Biology really is destiny

Print
PDF

By Marta Mossburg | 24 April 2012
First Published in The Baltimore Sun

We live in fascinating times. On the one hand, it is OK to detail the most intimate aspects of a woman's reproductive health in congressional testimony and to demand "free" birth control pills from employers and/or the government. It is also OK to label those who object to such public displays of personal choice and state-sponsored free love as leading a "war on women."
On the other hand, it is also OK for those who hew to the same ideology as that above to condemn a woman who chooses to raise her children for a living as someone who "never worked a day in her life."
Is this what the fight for equality has morphed into — the right to eliminate the repercussions of biology on someone else's dime and mock those who choose (what once was not a choice) to raise children?
It is as if being a fully realized woman in today's society hinges on the ability to have sex without consequences and children with outsourced child care — and as if our wombs are a mere accident of evolution, with no valid claims on our identity or life choices.
This lie is easy enough to believe prior to children and when you are not pregnant and the possibility of being so is just theory. Perhaps that is why it was so easy for Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke to go before Congress and discuss her and her friends' reproductive lives as if she were arguing the merits of arugula over tater tots in school lunches.
But as a mother who just gave birth to her third child, biology's pull on my personhood is tangible and dictates most parts of my life. For starters, I am exhausted all of the time. I'd love to take naps, but our boys and dogs need exercise and have no concept of personal space or deadlines, and our baby girl needs constant care. And then there is the reaction I elicited from those outside my family up until the Sunday before last: I was not a person, but a pregnant woman. Doors were opened, chairs pulled out, glasses of water brought without asking wherever I went. I appreciated those gestures and accepted them as a privilege in that stage of my life. I also very much appreciate the love and care our nanny gives to our children, and I could not work without her. But it will be a long time before my children are not omnipresent in my thoughts and in my handbag in the form of diapers, snacks, pacifiers and toy cars.
The odd thing is that even for those of us who believe that biology dictates destiny in no small part, and that raising children full-time is a valid life choice, it is still awkward to ask a new acquaintance if she "works outside the home." I would never ask a man that question. And why it should be embarrassing to ask a woman is still a partial mystery to me. I've asked a broad spectrum of friends with different political views how they feel about that issue to gauge whether I was alone in thinking that, and they all said they felt the same way — and didn't know why.
I think it is in part the result of a long acculturation process for those of us who grew up in middle-class homes where college was a given and success defined by the amount of money earned — most often by the father. Whereas men rarely have to make the choice between parenting and working, women do all the time, creating a state of constant cognitive dissonance where one's true desires (either to stay at home or to work full time outside the home) are in conflict with societal or familial expectations and the vision you had for your life as a younger woman.
Legislating free birth control doesn't eliminate this conflict. Neither does making fun of women who raise children full time, as Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen did of Ann Romney recently with her "never worked a day in her life" quip on CNN.
What they do is to try to artificially create clarity where none exists. That is a regular, exceedingly common response to uncertainty — as Nobel-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman writes in "Thinking, Fast and Slow" — but can lead to bad decisions.
That such tyrannical pronouncements about the proper role for women so often come from women is one of the ironies of our times.
Marta H. Mossburg is a fellow at the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. Her column appears regularly in The Baltimore Sun. Her email is This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

 

Debate over women's work ignores the complications of child-rearing and the maternal instinct

We live in fascinating times. On the one hand, it is OK to detail the most intimate aspects of a woman's reproductive health in congressional testimony and to demand "free" birth control pills from employers and/or the government. It is also OK to label those who object to such public displays of personal choice and state-sponsored free love as leading a "war on women."

Read more...

