Are you celebrating the end of the debt ceiling crisis? You know, the predicted collapse of the U.S. economy triggered by the federal government defaulting on its debt because a 1917 law prohibits it from issuing debt beyond a level set in statute. That limit is currently $31.4 trillion. 

The compromise announced over the weekend is a victory for both sides. Biden’s willingness to compromise with Republicans averted a default on federal debt. Republicans won restraints on spending and several other priorities, including reducing new funding for the IRS and imposing work requirements for many beneficiaries of the SNAP (formerly known as food stamps) program.

Politics can be a difficult, ugly process, but in the case of the Republican decision to use a confrontation on the debt ceiling to achieve several of its 2024 political priorities, it worked. Should that be celebrated? Should President Biden have been tougher in negotiations? Those are valid questions. 

Thanks to the agreement, which is expected to be approved by Congress and signed by the president, the next debt ceiling crisis will not happen until 2025, after the next presidential election. 

I am not celebrating the end of the “crisis” because it never was one. The lines drawn in the sand by both the White House and Mr. McCarthy were not non-negotiable, but political posturing. I knew that sometime just before the “deadline,” the estimated date on which new federal borrowing would be illegal, an agreement would be reached. I was right.

The concept of a “debt ceiling” is stupid. America borrows money to pay for federal programs and spending already authorized. That means that, given Congress’ authority to appropriate money and raise taxes, there is already a “control” over spending. A “debt ceiling” is not needed if Congress had the backbone to pay for what it wants to spend.

The waste of time spent by both the White House and Congress arguing about the debt ceiling is reminiscent of the 15-vote marathon the Republicans needed to elect a Speaker of the House. That circus was orchestrated by about a dozen right-wing crazies with a take-no-prisoners approach to governing. They are ready to stop Congress in its tracks to make a point on issues like “wokeness,” guns, border security, abortion, and now that a Democrat is in the White House, the federal debt. They are not ready, or should I say able, to work as members of a deliberative legislative body created to translate what the people want into government spending and policy.

It was the right-wing extremists who conditioned Kevin McCarthy’s election to the Speakership on a promise to take the debt ceiling vote “to the mat.”  Because a compromise was reached, they failed. But they will be back the next time the federal debt approaches the “ceiling.”  They will also be looking for other means to attempt to win or influence issues they are unable to win without extreme game-playing. Take, for example, Senator Tommy Tuberville ‘s refusal to allow a vote on the appointment of General Charles Brown, Jr. as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff over the abortion issue.

I am waiting to see if Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-FL) or Lauren Boebert (R-CO) attempt to remove Speaker McCarthy because he compromised with the Democrats. Donald Trump, who has advocated a default, is encouraging them. 

Sadly, the compromise reached over the weekend will not eliminate future “debt ceiling crises.”  In a sane world, Congress would see that use of the “debt ceiling” to leverage cuts in federal spending only makes Congress look stupid. In its simplest form, think of Congress agreeing to spending and later refusing to pay for it. 

Representative Bill Foster (D-IL), and Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) have introduced the End the Threat of Default Act, legislation to repeal the statute that established a “debt ceiling.” Ideally, the legislation would pass, but that will not happen. The entire Republican caucus, even those who were troubled by the brinksmanship of Speaker McCarthy, prefers to keep the weapon of the debt ceiling.

Lest the debt ceiling fiasco be seen as the exclusive fault of Republicans, realize the real issue behind the “problem” of deficit federal spending is the refusal of both parties to support the type of tax increases needed for federal programs that enjoy broad bipartisan support. Republicans oppose all tax increases and enthusiastically voted in support of tax cuts for the wealthy. Democrats also oppose all tax increases except for those to be paid by the “super rich,” best understood to be someone other than 99.0 percent of us. 

The Democrats’ tax policy fosters the misconception that significant expansions of federal programs can be enacted with no new taxes (meaning no new taxes except for the super-rich). That is dangerous. It turns Congress into a grab bag. It also encourages Republicans to oppose all tax increases and seek tax cuts for their friends whenever they have the power to do so.

So, please join me in not celebrating the end of the debt ceiling crisis. The can has been kicked down the road. We do not have to worry about a repeat for two years. Yippee.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. 

 

Mike Pence is expected to announce his candidacy for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination by the end of June.  Forgive me if I yawn. Trump’s vice president has no chance of being elected president. 

