Women & Girls Fund’s 15th Annual Grants & Awards Luncheon

Share

Representatives from sixteen Mid-Shore non-profits will accept checks totaling $43,259 at the Women & Girls Fund’s 15th Annual Grants & Awards Luncheon on April 24. That will bring the Fund’s overall grant total to $507,021.51, awarded to 82 organizations whose programs benefit women and girls in one or more of the five Mid-Shore counties of Caroline, Dorchester, Kent, Queen Anne’s and Talbot.

The grants will go to 2 new applicants and 14 non-profits that have been awarded Women & Girls Fund grants at least once before.

New this year are Compass Regional Hospice and Rising Above Disease (RAD). Repeat recipients are Chesapeake College Foundation, Chesapeake Multicultural Resource Center, Destined to Rise, Echo Hill Outdoor Leadership School, For All Seasons, Horizons Kent and Queen Anne’s, Imagination Library of Talbot County, Ladies of Nia, Partners in Care, Rebuilding Together – Caroline County, Rebuilding Together – Kent County, Talbot Mentors, Talbot Partnership for Alcohol and Drug Awareness, and Tilghman Area Youth Association.

“The programs offered by our grant recipients address serious, wide-ranging needs facing women and girls, from the oldest to the youngest”, said Emily Lynn, board member and Grants Committee co-chair along with Beth Spurry and Susan Wilford. “From literacy and education to emergency services to social engagement and critical home repairs, they have the potential to make significant differences in our community and we are proud to be able to support their efforts.”

In addition to handing out grant checks at the luncheon, the Fund will present two annual awards. The “Women & Girls Fund Award” for 2017 will be presented to Ellen Rajacich of Easton. Since 1959, Mrs. Rajacich has been a tireless volunteer fitness instructor at the YMCA of the Chesapeake. Always with a smile on her face, she has taught several generations of women – and more than a few men – to get fit, whether on an exercise mat or in the swimming pool. Her dedication, integrity, compassion, and generosity of time and talent demonstrate her commitment to improving the lives and opportunities for women, girls, and families, the hallmark of this annual award.

Previous recipients of this award are the following women of distinction: the late Lois S. Duffey, Harriet S. Critchlow, Sandra W. King, Maria Boria, M.D., Sister Patricia Gamgort, OSB, Tracy Davenport, Sandra Redd, Sara Jane Davidson, The Hon. Karen Murphy Jensen, Kathleen Francis, Maureen Jacobs, Janet Pfeffer, Joy Price, Nancy Wilson, Mary Lou McAllister, Diana Mautz, and Kathy Weaver.

The 2017 recipient of the Sheryl V. Kerr Award is Cheryl Hughes of Hurlock, founder of “Saving Second Base”, an annual breast cancer fundraiser in Cambridge. With the intention of doing something to support friends with breast cancer diagnoses, Mrs. Hughes put her determination and long list of friends to work and created a hugely popular and successful fundraiser. Since 2011, the one-day event has raised more than $150,000 for local breast cancer-related agencies. Her efforts exemplify our mission – the “power of pooled resources” – in working together to improve the lives of women and children in our community.

Previous recipients of the Sheryl V. Kerr Award are Maria D’Arcy and Estela Ramirez.

“The Women & Girls Fund Annual Grants & Awards Luncheon brings together an extraordinary group of supporters and those we support through our grant programs. It celebrates the importance of improving the lives of women and girls every day on the MidShore. We are excited each year to showcase those organizations and community leaders that truly make a difference!,” said board president Talli Oxnam.

The Women & Girls Fund Spring Luncheon will be held on Monday, April 24, 11:30am, at The Milestone in Easton. Ticket price is $50 and the event is open to the public. Reservation deadline is April 14. For more information about the luncheon and the Women & Girls Fund, call 410-770-8347, email info@womenandgirlsfund.org or visit www.womenandgirlsfund.org.

Mid-Shore Political Organizations Ask Andy Harris to Expand Town Meeting Beyond One Hour

Share

Numerous 1st District constituent organizations are demanding that Rep. Harris extend the Town Hall scheduled for March 31 beyond one hour. The Town Hall is scheduled from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. on Friday, March 31, at the Todd Performing Arts Center at Chesapeake College in Wye Mills.

“It is clear that one hour will not begin to give Harris’ constituents the opportunity to ask questions and voice their concerns,” said Mike Pullen, a leading member of Talbot Rising, a group of concerned citizens from the Mid-Shore area. “So many of us on the Eastern Shore are worried about how congressional actions will affect us and feel that Rep. Harris has not represented our interests well.”

