds like extraordinary circumstance—even for impeachment of a president—it is.

Which brings us to another call the president made a couple of Sundays ago. We don’t have a transcript of that one. But we see the daily fallout of what the president said or didn’t say as the Turks bombard Kurdish movements inside Syria where, until recently, the Kurds fought alongside American troops. The president, in dereliction of his duty, routinely refuses to read or listen to daily intelligence briefings.  To make decisions, he consults his “gut” instead. Trump doesn’t listen to advice from career government experts, dismissing them as “deep state” suspects intent on subverting his mandate. He spends his “executive time” watching cable news while tweeting or making phone calls informed only by his “great unmatched wisdom.” 

As a result of lazy habits and willful ignorance, Trump evidently gave the green light to Turkish President Erdogan’s military incursion into Syria. Whether it was an Erdogan ultimatum or a Trump invitation, the president neglected to secure a safe and orderly withdrawal of American troops. They were fired upon by Turkish insurgents within hours of the president’s call. Besides the shameful abandonment of Kurdish allies who helped retake the ISIS caliphate and imprison thousands of its terrorists—many now on the loose—Trump’s action, or inaction, put troops under his ultimate command in mortal danger. Sending U.S. troops into precipitous retreat in the face of Turkey’s invasive onslaught makes Americans look like cowards and America an unreliable ally. Soldiers have said they felt ashamed for the first time in uniform. Trump bullies his allies but when foreign adversaries say “boo,” he turns into chicken-in-chief. The only winners in this debacle are Russia, Iran and Syria’s accused war-criminal president, Assad.

Impeachment proceedings should, indeed, proceed as diplomats are testifying in defiance of Trump. But if, in light of the president’s foreign policy incompetence or worse, possible collusion with foreign agents, Congress and the Cabinet with Vice President Pence’s highly unlikely assent, could remove him from office under the 25th Amendment. Trump has shown himself manifestly unfit for the presidency, failing to uphold the constitution in virtually every way imaginable.

The president must be held accountable. 

Steve Parks is a retired journalist now living in Easton.

I’m taking a break from politics. Although recent events did not contribute to what led me to focus on kindness, they were making me sick.

I just had major surgery to remove a tumor. Before the surgery I was afraid. I dreaded the trips to the hospital and, most of all, dreaded the surgery. The tumor, to my regret, has proven to be cancerous, but I’m not looking for sympathy. The physicians did a great job and tell me it is contained and treatable.  Believe me, I am aware that thousands of people are in much worse situations than I.

The news that the prognosis was favorable came after the operation. Before then, I got a refresher in how important kindness is. What is kindness? It is being friendly, considerate, patient and generous. Kind people, both family and hospital professionals, exhibited all these traits as I transitioned from being a relatively healthy adult one day to becoming a somewhat pathetic and helpless patient the next.   My life partner, Maria, is at the top of the chart. She not only did everything possible to help me keep things in perspective but proved to be a truly great patient advocate. When I was too depressed or stupid to ask questions, she did.

Next is the hospital. I won’t identify it or the kind, wonderful people I met there, but they included not only the doctors and nurses, but the receptionists, housekeepers, and technicians. This piece is about kindness and I’m sure there are wonderful people at many hospitals other than the one that treated me.

At the various reception desks, I was routinely greeted with a smile and complete attention. I was made to feel like something other than a number. I was addressed by my name and even thanked when I returned a completed information form.

When I had several preoperative tests, I was told exactly what was involved and how long the tests would take. This relieved my anxiety. I almost calmed down too much to pass a stress test.

Immediately before surgery, I had several meetings with various teams of doctors and researchers, the later participating in my case to gather data to determine why certain types of tumors develop in some people with no currently understood cause. The doctors were all quite positive, even when describing one scenario where the surgery would have left me in the hospital for a significant amount of time and could have resulted in some potentially permanent life changes. Fortunately, that scenario did not happen.  The doctors, especially the surgical team, did not act rushed and answered all my questions, including the naïve ones. I was never made to feel stupid.

In post-operative care, I was blessed to get a private room.  If you’ve ever been a patient in a hospital, I suspect you will agree this is the biggest luxury in the world.  I could close the door and sleep, but when I was awakened for the inevitable blood draws and vital sign checks, the nurses apologized for waking me and worked as quickly as possible to allow me to return to my slumber. Most of the time, they did not even turn on the lights.

Upon being discharged I immediately reflected on how important the care of the hospital staff and loved ones has been in getting me through a terrifying experience.  I also did a little reading that focused on the magic of kindness. Mark Twain wrote, “Kindness is a language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see.” Henry James wrote, “Three things in human life are important: the first is to be kind; the second is to be kind; and the third is to be kind.” The Dalai Lama XIV is quoted as saying, “My religion is very simple. My religion is to be kind.” 

My take-away from this experience is the lesson of how important kindness and civility are. I owe everyone who looked after me a debt.  I owe them a return of kindness to many others. I will also try to be more civil, even to nasty or rude people.

 It is unlikely that I will be able to return as much kindness as I received, but I will try.     

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. He is a former counsel to the House Committee on Education and Labor.  For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.  

