“We do believe in the next couple of weeks we will get a better picture as to the extent of the, honestly, disastrous cuts that are likely going to be shifted to the states ahead of the March 14 shutdown date,” Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City) said during a weekly meeting with reporters.

Ferguson said he is hopeful that when other states start seeing cuts from a Republican-controlled White House and Congress, “be it Medicaid, FEMA, public education — that they speak to their congressional representatives and explain the pain that would be ahead for cost shifts. But we don’t know where that’s going to land yet, and so that’s a big uncertainty.”

In addition to uncertainty about the federal budget, Senate Budget and Taxation Chair Guy Guzzone (D-Howard) said fiscal committees in the House and Senate are looking at a full range of options, which he predicts could include $200-$500 million in cuts to offset likely changes to unpopular parts of the governor’s budget.

“Some of it will be a backfill of cuts that have already been made that we disagree with that are in the governor’s budget,” Guzzone said in an interview. “Some of it will be some changes in the tax policies.”

Guzzone said lawmakers in both chambers are interested in restoring cuts Moore made to mental health, the Victims of Crime Act and cancer research. The are also trying to restore $235 million in cuts to the Developmental Disabilities Administration.

“There are things that we have very common beliefs in,” Guzzone said. “We see it as our responsibility.”

 Budget books for the fiscal 2025 budget proposed by Gov. Wes Moore (D). (File photo by Bryan P. Sears/Maryland Matters)

Guzzone said he and his committee continue to eye Moore’s plan to eliminate itemized deductions in income taxes — a key element of his effort to clear what was already projected to be a $3 billion budget deficit for the coming year.

“There’s a middle-class component — although a higher middle-class component — that is still of concern to people, particularly in the overall context of inflation, energy prices and mortgage rates,” Guzzone told Maryland Matters. “You put all that together and we’re very, very sensitive to thinking about how Marylanders, at multiple income levels, are surviving right now and whether or not they’re thriving.”

When asked about possible changes to the governor’s tax plan, Moore spokesperson Carter Elliott said in a prepared statement Friday eveninig that the governor “will continue to work in partnership with the dedicated leaders of the General Assembly to pass a balanced budget that makes Maryland safer, more affordable, more competitive.”

Moore in January proposed a revamping of the state tax code that he said would cut taxes for roughly six in 10 taxpayers. Those taxpayers would get an additional $173 on average, according to a report earlier this month from the Board of Revenue Estimates.

The board said nearly two in 10 would pay more — $1,458 more on average — and high-income taxpayers would pay $20,800 more on average.

The board also warned that eliminating itemized deductions would mean higher taxes even for those “with modest income.”

Moore’s plan also adds a 1% surcharge on capital gains for high earners — which the board described as “volatile” source of revenue. The board has become more cautious in the recent past about projecting capital gains revenue, and has urged lawmakers to keep expectations modest because of volatility in capital gains.

“The proposal on net shifts tax burdens to a smaller number of high-income taxpayers who have a greater share of volatile nonwage income,” board Chair Robert Rehrmann wrote in a Feb. 6 letter to state Budget Secretary Helene Grady and Department of Legislative Services Executive Director Victoria Gruber.

Rehrmann said the surcharge on capital gains means revenues “will increase more in good years and grow more slowly or decline by a greater amount in recessions and/or stock market corrections. As such, the revenue gained from the proposed changes likely will vary from year-to-year as we go from booms to busts.”

Guzzone said he and others are concerned that eliminating itemization will create a disincentive to donate to charities who fill gaps in government services.

When asked if there is a chance the governor’s plan could be shelved this session, Guzzone said lawmakers “may end up there easily.”

Senate Budget and Taxation Chair Guy Guzzone (D-Howard) said lawmakers are watching for federal budget cuts and eyeing changes to the governor’s budget proposal. (Photo by Bryan P. Sears/Maryland Matters)

“If nothing else, by nature, legislative bodies tend to be more slow moving, more deliberative,” he said. “I tend to be that myself. I’m not one to jump into things quickly.”

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has moved quickly to act on his campaign promise to slash the federal workforce, which could cut into ‘exrevenues for Maryland, with its high number of federal workers.