“His constituents deserve answers and a fair chance to voice their concerns,”Emily Jackson, from Together We Will – Delmarva, says. “Regardless of whether we voted for him or not, as constituents of his district it is important to feel that he is serving our best interests, and how is that
possible if he only allows interactions with him in such limited capacities as his very moderated
conference calls, and this constricted town hall?”

James Sweeting, of the African American Democratic Club of Maryland, weighed in as well. “Harris has co-sponsored or supported bills that many people oppose such as HR 610, which takes funding away from elementary and high schools, eliminates nutritional standards for school children, and virtually eliminates special education programs. Rep. Harris is cosponsoring HR 637 which amends the Clean Air Act to allow dangerous polluting chemicals to be released into our environment. These are important issues that need to be fully and openly discussed. Rep. Harris owes his constituents a fair chance to do
that.”

Another burning issue Harris’ constituents want to discuss with him is healthcare. The Affordable Care Act expanded coverage to millions of Marylanders, reducing its uninsured rate by a third, and its repeal will cost Maryland $2 billion per year. The State will be forced to raise that money or eliminate healthcare delivery services. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that approximately 18 million people will lose coverage next year and that those numbers will increase over time. “If Congress passes the bill before it, which includes eliminating Planned Parenthood, where will women on Medicaid receive healthcare and birth control?” asks Joyce Scharch, President of the Talbot County Democratic Women’s Club. “Whatever form it takes, we want assurance from Harris that he will fight for his constituents to have affordable access to the healthcare they need.”

The American Medical Association, American Hospital Association, AARP, and many other organizations are openly opposing adoption of the current bill before Congress.

“Congressman Harris has consistently overlooked the Eastern Shore and his constituents in terms of economic development, infrastructure improvements, failing to provide for adequate healthcare and now as part of the Trump team he states he will prioritize funding for Chesapeake Bay’s cleanup knowing the EPA’s budget is being slashed,” said Dorotheann S. Sadusky, President of the Democratic Club of Queen Anne’s County.

Attendees plan to gather outside afterwards to raise further questions for the congressman if the town hall is not extended. “People have questions and concerns, and they need a forum in which to voice them. If the Congressman isn’t going to give them that, they’re going to find their own space in which to do it,” Jackson said.

This release was distributed by the following organizations: Talbot Rising Together We Will – Delmarva Democratic Club of Queen Anne’s County Talbot County Democratic Women’s Club African American Democratic Club of Maryland

Maryland Commission would Monitor Health Care Coverage as Congress Replaces ACA

Share

The Maryland Senate on Friday adopted the Maryland Health Insurance Coverage Protection Act to monitor congressional plans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act that could cost the state billions to maintain current coverage.

The intent of the bill, SB571, offered by Sen. Thomas “Mac” Middleton and 31 other Democratic co-sponsors, is to study ways to prevent 400,000 Marylanders from losing health insurance and plan for a potential loss of $4 billion in federal Medicaid and Medicare dollars that flow to the state each year.

Sen. Jim Brochin, D-Baltimore County, was the only Democrat not to sign on as a co-sponsor.

Sen. Thomas “Mac” Middleton

A plan released by U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan March 6 cuts $880 billion from the Medicaid program and $673 billion in premium subsidies to those who purchased insurance through the exchanges, according to Congressional Budget Office report released last week, page 6.

Under Ryan’s plan, the American Health Care Act, the CBO estimated that 24 million Americans would become uninsured by 2026 from the loss of Medicaid funding and the eventual loss of federal subsidies available to those with incomes between 133% and 400% of the federal poverty rate.

Middleton’s bill is expected to pass in a final vote this week. A cross-filed bill in the House is co-sponsored by all 91 Democrats and six Republicans but there’s been no action on the bill since its hearing on March 10.

The Act would set up an 11-member commission, including the Maryland attorney general, to complete a study on the potential impact to Marylanders and devise plans to mitigate the loss of Medicaid and Medicare funding.

The commission would be authorized to convene workgroups over the next three years and report back to governor and legislature.

Big federal subsidies

The federal government currently subsidize 95% for Marylanders who became insured under the Medicaid expansion when the state fully implemented the ACA. This brings about $2.8 billion in annual Medicaid support in 2017 and the state’s share is just $70 million.

The state also stands to lose its Medicare waiver, which is the only program of its kind in the country that allows hospitals to charge Medicaid and Medicare the same commercial rates charged to insurance companies, normally much higher than what Medicaid and Medicare reimburses in other states. The waiver also allows the state, not the federal government, to set the rates.