'Doomsday,' 'balance' and truth

Print
PDF

By Marta Mossburg | 11 April 2012
First Published in The Frederick News Post

As Daniel Kahneman writes in his intriguing 2011 book, "Thinking, Fast and Slow," people like easy answers. We also think more favorably about items and ideas based on the number of times they are repeated, with more mentions translating to a higher opinion. Facts, in other words, often play a minor supporting role in our decision-making process.
Because of those natural tendencies, rhetoric -- and the ability to get the media to pick up a particular phrase and repeat it -- plays a huge role in why certain ideas and policies win and others fail.
Democrats in Maryland implicitly understand this and are great at delivering phrases that reverberate for weeks and sometimes months and years. Think Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller's use of "doomsday" to describe a state budget balanced without tax increases. Google "Mike Miller 'doomsday' Maryland" and 677,000 responses pop up. (Remember, he introduced that description only about a month ago.) And think of Gov. Martin O'Malley's use of the word "balance" in almost every speech to describe his approach to taxes, the environment and other issues. A Google search of "O'Malley 'balance' Maryland" retrieves 1.75 million responses.
Can you think of a significant state Republican catchphrase? They often say, "It's a spending problem, not a revenue problem." Google "'spending problem, not a revenue problem' Maryland" and it garners 26,800 responses. This makes sense. A sentence is harder to quote than a word or a short phrase. Combined with the fact that Republicans often repeat Democrats' descriptions, the net effect is that they unwittingly validate their opponents' arguments.
Facts are on Republicans' side. According to newly released census data, tax collections in Maryland in the fourth quarter of 2011 are up 53 percent since the same time period in 2000. Nationally, tax collections are up 43 percent in the same time period. So, both here in Maryland and throughout the U.S., state governments are raking in money despite a massive recession. The problem is that in Maryland and many other states legislators repeatedly choose to spend more than the taxes collected.
Republicans love to dismiss the "liberal media" as the reason this message does not get out. Ironically, however, everyone seems to believe that description of journalists -- in part because numerous reports show reporters lean left. But I wonder if it doesn't have to do more with the fact that the phrase is easy to repeat and has been used millions of times in the press and in everyday conversations -- and as a result, has become true in people's minds irrespective of the studies behind it and whether it makes sense in a particular situation.
If the minority party -- and conservatives in general -- ever hope to change hearts and minds in this state, they need to stop blaming outside forces and rethink how to package their ideas as much as about the ideas themselves. Only then will a fiscally prudent world view have a chance of being heard.
--
Marta Mossburg is a senior fellow at the Maryland Public Policy Institute. She lives in Baltimore. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

As Daniel Kahneman writes in his intriguing 2011 book, "Thinking, Fast and Slow," people like easy answers. We also think more favorably about items and ideas based on the number of times they are repeated, with more mentions translating to a higher opinion. Facts, in other words, often play a minor supporting role in our decision-making process.

Read more...

General Assembly elevates the trivial, neglects pension reform

Print
PDF

By Marta Mossburg | 10 April 2012
First Published in The Baltimore Sun

Marta Mossburg writes that much more needs to be done to make Maryland's retirement system solvent
State legislators often prioritize important legislation the way kindergartners rank vegetables among the food groups.
They focus on media-friendly social legislation instead of structural reform requiring time and effort to understand and craft. Why, for example, did they pass gay marriage and a law regulating how long a child must face rearward in a car seat but not figure out the budget until the absolute last minute? And why didn't they spend time this year on how to pay the pensions of the 373,000 people in the state retirement system?
A big part of the problem is that very few of those in each chamber have owned a business — or more basically, understand math — as evidenced by budgets that continually outpace state revenue. It is a major problem that keeps getting worse, with tax policy looking each year more like an escalating game of Whac-A-Mole.
Electing representatives with more apt job experience is necessary but does not eliminate the need to address pressing financial issues like the management of the Maryland State Retirement and Pension System. A few get it. Del. Andrew Serafini, a Washington County Republican, is one of them. Mr. Serafini, a financial adviser, knows that if the pension system does not achieve the returns it sets for itself, taxpayers will be on the hook for shortfalls. Paying for those will make this year's alleged "doomsday" budget look like a lavish Vegas buffet for social programs and state agencies.
And we have a lot to worry about. For years, legislators have been underfunding the pension system and relying on rates of return that 401(k) holders and the state's own books show to be delusional. Barring needed reforms, properly funding the pension system would require new tax brackets for everyone — not just millionaires — in Maryland, as the system is less than 65 percent funded.
There are some bright spots. Reform passed last year requires state employees to work longer and contribute more for their benefits, a step legislatures around the country are taking to ensure the solvency of their state plans.
But a lot more needs to be done to make the system solvent for the long run. A method of funding retiree benefits that makes it legal to shortchange the system must be terminated.
Mr. Serafini pinpoints another issue ripe for change: investment management. He proposed outsourcing the duties of the chief investment officer (CIO) to a consultant. It makes sense. As he said, "Clearly, we don't have the skill set to manage some of these complex and intricate strategies. Our pay system is not consistent with the industry. It may be consistent with other states, but it means that we always will be the farm system for the big leagues or the place for those that cannot make it to the big leagues." The state's former CIO, Mansco Perry III, is a case in point. Under his leadership, the fund lost billions while he earned "performance" and "effectiveness" bonuses.
On top of that, the pension board is mainly filled with career bureaucrats and union officials with limited financial expertise, making it very unlikely they have the ability to really question pension allocation strategies, particular investments and fees. It shows. Maryland's performance is in the middle of the pack in relation to its peers and trailed overall markets. For example, over the past 10 years, Jeff Hooke of the Maryland Tax Education Foundation has shown, the state's investment performance lags its peers by about 1 percent annually, which translates to $3 billion in lost revenue over that period at the state's $37 billion fund. The state's performance is also significantly lower than large mutual funds, including the Vanguard Wellesley Income Fund and the John Hancock Strategic Income Fund.
Mr. Hooke, an investment banker, recommends indexing the portfolio to save money on Wall Street fees, ($1.5 billion over 10 years) and to guarantee an average investment return. But the real issue is performance.
State employees and retirees, who are banking on a steady stream of income in their later years, and taxpayers, who are responsible for their benefits, deserve a real debate about the best way to manage the money important to millions of lives. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue but a generational one. Our children shouldn't pay for false promises of today's politicians.
Marta H. Mossburg is a senior fellow at the Maryland Public Policy Institute and a fellow at the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. Her column appears regularly in The Baltimore Sun. Her email is This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Marta Mossburg writes that much more needs to be done to make Maryland's retirement system solvent

State legislators often prioritize important legislation the way kindergartners rank vegetables among the food groups.