The Republican-controlled Congress could follow suit with budget proposals in the coming weeks, further complicating Maryland’s budget picture.

Lawmakers will get an updated look at revenue projections when the Board of Revenue Estimates meets March 6, its last meeting before the April 7  end of the legislative session.

A week after that meeting, the federal government could shut down, when a continuing budget resolution expires March 13. Democratic lawmakers in Annapolis believe at this point that a government shutdown is more likely than not.

The uncertainty has scrambled the schedule for the budget: Instead of the House sending the budget to the Senate by March 5, that handoff has now been pushed back to March 18 or 19.That means lawmakers will likely miss a March 31 deadline to complete the budget, triggering an automatic letter from the governor ordering the General Assembly to stay in session until a budget is done.

Ferguson downplayed that scenario, saying such orders are not unusual.

“That is a mandatory message. It always causes a lot of angst,” Ferguson said earlier this week. “We are making a note: That message will come out this year, but it is anticipated, and we’re adjusting and accounting for it in the budget now, so that we can figure out what happens after March 13 at the federal level, and try — to the degree feasible — to take that into account.”

He called it “exceedingly, exceedingly unlikely” at this point that the General Assembly will have to remain in session past April 7, its scheduled last day for 2025. But a government shutdown as the session ends could change things.

“It’s hard to predict anything right now given the level of uncertainty that’s out there,” Ferguson said. “I can’t imagine us extending session. I think we’ll have a general idea of where things stand in the case the shutdown is still going on for weeks and weeks. We may have to readjust at a different time in the year.”

There is growing talk of a special session later this year to address budget issues, possibly before the federal fiscal year starts on Oct. 1.

Before then, the Board of Public Works — consisting of the governor, the comptroller and state treasurer — has the ability to cut up to 25% of the budget. The last two governors — Larry Hogan (R) and Martin O’Malley (D) — used the board to make budget cuts during the COVID-19 pandemic and the Great Recession, respectively.

The board in July approved nearly $150 million in changes to the current budget, which Moore characterized at the time as cuts. Reductions then in some areas of the budget were used to offset higher-than-expected costs to Medicaid and other programs.

Guzzone said House and Senate lawmakers have adjusted the budget schedule to allow the House “to hear or receive the results of what may happen” with a possible government shutdown. “Obviously, that could dramatically change everything in one second.”

Guzzone and others are hoping the change will give decision-makers the time and information, “whether or not it becomes a government shutdown or not.”

“We hope we will at least be able to glean some information from the intent that’s implied, if there is a new CR [continuing resoution], to what will be happening in the future.,” he said.

by Bryan P. Sears, Maryland Matters
February 21, 2025

Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: [email protected].

It’s one of the largest cuts in the governor’s attempt to fill a $3 billion budget deficit this year — particularly notable given that the agency only serves about 20,500 Marylanders.

While Moore’s proposed budget funds the Developmental Disabilities Administration (DDA) at $1.3 billion in fiscal 2026, officials say cuts are necessary to contain growing costs for the DDA, which has seen unsustainable increased expenses and enrollment in recent years.

But how did Maryland get to a point where the agency is over $200 million in the hole? Analysts and legislators are still trying to piece together details.

“I don’t think any of us want to cut DDA – we certainly don’t want to cut DDA more than we need to,” Sen. Clarence Lam (D-Anne Arundel and Howard) said in a recent interview.

“I am curious as to how our forecasting hasn’t predicted the need would increase this significantly,” he said. “Any cuts, particularly in services for those in need, are difficult. We are obviously facing a very difficult budget situation currently, so fiscal decisions need to be made.”

State analysts are combing through details for future budget discussions but have found some factors that contributed to the unanticipated shortfall.

DDA’s ‘black box’ budget

In a recent hearing in the Senate Budget and Taxation committee, David Romans, a budget analyst for Department of Legislative Services, said that the General Assembly budgeted just over $1 billion in general funds for the current fiscal year for DDA’s community services, which is 97% of the agency’s expenses.

But actual spending has overshot by some $450 million, “about 42% higher than what was originally appropriated and thought to be the correct amount for the fiscal 2025,” according to Romans.