The waiver brings around $2.3 billion in additional funding to Maryland hospitals annually.

ACA decreased number of uninsured

When Maryland fully implemented the Affordable Care Act in 2013 the unprecedented expansion of Medicaid added 291,000 Marylanders to the Medicaid rolls by 2016, according to analysis by the Maryland Department of Legislative Services.

This was accomplished by raising the income eligibility to 138% of the federal poverty rate for all individuals under 65 who were enrolled beginning January 1, 2014. Previously Medicaid eligibility had been restricted to low-income parents with children, the elderly and the disabled, and the reimbursement rate was a 50-50 cost sharing arrangement with the federal government.

Under the expansion, the federal government kicked in 100% of the cost of new Medicaid enrollees from 2014 through 2016. But that was scheduled to get a gradual trim to 90% by 2020 and remain in effect indefinitely. The state would pick up the other 10%.

Maryland’s share to cover the Medicaid expansion in 2017 is around $140 million and the federal government will kick in around $2.8 billion, 95% of the total costs.

The state costs were expected to grow to $350 million by 2021, with the federal match rising to $3.5 billion.

Ryan cuts

But the Ryan plan would reduce federal government participation for new Medicaid enrollees beginning 2020 and set the cost sharing at 50-50, the traditional cost sharing split that existed before the expansion.

If a 50-50 split were in effect the state’s Medicaid obligation this year would be $1.3 billion.

Middleton said in floor debate Friday that “there’s a reasonable certainty the feds will…hand back 50% of the costs.”

The Ryan plan would also affect the 143,000 Marylanders who qualified for subsidized premiums through the Maryland Health Benefit Exchange. The Ryan plan ends those subsidies, saving $673 billion in federal spending through 2026, according to the CBO report.

Maryland’s exchange has received $137 million in state funding and $425 million in federal funds since 2011. The exchange has 67 employees with annual salaries approaching $8 million.

by Dan Menefee

Oyster Sanctuary Bill finds Support in House of Delegates

Share

The House of Delegates voted 102-39 on Thursday in favor of a bill that would keep intact existing oyster sanctuaries on the Chesapeake Bay, a blow to the commercial fishing industry’s efforts to expand the state’s oyster fisheries.

Supporters and opponents of the bill, named the Oyster Management Plan, are both saying that their solution is best for the long-term health of the bay and its oyster population, which helps clean the Chesapeake by filtering nutrients like excess algae out of the water column.

“(The Oyster Management Plan) protects the fragile progress that has been made to date in recovering oyster populations,” the Chesapeake Bay Foundation said in written testimony to the House Environment and Transportation Committee on Feb. 24. “This bill would in no way impact (the Department of Natural Resource’s) ability to manage the public oyster fishery, including the development of rotational harvest management for public oyster bottom.”

Bill opponents, such as the Clean Chesapeake Coalition, disagreed, saying that harvesting in the sanctuaries is vital to maintaining existing oyster stock in “idle” areas.

“There’s this idea that the sanctuaries would be generating all this oyster larvae,” coalition spokesman Chip MacLeod said to the committee on Feb. 24. “That larvae does no good unless it has a clean, hard bottom to strike. One of the things that doesn’t work with the oyster sanctuary theory is that we don’t have clean, hard bottom (around these sanctuaries).”

Opening parts of the sanctuaries to commercial use, MacLeod said, would remove aging oysters whose environmental usefulness had subsided, and free up space for oyster larvae to flourish.

The Department of Natural Resources, the agency that controls the sanctuaries, opposes the bill.

Opponents point to a 2010-2015 study conducted by the Oyster Advisory Commission, a Natural Resources department subsidiary, that concluded that there is “justification” to adjust current sanctuary boundaries.

“There are sanctuaries that are known to have poor habitat and/or very low densities of oysters,” the advisory commission’s study report said. “If the ultimate goal is to have more oysters in the water, then some areas that are currently sanctuaries could contribute to this goal and provide economic and cultural benefits to fishing communities.”

Conversely, a bill enacted in 2016, the Sustainable Oyster Population and Fishery Act, mandates that the Department of Natural Resources, in conjunction with the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, conduct a study to adopt a science-based fishery management plan by 2018. Supporters want to see this study concluded before allowing the department to entertain any ideas of opening sanctuaries to harvest.

Opponents contend that doing so undermines the efforts of the department and its advisory commission.

