I would like to offer to Spy readers my February 25, 2025 testimony to Kent County Commissioners Regarding SB 0931 and HB 1036 for your consideration.

As we approach the long hot days of summer, Maryland residents and businesses are increasingly expressing grave concerns about the escalating cost of their electric service; the ability of MD power companies including Delmarva Power, Pepco Holdings, BGE, and other in-state electric service providers  to satisfy growing electric power demand; and the distinct possibility of electric black outs during peak demand periods.  They are demanding that power companies and state and local governments provide solutions to our existing electric grid’s questionable ability to deliver reliable electric service now and in the future. These legitimate concerns – that are shared by a majority of state residents including our own Eastern Shore delegation to the state legislature –are the impetus for several bills currently under consideration by the state legislature including Senate Bill 0931 and its companion House Bill1036.  If enacted, these bills will facilitate urgently needed improvement and expansion of the state’s electric service generation and delivery infrastructure and capability,  As Chris Adams, the Chair of the Eastern Shore Delegation asserted in a February 7 meeting with power company representatives,  “Once you get past the budget, the number one issue we’re going to have to deal with in session is electricity. We can’t be silent on the matter of energy generation.”

What most people – including those who oppose passage of this legislation – don’t realize is that most Maryland electric utilities do not produce most of the electric power they deliver. Instead, the electric service they deliver to Maryland customers relies almost entirely on their acquisition of power generated  out-of-state from wholesale or market capacity markets at a substantially marked up and highly variable cost to our residents. In 2023, virtually 100% of Maryland households relied on electric power generated by out of state electric power producers. By June of this year, MD’s existing power generation capability will be further reduced as a result of thee shutdown of the Herbert E. Wagner, Bramble Shores and Vienna fossil fuel powered electric generation plants, leaving the State’s electric generation capability dangerously under-resourced. It’s no wonder that most Marylanders in the know call this situation a crisis.

The only way to control escalating energy costs and achieve long term energy self-sufficiency is to build broad-based – preferably renewable energy fueled – in-state electric generation capability. So, let’s examine what SB0931 and HB1036 (co-sponsored by Eastern Shore Delegates Wilson and Crosby representing  rural Charles and St. Mary’s counties) would actually do.

Both bills mirror each other. Briefly, they would expedite the process currently employed by the Public Service Commission to authorize siting of proposed electric generation stations and storage devices, restrict local government’s authority to adopt laws or regulations denying site development plans, and require local governments to expedite review and approval of certain site development plans under certain circumstances. Local governments would continue to exercise permitting authority for PSA approved facilities and would be compensated by fees payable annually by the facilities owners.  The bills also establish new baseline construction requirements for solar energy generating stations and energy storage devices that address common community concerns about buffering and landscaping these facilities; eliminating the current need for local governments to reinvent the wheel on such requirements in typically long, drawn out individual project review and hearing processes.

Contrary to the opposition’s highly exaggerated and unsubstantiated  claims that passage of these bills will “ fail rural communities by exposing them to wholesale degradation of rural landscapes, threaten the future of farming, undermine local financial autonomy,  force counties to do more with less, increase the burden of unfunded mandates, etc, etc”, passage of these bills will  enable the State and its counties to expedite realization of essential energy self-sufficiency that will benefit Maryland residents and businesses  by lowering their energy costs, vastly improving service reliability, and establishing reasonable esthetic standards for new electric generation sites.

With respect to claims that passage of these bills will result in wholesale loss of valuable farmland, the fact is that before agricultural land can be converted to house an electric power generation facility, the farmer/owner of the land has to first decide to sell or lease the property for that purpose.  In law, that decision making authority is a foundational right of property ownership. Neither of the two bills in question authorize state takeover of farmland by eminent domain.

