With No Argument, Shout Racism

With No Argument, Shout Racism

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

July 13, 2005

When losing an argument or debate, fall back on the old standard: cry racism to goad one's opponent into sheepishly backing off and accepting the "politically correct" stance. This tried and true tactic is actually tired and false where the Town of Herndon is concerned regarding the Planning Commission meeting it held Monday evening, July 11, attended by greater than 250 people to voice opinions about a potential day laborer site – a site supporters expect to be funded by citizen tax dollars.

To suggest racism is a wholly disingenuous argument. It is not racist to want safe streets, particularly when some of those streets are clogged with day laborers making passersby uncomfortable or even afraid for their safety. This is specifically so in front of the Alabama Drive 7-Eleven where day laborers congregate day after day. This less than kosher scenario has been playing out for more than four years. Parenthetically, some of these same day laborers live in neighborhoods where their residences are teeming with an abundance of people violating numerous zoning laws – but that’s another subject for another column.

It is not racist to want new immigrants to the United States to learn English – the language spoken by the majority of citizens. Knowledge of English will improve relations between cultural, ethnic and racial groups. Knowledge of English will help immigrants learn the laws of the United States and thus reduce conflicts with law enforcement – most of whom have greater challenges on the job when dealing with people for who English is not their first language.

In many cases public drunkenness has been an all too frequent problem for many from countries whose cultures do not object to drinking alcohol in public. This is a prime example of a lack of English creating deeper problems for the people not familiar with the laws in this country.

Local law enforcement is handcuffed as they are not permitted to arrest loiterers on private property without permission from the owner. Local law enforcement is unable to arrest those loitering on public property unless they are blocking the streets or sidewalks or inciting others to violence.

Worse yet, local law enforcement has their hands tied by the Federal Government and are not permitted to enforce Federal Immigration Law. Local law enforcement should be able to serve as agents of the federal authorities in order to reduce the numbers of illegal aliens from filtering over our borders, settling into communities across this nation, living lives under the radar screen in constant fear all the while milking and bilking the system for all its worth.

Most of all, it is neither racist nor xenophobic to expect that people immigrating to the United States would do so legally. That is the crux of this entire debate. Were all immigrants here legally, there would be little reason for a day laborer site. Greater than 50 percent of the laborers are in the United States illegally. Most day laborers do backbreaking work for little financial reward, but to whom can they complain, as many are in this country illegally. Sure they are exploited in some cases, as their supporters aver, but by being here illegally, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Whenever I am confronted by supporters of open borders, the ”blame America first” crowd, or my liberal co-religionists reminding me that we were immigrants once, it is painfully clear to me that they do not get it. They do not see the bigger picture and the dangers we currently face in this era of Islamo-fascist-terrorism. This is not the 1890s, nor any time through the 1920s when quotas were imposed upon immigrants from particular countries. During the period circa 1890-1920 when foreigners wished to emigrate to the United States – as millions of Jews and Catholics from Greece, Italy, Hungary, Poland and Russia did – they did so legally – standing in line – literally so, at Ellis Island.

If potential émigrés failed a health exam for TB or any myriad diseases, they were put on boats and sent back to their country of origin. Newcomers to the United States oftentimes were required to show proof of sponsorship and promise of employment, otherwise, they too could be returned to their country of origin. Were there shouts of racism and xenophobia? Hardly.

Truth be told, what shouts there were, could barely be understood as they were in Yiddish, Greek, Italian, Russian, Polish or some other Slavic or southern or eastern European language. The difference between the 1890s and the 1990s was the desire of new immigrants to learn English, get jobs and become American citizens – many volunteering for military service before the ink dried on their citizenship papers. No welfare could be applied for. No English as a Second Language existed in the classrooms.

Today illegal immigrants are receiving welfare benefits they are not entitled to; health care they are not entitled to; placements in schools for their children they are not entitled to and should anyone object or tell these people they are breaking the law, the objectors are shouted down and called racists and xenophobes. Tax dollars are being spent at the expense of citizen and legal immigrant benefits and rights.