“The (Oyster Advisory Commission) is doing all of this good work, because the prior administration wouldn’t adopt a management plan,” Delmarva Fisheries Association chairman and waterman Rob Newberry told the University of Maryland’s Capital News Service.

Newberry told the Environment and Transportation Committee that the bill would “kill” the management plan adopted by the commission.

Supporters of the bill contend that oyster populations have not recovered enough to sustain themselves without protection.

Citing a self-commissioned poll that found 88 percent of Marylanders support sanctuaries and a 2016 Department of Natural Resources report that found oysters are thriving inside designated sanctuaries but not outside them, the bay foundation said in a press release, “Sanctuaries are Maryland’s insurance policy for the future oyster population. By protecting a small portion of the state’s oyster bottom from harvesting, oysters on the sanctuaries can grow and reproduce.”

The bill was voted on favorably with a couple amendments by the House Environment and Transportation Committee on Tuesday before it moved to the House floor. The amendments would prevent anyone from using the bill to block any sanctuary projects.

The bill is expected to be heard by the Senate in the coming weeks.

By Jack Chavez

Governor Calls for Ban on Fracking in Maryland

Share

According to the Washington Post, “Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) called Friday for a ban on hydraulic fracturing in the state, adding a new twist to a legislative debate over whether to prohibit the controversial gas-extraction method or extend a moratorium on it for another two years.

Hogan has said in the past that he would support the practice, commonly called “fracking,” in Western Maryland if he believed it could be done in an “environmentally sensitive matter.” At a hastily called news conference Friday, he said he did not think there was a way to frack safely, and therefore would support a bill to ban the practice altogether.”

For the full story, please go here.

Saint Martin’s Authors’ Post Luncheon 2017

Share

Authors Claudia Kalb and John A. O’Brien entertained guests at Saint Martin’s Ministries’ 20th anniversary author’s luncheon on Saturday, March 4, 2017 at the Prospect Bay Country Club.

L-R Author – Johnny O’Brien, Emcee – Ben Tilghman, SMM CEO – Jean Austin, Author – Claudia Kalb and SMM Chair of the Board of Directors – Mark Freestate.

Claudia Kalb, whose book Andy Warhol was a Hoarder, shared stories about eccentricities of such famous persons as Marilyn Monroe and George Gershwin, in addition to Warhol. A question about whether Gershwin would have written Rhapsody in Blue if he had been medicated for attention deficit disorder provided an opportunity for the enthusiastic audience to offer their input.

Author John A. O’Brien’s story of his childhood at the Hershey School and journey through adulthood engaged the audience completely. His work, Semisweet: An Orphan’s journey Through the School the Hershey’s Built, details many twists and turns in his life including the discovery that he is not truly an orphan. O’Brien’s keen insight into how individuals react to institutional settings was clearly illustrated by the examples he shared.

SMM 20th Anniversary Luncheon Committee and Volunteers from L-R Renee Waldron, Mary Helen Friel, Betty Barbe, Deborah Hudson Vornbrock, Jean Austin, Maggie Lewis, Sister Catherine Higley, OSB, Margie Callahan Palazzola, Ellen Foster and Diane Pappas.

Guests bid on a variety of silent auction items including an original wooden sculpture by Baltimore artist H. Lee Hirsche and a vacation rental in Naples, Florida. Books were available for purchase and signing by the authors.  The event occurs the first Saturday in March each year.

The 2oth Anniversary celebration featured books and memories from the prior nineteen years and also featured remarks from Sister Patricia Gamgort, Executive Director Emerita of Saint Martin’s.

The event benefits Saint Martin’s Ministries in Ridgely Maryland. Saint Martin’s helps low income families facing the trauma of hunger and homelessness. Providing services to more than 300 families each month the organization has acted as a safety net for low income families in the mid-shore region for more than 30 years. Each year the Book and Authors’ Luncheon raises funds to support Saint Martin’s House program for homeless women and children and the Emergency Food Pantry. For more information please contact Deborah Hudson Vornbrock at devdirector@stmartinsministries.org or at 410.634.2537 x 102.

Trump bid to Axe Bay Restoration Funding draws Fire

Share

President Donald Trump’s budget outline proposing to defund the Bay Program and slash other programs aiding the Chesapeake restoration drew expressions of dismay this week from those engaged in the long-running effort, along with vows from members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to resist such deep cuts.

Trump’s proposed spending plan, if enacted, would eliminate funding for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Bay Program Office — from $73 million last year to nothing in fiscal 2018. It would be part of a recommended 31 percent reduction in the budget for the agency, with only the State Department targeted for deeper cuts.

