The latest twist in the saga about health care reform concerns a potential compromise on the issue of a new government health insurance plan. It’s the so-called “public option” that would allow people to get their health insurance from the federal government if they couldn’t find affordable coverage in the private market.

Critics claim it will lead to government-run health care across the board. Insurance companies claim it will put them out of business. And supporters argue there is no reform without it.

So, an alternative idea seems to be gaining some ground—the “opt-out option”. It’s intended to allow individual states to decide whether or not to participate in a public option plan.

Just dandy. Let’s divide the country even further.

Remember how Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina kicked and screamed about accepting federal stimulus funds (when he wasn’t crying about getting caught having an affair in Argentina)? He’ll likely be the first in line to stand up to the federal government and deny his citizens an opportunity to get affordable health coverage.

This is bound to make health care coverage the new political litmus test. Candidates running for state office will have to take a position—do they support opt-out or opt-in?

And, if the opt-out candidate wins—what happens to that state’s citizens who’d prefer to opt-in?

Every city homeowner (myself included) would love to see a lower property tax rate.
On Wednesday, that’s what the Mayor promised as the city’s Board of Estimates approved a land deal to allow for the construction of a slots facility near the football stadium.
The deal is structured in such a way, the Mayor said, to provide the city with a sufficient amount of new revenue to reduce the rate by seven cents in 2011.
Sounds good, but….
That expectation is based on estimates by the people who want to operate the facility that slots in Baltimore will do far better than comparable facilities in Pennsylvania. Neither the slots parlor in Philadelphia nor the one near Pittsburgh draws anywhere near the gross revenue the Baltimore team is touting.

It’s true the deal requires the Baltimore slots team to pay either 2.9% of gross revenues or a minimum that’s to reach almost $16 mil per year. But if revenues lag, I’d say it’s a pretty safe bet the slots team will be back before the Board of Estimates in a hurry to modify the deal’s terms.

So, in the event slots don’t prove to be the gravy train the Mayor’s expecting, what’s Plan B? For way too long Baltimore has been choked by its tax rate—which is at least double the rate of every other part of the state. With or without gambling revenue, bringing the rate down has to be an urgent priority.

Rush Limbaugh has made a ton of money with his daily rants that rely heavily on insults and, in some cases, comments that many consider to be offensive. This, of course, is Rush’s right—to say exactly what he thinks or what he thinks his listeners want to hear.

But there’s another side of this coin. It’s called consequence. What we say or do does come with a price.

In this case, it’s playing out with Limbaugh’s attempt to become part of the ownership team of the St. Louis Rams. Just as soon as the possibility surfaced, former and current NFL players spoke out against it. Then, Colts owner Jim Irsay said he’d vote against it.
Wednesday, the head of the potential ownership group punted, calling Limbaugh’s potential involvement a “distraction.” Limbaugh was off the team.

Predictably, Limbaugh is blaming the political left and what he likes to call “Obama’s America” –as if the NFL is suddenly some bastion of liberalism.

No, Rush. What’s happened here is pretty simple. You can say what you wish but others don’t have to like it. Your brand of talk may be a great asset to yourself but others see it as a huge liability. It’s the consequence of what you choose to do.

I thought it was pretty low of the President’s critics to cheer Chicago’s loss of the Olympics—all as a means to relish Obama’s failure to sway the IOC. Nothing like rooting against the country.

Then came the surprise announcement that Obama had won the Nobel Prize for Peace.
The critics are beside themselves—calling the decision “cheap” and “embarrassing” and a “joke.”

One can certainly debate whether Obama’s really achieved anything yet. He himself recognized that as he accepted the award.
Harder to argue is that Obama has certainly caught the world’s attention. Countries everywhere, fatigued by the policies of the previous Administration, seem to welcome a new American tone in its diplomacy and a new willingness to seek cooperation to tackle the thorniest global challenges.

Too bad the tone inside the country is so different and so bitter.

Every president has his detractors and his critics. But, in the past, event the most ardent opponents of a president managed to maintain respect for the office and keep a “country first” frame of mind.

That’s not happening now. What is it about those who oppose Obama? Why are they so determined to see him fail?

Recently, while visiting North Carolina, a waitress in a restaurant asked my friend who’d ordered a hamburger, “would you like that well done or medium well?” My friend said she preferred her burger more rare. The waitress replied that wasn’t an option. State law wouldn’t permit it.