It’s not the first time the DDA overspent its budget.

The DDA began overspending its annual budget in 2021, with significant spending increases in 2023 and 2024. But state analysts are not entirely clear why costs are rising for the agency.

State analysts say expenses for the Developmental Disabilities Administration has outpaced annual budgets since 2021. Courtesy of the Department of Legislative Services 

Romans said that part of the challenge has been an ongoing lack of transparency from the DDA — along with inadequate probing from state oversight agencies.

“The DDA budget has always been a little bit of a black box … It’s never been easy to tease out what is driving changes in the budget, and that’s been true for decades,” Romans told the committee in January. “That makes it very hard for DLS, DBM [Department of Budget and Management], any of these oversight groups to be able to understand what’s going on. It puts a lot of reliance on getting information from the health department.”

Romans said responses from the department were “vague” and “in retrospect, incomplete” whenever DLS followed up on changes in the budget and expenses.

“They do provide numbers that add up to the allowance,” Romans said. “You can’t easily figure out what are the rate increases — and in recent years there’s been a lot of unusual things related to COVID and some of the federal flexibilities that the state received that the DDA took advantage of. But you couldn’t pull that out of the data that was being submitted so you had to go back to the department and ask for information.”

Budget and Taxation Committee Chair Guy Guzzone (D-Howard) asked if the shortfall was due to “essentially an accounting failure — it’s not at a sophistication of accounting that other agencies have provided.”

“I think that’s fair,” Romans said. He wished his department pushed harder for answers.

“It’s really important … to have more transparent DDA budget process,” Romans said. “I wish we had asked more questions than we did. Sorry that we didn’t – and that we didn’t raise more concerns … about the somewhat vague answers.”

New payment schedule for providers

While the DDA’s spending has exceeded its annual allocated budget since 2021, the 2024 fiscal year showed the largest difference between the actual spending and the DDA’s appropriated funds.

That year, the DDA community service expenses exceeded its allotted $1.8 billion budget by $865 million. Some cost increases were expected due to provider rate increases that year.

But some cost increases emerged during a transition on how providers were paid by the state, according to analysts.

“We knew that the payments under the new system were going to be larger than under the old system, and that was by design, that wasn’t a surprise,” Romans said. “But we weren’t quite sure how much larger they were going to be.”

The DDA administers Medicaid waivers that allow Marylanders with developmental disabilities to receive a wide variety of services, from live-in caregiver supports to transportation, respite care, employment services and more. The Medicaid waivers primarily are split between state and federal funding, and the state health department issues payments to providers for their work with waiver recipients.

Prior to 2019, the DDA used a prospective payment model meaning that providers were paid in advance and costs were reconciled later.

The state moved to a fee-for-service model starting in 2019, called the Long Term Services Support System (LTSS), where providers would be reimbursed after services were provided. Most providers switched the new payment model in 2023 and 2024, and as of September 2024, all providers were using the fee-for-service payment model.

But as more providers transitioned into fee-for-service, costs appeared to have increased by about $300 million, though DLS is not completely sure why that happened.

“The LTSS seems to be the big driver here,” Guzzone said. “Is it your impression that $300 million more services were provided? Or the same services, costing $300 million more?”

“I believe that it’s the same services, though there could also been an increase in utilization,” Victoria Martinez, DLS policy analyst, responded.

Despite apparent increasing costs under the fee-for-service model, Secretary Laura Herrera Scott says that the new system is more stable and predictable.

A graph showing Developmental Disability Administration expenses under two payment systems. The orange line represents prospective funding that would be later reconciled, while the green line represents a fee-for-service model. Courtesy of the Maryland Department of Health. 

“Under the prospective model payment system, providers received payments that would be reconciled at a later date,” she told the committee. “As claims and expenses came in, they would have to be reconciled against that large upfront payment … it was difficult to predict expenditures moving forward because you were always reconciling advanced payments with the services that were rendered after the fact.

“The current system reimburses providers based on claims as they’re rendered. So you can match the payment to the actual services that were rendered,” Herrera Scott said. “We can track the expenses, so given the transition into the new system, payments are now relatively stable and easier to project … That’s not something that DDA had ever prior to transitioning.”