The White House’s budget blueprint also called for sharp decreases in other departments and offices that have contributed to the Bay restoration effort, without giving details of how those might play out in specific programs or initiatives. The administration is planning to release a more detailed spending plan in May.

Environmentalists promptly denounced Trump’s fiscal plan, warning that it could cripple the Bay restoration effort and reverse the gains seen in recent years.

“If this program is eliminated, there is a very real chance that the Bay will revert to a national disgrace,” said Chesapeake Bay Foundation President William Baker, “with deteriorating water quality, unhealthy fish and shellfish, and water-borne diseases that pose a real threat to human health.”

Earlier this year, driven by improvements in blue crabs and other fisheries, underwater grasses and water quality, the Bay Foundation gave the estuary’s ecological health a grade of C-minus, the highest score given in nearly two decades. The CBF report card mirrored recent assessments of modest progress reported by the Bay Program and the University of Maryland.

While the Trump budget has alarmed some Bay advocates, many have noted that Congress, not the president, has the final say on federal spending. They said they hoped that lawmakers would reject the proposed cuts.

The federal government’s support of the Bay cleanup over more than three decades has helped to develop a “world-class expertise” in managing large ecosystems, which in turn has inspired and guided other restoration efforts, said Donald Boesch, president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.

“It’s just unconscionable that Congress would let that all slip away by terminating it,” Boesch said in a telephone news conference arranged by the Bay Foundation.

Several members of Congress representing portions of the Bay watershed pledged to fight to maintain the Bay Program funding. Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-MD, called Trump’s proposal to eliminate it “wrong and outrageous.” And he questioned how that squared with Trump’s campaign pledge to build the nation’s economy and create more jobs.

“The Chesapeake Bay creates $1 trillion in our economy,” Ruppersberger said, across the six-state watershed. “These are jobs in fishing, farming, boating and tourism.”

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-MD, a member of the Senate’s Budget and Appropriations committees, issued a statement saying the proposed cuts “seriously damage our efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay — and threaten the jobs that depend on a healthy Bay ecosystem.”

And Sen. Ben Cardin, D-MD, one of the Bay’s staunchest advocates in Congress over the years, called on the body to “quickly reject” Trump’s budget “before the absurdity of his cuts . . . causes ripples of uncertainty and fear across the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed economy.”

Members of Trump’s own party joined Democrats in challenging the Bay Program cuts, though generally with less saber rattling. Reps. Andy Harris, R-MD, whose district borders the Bay, and Rep. Scott Taylor, R-VA, whose district covers portions of Hampton Roads and the Virginia Eastern Shore, indicated that they would try to keep federal funds flowing to the restoration effort. Both had joined three other Republicans and 12 Democrats from Bay watershed states in a letter to the White House more than two weeks ago urging it to keep the current funding of $73 million next year.

“We do not support reductions in the cleanup,” said a spokesman for Taylor. A spokeswoman for Harris issued a statement saying he would work with the Trump administration to “to prioritize programs within the Environmental Protection Agency that would preserve [the] Bay cleanup effort.”

Their support for the Bay restoration effort is significant because both sit on the House Appropriations Committee, which in coordination with the Senate panel on which Van Hollen serves, will draw up the actual federal spending plans.

Even so, Trump’s spending blueprint presents a challenge, as it calls for the federal government to back off from environmental efforts like the Bay restoration. “The Budget returns the responsibility for funding local environmental efforts and programs to State and local entities, allowing EPA to focus on its highest national priorities,” explained a summary of the president’s budget that was posted online.

Also targeted for elimination was federal funding for restoration of the Great Lakes, Puget Sound and other compromised watersheds.

That view of the federal role in the Bay’s restoration represents a radical shift from the stance taken by every president since Ronald Reagan, who in 1984 declared the Chesapeake a “treasured national resource.” Reagan called for a sizable boost in the EPA’s budget, in part to begin “the long, necessary effort” to clean up the Bay. The Bay Program, which operates as a partnership between states and the federal government, was created the year before, when the EPA administrator signed the first of several agreements pledging to work with the Bay watershed states and the District of Columbia to deal with pollution degrading the estuary’s water quality and fish populations.

Funding for the EPA’s Bay Program Office has ticked up or down from year to year, but has increased overall since then. Along the way, Congress wrote the Bay Program into law, spelling out the EPA’s responsibilities to coordinate the efforts of other federal agencies and of the states in reducing pollution and restoring the estuary’s living resources. Jon Mueller, the Bay Foundation’s vice president for litigation, said he thinks that the federal government can’t legally walk away from its statutory obligations to support the Bay Program. But he acknowledged that other legal experts believe Congress can’t be compelled to fund programs like this, even if supposedly required by law.