Not one dime of public money – the tax dollars of those of us here as citizens or legal immigrants – should be spent encouraging illegal behavior to not only continue but to flourish. Those residents of Herndon, Sterling and other nearby communities are neither racist nor xenophobic. These are hardworking people who want smaller government, strong national defense, safe schools for their children, safe streets, and good, law abiding neighbors.

This is a simple matter of common sense, which assuredly is far from common these days. Anyone who has snuck into the United States illegally is a lawbreaker. To defend their being here or to encourage more people to break the laws of the United States by proposing the use of tax dollars to help those people who have arrived here illegally is a case of aiding and abetting.

This is simple enough that even the mayor of Herndon, Michael O’ Reilly, a practicing attorney, should not be confused. He was recently quoted saying “There’s probably no other issue facing local governments that is more complicated than day laborer sites. It’s very complex and it brings out a lot of emotion in people.”

This issue should be neither “complicated” nor “complex,” as O’ Reilly stated. First weed out the people here illegally and return them to their country of origin – never to be permitted reentry as they are lawbreakers. Then, and only then, can the proposal of a day laborer site, one that includes English classes and citizenship classes, be considered. Until that time, the proposed $170,000 to be utilized for such a project should be used to hire more teachers and reduce the already burgeoning class sizes in our schools.

Mayor O’ Reilly further stated “I know this issue gives people a platform to scream and shout and show a lot of hatred, and that’s unfortunate.”

What is truly unfortunate is that people feel the need to scream and shout – not at those here illegally – but at their elected officials. Officials sworn to uphold the law, which by caving into fear of being labeled a racist or xenophobe, have caused them to behave in an unlawful manner by aiding and abetting those who have already committed criminal acts by their mere presence in this country.

As for the “hatred” the mayor speaks of, that is just another label put upon those people who expect the law to be obeyed by everyone – not just those who arrived at Plymouth Rock or Ellis Island, but even by the new wave of immigrants. They are not hated, but their lawbreaking ways are. There are plenty of people from South Korea, Peru, Ghana and myriad other nations who have stood in the proverbial line, waited their turn and are hard working legal immigrants.

Having lived in Sterling and worked in Herndon for several years and having many friends there, Herndon is not the place to hang the racist and xenophobia labels. They, as most Americans simply want all residents to play by the rules. Herndon is simply a microcosm of the larger illegal alien issue plaguing this great nation as a whole. It is an issue that must be dealt with honestly and not by calling people racist and xenophobic for wanting those who wish to make the United States their home do so by following the law of the land – this land.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

If Soros Buys, I Say Good-Bye

If Soros Buys, I Say Good-Bye

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

June 29, 2005

I, like my fellow-Republican acquaintances Tom Davis of Virginia and John Sweeney of New York, cringe at the thought of left-wing extremist George Soros coming within a country mile of the ownership of the Washington Nationals.

However, I am not as disingenuous as Davis as to suggest that “I don’t think I’ll be getting good season tickets if he gets the team,” Davis was quoted as saying in Sally Jenkins’ Wednesday, June 29 commentary “Taking Aim At Soros Is Hardly Politic.” This is because I would put my money where my mouth is – and not give Soros one dime of my money for him to spend on his extremist causes. Davis, however, would still support Soros, and thus by extension, Soros’ left-wing projects.

While I don’t approve of a Soros-owned Nationals – or anything else for that matter – I don’t begrudge him the right to own the team or anything else, for that matter, thus agreeing with Jenkins. I disagree with Jenkins when she said “I don’t much care about Soros, and I don’t care at all which rich guy gets the privilege of spending $400 million… on the Nats.”

Well I do care about Soros and about who may own the Nationals. Soros is too liberal and he does advocate for legalized/decriminalized marijuana, a needle exchange program for drug users/addicts, open borders and a whole host of other beliefs I do not subscribe to.