Growing costs of self-directed services

An ongoing concern for the health department is an “unsustainable” growth in enrollment and costs in the state’s self-directed services.

In 2024, there were 16,827 Marylanders who selected a community model Medicaid waiver, where people join an established organization for disability care. But 3,632 waiver recipients elected the self-directed model, where the waiver recipient or their family hires individual employees for services.

According to the health department, enrollment for self-directed services have increased over 30% in both 2023 and 2024, particularly among young people who transition into the Medicaid waiver from school.

Annual enrollment increases for Developmental Disabilities administration, showing a greater increase in self-directed services. Courtesy of Maryland Department of Health. 

The Maryland school system oversees students with developmental disabilities until they age out at 21. Herrera Scott said that up until 2024, most transitioning youths would choose to join a community service provider, but now they’re more likely to choose the self-direction option.

“In prior years, about 80% of our transitioning youth chose traditional services over self-directed services, and this year, that number flipped that we saw about 75-80% of our transitioning youth selecting self-directed services.”

The governor’s budget proposes a $13 million reduction to eliminate certain wage increases for self-directed service staff. The budget also proposes a cap on certain goods and services that a self-directed waiver recipient can buy with Medicaid funds.

Those proposals have led to led to an outcry from self-directed Marylanders with disabilities who feel that their model is being unfairly targeted compared to the total budget concerns.

Department of Budget and Management Secretary Helene Grady told the Budget and Tax committee in January that there is “still more work to do … to understand what level of data we need on an ongoing basis to understand what’s happening within these costs and how best to optimize general funds across this universe towards the best outcomes for the clients.”

“We did not have a solid understanding … of the precise cost drivers, how much of the cost increase was true structural recurring costs, verses temporary costs related to the transition in reimbursement models and billing systems,” Grady said. “Those are key questions for us.”

“But this work is not done,” she said.

by Danielle J. Brown, Maryland Matters
February 10, 2025

Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: [email protected].

Until recently the province of a few science nerds and policy wonks, the issue is suddenly getting a whole lot of attention in the State House. Lawmakers have arrived at a “holy s***” moment, and most believe they will have to act this year with urgency and clarity to address potential energy crises, something they are often reluctant to do.

And still, some legislators will privately confess that they don’t fully understand the terrain or the nomenclature — or the challenges at hand.

What they do know is that electricity prices are spiking for consumers while energy supplies are dwindling, at a time when Maryland is trying to foster a business environment that attracts more data centers, which are notorious power hogs. At the same time, the state is lagging when it comes to meeting its aggressive climate mandates and clean energy goals.

The public doesn’t seem to know who to blame for their higher electric bills. And environmental leaders are girding for possible rollbacks in climate protections and concessions to the fossil fuels industry to increase energy supply in the state.

“I think we are at a really significant inflection point on energy,” said Del. Lorig Charkoudian (D-Montgomery), one of the recognized legislative nerds in Annapolis on energy and utility policy.

In the opening days of this legislative session, lawmakers on energy and environmental committees received briefings on the regional electric grid, the challenges the state is facing to meet its clean energy goals, and a wonky concept known as co-location, which is relevant to the debate over how and where data centers get their electricity.

Late last week, the House Economic Matters Committee held its first hearings on energy and climate bills, and Gov. Wes Moore’s administration introduced legislation to jumpstart the production of carbon-free energy. The plan relies heavily on expanding nuclear power in the state — a longterm proposition at best.

Legislative leaders are expected to unveil a comprehensive energy policy bill of their own later this week, though they’re keeping the specifics under wraps for a few more days.

“Ultimately, it is to increase domestic generation of energy in Maryland with an all-of-the-above approach, as well as make it easier for projects to site and exist in Maryland in a thoughtful way, as well as encouraging renewables,” Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City) told reporters Friday.

In an interview last week, House Economic Matters Chair C.T. Wilson (D-Charles), who has been a key member of the team crafting the legislation, said he and his colleagues are mindful of the rising costs of electricity and the need to generate more home-grown energy in Maryland. The state currently imports about 39% of its energy supply, according to the Maryland Energy Administration.