In Kent County about 85% of our acreage is zoned Agricultural. Over 30% of this acreage  is already permanently protected from development. Another several thousand acres are designated Agricultural Preservation District lands that typically convert to easement-based permanently protected farmland within a year or two of designation.  Further auguring against development, all land in agricultural use in MD enjoys a flat $500/acre Preferential Property Tax Assessment valuation and corresponding vastly reduced property tax rate that effectively dissuades most owners of farmland from selling or leasing their land for alternative use. Given these circumstances, it’s no wonder that Kent County has one of the lowest farm conversion rates in the State. All of these factors indicate that the probability of wholesale conversion of in-county agricultural property to house energy generation/storage facilities is slim to none.

This is a question of appropriately balancing the interests and concerns of all in-state residents.  In view of the fact-based considerations outlined above,  county residents who wish to be able to count on reliable electric service delivery now and in the future; particularly those who are unable to install independent solar or wind powered electric service at their homes, farms or businesses, are urged to contact their State Senators and Delegates and  advocate prompt passage and enactment of SB0931 and HB1036.

Paula B. Reeder

Chestertown

Dear Editor,

I find myself both laughing and crying after reading the recent article—New polling finds strong Eastern Shore support for offshore wind — laughing due to its absurdity and crying because it reflects how journalism has all but vanished. Was this piece simply a reprint of a press release from Gonzales? If the Chestertown Spy truly cared about the issue, the editorial team, at the very least, would have questioned the results of a poll commissioned by such a patrician entity.

More importantly, the Spy would have understood that Ocean City—the economic engine of Maryland—is locked in a battle for its survival against US Wind/Renxia, a company owned by Toto Holdings. This proposed project threatens not only Ocean City’s tourism, but also the economic health of Worcester and Sussex Counties, and by extension, the entire state of Maryland and Delaware.

I would encourage the “Spy Desk” to read the Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for these projects, which outline the numerous negative consequences, and state the disturbing fact that these projects “will have no positive impact” on the environment. On the contrary, if people read the EIS, they will learn of the horrific environmental and economic impacts, overlooked in the name of ‘green energy.”  Studies from reputable institutions such as Duke University show a potential reduction in tourism rates by as much as 15-50%. For a town like Ocean City, which regularly hosts 350,000 visitors over a summer weekend and now enjoys an extended tourist season into October, this would be catastrophic.

This article fails to address key inconsistencies. For example, the document suggests air quality will improve, yet it fails to explain why US Wind still needs an “air pollution” permit from MDE. Moreover, residents can already see the strain on their electric bills due to soaring energy costs driven by tax subsidies for “green energy,” which has not yet been built. Meanwhile, Maryland must now rely on energy imported from other states and even Canada at inflated prices as it prematurely closes base load power supplies. How environmentally friendly is it for Maryland to depend on energy from Canada?

Ocean City’s tourism industry, including events like the White Marlin Open, Oceans Calling, SunFest, and Bike Week, generates hundreds of millions of dollars annually. The combined impact of just these few events—over a half billion dollars—would be severely threatened by a 15% reduction in tourism, particularly at a time when the state is already facing a $3 billion budget deficit. Worcester County alone stands to lose $4.6 million just in room tax revenue, which ripples through the state economy. This loss directly threatens funding for local schools, as Worcester County relies on state funding for less than 13% of its educational budget, one of the lowest percentages in Maryland.

This proposed wind farm threatens critical ecosystems. The transmission cables, which will pass through the Shuster Horseshoe Crab Sanctuary and Indian River, will irreparably damage these habitats. Horseshoe crab blood is a vital resource used in medical testing to ensure the safety of vaccines and medical equipment—what happens to this resource if its habitat is destroyed?

Additionally, the proposed project directly threatens endangered species like the Red Knot, whose primary food source is horseshoe crab eggs. The loss of this species’ foraging grounds, combined with the destruction of benthic habitats, will have far-reaching consequences for the ecosystem. The EIS suggests the impact will be “short-term,” but a multi-year construction project raises serious questions: How long is “short-term”? Will the ecosystem survive the disruption?