The most memorable image of Pence comes from the 2020 Republican vice-presidential debate. A large black fly landed on his head. Pence was oblivious to it, just like he is on so many issues important to the Eastern Shore. Worried about climate change and rising sea levels? Mike is not your candidate.

I am troubled that Pence seems to think he is owed the Republican nomination because he refused to follow Trump’s request to reject the 2020 election results. We owe Pence a thank you for not rejecting democracy, but he was only doing his job. When he was inaugurated as vice president in 2017, he swore to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  

Other than not joining Trump’s insurrection, what else did Pence do as vice president? I cannot think of anything other than standing motionless behind Trump at bill signings and other events like a robot.

Pence’s policies, especially on abortion and guns, are, if anything, more right-wing than Trump’s. We could at least count on Trump to be unpredictable. Remember when Trump appeared to be open to gun safety reform legislation? Plus, why would any woman in their right mind vote for a man who has said he would not have lunch with a woman unless his wife were with him? Apparently the concept of professional female relationships has not entered his lexicon. 

I am also not ready to forgive Pence for agreeing to be Trump’s vice president in the first place. His being on the 2016 ticket gave Trump much-needed credibility among mainstream Republicans. (In 2016 there were some.) Imagine if Pence had rejected Trump’s invitation and publicly repudiated him? When you think back to those times, there were many pundits who predicted that if Pence had run for another term as governor of Indiana, he would have lost.  Perhaps that is why he jumped at the VP opportunity. 

If news reports are accurate, we may soon have several Republican candidates more engaging than Pence and without Pence’s baggage. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) announced on Monday. Among the candidates are Governor Ron DeSantis, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Governor Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, Governor Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, and even Former Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey. All these names are preferable to Trump, who might be facing felony charges in three or even four different courts by the time the 2024 Republican convention is held in Milwaukee.

In dismissing Mike Pence as a boring, out of touch candidate, am I hoping for a Republican that can defeat Joe Biden or another Democrat in 2024? Of course not. I have yet to learn of any Republican who embraces the policies I deem important. My distaste for the GOP was also heightened by last week’s Republican intransigence over the debt ceiling.

It may be a naïve hope, but maybe, just maybe, a moderate Republican could revive the GOP and start a rebuilding process. I do not expect that to happen but ridding the party—and America—of Trump for good is a step in the right direction. 

Some may ask, why do I want a revived Republican party? Because America needs at least two parties to function properly. Without a disciplined, principled opposition party, the Democrats could go too far left. Without today’s Democratic party, imagine the additional damage Trump may have done with four more years in office.

Mike Pence is not the future of the Republican party. He needs to retire. His entry into the Republican presidential campaign will, unfortunately, benefit Trump. That is why he should not join the race. 

Let’s thank Pence for doing his job in January 2021. I wish him a pleasant retirement. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. 

 

 Since watching the Donald Trump show a week ago, I have been trying to figure out what is going on with politics. The CNN town hall meeting (aka The Donald Trump show) was forcefully condemned by some and welcomed by others. Seventy minutes of Trump’s lying arrogance nauseated many of us but was welcomed by others, including many Democrats. Trump’s cavalier rejection of both truth and civility convinced many, for the 100th time, that he is unelectable. 

Then we have the phenomenon of Biden’s poll numbers sinking. A lot of us want Trump gone, but apparently still prefer him over Joe Biden. I have been pondering what Biden did to deserve such rejection. Is it age alone? Is it his embrace of diversity and equity? Or is it simply a naïve belief that if we could just get Trump back in the White House, the price of gasoline would go down and the war in Ukraine would end in 24 hours (as promised by Trump at the Town Hall).

I am also watching the impasse over raising the debt ceiling. A terribly risky game of chicken is being played with both sides refusing to entertain compromise. Will Biden lose the support of his party if he “caves” to Speaker McCarthy on the issue (as Trump predicts)? And is McCarthy even in a position to negotiate? Given his razor-thin majority and the MAGA caucus, is McCarthy even able to compromise? And, most importantly, will default on federal debt end American civilization as we know it or simply produce a slight bump in the road? (Trump cavalierly told Town Hall attendees not to worry about a federal debt default.)

If you are able to read these tea leaves, congratulations. Personally, I do not believe that today’s tea leaves can be read with any reasonable degree of confidence.