“I don’t think we’re going to do anything to hurt our constituents,” Wilson said.

‘We’re facing a reliability crisis’

Electricity generation, in the view of many experts, is the No. 1 energy challenge the state is facing.

The state’s three remaining coal plants are expected to close by 2027, and there currently aren’t any plans to make up for the lost production. What’s more, the operator of the regional electric grid, PJM Interconnection, has a backlog of dozens of proposed new energy generating projects in its 13-state territory that dates back to 2017.

“Because of PJM, not because of any state policy, we’re facing a reliability crisis,” Charkoudian said at a hearing earlier this month.

Jason M. Stanek, executive director of PJM and the former chair of the Maryland Public Service Commission, which regulates utilities, said the backlog has begun to ease since federal regulators approved the grid operator’s plan for expediting some of the project reviews.

It seems inevitable that the legislation House and Senate leaders are proposing will seek to encourage the development of at least one natural gas power plant in the state, perhaps at one of the coal plants that are shuttering. That won’t sit well with environmental leaders, who are already convinced that state law is unnecessarily extending the life of natural gas in Maryland through a lucrative incentive program for gas pipeline maintenance and replacement.

“Given the state’s commitment to reducing emissions through the Climate Solutions Act of 2022, any policy that incentivizes fossil fuels is contrary to state law and violates the spirit of the climate commitment in the state,” said Mike Tidwell, executive director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. “Any leader that proposes this will face a backlash.”

The legislative leaders’ bill is also almost certain to provide new incentives to expand nuclear energy in the state — a concept that is a lot less controversial than it would have been just a few years ago. Once anathema to environmental leaders, nuclear is now seen as the most reliable way to put carbon-free electrons onto the grid. The Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant in Lusby generates about 40% of all energy in the state — and more than 80% of the state’s clean energy portfolio.

Another nuclear plant of that scale is unlikely to be proposed or built in the state anytime soon. But state leaders are beginning to tout an emerging nuclear technology, small modular reactors, which are just a fraction of the size of standard nuclear plants, as potentially viable. Even Paul G. Pinsky, the director of the Maryland Energy Administration, who recalls protesting against nuclear energy as a young activist in the 1960s and ’70s, sees the technology as promising.

“There’s a timing issue,” he cautioned members of the Senate Committee on Education, Energy and the Environment earlier this month. “We don’t know how fast the new technologies will come online.”

The most optimistic estimates suggest modular nuclear reactors could be developed in six or eight years.

‘A very, very heavy lift’

The Moore administration bill, dubbed the Empowering New Energy Resources and Green Initiatives Toward a Zero-Emission (ENERGIZE) Maryland Act also seeks to boost nuclear energy, along with other clean energy sources. It reaffirms the governor’s goal that the state should eventually produce 100% clean energy — though the legislation does not mention the 2035 timeline that Moore has previously articulated as a target.

The Maryland Energy Administration recently issued a 70-page study on how to boost clean energy production in the state. “This report,” Pinsky told the Economic Matters Committee, “shows it’ll be a very, very heavy lift” to hit the 2035 target.

“What I’m concerned with is being wedded to a timeline, rather than a goal,” Wilson replied.

The highly technical, 44-page administration bill also seeks to rename the state’s longstanding renewable energy portfolio standard  (RPS) as the clean energy portfolio standard, and changes certain formulas for percentages of clean production along with incentives and pollution credits for clean energy.

“I think the ENERGIZE plan firmly grounds Maryland in a goal of achieving 100% clean energy,” said Josh Tulkin, executive director of the Sierra Club Maryland chapter.

Meanwhile, Charkoudian and Sen. Benjamin Brooks (D-Baltimore County) have introduced the Abundant, Affordable Clean Energy Act, which would restructure Maryland’s energy market to increase in-state clean energy production while protecting ratepayers through profit-sharing and cost caps, aiming to make power both more reliable and affordable. That legislation, which is also highly technical and runs 39 pages, is a priority for environmental groups; a hearing has been scheduled in the Economic Matters Committee on Feb. 6.