How bad a President is Donald Trump?  Is he a good but misunderstood President?  Depending on your politics and where you get your news, he is dishonest, incompetent and perhaps insane, or he is the crafty businessman, courageous in reversing long-standing but counter-productive policies, and someone who has brought us three years of peace and prosperity.  Where is the truth?  How do you get  people in each camp to a common vision of the President?

Taking on this perhaps impossible mission requires a willingness to set aside one’s political preferences, be as unemotional as possible, and research a few statistics. It’s not easy. Five minutes of discussion on impeachment can result in F-bombs and broken friendships.  And it will only get worse as the House proceeds with impeachment proceedings this fall.

The question of assessing Trump is not an assessment of whether he committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” or criminal offenses. Rather, it involves looking at his record in a larger context and including things cited as evidence of a successful Presidency.

Here are a few things to consider:

Record low unemployment rates.  Few would have imagined the current rate of 3.5 percent possible.  For African Americans, it’s 5.5 percent, still too high, but a record low worth celebrating.

A healthy economy.  The economy, as evidenced in a positive GDP growth and a robust stock market, is doing well for most of us. Some have been predicting a recession for the last two years, but it hasn’t come.  Does Trump get the credit because of his tax and regulatory policies? 

Trade. Perhaps in no other area has Trump broken more with his predecessors than in the area of trade. His efforts to address trade imbalances and protect American intellectual property are well documented. The fact that Bernie Sanders, among others, has suggested that something needs to be done to re-invigorate American industry tells you something.  You may disagree with the trade war that has resulted and fear its long-term consequences, but it’s impossible to dismiss the fact Chinese imports are down.

Peace.  While some may argue that as long as any U.S. troops are in harm’s way the country is not at peace, the fact is that no new wars have been initiated despite, and perhaps because of, Trump’s often belligerent tones with North Korea, Iran, and others. Teddy Roosevelt is praised for his “Speak softly but carry a big stick” foreign policy. Trump rarely speaks softly, but he is carrying a big stick and is perceived by adversaries as willing to use it. 

Resetting America’s relationship with our allies. While some believe Trump is jeopardizing the long-standing relationships with allies like Germany, his call for NATO members to pay “their fair share” of the cost of the military alliance has produced results. Were allies like Germany and Japan taking American support for their defense for granted?  If so, they are not doing that now.

Loss of World Leadership.  America is no longer seen as a world leader by many of our allies. The best example is the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords. If you believe climate change is a global threat, withdrawal from this agreement, whatever its flaws, must be seen as a negative.  In addition, Trump’s practice of making world-impacting decisions unilaterally has hurt.

Undermining civility in political debate.  For this one, there are more than a thousand actions that may be cited as evidence.  Should Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff be tried for treason? Should Mitt Romney be impeached?  Should any President use foul language at rallies or anywhere else?

Racism.  Is calling Mexicans rapists and criminals evidence of racism?  What about enhanced immigration policies?  Please note that some view the restrictive immigration policies as a positive, does anyone really support splitting up families and some of the other harsh practices documented in the last two years on the border?

Appointment of incompetent or corrupt officials to public offices.  Pruitt, Perry, Carson, Ross and DeVos, are but five examples.  There are dozens more.  And are you okay with nepotism?

Unstable executive leadership. No, despite claims by some to the contrary, I’m not talking about Trump himself.  Rather, it’s the endless resignations, firings, and acting appointments to dozens of positions, including 2 of 15 cabinet offices, and 11 others to senior appointments, including the director of OMB and National Intelligence, as well as the President’s own chief of staff. Why can’t this administration vet officials before appointing them?

Russia.  Is Russia our friend or ally?  While proof of their interference in the 2016 elections is dispositive, Trump has appeared beholden to Putin. What is going on?

The National Debt.  Did Trump let the National debt get “out of control?”  The $22.6 trillion National Debt is indeed increasing, notwithstanding campaign promises to the contrary, but Trump is arguably no worse than other recent Presidents.  Clinton, aided by a strong economy, is an exception.

Private inurement.  The allegation is that Trump is using the Presidency for his personal gain. This allegation is supported by the military using one of his golf resorts in Ireland during refueling stops and, of course, the Trump International Hotel in Washington. Are these things illegal?  That is currently under investigation/resolution. Until then, the jury is out.

Corruption. Some argue Trump is no more corrupt than the Clintons, Obama, or, most recently, Joe Biden. Do two wrongs make a right?   

Tweeting. Trump’s tweets are hated by many but, in fact, represent a new chapter in Presidential transparency. Although his writings are highly selective, few would argue that this President speaks more to the American public, and more directly, than any President before him.

Supreme Court nominees. The bruising battle over Judge Kavanaugh is now behind us but calls for his impeachment continue. Depending on your politics, you will like or dislike Trump’s two appointments to date. Both have proven to be exactly what he promised, conservative votes on the Nation’s highest court.

Okay, so where does this leave us?  For this writer, the negatives far outweigh the positives.  Despite the positives, the negatives, most of them resulting from Trump’s volatility, disdain for expert advice, racism, and his New York real estate world view, render him a disaster. More importantly, I fear what Trump may do in coming months as the impeachment process proceeds. 

We live in troubled times. Trump’s problems are not going away.  It will get worse. Stay tuned.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. He is a former counsel to the House Committee on Education and Labor.  For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.