Let’s not forget the endangered Common Tern, which depends on Assateague Island as its primary breeding ground. The wind farm is located directly in the fly path of the Tern and may very well kill much of the species before it reaches this critical habitat, which could jeopardize the survival of the species.

There is also the pressing issue of the dead whales washing up along our beaches—something government agencies continue to dismiss. Researchers like Apostolos Gerasoulis, (founder of ask.com) have gathered evidence strongly correlating wind farm construction activity to these strandings, although the government has failed to acknowledge this correlation. Why isn’t this being reported?

I do recall, Kent County’s successful effort to save its goose hunting industry from onshore wind. The “Spy Desk” might want to consider the impact on Ocean City’s commercial fishing industry, which generates over $7 million annually, if US Wind’s plans to take over the harbor and replace fishing boats with massive 100+’ crew transfer vessels come to fruition. Imagine 7,000 diesel-fueled trips per year for turbine maintenance. Imagine the construction of a 353’ x 30’ cement dock and landing area that will destroy over 44,000 square feet of pervious land and replace it with concrete and storage for fossil fuels and chemicals. Imagine replacing the productive and bucolic West Ocean City commercial fishing harbor with a Sparrows Point.

The community has spoken, and the Worcester County Commissioners have listened and are fighting to prevent this project from destroying our harbor, not out of fear or opposition to renewable energy, but because we are being asked to sacrifice our fishing industry and way of life for an Italian-owned company seeking taxpayer-funded subsidies. We do not want to see our local economy wrecked, nor do we want US Wind as our neighbor after the company threatened to bankrupt Worcester County and its commissioners, personally, if they did not allow this harbor project to move forward.

Finally, I find it timely that as I  respond to this article, I receive an analysis by Meghan Lapp, a leader in the fishing industry, and fight against offshore wind as well as a key figure in the Supreme Court case that struck down the Chevron Doctrine, regarding the criteria in President Trump’s EO regarding wind projects. I’ve included the full text below.

If the Chestertown Spy is committed to honest journalism, it must fully explore the local economic and environmental consequences of the US Wind project and provide a balanced perspective on this critical issue. I am happy to provide links to vital information such as Professor Gerasoulis’ work, Rand Acoustic’s research and Save Right Whale’s research. These people and organizations have been working diligently to provide valid and well researched information, all while being accused of lobbying for “Big Oil” by the very subsidiaries of “Big Oil” vying for these tax credits.

Respectfully submitted,

Dianna Harris
Founder, Protect our Coast, Delmarva

Meghan Lapp: Offshore Wind vs Secretary Wright’s Energy Policy Criteria

“Since the Department of Energy is one of the agencies tapped by President Trump’s Day One Executive Order “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects” to aid in the Department of Interior review of currently permitted or leased offshore wind projects, it will be critical that the Secretary of Energy take a hard look at how the previous Biden Administration review of existing offshore leases and projects not only ignored reliability, affordability and national security, but actually buried these concerns, to the detriment of the nation.

Let’s take a look at each of Secretary Wright’s three criteria and how offshore wind measures up- the third might surprise you:

1. Reliable: Offshore wind is not a reliable, long-lived, or dispatch-able source of power. In 2023 for the first time, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) identified “Energy Policy”, i.e. the reliance on renewables, for the first time as a risk to the stability of the continental grid, which obviously has serious consequences on reliability.

The intermittency of offshore wind power is a well-known fact; what is not as well known is that the more offshore wind is built, the less effective it becomes. As offshore wind farms grow larger and more numerous, energy production actually drops due to the wind wake effects from turbine to turbine, causing as much as a 20% drop in power production for wind farms within 50 km of each other and up to 28.9% within a wind farm itself, lowering energy production and efficiency, and requiring more backup power.

Wind droughts are common in Europe, causing astronomical electricity price spikes and putting consumers at risks of blackouts and exposure to freezing temperatures due to European reliance on offshore wind power. As recently as January 2025, U.K. households faced blackouts as wind power plummeted due to freezing weather; in 2021 due to a lack of wind German authorities taught the public to heat their homes with candles and cook without electricity.

