Great. Even more government regulations and mandates to drive up the cost of living in the state. Along with O'Malley's sales tax increase (mark my words, Marylanders will be paying a higher sales tax by the end of his term), this is just another burden on the backs of low- and middle-income Marylanders.

And breathing polluted air isn't? If we have skyrocketing health care costs because of rising occurences of lung diseases who is going to pay for that? Yes, the tax payer and even more so than possible regulations and mandates. I think your outlook is a little short sighted considering the immediate need to clean up our air. It's very obvious what the larger long term cost will be to the tax pater. Industry has had decades to do something about this problem and they may have forefeited their opporunity to government regulation.

InMoCo, your comments have very little to do with the actual substance of what is being proposed. It is not as if the mandates being put forth will clean up the air all that much. They will, at most, lead to a marginal reduction in pollution.

As the Baltimore Sun reported, the advocates of this plan even say it won't do too much to help reduce cancer caused by pollution: "The required upgrades, Heavner said, could prevent one additional case of cancer over the course of 70 years in 25,000 babies born statewide - or one in 16,000 in Baltimore." And there is some debate about whether this incredibly modest estimate is even correct.

So save the rhetoric and actually look at what this plan will do -- which is nothing.

I welcome the opportunity to clean our environment. Despite the repeated "nay-saying" drumbeat within these comments, every little bit done to alleviate the poisoning of our state adds-up to a cleaner, healthier Maryland.

The value of such is far more than a few dollars.

Instead of slamming Maryland vehicle owners with more regulations, why not go after tractor-trailer manufacturers and their owners? There's noting like getting a lung full of black smoke when you're stuck behind a tractor-trailer. And if we're going to clean up maryland air, can we prevent PA and WV drivers from entering our state's roadways with their exhaust-belching cars?

A Cleaner Maryland, by your logic we should simply ban driving and electrical production, then. After all, this would clean up the state dramatically. You don't seem to care about the economic impact, so this type of draconian proposal should have your support.

Of course, I hope the rest of us can see that every environmental regulation imposes an economic trade off. Some regulations are worth it, some are not. To blithely dismiss the notion that we should consider the economic costs of environmental regulation is a ridiculous position.

Wow, what a blistering editorial in today's Washington Post about O'Malley's "cavalier" and "dismissive" attitude toward the looming multi-billion dollar budget deficits facing Maryland. Looks like the Post is all over O'Malley before he even has a chance to get started. Shouldn't they give him a chance?

Things are starting to look pretty good for Ehrlich to win in a rematch with O'Malley, especially if the Post editorial is correct that O'Malley will likely turn Ehrlich's multi-billion dollar budget surplus into multi-billion dollar budget deficits.

Take the Post's editorial with a grain of salt. WaPo almost always sides with the Republicans.

I don't know about Ehrlich winning a rematch, but O'Malley will face some tough opposition in four years unless he gets state spending under control. Projected revenue will not keep up with projected spending unless something drastic is done. That means either O'Malley has to raise taxes (a bad idea -- Maryland is already too highly taxed) or stand up to his union buddies and cut spending. I don't know if he has the leadership abilities to pull off the miracle he needs.

Right above the Post editorial today, "Just get ready to pay more taxes in Maryland," is the statement that the Washiington Post is "an Independent newspaper." As an Independent voter, I can tell you, I've seen some independents and the Post editors are not among them. They are already beating the drum for tax increases --- right after the election. Why wasn't this editorial written before the election --alongside their 95% Democratic endorsements?
These editors have been to way too many cocktail parties where they have been discussing ways to ream the young, old, and working people of Maryland. These tax increases were on no campaign signs and in no campaign literature. A cut in the state sales tax would give people an incentive to do more shopping in Maryland and result in more tax revenue for our state.

Someone out to download O'Malley's website, save it, and trot it out in 4 years because he made some outrageous spending promises during the campaign, which obviously he can't meet with the looming budget deficits as described in today's Post editorial. Below is just a sample from O'Malley's website on his no doubt unmet promises on education:

As Maryland's next Governor, Martin O'Malley will:

Build New Schools and Reduce Class Size. Martin O'Malley will dedicate funds based on the recommendations of the Kopp Commission's study on school construction, allowing us to upgrade existing facilities, build new schools and, in the process, reduce class size.