As a lifelong New York Mets fan, much to Yankee fan Sweeney’s chagrin, I eagerly awaited baseball’s return to our nation’s capital – especially since the Nationals are a rival National League East team who will battle the Mets throughout the season. I have already been out to RFK to see the Nationals take on the Mets as well as other teams and have tickets to continue doing likewise during the summer.

But my financial support of the Nationals will cease under the ownership of Soros and would recommend to others who share my principals to do likewise. Such a threat, which would become a promise should Major League Baseball decide to “award” the team to Soros, could cost the team more in the long run. Soros has the right to own the team, as much as I and other current patrons have a right to withhold financial support.

As for Jenkins’ accusation of Davis’ xenophobia, it is somewhat over the top. Davis is no more xenophobic for not wanting Soros as owner of the Nationals than he is anti-Semitic for supporting a Fred Malek ownership. I, for one would just as soon boycott a Malek-owned team as I would a Soros-owned team. I am an active Jewish Republican and have had a number of one-on-one conversations with Davis and don’t believe him to be xenophobic or anti-Semitic.

Major League Baseball will make the decision regarding ownership of the Nationals. Hopefully it will be a decision its fans can live with. See you at the ballpark – maybe.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

Francisco's Wild Pitch Not a Hit with Fans

Francisco’s Wild Pitch Not a Hit with Fans

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

September 14, 2004

Texas Rangers rookie pitcher Frank Francisco uncorked a pitch so wild in the Monday night September 13 game against the host Oakland Athletics, that it went nowhere near another player. In fact, at the time, Francisco was not even in the game, nor was his missile a baseball.

In his best impression of college basketball coach Bobby Knight, Francisco launched a folding chair into the stands alongside the Rangers bullpen. The chair ricocheted off one fan before breaking the nose of a female fan. A day later, Francisco found himself under arrest for aggravated assault. He was subsequently released on $15,000 bond.

Francisco, a right-handed reliever, had already pitched – and ineffectively at that – yielding an earned run on one hit and two walks in the seventh inning and one batter in the eighth. But during the ninth inning, after the Rangers had tied the game at five apiece a melee ensued that pitted Oakland fans against Texas ballplayers.

Initially, Rangers reliever Doug Brocail had been engaged in verbal jousting with A’s fans. As the oral combat intensified, Brocail ultimately had to be restrained by his teammates. At that point Francisco, who just turned 25 on September 11, and Rookie of the Month for August, took matters into his own hands by unleashing the four-legged projectile.

Regardless of the taunting and verbal abuse thrust upon players by unruly fans, there is no excuse for players to retaliate by physically assaulting the paying customers. Make no mistake; if fans are abusive, security has a responsibility to eject them from the stadium at once. Children do not need to be subjected to salty language and abusive behavior from fellow fans. If security must be increased, so be it. If fans are unruly due to an excess of adult beverages, the stadium authority should consider eliminating beer from the menu. If fans can’t do without beer for the duration of a baseball game, they should stay home where they would save about $5 a brew.

As for the more serious issue at hand – that of rookie pitcher Frank Francisco and his temper – his penalty should be severe and send the appropriate message to him and the rest of the league. Francisco should be suspended from the game for one full season – without pay. That pay should be given to the injured parties as compensation. If there are lawsuits, Francisco should be responsible for covering all costs. If charges are to be pressed, and they ought to be, Francisco should be punished to the fullest extent allowed by law.

The message sent is that this behavior is unacceptable and the players must rise above it. Whether or not they want to be, and Charles Barkley notwithstanding, professional athletes are role models.

For those who object to such a stringent punishment, remember, a crime has been committed and restitution must be made. Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig and the Texas Rangers organization should present a unified stance on this issue letting Francisco know that he is responsible for his actions and they are indefensible.

The same type of stringent punishment must be meted out should similar actions be perpetrated by athletes in other professional sports. If similar situations occur under the auspices of the NCAA or other amateur sports leagues, such players should lose scholarships and or eligibility. Athletes need to know that they are neither above their game nor above the law.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Alexandria, VA.