In the U.S., projects cannot be built if they face simple performance guarantees. An offshore wind developer’s project off Virginia claimed it would average a 42% capacity factor of energy production, but when regulators suggested a performance guarantee based on a 42% three year rolling average capacity factor in order to protect ratepayers from unexpected cost increases, the developer immediately responded saying that such a performance guarantee would force them to “terminate” the project.

Offshore wind is so unreliable that developers are not even willing to enter into performance guarantees based off of their own numbers. Offshore wind is highly exposed to the elements, more so than onshore wind, resulting in rapid degradation of project components and decreased output over time. On average, offshore wind farm power output declines by 4.5% annually, losing nearly 50% of its power output within 10 years of construction.

Reliable? No.

2. Affordable: Offshore wind has the highest levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of any power source, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. However, when the intermittency of offshore wind power (not considered by LCOE) is factored into the equation, costs soar even higher.

In New England, one analysis put the all-in cost of offshore wind power up to 12 times that of natural gas.

Offshore wind cannot survive without massive subsidies, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere. When Denmark, one of the foremost nations promoting offshore wind, decided to forgo subsidies for offshore wind in 2024, it received zero bids on its offshore wind lease auction. The same occurred in the U.K. in 2023.

In the U.S., the Inflation Reduction Act currently provides a 30% Investment Tax Credit for the capital cost of offshore wind projects, with additional tax subsidies allowing projects to be subsidized up to 50% of costs. The capital cost of unreliable offshore wind being subsidized is nearly 6 times that of reliable combined cycle natural gas, with twice the operations and maintenance costs, according to one developer.

Even with massive subsidies from U.S. taxpayers to “offset” these costs, offshore wind companies in recent years have continually canceled U.S. contracts and rebid these same contracts at higher electricity rates to consumers. The cost of offshore wind is going up, not down.

Affordable? No.

3. Secure: Offshore wind directly interferes with national defense and maritime security, thereby posing actual security risks. In 2022, the U.S. Navy stated that the entirety of BOEM’s planned offshore wind leases in the Central Atlantic would impact its missions and in 2017 had ruled the majority of the East Coast a “Wind Exclusion Zone”- including areas currently leased and permitted for offshore wind development.

In 2019, the Undersecretary of Defense acknowledged that U.S. long range air surveillance radar is “very susceptible” to interference from offshore wind turbines and that submarines could possibly also be affected. The DOD and BOEM have stated that terminal area air traffic control radar, defense long range air surveillance radars, weather radars, ground based military unique radars, and missile tracking radars will all be impacted by offshore wind.

Wind turbines cause clutter and false targets on radar, causing actual targets to be missed and/or masked; the interference increases with the size and number of turbines. In 2016, the federal interagency Wind Turbine Radar Interference Mitigation Working Group released their first “strategy” to “fully address by 2025” the radar interference caused by wind turbines. They have found no solutions, only discovered more radar related problems, and have since extended “the timeline to accomplish the objectives of the 2016 strategy…to 2035”.

Meanwhile, these important federal agencies like the DOD, FAA and USCG routinely defer to BOEM (which permits offshore wind projects) as the “lead agency” on all offshore wind permitting issues, leaving critical security issues including radar interference to take a back seat to offshore wind development. One offshore wind farm scheduled for imminent construction is not only directly sited on a USCG Weapons Training Area but will also interfere with JFK Airport’s air surveillance radar on the approach to N.Y.- which BOEM admits will “allow aircraft to hide within these false targets, making detection of an aircraft difficult while over the wind farm.”

The recent N.J./N.Y. drone activity highlights the importance of preserving radar integrity. In 2024, Sweden rejected 13 offshore wind projects in the Baltic Sea because the wind farm radar interference would reduce Sweden’s missile defense system detection time by half and made submarine detection more difficult. In 2024, Estonia also declared that offshore wind installations pose security threats for Estonia and NATO, with radar interference creating a “barrier” to military operations affecting both combat units and rescue operations, impacting drone detection and missile launches.