Fully Fund the Thornton Education Plan. Martin O'Malley will fully fund the entire Thornton Commission plan to improve K-12 education across Maryland, reduce the achievement gap, reduce class sizes and recruit and retain the quality teachers our children deserve.

Increase Accountability and Make Sure Education Dollars Are Spent in the Classroom. Martin O'Malley will increase the State's accountability of precious education dollars to ensure that more money goes into the classroom and not into bureaucracy and paperwork.

Recruit and Retain the Best Teachers. Martin O'Malley will increase teacher pensions and incentive programs to keep our most effective, veteran teachers on staff. O'Malley will also recruit young teachers, keep them in their fields of expertise, and revitalize teacher mentoring programs.

Give Families Relief from Soaring Tuition Costs. Martin O'Malley will provide public colleges and universities with enough funds that they can keep tuition low for Maryland students. State colleges and universities must be accessible to our state's families, and O'Malley will work with college presidents to address funding issues.

Invest in Vocational and Technical Education and Life Long Education. Martin O'Malley believes that, in order for the State of Maryland to remain competitive in the 21st Century economy, we need to encourage and invest in life-long education and vocational and technical training for more Marylanders.

Promote Maryland's Community Colleges. Martin O'Malley will increase funding to Maryland's valuable community college system. Two years of college education have proven to double a person's lifetime earnings, and community colleges are crucial to creating the workforce that will drive Maryland forward in the coming decades.

Expand Access to College for Those Willing to Serve in Needed Areas. Martin O'Malley will open the doors of opportunity for deserving students and address Maryland's nursing shortage by awarding scholarships to students who agree to work as nurses for at least four years after graduating from college.

If the Post is so "liberal", why did they endorse Bob Ehrlich? If the Post is so "liberal", why did they endorse Republican candidates for county executive in Anne Arundel and Howard Counties? If the Post is so "liberal", then why are George Will and Bob Novak's comments published? For a "liberal" paper they seem to provide a lot space for conservative views.

The space provided for "conservative views" (or moderate, in my opinion), are buried in the editorial section of the Post.

The Post leaves the front page headlines open to liberal views and always makes attempts to insert liberal analyses on page 1. Howard Kurtz, Dan Balz, Bob Woodward are all good examples.

Thank god these Left wing hacks can "analyze" the news for me.

But is Woodward really "liberal"? Up until he released State of Denial and his revelation about Ford his coverage of Bush had been quite positive. His previous book about Bush was more positive. Even though the Post endorsed Kerry in 2004, if you read the endorsement, it was very lukewarm at best. Same for the NY Times.

The whole "liberal media" argument is outdated. Conservative views are well-represented in the mainstream media. Perhaps it was true in the past, but not today.

Even "liberal" online magazine Salon.com, which does cator to the left, has David Horowitz. The New Republic and Nation magazine also have a conservative columnist or too. The NY Times runs David Brooks and William Saffire's columns.

In fact I think that the media goes out of ways to accomodate Republicans of fears that people like you will call them "biased". It feeds this self-persecution complex that many conservatives have. Even though, up until this election cycle, they controlled all the government, they still acted like they were being "persecuted" and that everyone was "against" them. For some reasons the right has this victim/persecution complex even though they have had much power in the last few years.

So I don't buy the argument that the Post is a "liberal" paper. Maybe it was in the past, but a "liberal" paper wouldn't endorse Ehrlich or give space to George Will and Bob Novak. If it truly wanted to advance a "liberal" agenda, why is it including conservative voices?

Again the "liberal media" argument is outdated. There seem to be plenty conservative views aired out there. The reality is that you just seem upset that the media isn't saying that "Bush is good" 100% of the time.

NW DC, you are focusing solely on the editorial page to make your argument. Yes, the editors do run some conservative columnists. They also run some very liberal columnists. The editorial policy of the Post, however, is fairly liberal. Sure, the editors may every once in a while endorse a Republican or a conservative idea. I'll grant that the Post's editors aren't as liberal as the editors of the NY Times. However, the Post's editorials (which are distinct from their columns) are generally moderate to liberal (more along the line of the New Republic).