The White House’s proposed elimination of Bay Program Office funding comes despite praise that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt lavished on it during his Senate confirmation hearing in January. Under questioning from Cardin, Pruitt called it “something that should be commended and celebrated.” He pledged to enforce the Bay pollution reduction plan EPA had worked out with the states, and to see that the effort continued to get federal resources.

Asked how Trump’s budget blueprint squares with Pruitt’s Senate testimony, an EPA spokeswoman emailed a statement saying it “reflects the President’s priorities of preserving clean air and water as well as to ease the burden of costly regulations to industry. Administrator Pruitt is committed to leading the EPA in a more effective, more focused, less costly way as we partner with states to fulfill the agency’s core mission.”

The loss of $73 million for the Bay Program would be significant in itself, but the impact of Trump’s overall proposed EPA budget cuts would go far beyond that, as the agency spent an additional $121 million on other water-related grant programs in the watershed last year, some of which may also face cuts. The largest of those is the EPA’s Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund, which made $102 million in low-cost loans to states last year for projects that improve water infrastructure.

While not facing outright cuts, the revolving loan fund would likely have less money to spend in the watershed. The Trump administration would end a $498 million grant program under the U.S. Department of Agriculture that pays for improvements to rural communities’ water and wastewater infrastructure. Instead, the budget would have rural areas compete for the EPA funds — so the money available for water infrastructure would effectively be spread among a larger group of communities.

Although the most severe cuts would fall on the EPA, other federal departments that play a role in Chesapeake Bay restoration also face double-digit reductions. Altogether, federal agencies provided $536 million for Bay-related projects in 2016, helping to fund everything from wastewater treatment plant upgrades and farm runoff controls to oyster reef construction and wetland restoration.

In the budget plan, though, the U.S. Department of Agriculture faces a 21 percent cut, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 16 percent, and the Department of the Interior 12 percent.

In many cases, the budget provides little detail about how hard various programs would be hit, but the Interior Department’s land acquisition money, which has been used to help purchase sensitive areas around the Bay in recent years, would be slashed.

At the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, $250 million would be cut from grants supporting coastal and marine management, research and education. Among the areas slated for elimination is NOAA’s Sea Grant program, which provides about $4 million annually in Bay-related research and education efforts.

In that context, the EPA’s Bay Program funding accounts for just about 14 percent of the annual federal spending on the Chesapeake. But the Bay Foundation’s Baker called it a “linchpin” of the overall restoration effort. Roughly two-thirds of the $73 million in this year’s budget goes to state and local governments in the form of grants to aid their cleanup efforts. The rest supports things such as water-quality monitoring to measure the efficacy of cleanup efforts, computer modeling to help inform cleanup plans, and the activities of nonprofit groups to encourage public engagement in the restoration. (A portion of Bay Journal funding comes from a Bay Program grant.)

Environmentalists said cuts in EPA funding would hurt the ability of states to carry out a wide range of environmental programs, including those related to the Bay.
“Essentially they are saying they are going to turn over more authority to the states, and then cut the amount of money for the states to do it,” said Scott Slesinger, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection echoed that concern in a letter it sent to Pruitt on Thursday, which said the state agency relies heavily on federal funding to implement air and water pollution control programs.

Cutting the EPA Bay Program funds, the DEP said, would hurt the state’s ability to pay for pollution control efforts on Pennsylvania’s farms, where the state has tried to focus its lagging nutrient control efforts.

“These budget cuts do not reduce any of the responsibilities that DEP has to the people of Pennsylvania, but does decrease the resources available to fulfill those responsibilities,” DEP Acting Secretary Patrick McDonnell wrote. “These cuts, if enacted, would harm businesses seeking permits, and harm residents’ clean water, air, and land.”

CBF’s Baker said he’s worried that the loss of federal funds may result in a loss of “political will” in state houses and city halls to increase spending. And UM’s Boesch noted that much of the federal largesse for the Bay restoration effort comes in the form of matching grants.

“If the federal funds go away,” Boesch said, “the thought that we could go back and get state governments to double or triple investments is just naïve, given the budget issues they’re dealing with.”

Even if, as many expect, Congress dismisses Trump’s budget as too extreme, environmentalists said they worry it could give lawmakers cover to slash environmental programs much more than they have in the past.