At sea, the USCG has already been forced to abort one helicopter search and rescue mission that resulted in loss of life partially due to “hazards in the area (i.e. wind farm),” and the USCG to this day has still not conducted any evaluation of marine radar interference on its own vessel or mission capabilities despite the fact that its vessels will experience marine radar interference due to offshore wind turbines. In 2022, the National Academies of Sciences released a report entitled, ““Wind Turbine Generator Impacts to Marine Vessel Radar”, which confirmed that wind turbine interference “decreases the effectiveness of [marine vessel radar] mounted on all vessel classes, and the sizes of anticipated marine [wind] farms across the U.S. OCS will exacerbate this situation” and offered no immediate solutions, only suggestions for future study.

Secure? No.

Hopefully, all these issues will be noticed by Secretary Wright’s Department of Energy offshore wind review pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order. They are big issues, and ones that should have precluded U.S. offshore wind leasing and development in the first place. The good thing is it’s not too late to reverse course.”

 

Maryland’s Legislature is dominated by Senators and Delegates from urban centers—lawmakers who wield an overwhelming majority to pass legislation that does not meaningfully impact their constituents. They legislate from a distance, with little regard for the rural communities bearing the consequences.

SB0931 and HB1036 are prime examples of this disconnect.

The Majority has sided with the Solar Energy Industry, overriding the voices of rural counties and trampling on local land-use planning and taxation authority. These counties—required by the state to invest time, energy, and taxpayer money into drafting Comprehensive Plans—have done so with care, ensuring growth aligns with the aspirations of their residents. These plans form the backbone of land-use ordinances, designed to protect communities, preserve agricultural lands, and foster responsible development.

Yet the Majority seeks to dismantle this process, imposing laws that strip counties of their ability to safeguard farmland from industrialization. By forcing solar projects onto agricultural land, this legislation accelerates the loss of productive farmland, threatening the future of farming and the cultural heritage that defines our rural communities. The facts cannot be ignored: Maryland’s solar expansion is happening on agricultural land, and the richest, most productive farmland is concentrated in the very rural counties that the Majority chooses to ignore—particularly on the Eastern Shore.

SB0931 enforces a one-size-fits-all landscaping standard for solar developments, disregarding the unique character of each community. It treats the gateway to a historic town the same as a remote backroad, ignoring the value of scenic viewsheds and historic landscapes. Rural communities are not just places on a map; they are living histories, cultures rooted in agriculture, and the embodiment of Maryland’s heritage. This bill sacrifices those values in the name of misguided environmental policy.

Adding insult to injury, the Majority is also undermining local financial autonomy, restricting how counties generate revenue while simultaneously increasing the burden of unfunded mandates with other pieces of legislation. It is an attack on local governance, forcing counties to do more with less while their voices are drowned out in Annapolis.

And for what? The climate benefit that SB0931is meant to support will result in a mere 0.16% reduction of Maryland’s contribution to global CO₂ emissions—an impact so minuscule it is statistically irrelevant. Yet the cost is devastating: the destruction of farmland, the erosion of rural culture, and the continued disenfranchisement of Maryland’s rural communities.

The Majority will pat themselves on the back for their “progress,” but make no mistake: rural Maryland is being sacrificed for political convenience.  We cannot stand by in silence while the communities of rural counties around the state and the Eastern Shore are being sacrificed.

The square-jawed blowhard cultural warrior Pete Hegseth went first this week in the Washington confirmation dance.  The forty-four year old coiffured television personality is, unfortunately, in real life, the Trump nominee to be Secretary of Defense.  Hegseth assured the Senate Armed Services Committee he is taking on this big job because he cares about the well being of the nearly two million men and women in uniform he will lead, but his real purpose was to put Capitol Hill on notice he and President Trump will unilaterally change out the DOD leadership, policies, and priorities.  No specifics on how and when, only a promise DEI -diversity, equity, and inclusion – will be booted out of the ranks worldwide. In the world according to Hegseth all the Pentagon challenges, be those budgetary, China, recruitment and retention, RFP’s, cost overruns, or inept bureaucrats are because of DEI and JAG lawyers.