The reporting of the Post, however, is reliably liberal. Look at the smear jobs they did on Steele during the campaign and the kid gloves with which they handled Cardin. For example, heir "story" about Steele's "racist" backers was riddled with inaccuracies and was written solely, in my opinion, to trash Steele. However, when Cardin's campaign was found to have a high-level worker with truly racist and anti-Semitic views, the Post said little on it. That is just one example among many.

The bottom line is the Post has hit the nail on the head -- O'Malley won't be able to eliminate budget deficits and come close to meeting his outrageous spending campaign promises, unless he raises taxes alot or cuts spending alot. He probably won't do either, which is why the state will have a huge budget deficit for the next Governor in 2010 after O'Malley.

Here's the link to the Post editorial for anyone who missed it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/28/AR2006122801148.html

Well I can also think of the media that KKT recieved in her race against Ehrlich. The coverage that she was received from Lori Montgomery and other Post columnists was less than flattering. If the media were so "liberal" they would have been more positive in their portrayal of her.

Yes I will admit that the Post does endorse more Democrats than Republicans. But the "endorsements" given to Kerry and KKT were less than enthusiastic. In fact, if you read the actual endorsements, Kerry and KKT were probably better off without the Post's "support".

Again the "liberal media" argument, while it may have been true in the past, no longer is valid. I can think of how the media portrayed Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.

In regard to Clinton, during the whole eight years when the Republicans investigated every allegation, the Post and other media outlets gave credence to every random allegation against him. David Broder and many other supposedly "liberal" columnists at the Post were very critical of Clinton. They gave credence to every allegation, even when many of those claims were later proven to be meritless.

During the Bush/Gore campaign the Post and other media outlets portrayed Gore in a negative light. Even though Gore won one of the first debates, in the immediate spin afterward, they gave it to Bush. So if there was a "liberal agenda", they would not have spun it that way.

The Kerry campaign also received less than positive coverage from the "liberal media". The media gave plenty of credence to the Swift Boat veterans even though the majority of their claims against Kerry were bogus.

Thus, again, in all honesty, the "liberal media" argument is overhyped. There isn't this inherent bias "against conservativism" that many on the right claim. It's just part of the right-wing persecution complex. For some reason there is a segment of the right that wants to believe that they are all being unfairly "persecuted" even though they controlled the entire government up until this past election.

Finally I'll highlight an article in the Baltimore sun that examined how CNN and MSNBC, supposedly "liberal networks", were trying to become more like Fox.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/ideas/bal-id.cable24dec24,0,694639.story?coll=bal-ideas-headlines

So, again, if the media were so "liberal", then why would these "liberal networks" try to become like Fox? Again the whole "liberal media" argument is overstated and overblown.

Conservative views are well-presented in the media. When you have Fox News, talk radio, and conservative columnists even appearing in "liberal papers" like the Post, I don't see how one can claim persecution. That even Salon and the Nation, which are "liberal" publications, include the likes of David Horowitz indicates that the argument of the "liberal media" is overblown.

If the "liberal media" were trying so hard to advance the agenda of the Democratic Party, given how they covered Clinton, Gore and Kerry, they haven't been that succesful. And if the "liberal media" were so leaning toward the Democrats they wouldn't include conservativec columnists at all.

Well I can also think of the media that KKT recieved in her race against Ehrlich. The coverage that she was received from Lori Montgomery and other Post columnists was less than flattering. If the media were so "liberal" they would have been more positive in their portrayal of her.

Yes I will admit that the Post does endorse more Democrats than Republicans. But the "endorsements" given to Kerry and KKT were less than enthusiastic. In fact, if you read the actual endorsements, Kerry and KKT were probably better off without the Post's "support".

Again the "liberal media" argument, while it may have been true in the past, no longer is valid. I can think of how the media portrayed Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.

In regard to Clinton, during the whole eight years when the Republicans investigated every allegation, the Post and other media outlets gave credence to every random allegation against him. David Broder and many other supposedly "liberal" columnists at the Post were very critical of Clinton. They gave credence to every allegation, even when many of those claims were later proven to be meritless.