Like the Moore administration legislation, the Charkoudian-Brooks bill seeks to overhaul the state’s RPS. A study released last week from a national government watchdog group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, suggested that design flaws in the RPS “are undermining the state’s transition to clean electricity and imposing significant costs on Maryland ratepayers.”

The various bills to generate more electricity in the state come as the Moore administration seeks to attract more data centers, and with a major data center campus under construction in Frederick County. While state policymakers and utility regulators also anticipate a gradual transition to more electric vehicles and a reduction in gas usage in buildings, it’s anticipated that the growth in the data center industry will put the greatest strain on the power grid.

Sen. Karen Lewis Young (D-Frederick) and Del. Brian M. Crosby (D-St. Mary’s), the vice chair of the Economic Matters Committee, have introduced legislation that would require the state to study the economic, environmental and energy impacts of data centers in the state. But during a hearing on the bill last week, Crosby conceded that while ideally data center projects would be paused while the study is under way, the legislation would not stop the ongoing development of data centers in the state.

“If we’re going to get into this game and into this business, it’s probably worth it to wait for what the full impact is going to be, but that’s not really reality,” he said. “The train in many ways has left the station and it’s not coming back.”

A separate study on the impact of data centers nationally was released last week by a consortium of Maryland and national environmental groups and research organizations.

The report shows that between 2021-2024, the number of centers in the U.S. roughly doubled from 2,667 to 5,381, and it identified at least 17 fossil fuel-generated power plants nationwide that have delayed their anticipated closures or are at risk of being kept open longer due to the rising electricity demand for data centers.

“Maryland would be wise to learn from other states’ experiences, where too much of the rush to build data centers is being driven by hype, bad policy and inefficient applications of AI and cryptocurrency technology,” said Emily Scarr, senior adviser with the Maryland PIRG Foundation. “To protect our pocketbooks, the natural world and the quality of our lives, Maryland needs a different approach to data centers.”

A proposed high-voltage transmission line from a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania that would run through Maryland and connect to a data center hub in Northern Virginia has sparked outrage in Baltimore, Carroll and Frederick counties. Several bills have been introduced in the legislature to mitigate the impact of the project — though the ultimate say on the proposal rests with the Public Service Commission.

‘Those who have denied or diminished the science should pick up the tab’

A proliferation of data centers in Maryland would run counter to the state’s ambitious mandates to reduce carbon emissions over the next several years. The state is scrambling for ways to pay for the necessary climate initiatives, which are estimated to cost at least $10 billion.

Last week, the Economic Matters Committee held a hearing on a bill that would allow the state to set up a superfund to make fossil fuel companies pay for environmental degradation in the state over the past several decades. Bill sponsors and advocates envision that the measure could generate enough revenue to cover a good bit of the state’s climate needs.

“We think that it’s only fair that those who have denied or diminished the science should pick up the tab of those who have suffered from the damage,” said the Rev. Ken Phelps of the Maryland Episcopal Public Policy Network, who testified in favor of the measure.

A similar bill stalled last year — though comparable legislation has now become law in New York and Vermont. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute have already sued to block the Vermont law.

How many of these energy and climate bills under consideration in Annapolis this session become law is very much an open question. Lawmakers do not have much time to digest some very complex concepts.

“We have a lot of bills coming in but we won’t have a lot of bills coming out,” Wilson predicted.

Charkoudian believes, however, that there will be significant progress.

“I’ve always thought that energy is a multiyear conversation,” she said. “But I think there are decisions that will be made this year that will put us on a path to 100% clean energy.”

By: Josh Kurtz – January 27, 2025 7:02 am

Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: [email protected].

When a reporter framed a question Thursday with a line often used by Gov. Wes Moore (D) — that the state can’t simply cut its way to prosperity — Sen. Justin Ready (R-Carroll and Frederick) laughed out loud.

That was essentially the message from House and Senate Republicans on the Moore administration’s proposed fiscal 2026 budget: Despite billions in reported tax cuts and program reductions, the plan “is still a massive tax-and-spend budget,” they said.