Hegseth arrived on the Hill exuding the confidence of one who knows he has the votes. His cheering fans which also included several committee senators, were clearly ready to anoint the glib nominee. The committee chairman from Mississippi actually described the empty suit nominee as a breath of fresh air, but many saw an artful dodger out to please the man who nominated him.

At times it was difficult to discern if we were witnessing the next coming of fire and brimstone warrior Billy Sunday or the lusty sinner patriot Elmer Gantry. The pious Hegseth repeatedly invoked his lord Jesus Christ and CEO role model Donald Trump, especially when tough and substantive questions finally came from senators on the dais. The nominee seemed confident if he just took those doubting Thomas senators and their rude questions about ASEAN countries and audits and expertise to his lord in prayer and looked to the Senate Republican majority for a party line vote to deliver him from harm he would be carried to the promised land with sweeping views in the R ring on the other side of the Potomac where the inept generals and admirals who had once disparaged warriors like him would soon have to stand and address him as Mr. Secretary.

That may well be the outcome for this artful dodger, at least for the short term.The most troubling aspect about the likely Hegseth outcome is the committee’s failure, Democrats as well as Republicans, to get to the heart of the matter — Mr. Hegseth’s honesty and character, his thin qualifications, and the elephant in the hearing room that was never explicitly addressed in language most Americans can understand.  Plainly put: is there a serious drinking problem or not?  Mr. Hegseth flatly refused to go there in the hearing with Virginia’s Senator Tim Kaine who focused on the topic.  How could he?  While President Trump might well appreciate a married man’s fancy for the ladies, excessive drinking could well be a disqualifying factor for the new president and the country.  If there had been a full field and complete FBI investigation with witnesses, this troubling question could have been addressed and put to bed one way or another.  Instead, the matter will linger unanswered in the record and follow Hegseth to the pentagon. No doubt Mr. Hegseth, if confirmed, will proclaim the Senate exonerated him.

While the nominee reluctantly admits he once had an occasional drinking issue, he insists there is no problem today, that anyone, be they loved ones or colleagues, claiming he ever behaved badly because of drinking is engaged in a smear campaign. Somehow, perhaps miraculously, through the grace of his lord, the nominee suggests that any temporary misuse of alcohol simply went away, and, to alleviate concerns senators may have after he becomes Defense Secretary, he promised, but only if confirmed, he will never ever take a drink again.

From seventeen years of living in a household with an alcoholic father every day and attending AA meetings with him periodically over another ten years, I respectfully suggest that those of us who have experienced knowing people who abuse alcohol are very familiar with the conditional promise, “if only I could I could get… I will never again take another.”  And in this case, “if I am confirmed to be U.S. Secretary of Defense I will not take one drink.”  Sure. Right.

Never is only until there is a “worthy” exception to never: setbacks, a much needed celebration in the private plane with a handful of trusted colleagues and aides, threats, exhaustion, birthdays, deaths… whatever.  And that ends in a specular binge that will be difficult to keep under wraps.

Some appreciate that those who know about drinking problematically enough to be discussed and debated in the largest public spheres, and who want to “manage the drinking issue” come to understand what is required is trying to not take a drink for carefully limited periods, say today, the next 45 minutes, one hour, or right now. Never trust never around alcohol.

Mr. Hegseth’s extraordinary conditional promise to the senate to never ever take another drink should scare the hell out of every senator and the  Trump White House.

Aubrey Sarvis

 

Before I retired, I was involved in many corporate efforts to identify the “Root Cause” of a problem.  The root cause is determined by digging deeper and deeper into the problem until you identify the core problem, i.e. the primary cause.