During the Bush/Gore campaign the Post and other media outlets portrayed Gore in a negative light. Even though Gore won one of the first debates, in the immediate spin afterward, they gave it to Bush. So if there was a "liberal agenda", they would not have spun it that way.

The Kerry campaign also received less than positive coverage from the "liberal media". The media gave plenty of credence to the Swift Boat veterans even though the majority of their claims against Kerry were bogus.

Thus, again, in all honesty, the "liberal media" argument is overhyped. There isn't this inherent bias "against conservativism" that many on the right claim. It's just part of the right-wing persecution complex. For some reason there is a segment of the right that wants to believe that they are all being unfairly "persecuted" even though they controlled the entire government up until this past election.

Finally I'll highlight an article in the Baltimore sun that examined how CNN and MSNBC, supposedly "liberal networks", were trying to become more like Fox.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/ideas/bal-id.cable24dec24,0,694639.story?coll=bal-ideas-headlines

So, again, if the media were so "liberal", then why would these "liberal networks" try to become like Fox? Again the whole "liberal media" argument is overstated and overblown.

Conservative views are well-presented in the media. When you have Fox News, talk radio, and conservative columnists even appearing in "liberal papers" like the Post, I don't see how one can claim persecution. That even Salon and the Nation, which are "liberal" publications, include the likes of David Horowitz indicates that the argument of the "liberal media" is overblown.

If the "liberal media" were trying so hard to advance the agenda of the Democratic Party, given how they covered Clinton, Gore and Kerry, they haven't been that succesful. And if the "liberal media" were so leaning toward the Democrats they wouldn't include conservativec columnists at all.

NW DC, I'm not claiming persecution. The media are quite diverse and there are a variety of conservative sources that balance the liberal drift of CNN, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc.

My point was that the Washington Post, even though it strives for some balance, is generally a liberal paper. I still think it's the best newspaper in the DC region and one of the best national newspapers, but it's clearly on the left side of the political spectrum (again, not as far left as the NY Times or the Baltimore Sun, though).

I don't see CNN as "liberal" per se--at least not any more. For again, if it had a Democratic agenda, the coverage that that network has provided has often been less than flattering to the Democratic Party.

I compare the NYT and Washington Post to Fox. Fox News is blatantly Republican despite its claim to be "fair and balanced". Roger Ailes, its CEO, has had numerous connections to the GOP.

I just don't find Democratic operatives all over the place at the Post, CNN, and the NYT. There isn't the left-wing equivalent of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity on any of those channels and in those papers. If the Post ran Michael Moore all the time, if CNN had a "Michael Moore show" on, maybe I'd be more inclined to agree.

Anyway, though, if these networks are as "liberal" as you claim and if they are, by extension, promoting the "Democratic agenda", their coverage has been ineffective in that goal. Quite frankly, if you really think about it, the Democrats are probably better off without that type of "support". For again, if you look at the coverage that the last two Democratic presidential campaigns received, it was less than flattering at times.

This is why I don't buy the "liberal media" argument any more. It seems to me now that the networks go out of their way to make sure that they aren't "biased".

NW DC, you seem to think that I'm saying these media outlets are pushing some sort of liberal or Democrat agenda. I never said that and I don't believe it (except, perhaps, the way Matt Mosk shamefully covered the Steele-Cardin race).

Instead, I think the editorial board of the Washington Post and the reporters for the Post, CNN, etc., hold liberal views. This affects the way they report the news. They may not mean to have it do so, and they certainly aren't out there thinking on how their reports will help the Democrats, but their bias slips into their reporting and colors it.

It's not a big conspiracy, it's just human nature at work.

Fair enough. I'm not saying that biases don't affect their reporting, but rather that I think they are sometimes overexagerrated.

The Post endorsed Democrats for almost every state legislative race and council seat in theie main distribution area--Montgomery, P.G., D.C. and Northern Va. Now they are calling for tax increases after, rather than before the election. They are effete liberals.