Flushing Out the Johns

Flushing Out the Johns

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

July 7, 2004

Anyone surprised by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry’s (MA) selection of Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) as the senior John’s running mate for the 2004 race for the White House has undoubtedly been cloistered in a cave in Outer Mongolia or working for the New York Post.

Another Pretty Face?

On its face – Edward’s face – this looks to be a smart choice, as myriad news agencies have said Edwards will appeal to women and young voters. Hmm – is this the liberal media taking a sexist approach by suggesting women will vote for the Johns because Edwards is a pretty face? Where is the NOW gang and other feminists decrying this suggestion? Where is their outrage?

It is preferable to dig deeper than one’s looks when determining who will chart the course for the future of this great nation. Sure, Sen. Edwards has a youthful appearance (age 51), and yes, he is charismatic and smart – North Carolina State University undergraduate and University of North Carolina School of Law. But, as with Sen. Kerry, who served his country in Vietnam, it is important to study what the two Johns have done while in the US Senate.

Both men supported the current military actions in Iraq, but neither voted for the $87 billion in supplemental funding. Genuine concern has been raised regarding the fitness of the two Johns to properly arm and defend the United States during a time of war. Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of liberal stalwart and former Mayor of New York City, Edward I. Koch. “I do not agree with President Bush on a single major, controversial, domestic issue, whether it's tax reductions or health care. But he has been superb both on the war on terror and on Israel. That is why I am voting for him. I don't believe the Democrats have the stomach for the fight against international terrorism.”

Shalom Senators

Koch continued, saying, “In my book, the three presidents who have been the most stalwart friends of Israel are, in order, George W. Bush (43, as they call him, not 41), Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. … John Kerry conveyed his lack of knowledge on the subject of Israel when he stated that he would on election appoint either former president Jimmy Carter or former Secretary of State James Baker, both hostile to Israel, as his representative to the Mideast negotiations.”

In addition to Kerry’s lack of knowledge as aptly described by Koch, is Edwards’ clear display of ignorance in 1998 as quoted in Charles Peters’ article “Tilting at Windmills,” that appeared in Washington Monthly in June 2003.

“One evening while he was campaigning for the Senate in North Carolina, Edwards was faced with a choice of several events he might attend. An advance man suggested, ‘Maybe we ought to go to the reception for Leah Rabin’ Edwards responded, ‘Who’s she?’ ‘Yitzhak Rabin’s widow,’ replied the aide. ‘Who was he?’ asked Edwards.”

Additionally, in none of the 74 bills Edwards sponsored since joining the Senate in 1999 has included language regarding Israel or the Jewish community. Edwards also voted against bills funding aid to Israel in Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001.

Pocket Picking Liberals                                                          

The two Johns have called for the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, are against the repeal of the “death tax,” have already stated they would raise the taxes on capital gains and reinstate the dividend taxes. Corporate America will suffer at the hands of the two Johns, ultimately forcing people to lose jobs. As increased taxes and greater regulation puts a stranglehold on American corporations they will find more ways to cut costs – exporting jobs and cutting American payrolls is just one example.

Both senators support abortion rights, although Kerry recently said he believes life begins at conception and that he personally opposes the life-ending procedure. Yet, he and Edwards voted against the ban on procedure commonly known as partial birth abortion. The two senators are ideological soul mates. Take the word of the non-partisan National Journal, having rated John Kerry the most liberal US Senator and John Edwards the fourth most liberal US Senator. That’s only a little bit surprising considering their main competitions are Senators Edward Kennedy (MA), Barbara Boxer (CA), Russ Feingold (WI), Barbara Mikulski (MD) and Charles Schumer (NY). This is the most liberal ticket since George McGovern chose Sergeant Shriver as a running mate in 1972. The end result? Richard M. Nixon trounced McGovern 49 states to one – McGovern winning the typically liberal Massachusetts and not even his home state of South Dakota.