It’s comparable to going to the doctor with a fever.  The doctor can treat this by prescribing aspirin and bed rest (i.e. treating the symptoms) or can do further tests to determine what is causing the fever, and then treating the core infection that is causing the fever.

Now many surveys of Americans have shown that the country is generally unhappy with the Federal Government.  This has manifested itself in electing presidents from many different backgrounds, all promising to “fix” the problem.  Unfortunately, it has not resulted in much change in Congress.  Since 2000, we have elected a former governor (George Bush), a former senator (Barack Obama), a businessperson with no government experience (Donald Trump) and a career government person (Joe Biden).  None of them were successful in implementing the change that the population seems to want, and the dissatisfaction continues.  So now we return to Donald Trump again, who promises to “fix” everything in short order!  (I’ve heard that before.)

It seems to me that all these elections of presidents are treating the symptom of our problem and not dealing with the root cause.  While Presidents are important leaders, their role is to implement the laws passed by Congress.  In my opinion, the root cause of our dissatisfaction is Congress.  Congress seems unable to really do anything to solve long term problems.  (Some would say to really do anything at all!)  Global warming and the environment are long term problems that have gone largely untouched (note the California fires).  How about the deficit and government spending?  Instead of solving the problem Congress argues and fights for weeks about the debt ceiling (which only authorizes the Treasury to borrow money to pay for things Congress has already purchased).  Then at the last minute, they pass legislation to push the problem down the road for 3 or so months.  What in heaven’s name will change in three months that will enable them to agree.  My final example is that Social Security and Medicare will run out of money in about a decade if nothing is done.  Have you seen any action on this?  No!!

In addition, Congress uses gimmicks and tricks to make their political party more powerful, and to stay in power longer.

• Filibusters are a prime example.
• The Senate can leave one or two local members to come in every day, gavel the body into Session, report no business and adjourn 5 minutes later with nothing done so that the Senate does not to go into recess.
• One Senator can advise Senate leadership they will vote to oppose a Presidential nominee, and this causes a “hold” on a floor vote on the nominee. This can be totally secret.

All of this makes people disgusted with “government”.  But they are not necessarily disgusted with all government, just the government that they see, and that is often Congress.

So here is a list of possible suggestions to try to make Congress more responsive.

• Term limits. We need to get fresh ideas, and legislators in their eighth and ninth decades of life don’t have them.
• No legislator can run for office after their 70^th
• Find a way to eliminate “pay for play” where legislators fund their re-elections from large donors who then often expect favors in return.
• Congress should be in session from 9AM till 5PM 5 days a week, just like a normal workday for other Americans
• Legislators should not be able to accept any gift, meal, trip or any other item of value in excess of $10. No more trips, free meals and vacations paid for by others.
• Congress should meet every other month outside of Washington so local people can attend and see what they are doing. Cities have hotels and convention centers that can accommodate the size of Congress.  Rotate these cities around so over time every state gets to host.  (I know this will take years, but so be it.)
• Institute a pay for performance system. Federal legislators have a base salary of $174,000.  How many of us make that kind of money?  Their pay should in part be determined by a well-run survey of Americans on whether we are happy with their performance.  If not, they lose some of their pay.  After all, many of us were evaluated each year by our bosses to determine the size of our annual increases.  Why not Congress members.

Don’t count on any current legislator to try to implement these things.  They are happy with the status quo.  We need to elect a whole new cadre of legislators who actually work to make the country better instead of feathering their own personal nests.

Bob Scofield

Kennedyville

Maryland’s State Budget is teetering on the brink of an unprecedented financial collapse. The refusal to address formula-driven mandatory and entitlement spending threatens to thrust the state into a cycle of automatic “runaway” deficits, culminating in a financial “Extinction Level Event” in the near future. Despite the gravity of this crisis, political leaders have shied away from the structural reforms necessary to restore fiscal stability. Without bold action, Maryland’s taxpayers face a perilous future.