I love how the comments have gone totally off base from the original post - which was about cleaning up Maryland's air. Some of the posters are right - it's not a magic bullet and won't cure cancer (leave that to the burgeoning oncology biotech industry along the I-270 corridor).

But in the fight for cleaner air, every little bit helps. For those complaining about penalising vehicle owners - you should be the ones hit. Owning a vehicle is not a right, rather a luxury. Then you'll say, fine, then make public transport better. And you're right. The metro and light rail need to be significantly expanded and upgraded to get more cars off the road.

In the meant time, support measure to clean up our air, buy a hybrid and take advantage of the enormous tax breaks and rebates you get for doing so. Then you won't complain about penalising vehicle owners.

WCS, how elitist. Sure, owning a vehicle is not a right, but it is one of the best ways to move people out of poverty. For example, a study with welfare-to-work participants in L.A. showed that owning a car increased their liklihood of finding a job by 12%. There are a variety of other studies that show the same thing. So by making it more expensive to own a car, you also make it harder for those with low (or no) incomes to find good jobs.

And public transportation is simply not the answer for most people. Sure, for some people in the DC or Baltimore area, public transportation works fine. However, it is still inconvenient and very expensive (for both riders and taxpayers who heavily subsidize it) for most. And for people in western Maryland or the Eastern Shore, public transportation is out of the realm of possibility.

Air pollution has been declining for decades, even as people drive more. Imposing onerous burdens on low-income Marylanders to achieve basically no benefit in return is stupid public policy.

LOL at sheba! Good one!

I am surprised MK can read this blog with his head in the sand about global warming. Clean cars - not no cars - is the topic of this thread.

This is not stupid public policy - it is a wise way to revitalize America's struggling auto industry, relieve the Bay of the daily dose of toxins, help reduce illness in our state and contribute to saving the planet.

Let me guess, you're going to dispute this . . .

WCS and Tired - why don't you talk to the single mother of three who is working two minimum wage jobs as she drives her 1987 Toyota between them and back and forth to her kids staying with friends and family about why she needs to get rid of that polluter and get a nice new hybrid instead. Fricken nitwits. Look outside of Bethesda and get a clue.

Tired, I said nothing about global warming. In fact, it's not the topic of this issue. The debate is about forcing cars to have equipment to make negligible reductions in pollution.

As even its backers admit, this plan will do basically nothing to help reduce disease in Maryland. At the same time, it will increase the price of cars in the state. For the limousine liberals in Montgomery County who are paying $35,000 to $50,000 for a new Land Rover or BMW every two years, an extra $500 or $1000 added onto the price won't matter. For working class families, however, this will be a real hit.

There is no rationale to impose such a cost on drivers when the result will be basically nothing.

MK, the NY Times did an analysis last summer of this proposed legislation (which is law in 11 states, including California and New York) and found that it had no effect in the price of cars in those states.

Just figured you should know since your main argument against cleaner cars/air is that it would cost folks more money when they buy new cars. Not the case.

John, do you have a link to that report?

MK, I hope this link works...

The title of the article is "GREEN TECHNOLOGY; P What? PZEV's Are Unsung Heroes in the Push to Clean Up the Air" and it's from 30 Jul 06. It can be read at
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/automobiles/30PZEV.html?ei=5088&en=46dacd4be8c47717&ex=1311912000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

If the link doesn't work, google the title and the article is the second return.

An excerpt:
Because a PZEV [Practically Zero Emissions Vehicle] complies with tailpipe standards for a SULEV, or super ultra low emission vehicle, the exhaust can be as clean as that of many hybrids -- yet the cars do not incur the hybrid's price premium of several thousand dollars. PZEV's generally cost consumers no more than identical models that do not have the squeaky-clean certification, which are built for states that have not adopted California's rules, though they are estimated to cost automakers between $200 and $500 extra to produce. That money buys special parts like a steel gas tank, a catalytic converter with more precious metals inside, a larger trap for evaporative fumes and in some cases, an air injection system.

"...they are estimated to cost automakers between $200 and $500 extra to produce."

Anyone foolish enough to believe that the automakers don't pass along these costs? Please signify by shouting "Tax me more and give me less!"