Absent-minded Senators

While running first and fourth in the liberal category, Kerry and Edwards run first and second, respectively, in attendance. More accurately, lack of attendance, as Kerry has missed the most votes this year with Edwards missing the second most votes. Kerry has already undergone scrutiny from his home state of Massachusetts as several lawmakers have called for the junior senator to resign his seat in order to fill it with a working and voting senator. And when asked about her working experience with the senior senator from North Carolina, Elizabeth Dole (R), the junior senator from the Tar Heel State replied that having only been a colleague of Edwards’ for one year, it’s hard to evaluate since he is so often absent.

Kerry on Edwards

If the two senators are so ideologically matched, save for Kerry opposing the death penalty and Edwards supporting it, what is the point of having Edwards on the ticket? Aside from Edwards’ folksy charm going up against Vice President Dick Cheney’s appearance of quiet brooding, which will only be exhibited in one face to face debate on October 5.

Will Edwards bring the South to the Democratic column on Election Day?

Not according to Kerry, who in February of this year said, “Edwards says he’s the only one who can win states in the South… He can’t win his own state.”

Does the freshman senator bring experience to the table?

Not according to Kerry, again commenting this year, when he said of Edwards, “In the Senate four years – and that is the full extent of public life – no international experience, no military experience…”

“Mr. Edwards has spent only a few years in public life. When he departs from a stump speech and discusses domestic issues or – particularly – foreign affairs, his lack of experience shows,” said Kerry earlier this year.

There’s no need to listen to Republican rhetoric when John Kerry’s words on his choice for vice president speak volumes.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

Mourning in America

Mourning in America

By Sanford D. Horn

June 5, 2004

I cast my first ballot in 1984 when I voted for President Ronald Reagan, the same year I turned 18. I couldn’t wait to vote. On my birthday I went to town hall in Springfield, NJ registered to vote and applied for an absentee ballot as I would be a freshman attending the University of Maryland that fall, where I joined the College Republicans and volunteered for the Reagan reelection campaign.

I even volunteered for the previous presidential campaign in 1980 when I was not even old enough to vote. I took pride, at age 14, to be able to tell people that my father, a candidate for Town Council that year, and one of my political heroes, appeared on the same ballot with Reagan.

I also count President Reagan among my political heroes. The Great Communicator restored dignity and pride in being an American following the malaise that was the Carter administration featuring 20-plus percent interest rates, over 10 percent unemployment and the Iranian hostage crisis. Ronald Reagan won the 1980 election in a landslide over Carter saying it would be “morning in America again,” and that the United States was a “shinning city upon a hill.” Reagan, outspoken, honest, dignified and principled also restored respect to the office of president and respectability to the presidency.

During the 1984 reelection campaign President Reagan exhibited his brilliant sense of humor during a specifically memorable moment in a debate with his Democratic opponent former Vice President Walter Mondale. The President was asked if age would be an issue during the campaign – referring to his age, 73, at the time. Reagan quipped he wouldn’t make his opponent’s youth and inexperience an issue, to the roars from the audience.

Reagan exhibited that same sense of humor following the assassination attempt made on him just over two months after taking office when he asked the doctors at the hospital if they were all Republicans. He awoke to tell his wife Nancy, “I forgot to duck.”

A brilliant orator, Reagan, a former president of the Screen Actors Guild, appeared in 53 motion pictures, perhaps most notably as George Gipp where he uttered the now famous, “win just one for the Gipper.” The onetime Democrat had decided to become a Republican when he said the party had left him and not the other way around. He realized high tax rates would not be the way fix America’s economic crises through personal experiences as an actor when his tax rate reached 90 percent. Why would anyone work for 10 cents on the dollar, he wondered. As president, Reagan oversaw the reduction of the top tax rate from above 70 percent to 28 percent.

An Army Captain from 1941-45, President Reagan oversaw the rebuilding of the United States’ military and restored pride in the wearing of the uniform. Thanks to Ronald Reagan the United States emerged victorious from the Cold War with nary a shot fired, in spite of referring to the Soviet Union as “the Evil Empire,” much to the chagrin of his liberal detractors.