Read more...

Crony capitalism rises in Annapolis

Print
PDF

By Marta Mossburg | 27 March 2012
First Published in The Baltimore Sun

One week after Maryland received a D- for corruption risk on a national report, legislators are poised to cement crony capitalism into the state code.
Allegedly designed to expedite major developments and create jobs, legislation supported by Gov.Martin O'Malleyoutlining rules for public-private partnerships passed the House on Monday. The amendments in HB 576 — which give public-private partnerships special legal status, and do it retroactively — show this legislation is about one project near and dear to the O'Malley administration: State Center.
As a refresher, the $1.5 billion taxpayer-financed project in Baltimore City is stalled due to a lawsuit by a group of downtown business owners who claim the state circumvented the competitive bidding process to choose developers. The state tried to dismiss the case and failed — and then, outrageously, countersued plaintiffs for $100 million and failed again. So far, the state has refused to provide documentation on the project as required by court order.
And this legislation, if it passes the Senate, means the state could avoid pesky due process and appeal directly to Maryland's Court of Special Appeals without having to let the case exhaust itself in circuit court.
Del. Maggie McIntosh, a Baltimore Democrat, said speeding up the legal process is necessary because, "Time is money when you are trying to get a business into Maryland."
But as Del. Luiz Simmons, Democrat of Montgomery County, said of the bill, "What we are about to do is to become legislators in a banana republic where they routinely interfere with the judicial process on behalf of special interests."
And they are not just any special interests but close allies of Governor O'Malley. A long list of political supporters would benefit from the State Center development, including lobbyist Sean Malone, Mr. O'Malley's labor commissioner during his time as mayor of Baltimore. He represents State Center LLC, as well as other organizations that stand to gain from this legislation, including East Baltimore Development Inc., the secretive, taxpayer-funded organization overseeing the haltingly slow redevelopment of land around Johns Hopkins Hospital.
The lobbyist's influence on the legislation was so strong that Mr. Simmons said he was told to "work it [his objections] out with Sean Malone."
Jon Laria, managing partner of Ballard Spahr's Baltimore office, development lawyer and member of Mr. O'Malley's gubernatorial transition team, is another person with a lot to gain from the project. He is counsel for State Center LLC and vice chair (with Ms. McIntosh as chair) of the governor's Task Force on Sustainable Growth and Wastewater Disposal. Cozy, isn't it?
Everyone knows having friends in high places is good for business, but should it allow supporters of Mr. O'Malley to have an entirely different set of rules?
Special interests winning favors is only one bad part of the legislation, however.
The Maryland State Bar Association objects to the retroactivity of the bill because it could invalidate contracts and conflict with other laws. Plaintiffs in the State Center case say that provision unfairly targets them. "This retroactive amendment is a transparent end run around the State Center case in the midst of discovery and prior to a trial on the merits," said Alan Rifkin, lead counsel.
It also would allow some of the biggest state projects to be exempted from procurement laws and make it impossible to find out how taxpayer dollars are being used through the Public Information Act. In addition, it would circumscribe decades of laws designed to ensure an open and transparent bidding process in a state already rife with pay-to-play scandals. Type Jack Johnson, Ulysses Currie and Thomas Bromwell into a web search engine for a few recent examples.
Worse, if adopted, it sets a terrible precedent for favoring development over the rule of law. What's to stop those who want to use eminent domain in the name of building a "sustainable, transit-oriented" development, for example, to also request and receive legislation for their projects? Very few people have the deep pockets of Orioles owner Peter Angelos, who is financing the State Center plaintiffs, to fight the government.
As Mr. Simmons said, "the O'Malley administration is sowing the seeds of corruption" and creating a "debacle waiting to happen" with this legislation. The only remaining question is whether state senators are such sycophants of our ambitious governor that they would trample the 99 percent of Marylanders whose rights are crushed by this bill.
Marta H. Mossburg is a senior fellow at the Maryland Public Policy Institute and a fellow at the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. Her column appears regularly in The Baltimore Sun. Her email is This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Public-private partnership bill designed to benefit State Center project and its politically connected allies

One week after Maryland received a D- for corruption risk on a national report, legislators are poised to cement crony capitalism into the state code.

Allegedly designed to expedite major developments and create jobs, legislation supported by Gov.Martin O'Malleyoutlining rules for public-private partnerships passed the House on Monday. The amendments in HB 576 — which give public-private partnerships special legal status, and do it retroactively — show this legislation is about one project near and dear to the O'Malley administration: State Center.

Read more...