Nonsensical VEIP decision

Great to see the depth of analytic thought by state lawmakers as well as the Sierra Club and its transportation representative, Lindsey Mendelson (“Wes Moore administration reverses course on Maryland vehicle emissions changes,” Feb. 21). Roughly 1 million cars registered in Maryland travel to VEIP stations each year under the biennial testing program. Assuming a 10-mile trip each way, that’s 20 million unnecessary miles driven each year wasting, conservatively, 800,000 gallons of gasoline and dumping about a million hours of vehicle emission pollutants (even cars that easily pass the emissions test emit some pollutants) into the air.

Why? So, ironically, the state can collect $14 to support its clean air programs! How about electronically billing me $14 every two years (if vehicle is less than 15 years old, for example, because my guess is the failure rate for 2005 and later models is quite low) instead of forcing a million Marylanders to make the unnecessary, heavily polluting trip each year? As for the disproportionate impact on low-income consumers of the now-cancelled Hogan administration proposal, the current process is horribly unfair to those who cannot afford a newer car but are forced to pay at least $450 in repairs (if your vehicle fails the test) to qualify for a two-year waiver or considerably much more (catalytic converter replacement costs are, conservatively, $1,000) to pass subsequent emissions tests.

— Jay Cooke, Woodstock

Protect lives of unborn

Under the recent headline, “Panel mulls abortion proposal” (Feb. 22), was a further explanation, in large type, that “House lawmakers hear bill to protect the right under Maryland constitution.”

I hope similar sympathetic language will be used in the future when The Baltimore Sun covers the efforts of those who seek to protect the lives of the unborn. There are always two lives involved in an abortion decision, and in every case of the unborn child, their lives are at stake, not just their health — mental or physical — as in the case of the mother. Your article featured no stories of mothers who are able to deliver healthy babies, but for economic or other reasons, chose to end their pregnancy. Instead, it prominently featured only the stories of pregnancies where the baby would not make it to term (as Planned Parenthood “urged” lawmakers who disagreed with the bill being proposed “to listen to”).

Also, your article stated that “just 1%” of abortions are performed at 21 weeks or more. In Maryland, that would mean more than 300 late term abortions were performed in 2020. I think it is appropriate that the number, not just the 1% statistic, be included when writing any article where that statistic is cited. The support for restrictions on the right to abortion, as opposed to “protecting” it, is much higher among women for later term pregnancies.

— Mary Jo Hofmann, Parkville

Older people can do the job

In her recent commentary, “Biden’s a great president. He should not run again” (Feb. 14), Michelle Goldberg says President Joe Biden has a lot to boast about and lists, for example, how he presided over record job creation and the lowest unemployment rate in over 50 years. But while she acknowledges he has been a “great president” and should be celebrated, she says he should not run again because he’s too old, that he will be “closer to 90 than 80 by the end of a second term,” and reminds her readers how hard it is to “watch him stumble over his words, a tendency that can’t be “entirely explained by his stutter.” In other words, 90 is too old to be effective. I have news for Goldberg and her readers. I am a labor arbitrator, and I am 90 years old, and I can still understand the issues brought before me and make decisions with the same confidence as I have done for my entire career. Unless, there is evidence that President Biden has lost the confidence that has allowed him to function as effectively as is shown by his record, his age would not and should not be a factor for the voters to consider.

— Edward J. Gutman, Baltimore

Changes for the Ravens

Lamar, Lamar, Lamar. What will Lamar Jackson do? What will the Ravens offer him? Coach John Harbaugh expresses his love for Lamar — so does the general manager — but when will people get fed up with this (“New Ravens offensive coordinator Todd Monken looks forward to working with Lamar Jackson’s ‘elite’ skill set,” Feb. 21)?

No doubt, Lamar Jackson is a first class player when healthy, but he is a first class pain in the butt now because he and the team can’t reach a money agreement. Leadership? Non-existent. He didn’t even go to Cincinnati to support the team for our playoff game.

With five games left in the season, Harbaugh and GM Eric DeCosta knew Lamar was hurt but didn’t bother to sign a backup quarterback, and sure enough we almost played the games with a fourth string backup down the stretch. Leadership from Harbaugh and DeCosta? Non-existent. Did they prepare the team for any possibility? No, all the eggs were in the Lamar basket, and he turned his back on his teammates. Harbaugh has a good in-season record because we have a very good team, but clock management is miserable, and our record in the playoffs is miserable. If we give Lamar all the money he wants, we get into the category of other teams who put all the eggs in one basket with no real chance to win a Super Bowl.

Let’s cut Harbaugh and put the franchise tag on Jackson then trade him and start building a future for the other players who could actually win.

— John L. Herman Jr., Lutherville