“I don’t think you can say we’re cutting,” said House Minority Leader Jason Buckel (R-Allegany). “Any attempt to couch this as a tax-cut budget is simply inaccurate.”

He was backed by about 20 GOP legislators who gathered to criticize the administration’s $67.3 billion budget, in a respectful but pointed 30-minute session that complained about spending mandates and new revenue increases.

The budget has already been criticized by some Democratic legislative leaders, who worry that it cuts too deeply, particularly with delays and deferrals in the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, the sweeping 10-year education reform plan now in its third year.

The back-and-forth comes amid projections that the state faces as much as a $3 billion deficit in fiscal 2026, and that the structural deficit could nearly double in a matter of years without action.

Against that backdrop, Moore last week unveiled a budget that he said was carefully balanced to achieve a “growth agenda.” The goal is to jump-start the sluggish state economy, which Moore said has been holding back the budget. Only by growing the economy will the state achieve the stable, long-term growth that will help reduce structural deficits, the administration argues.

Moore said his budget includes about $2 billion a year in spending cuts and operating efficiencies and about $1 billion in new revenues.

The cuts include $200 million from the Developmental Disabilities Administration, $110 million from the University System of Maryland and $50 million in general government operating efficiencies, among others.

Democratic lawmakers have said funding for the Blueprint has been secured for the next two years and insist that it should not be on the table, but the administration, due in part to pressure from local governments and school boards, has deferred some parts of the plan — a move assailed by education groups and declared dead on arrival by House Democrats.

The plan calls for cuts to the corporate tax rate, offset by closing loopholes in the corporate tax structure,  and a restructuring of the tax code to result in income tax reductions for about two-thirds of Maryland taxpayers. The governor claimed that close to 90% of Marylanders would either see their income taxes go down or remain flat, while those earning $500,000 and more would see a higher tax rate.

The budget also calls for a range of other taxes, on sports betting and cannabis sales, and fees, like a proposed 75-cent fee for retail deliveries, among other potential charges.

But the Republicans’ analysis of the budget lowers the cuts to about $1.3 billion and raises the level of new revenues to the same, while classifying about $800 million in supposed savings as just redirected funds. Ready called the budget “a tale of what’s been said versus what has actually been proposed.”

While they acknowledged lowered taxes in the governor’s plan, they said many those were not actual cuts in spending but just a reduction in the rate of growth. And they said any savings are more than offset by higher taxes elsewhere, harping in particular on a proposal to tack on a 75-cent fee for every retail delivery from services like Amazon or DoorDash.

“Every Marylander will pay some sort of additional tax and fee under this budget – every Marylander,” said Ready.

That was echoed by House Minority Whip Jesse Pippy (R-Frederick).

“The biggest complaint we get is that it’s too expensive to live here,” Pippy said. “We’ve just got to be straight with Marylanders … We’re making Maryland more unaffordable.”

Republicans complained that the state is still tied to too much spending, citing the Blueprint and proposed spending on climate change initiatives as areas that could be cut.

The GOP lawmakers all gave credit to Moore for his position that part of the solution is to grow the state’s overall economy and spur private job growth.

“We’re happy that Gov. Moore is one of the first Democrats I’ve seen, at least in my 11 years here, who at least acknowledges that we just can’t create more and more and more and more spending forever,” Buckel said. “He at least acknowledges that private sector job creation is key to Maryland’s economic future.”

But they all also said he is not going far enough.

“His idea of growing the economy is taxpayers paying more so we can find a way to invest their money,” Ready said.

The GOP press event came several hours after breakfast with the governor that they described as a pleasant, friendly event.

“It was a very polite and very friendly breakfast,” Buckel said. “We had good conservations about the picture of the state and where we want things to go, and I think we share that goal of increased private-sector growth.

“He undertands that our perspective is not tax and fee increases, our perspective is, you have to have some level of real cuts, you have to phase things out,” he said.

But Buckel is also a realist: With Democratic super-majorities in the House and Senate, he knows there is only so much Republicans can do except try to get taxpayers motivated and argue their case to Democratic lawmakers.

“We’re going to be there until sine die [the final day of the session] having those conversations,” he said.