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.

Like many reading this, I am saddened by the results of the presidential election. The future seems so uncertain and chaotic. Yet, this is how I often feel when keeping up to date with national politics, and why I choose to focus my attention locally. So, whether you are also disappointed by this year’s election, I encourage you to become more active at the local level. Engaging locally can provide a sense of influence, achievement, and even security.

I believe more people should get involved in local initiatives, whether that means participating in their town’s planning commission, or school board, as part of the Friends of the Public Library, or even by running for local office. In Chestertown, many recent council elections have had candidates running unopposed. In some towns on the Eastern Shore, if a candidate is running unopposed the election is skipped to save money and the unopposed candidate is automatically elected and sworn in.

I ran for Chestertown Council in 2017, and although I lost I did not lose heart. Instead, I applied to join the Historic District Commission and later the Planning Commission, where I am still a member. Currently, the Chestertown Planning Commission is updating the town’s Comprehensive Plan, yet we rarely see members of the public attend our meetings. The Comprehensive Plan is our community’s long-range vision on where we want to be in 10 to 15 years. All of our meetings are open to the public. They are also live-streamed and the recordings are posted on the town’s website.

Many overlook the significant impact local governments can have on improving our communities, often getting swept up in national politics. At the local level, we can create lasting progress. At the local level, we can create new and improved parks for our kids and neighbors to get outside and get off their devices which can be so divisive. At the local level, we can help feed and house those who have fallen on rough times. At the local level, we can improve the health of our environment. At the local level, we can strengthen connections within our communities to help those experiencing loneliness and isolation. At the local level, we can create economic development and find creative solutions to fill what is missing from our local economy. At the local level, we can get to know one another better and develop empathy and understanding.

As Chuck Marohn from Strong Towns recently wrote:

“Everything you are passionate about at the national level has a local analog that needs your attention.

And not only does it need your attention, but your passion and energy is game-changing. The time and effort you put into making your place stronger and more prosperous will make a huge difference in the lives of others. The result of those efforts won’t be ambiguous — show your place love and it will love you back. I promise.”

While it’s not always easy, the rewards of local engagement are substantial. Together we can help bridge the divides that national politics are too good at creating.

Owen Bailey
Chestertown, MD

I have known John Queen for a while now and recommend him for the Kent County School Board.  We need persons of integrity, intelligence and high standards on our Board.  He has instilled these in his daughters and will bring these qualities to any job he does.

His work to better the community is outstanding.  He cares about all people of all ages and works to make their lives better. He wants to bring back and conserve the rigorous education that is a life long benefit to all students whether they are college bound or planning a future in the trades or other business.

Please vote for JohnQueen in this election.

Holly Geddes,

Conservative Thinker