President Reagan boldly stood in front of the Berlin Wall and implored Soviet ruler “Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall,” when Reagan’s advisors strongly suggested he not offend his Soviet counterpart with such strong language. The wall soon came tumbling down as did the threat of Communism.

Considered the Father of the Modern Conservative Movement, Reagan received the baton from Mr. Republican himself, the late Arizona Senator Barry M. Goldwater, another of my political heroes, and someone I had the privilege to meet and interview.

President Ronald Reagan displayed the indomitable American spirit with his good natured ness, fine sense of humor, appreciation for his nation’s history, regard for loyalty, strong leadership qualities, depth of character and desire to make America a greater place for future generations to enjoy. Like him or dislike him, when he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan enjoyed the highest popularity of any American president.

Although President Reagan suffered for the past decade with the horrors of Alzheimer’s disease, an incalculable amount of credit must go to Nancy Reagan, his wife since 1952 for standing by her husband’s side and taking care of him. At 93, President Reagan lived longer than any other American President. Quoting Ronald Reagan, “even when you’re prepared, you’re still shocked when someone dies.”

G-d Bless Ronald Reagan and G-d Bless the United States of America.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

VA Budget - A Taxing Crisis

VA Budget – A Taxing Crisis

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

April 7, 2004

In responding to an e-mailed survey from a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, my thoughts turned to the quandary facing that body, and the Senate and the Governor – that of the budget. The survey was riddled with loaded questions apparently designed to make someone feel good about a tax increase and assuage a conflicted conscience about raising them.

The problem is not the need to raise taxes versus the ability to provide services to the people. The problem is the ability to better spend the dollars that are already being extracted by Richmond. The tax structure, as Del. Thomas Davis Rust (R-Fairfax) has said many times before, is the problem. We are no longer an agrarian economy in this Commonwealth. The taxing structure needs an overhaul. Pork barrel projects need to be stripped away and revenues coming to Richmond need to be allocated in a more responsible fashion. 

Should the tax on food in supermarkets be completely eliminated, people would spend that amount plus more on food when grocery shopping over the course of a year. That additional spending would increase the coffers of the supermarket chains as well as the food production companies, etc. With the increased revenues of those companies, they in turn would pay more dollars in taxes, but not a higher rate of taxes. Perhaps there would be a zero sum gain, but chances are, the revenue of the Commonwealth would increase. Put more money in individuals' pockets, they will be more inclined to spend it, thus raising revenues of the companies producing the goods and services used by Virginia residents and in turn raising the revenue of the Commonwealth. Corporate Virginia would pay more in tax dollars without a tax percentage increase and they would still reap the benefits of tax reductions to individual consumers because they would experience a spike in their revenues.

The same would be true by eliminating the numerous tax exemptions enjoyed by many corporations in Virginia. There are more consumers than there are corporations. By lowering the taxes of individual Virginians they will ultimately spend more, thus raising the revenues of the corporations who lost those tax exemptions. Again, they would pay more in tax dollars but not due to a tax rate increase. Corporate Virginia's only tax increase would be the elimination of the exemptions.

The key is the responsibility the members of the Virginia House and Senate are taxed with. They have been elected to represent the citizenry. They should not go to the citizenry and ask them to do their work for them via potential referenda. Any member of the legislature who thinks referenda are the answer should be voted out of office for not doing their job. Hard decisions must be made regarding where the money must go and who will pay it and how it will be paid. It's time the legislature became accountable for the tasks they were hired/elected to do. If they can't handle that responsibility, they should step aside for someone willing to do just that.

Many of the proposals in House Bill 5018 are sound, but some are questionable. Elimination of the estate tax is a wise move, one that the federal government ought to emulate. I've already expressed my support for the reduction of the tax on food, but would like to see it eliminated completely. My home state of NJ neither taxes food nor clothing for example. Raising the personal exemptions is also a good move as it will put more money back where it belongs – in the hands of those who send it to Richmond in the first place. Raising the filing threshold is also a good move.