“The real danger here is not that Congress will approve these numbers, it’s clear that they won’t,” said David Goldston, director of government affairs with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The danger is that people start taking it seriously as a point of negotiation.”

Timothy B. Wheeler is managing editor and project writer for the Bay Journal. He has more than two decades of experience covering the environment for The Baltimore Sun and other media outlets. Bay Journal editor Karl Blankenship contributed to this article.

Trump Budget Plan draws Mostly Negative Reviews among Maryland Lawmakers

Share

Maryland Democrats on Thursday voiced their displeasure with the Trump administration’s budget proposals, citing federal cuts to Chesapeake Bay cleanup efforts, the Appalachian Regional Commission and the National Institutes of Health.

“The Trump budget is great if you can get on a plane every weekend and fly to Mar-a-Lago, but it stinks for everybody else,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said at a Capitol Hill press conference. “If you look at the cost to the taxpayer to fly to Mar-a-Lago each weekend, it’s about $3 million, estimated.”

To put that number into perspective, Van Hollen said that the federal budget for Meals on Wheels, a program that helps feed 2.4 million seniors in the United States, is also $3 million, but the proposed “budget wipes out” the money for this program.

Programs for the Chesapeake Bay cleanup also would be eliminated if the budget were approved.

This cleanup is the largest effort to restore a body of water in U.S. history.

“The Chesapeake Bay is essential to our livelihood, our economy … the idea that this can be stopped is hard to believe,” said Chesapeake Bay Foundation President William C. Baker in a press call.

When Baker and fellow CBF members heard of the initial budget cut from $73 million to $5 million last week, Baker said it “was very hard to ascertain how accurate that really was.”

However, the release of Trump’s budget shows that the cut will actually be total.

Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., Baker and Van Hollen each stressed that this spending cut could cause fish, oyster and crab populations in the bay to diminish quickly, as well as increased amounts of dirty water that could result in beaches closing and tourism dollars plummeting.

“Universally, Congress must quickly reject the president’s budget before the absurdity of his proposed cuts…causes ripples of uncertainty and fear across the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed economy,” Cardin said in a statement. “At a time when we have seen nitrogen levels dropping and dead zones shrinking, President Trump is intent on turning the clock back decades.”

Baker noted that the president’s desire to zero out funding for the Chesapeake Bay cleanup is “an insult to all who have worked to try and save the Chesapeake Bay.”

Maryland’s only Republican Congressman, Rep. Andy Harris, of Cockeysville, and a member of the Appropriations Committee, said in a statement that the Chesapeake Bay is a “treasure,” and that he will continue working with the Trump administration to “prioritize” Chesapeake Bay cleanup efforts within the Environmental Protection Agency.

Another major area that would take a hit if the proposed federal budget were approved is the National Institutes of Health, located in Bethesda, Md. NIH would lose $5.8 billion, a 20 percent reduction in its overall budget of $30 billion.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Kensington, took to Twitter Thursday morning to fight back: “A message for Donald Trump: keep your petty little hands off the large indispensable mission of @NIH. #TrumpCuts.” Raskin further tweeted that the “#TrumpCuts to @NIH are outrageous,” saying that NIH is the leader of biomedical research in the world and supports 400,000 jobs.

Additionally, it “includes a major reorganization” of NIH’S 27 institutes and centers, although what the administration is planning for the reorganization remains unclear.

“President Trump’s hypocrisy on infrastructure is astounding,” said Rep. John Delaney, D-Potomac, in a statement. “Less than a month ago the president talked about building gleaming new infrastructure, but when it comes time to put up or shut up, we see cuts, not anything signaling new investment.”

Among the 19 independent agencies that Trump wants to defund is the Appalachian Regional Commission. The ARC is a federal-state partnership focused on economic development in western parts of Maryland and areas of several other states. The call to defund the ARC is noteworthy because the commission serves a region that not only largely supported Trump’s campaign but is also an area that Trump promised to rejuvenate economically.

The ARC provides grants to nonprofit organizations (schools and organizations that build low-cost housing), state and local agencies and governmental entities.

“President Trump said he would help America’s forgotten men and women, but his budget does just the opposite,” Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Baltimore, said in a statement.
“His budget would devastate working families across this nation while at the same time lavishing extravagant favors on his rich friends.”

Delaney wrote in his statement that he felt Trump’s “economically illiterate budget” was an attack on Maryland and said that all elected officials in Maryland should “be marching to the White House to object this budget.”

He also called on Governor Larry Hogan to “forcefully reject this budget.”