I was surprised at the time but, after reading the New York Times’ piece on Sunday about the E. coli bacteria, I now fully understand. The piece traces an E. coli outbreak in Minnesota in 2007 that was blamed on frozen beef patties.

It reveals serious questions about the way the beef industry is required to test for the bacteria (the lack of testing is the real issue–all in the name of keeping down costs). It also paints the federal regulatory system as mostly reluctant to force better safety standards.

One such regulator, a USDA official, is quoted in the piece as saying his job is to “look at the entire industry, not just what’s best for public health.” Really?

No wonder North Carolina thought it necessary to impose its own rules.

There’s an old rule of thumb that good courtroom lawyers try to follow:
In front of a jury, never ask a question to which you don’t know the answer.

The White House needs to take up a slight variation to the rule:
In front of the world, never put the President in a situation about which you have no control.

President Obama was flat out embarrassed today by the International Olympic Committee’s decision to put on the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro.
The decision was made just hours after Obama had personally appeared to make a pitch for his hometown Chicago. Not just that—the IOC tossed Chicago’s bid right away. Talk about thumbing their nose…

Now we know why no other U-S President has gotten so personally involved in the Olympics sweepstakes. Hopefully, Obama’s team has learned. Either they didn’t do their homework to get a sense of what the IOC would do—or they didn’t think it mattered. I’m not sure which is worse.

On Monday, we did a story on new revelations in the case against Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon. It concerned thousands of dollars in “unexplained” cash that went into the Mayor’s bank accounts in the Spring of 2004.

The revelations are contained in new filings by the State Prosecutor. “Unexplained” is the word used by an investigator who was unable to determine the source of the cash.

In response, the Mayor chose not to shed any light on the question of the cash but instead slammed prosecutors for digging around what she referred to as her personal life.

In fact, the Mayor’s personal life is all over this case, not because of who she was dating but because she allegedly accepted gifts from him without disclosing it in ethics filings.

She also mixed her personal business with the city’s business when she allegedly stole gift cards to use for herself or to benefit her own employees.

And then there’s the payment to her personal credit card. Allegedly, she gave 40 hundred dollar bills to her driver and instructed him to deposit it in his account and write a check, in his name, to her credit card company.

Not sure the purpose of this Sopranos-like transaction. But this much is clear–the driver is a city employee; a man on the pubic payroll being asked to take care of the Mayor’s personal business.

Not so long ago, Americans considered a newsman (Walter Cronkite) the person they could trust the most.

Contrast that to a new poll by the Pew Research Center. It finds nearly two-thirds of Americans (63%) believe the information they get from the media is inaccurate.

It also finds an even bigger percentage (74%) believe the media is biased.

I’m surely not surprised.

Just last week, CNN jumped on the air with “breaking news” that turned out to be bogus news.

Each and every day, you can’t channel surf through Fox and MSNBC without getting splashed by the verbal venom being spewed by talk show hosts who favor one party over the other.

And we’ve all suffered from the confusion created by media overpopulation—the websites and bloggers who do nothing but take a piece of news and twist it into opinion.

No one should expect that reporters don’t have opinions. We do. But good reporters put their own opinions and biases aside and make sure the information they provide is accurate and balanced.

Among my favorite memories of growing up are the vibrant debates that often took place at the dinner table. My mother and father frequently disagreed politically so it could get pretty interesting. They never left us out—instead, encouraging us to jump right in.

It taught valuable lessons: don’t be afraid to ask questions; listen to the other side; and, always, respect the opposing opinion, even when you don’t agree with it.

There’s been quite a fuss over the past few days about the President’s speech to the country’s school kids.
It was delivered today, at least to some of them.

Tonight, how might parents respond to the others who ask why their schools banned it?

I once heard Maryland’s former Lt. Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend repeat what’s apparently a favorite family phrase:

“Character is what happens after you fall.”

Certainly her uncle proved its truth.

Most politicians would never have survived the taint of a scandal like Chappaquiddick.

Ted Kennedy went on to become one of the country’s most influential, effective, and respected legislators.

I’ve wondered this month how different the health care reform effort might be going if Senator Kennedy had been more involved.

The country has lost a true public servant.