Playing with the age deduction, on the other hand, with a means test, gets tricky. Who determines such means? Upon what will it be based? Net worth? Will that include land and property? Will that be based solely upon income? Will it be weighted to give a greater deduction to people living in more costly parts of the Commonwealth such as Alexandria and Fairfax County while giving a smaller deduction to those residing in the southwest corner of Virginia? Certainly there will be a legislative impasse on this issue for the same reason there are regional squabbles over how much money goes from Northern Virginia to Richmond for the purpose of funding less affluent portions of Virginia. A member of the legislature from the southwest supporting such a plan would be voted out in a country minute as would a member from Northern Virginia voting against such a measure, thus the standoff.

Raising the sales tax half a cent is only beneficial if the money stays where it is raised – and that needs to be guaranteed. If not, forget it. Raising the cigarette tax is only beneficial if all that tax revenue is earmarked for health-related concerns. While not a smoker, I object to raising the cigarette tax so prohibitively in order to coerce people from using a legal product. Tobacco growers and cigarette companies have the legal right to exist and make livings. Such a tax is regressive and will only hurt the poor, driving a deeper rift between the alleged haves and have nots. A modest increase in the cigarette tax is fine, again only if earmarked for health-related concerns.

Personal and legislative responsibility remains the keys to solving this budgetary crisis. Eliminate the boondoggles, pork barrel projects and restructuring the taxing system are the first paths to take down this long, twisted road toward continued solvency. Those who cannot handle the tasks at hand should step aside for those willing to make the hard decisions.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria. He is also a member of the Alexandria Public Records Advisory Commission.

Buy Me Some Sushi and Cracker Jacks?

Buy Me Some Sushi and Cracker Jacks?

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

March 30, 2004

The alarm went off at five in the Blessed a.m. My eyes actually opened at 5:09 in time to see the first pitch thrown in the first game of the regular season following the first error committed – fumbling around in search of the remote in order to watch the Tampa Bay Devil Rays take on the New York Yankees.

Thus began the 2004 Major League Baseball season in the dead of night under the cover of darkness. In the Aloha State, baseball fans could have caught the season opener shortly after the conclusion of their late evening news instead of falling asleep to some grade-z movie on some innocuous cable station.

While Mickey Mantle’s in New York City served lox and bagels as part of its pre-sunrise game’s menu, right-handed pitcher Victor Zambrano of the Devil Rays served up the first pitch of the new season to Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter – at the Tokyo Dome in Japan. This is just plain wrong on so many levels.

I’m no fan of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, yet on this day, even in my sleepy, semi-conscious state, I could root no harder against the team America loves to hate – the Yankees. After all, I have been a New York Mets fan for over 30 years and to root for the Yankees is sacrilegious. So four batters into the game – before the first cock-a-doodle-do – when Jason Giambi slammed a two-run home run over the leftfield fence giving the hated Yankees a 2-0 lead, I thought, “what a waste of a sacrifice of much-needed sleep just to see the Yankees win again.”

Naturally, I began thinking of the many things that this specific game represented in what is wrong with what used to be America’s pastime – as well as some much needed hot tea and breakfast.

Opening Day of Major League Baseball used to be a glorious tradition – summoning spring from the south, returning it to the north to take the chill off the days of early April even on days when some games could have been played with snowballs instead of baseballs.

Opening Day of Major League Baseball meant a Monday afternoon game in Cincinnati featuring the Reds, nee Redlegs, the game’s oldest team. Such a game should still be the season opener where the Reds host either the Chicago Cubs or Pittsburgh Pirates, two of the league’s other oldest teams and National League Central Division rivals to the Reds. Not an American League contest featuring a team with an over $200 million payroll (not that there’s anything wrong with that – I’m a capitalist, after all) and a team that has never finished out of last place.

That leads to another problem in baseball – three divisions. There are three divisions in each league because there are too many teams in baseball. When a Major League pitcher is considered good with a 3.98 ERA (Earned Run Average for the uninitiated), Pedro Martinez notwithstanding, there’s something wrong. The talent pool in the sport has become too shallow with the addition of so many teams over the past decade.