The Trump administration’s proposed budget hopes to raise defense spending in 2018 by $52 billion to $639 billion, a 9 percent increase from last year’s budget.

“This budget will be a public safety and national security budget,” Trump said during a Feb. 27 White House press conference. Trump has touted his defense budget as one of the largest single-year increases in defense spending in history as he aims to strengthen the American military.

According to The Washington Post, the proposed budget will increase the sizes of the Army, the Marine Corps as well as the Navy’s fleet.

The budget proposal also aims to increase spending for the Department of Homeland Security by 7 percent, or $2.8 billion, with immigration reform as the lead motivator.

“As the worldwide terrorist threat and other international dangers grow,” Harris said, “President Trump’s proposed increases in defense and homeland security spending are vital for continuing to keep Americans safe, and I support his proposed increases.”

Increases in homeland security spending could generate the hiring of hundreds of Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, as well as provide funding for Trump’s Mexico border wall.

“I thought President Trump said that Mexico was going to pay for this wall,” Van Hollen said. “Look, I think all of us recognize we need more security….but the thing about the wall is that all the experts tell you that it is just a waste of money, that it will not achieve its goal.”

By Abby Mergenmeier, Jess Nocera And Nate Harold

Annapolis: Gov. Hogan Touts Legislative Agenda in Late-session Push

Share

Gov. Larry Hogan is pleased with the passage of some items from his 2017 legislative agenda but, at a press conference Wednesday, offered scathing rebukes to some of his political opponents, whom he accused of playing politics at the expense of Marylanders.

Hogan commended the passage of several bills as examples of bipartisanship, including the Victims of Sex Trafficking Act, the Clean Water Commerce Act, and the More Jobs for Marylanders Act, which would provide a tax break to manufacturing companies in high-unemployment areas.

In contrast, he slammed Democrats in the legislature for pressing forward with a bill that expands paid sick leave after effectively defeating his bill on the same subject. Hogan said the Democrats’ sick leave bill would be “dead on arrival” if passed and sent to his desk. He said Democrats were trying to manipulate the issue to “put points on the board” that could be used against him in the 2018 election.

In a written statement, Bryan Lesswing, senior communications adviser for the Maryland Democratic Party, told the University of Maryland’s Capital News Service that “with Maryland working families in need of earned sick leave more than ever before, it’s disappointing that Governor Larry Hogan continues to point fingers and shift blame rather than put an honest effort into working with Democrats across the aisle.”

The Working Matters advocacy coalition, which consists of groups that support the Democrats’ paid sick leave bill, said via Twitter that they are “disappointed” by Hogan’s pledge to veto the legislation.

In January, Hogan said that repealing The Open Transportation and Investment Act — which he disparagingly refers to as the “Roadkill Bill” — was one of his primary goals during the 2017 legislative session.

He said he was pleased with a version of his repeal bill that arrived on the Senate floor Wednesday with amendments proposed by Senate President Thomas V. “Mike” Miller Jr., D-Calvert, Charles and Prince George’s.

The revised bill keeps the project-ranking system of the original law, but delays the implementation of other aspects for two years. Hogan expressed confidence Wednesday that his administration would defeat the delayed parts of the law if they reemerge in the future. Hogan praised the amended bill as an effective compromise, saying that neither political party won, but that “the people of Maryland won.”

However, Hogan later accused Miller in stark terms of holding up his nomination of Dennis Schrader as health secretary for “political reasons.” Hogan said he would hold Miller personally responsible for any negative consequences that arise due to the absence of a confirmed secretary to lead the department of health.

Miller’s office declined to comment.

The Commonsense Spending Act would essentially cap automatic spending increases below state revenue increases. That bill is moving through the legislature, but House Republicans on Wednesday tried to attach its provisions as amendments to the House budget bill; Democrats defeated those amendments.

Hogan has pushed for an increase in charter schools and the accessibility of private schools through a variety of initiatives.

One such program, called BOOST, would provide scholarships for low-income students to attend private schools.

The program has received bipartisan praise in the past, but the House Appropriations Committee has moved to cut its 2018 funding from the $7 million proposed by Hogan to just over $2 million. Hogan called the reductions “unusual” and “hypocritical,” explaining that several Democrats who voted for the reductions did so despite supporting the program last year.

The governor has also pushed for redistricting reform that seeks to end the practice of gerrymandering, as well as ethics reforms that would make it more difficult for former public officials to become lobbyists and require the legislature to publish video and audio recordings of its floor proceedings.

By Jacob Taylor