At the heart of Maryland’s fiscal woes is the rigid structure of formula-driven mandatory spending. These formulas mandate funding levels for key programs, such as education and Medicaid, irrespective of the state’s revenue performance. 

The failure to redefine and adjust the mandatory and entitlement spending based on economic realities is not a trivial oversight; it is a catastrophic misjudgment that will surely lead to a financial collapse from which there is no recovery. The state’s budget will collapse under its own weight—not due to inadequate taxation, not by trimming the discretionary budget, but because of otherwise well-meaning mandatory spending formulas whose costs become prohibitively unsustainable as they approach reality. Senate President Bill Ferguson underscored this reality, acknowledging that entitlement programs constitute the bulk of the growing deficit. Yet, political leaders have made little progress in reforming these spending mandates.

The illusion of fiscal health under the Hogan administration was largely sustained by federal COVID relief funds, which artificially created budget surpluses. These one-time funds masked the structural deficit and deferred difficult financial decisions. However, with the federal COVID money now evaporated, the true extent of Maryland’s budgetary challenges has come into sharp focus. Moreover, the upcoming Trump administration is likely to scale back discretionary federal spending, which has traditionally bolstered Maryland’s economy due to its reliance on federal contracts and agencies. This reduction in federal support will further exacerbate the state’s financial challenges, leaving Maryland ill-prepared to weather the storm.

Another significant drain on the state’s resources is Governor Moore’s commitment to “climate investments.” While addressing climate change is a noble goal, it is fundamentally a national and global issue, not a state-specific one. Maryland’s taxpayers should not be saddled with debt for initiatives that will have a de minimus impact on global climate trends. Prioritizing these expenditures over addressing the budget crisis is fiscally irresponsible and diverts attention from urgent structural reforms.

The recent Gonzales Poll reveals that a majority of Marylanders oppose tax increases to address the budget deficit. More than three-quarters of respondents oppose increases in income, property, and sales taxes. Even among those who strongly approve of Governor Moore’s performance, a significant majority oppose new taxes. This opposition underscores the political peril of pursuing tax hikes without first addressing the state’s spending problem.

While commendable as a good first “baby step”, Governor Moore’s recent proposal to save $50 million through government efficiencies is a drop in the ocean compared to the nearly $3 billion deficit – a deficit that is projected to double by 2030. While symbolic gestures like streamlining laptop procurement and reducing underutilized state vehicles are commendable, they fall far short of the comprehensive restructuring needed and do nothing to adjust mandatory spending. 

The Moore Administration’s reliance on outside consultants, such as Boston Consulting Group, further diminishes the credibility of these efforts. Not only will the consulting firm receive 20% of any identified savings, but this agreement could cost taxpayers up to $15 million over two years. This expenditure – which has been billed as a measure to save money- epitomizes the mismanagement of resources that has plagued the state.

In a December 11, 2024, opinion article in Center Maryland, I called upon Governor Moore to “reorganize Maryland’s bloated bureaucracy” for the first time in over 50 years before considering tax increases. This reorganization should include revisiting mandatory spending formulas, recalibrating spending mandates to align with the state’s fiscal realities, addressing unfunded pension liabilities that loom like a ticking time bomb, and eliminating redundant programs through a thorough review of state operations. Recent proposals that have been quietly suggested by legislative leaders such as Senate President Bill Ferguson – such as raising the capital gains tax – fail to address the structural deficit and punish success, should be outright rejected. 

Maryland is at a crossroads. The state’s leaders must confront the hard truths about its fiscal trajectory and embrace meaningful reforms. Without immediate decisive action, the combination of formula-driven spending, evaporating federal support, and misplaced priorities will lead Maryland toward a financial catastrophe. The time for half-measures is over; the state’s fiscal survival depends on bold, transformative leadership.

Clayton A. Mitchell, Sr. is a lifelong Eastern Shoreman, attorney, and former Maryland Department of Labor’s Board of Appeals Chairman.  He is co-host of the Gonzales/Mitchell Show podcast, which discusses politics, business, and cultural issues.