Major League Baseball has 30 teams which lead to the three division system and the advent of an extra layer of playoffs with the birth of the wild card. This is a concept used in the National Football League which will only lead down the slippery slope to turning baseball into the National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League where everyone except the Washington Wizards and New York Rangers can make the playoffs from their respective sports.

On the other hand, when Major League Baseball talked about contraction during the past two seasons, the small market Minnesota Twins proved why they should not have been on the potential chopping block by winning the Central Division. They have existed in the Twin Cities for more than 40 years and have a tradition that dates back to their days as the first Washington Senators.

Contraction would, however, help to solve some of the talent pool problems with the elimination of two teams. I would drop the Florida Marlins and the Tampa Bay Devil Rays from the league. Two World Series championships notwithstanding, the Marlins are not a storied franchise, and after the first championship the ownership gutted the team for economic purposes turning them into a laughing stock for several years. The D-Rays have been perennial basement dwellers with no hope of rising above mediocrity, Lou Piniella or no Lou Piniella. Beside, baseball should not be played in Florida after April 1.

After eliminating the two Florida teams, return the Milwaukee Brewers to the American League where they started following their one-year stint as the Seattle Pilots. (Trivia: What one season did the Pilots exist? Name the only player to play for both the Pilots and the Seattle Mariners.) There are those who think the Brewers should remain in the National League because of the loss of the Braves to Atlanta in the 1960s, but for the purpose of having balanced leagues, this would work better.

Additionally, the Montreal Expos should be moved to Washington, DC. Our nation’s capital has suffered far too long with losing franchises in the Capitals hockey team, the Wizards and the long commute to Baltimore to see the Orioles. Make no mistake – Camden Yards is a great venue to see a ballgame, and the Inner Harbor is a fine place to eat and see an outdoor concert, but the nation’s capital is incomplete without a baseball team. The Expos barely draw enough fans to field a team of their own. They haven’t had an English-speaking television venue in years and the French version barely broadcasts enough games for anyone to care. Really now, who wants to watch baseball in French?

I’m such fan of the game I would watch winter baseball broadcast on the Spanish language channels when I was growing up.

While restoring some dignity to Washington with a baseball team, let’s also take care of a few other troubling details. Blow up those domed stadiums. Tear out the artificial turf still remaining in those venues that haven’t gotten the message yet – grass has gone in Busch Stadium where the St. Louis Cardinals play, in Kaufman Stadium where the Kansas City Royals call home and the new Philadelphia Phillies locale Citizens Bank Park is a turf-free zone.

While we’re at it, get those lights out of Wrigley Field and stop this Designated Hitter nonsense. Since 1973 when Ron Blomberg stepped to the plate for the New York Yankees as Major League Baseball’s first designated hitter, the game has suffered. A DH is not a complete player and should not be eligible for the Hall of Fame. Pitchers should learn how to bat, step up to the plate and take their swings. If pitchers knew they had to take their turn at bat, they might be less inclined to throw at opposing batters.

And while on the subject of the Yankees, getting back to that alleged opening morning affair with the Devil Rays, two more thoughts – why were the Yankees wearing their home pinstripes when they were treated as the visiting team and whose brilliant idea was it to turn the uniforms of both teams into billboards? Is nothing sacred? The Yankees don’t even put their players’ names on their uniforms. Was Major League Baseball trying to make the teams look the Bad News Bears and have the uniforms sponsored by Chico’s Bail Bonds? What next – the Softer Side of Sears sponsoring second base? It’s just wrong. And to top it off, after all their globetrotting the Yanks and D-Rays had to return to Florida for more exhibition games.

No, no. I’m a baseball traditionalist, for which I give my father credit. This is the same man who, a former Brooklyn Dodgers fan now a Mets fan, claims not to recognize teams west of the Mississippi River. Thank you dad. Now I need a nap. Oh, by the way, the only good thing about that first game between the Yanks and the D-Rays, the team from Tampa Bay took the Bronx Bombers to the woodshed 8-3.

Trivia answers: 1969 and Diego Segui.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.