Conversations with politically knowledgeable friends, as well as newspapers and cable news, have convinced me that nobody really knows what is happening. Pundits like Al From and Craig Fuller have opined that Trump will not be the Republican candidate in 2024. Other friends and pundits, however, tell me that despite being found liable for sexual battery and defamation, being indicted on 34 felony counts in New York, and facing more serious charges of election interference in Georgia and, some predict, a multitude of charges in Washington relating to misappropriated classified documents and trying to overthrow the government, that Trump is a shoo-in for the Republican nomination.

What do I think? I do not know.

Making prognoses even more difficult are the wildcards of Biden’s and Trump’s health, the economy, and the increasing possibility that a group called “No Labels” will run a third party “national unity” ticket in several states. Several friends point to the self-identification of more than a third of voters as “independent” as evidence that a centrist ticket—a Democrat and Republican running on the same ticket and guided by a platform of centrist principles—is the only way to prevent Trump or a left-leaning Democrat from winning the presidency. Others, including Mr. From on The Spy’s From and Fuller program, believes No Labels is a disaster because it would guarantee the return of Trump to the White House by attracting votes that otherwise would be cast for Biden.

What do I think? I do not know. I believe most of us would welcome a centrist president and that the best way to defeat Trump or persuade him not to run is to convince him that his base has abandoned him and that he cannot win. As I said, I do not know.

At times, I feel guilty about not “knowing” what the 2024 election cycle will hold. Last weekend, I stopped feeling guilty. What happened? I reflected on the reality of election day being more than a year and a half away. That realization prompted me to remind myself to calm down.

A year and a half is a long time. A lot of things can, and probably will, happen. Trump, for example, may self-destruct. President Biden may decide not to run for reelection. A surprise, charismatic candidate might emerge in one, or maybe both parties. Remember Obama’s meteoric rise in 2008? The economy may surprise us by not going into recession. And dozens of other scenarios are possible. What if there is another pandemic? Or the Chinese invade Taiwan? Or something else.

My takeaway is that those of us who care about America’s future must stay engaged. We cannot ignore Trump (or Biden), but we also must remind ourselves that it is too early to assume anything. The future is not yet determined. If we want the future to be positive, we need to work for it. Right?

And exactly what should we do?  If you agree that Trump’s return to power would be a disaster, we must call out the defeated ex-president’s lies and misguided policies.  More importantly, we must get involved with the Democratic party, or even the “No Labels” movement, to promote electing a president in 2024 who supports democracy and the Constitution. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. 

 

Now that Senator Ben Cardin has announced he will not seek another term, it is time to reflect on how fortunate Maryland has been to have him represent us. Cardin is a public servant in the best meaning of that term. His focus has been on representing Marylanders. 

In an excellent editorial, the Washington Post described Cardin as modest, humble and detail-oriented.  I would add that he is the type of Senator essential to the Senate successfully doing its work.

Imagine if the Senate were populated with one hundred Ben Cardins? No fist-pumping insurrectionists (Josh Hawley of Missouri), windbags (more than two dozen, with Texan Ted Cruz leading the parade), idiots (Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, to name just one), unfunny comedians (Louisianan John Kennedy), and weird folks (Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona). And let us not forget the showboats (Booker of New Jersey, Durbin of Illinois, Warren of Massachusetts, Manchin of West Virginia, Rubio of Florida, and, of course, Rand Paul of Kentucky).

In contrast to more than three-quarters of the Senate, Cardin rarely seeks the spotlight. When he appears on cable news, it is usually to discuss important legislation he is working on—things like holding Saudi Arabia responsible for the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamel Khashoggi, securing tax-breaks for small businesses, or working on environmental issues. Since joining the Senate in 2017, and for 20 years as a member of the House of Representatives, Cardin has left it to his colleagues to sling the mud or to bathe in the narcissistic self-promotion involved in watching yourself on MSNBC or Fox.

Cardin epitomizes the decorum once prevalent in the Senate. He has rarely lashed out at Republicans, even when they richly deserved it. And he has worked with Republicans whenever possible. Let’s contrast that no-nonsense low-key approach with that of West Virginia’s Joe Manchin. How refreshing. 

 Imagine if Ben Cardin, rather than Chuck Schumer of New York, were the Democratic Leader? Would the debt ceiling impasse be resolved? Possibly, yes. President Biden would do well to take a page from Cardin—rather than talk about bipartisanship, practice it.

Although he has proven to be an extraordinary senator, I admire Cardin’s decision to announce his retirement now—more than 18 months before election day 2024. The Senator is 79 years old. Rather than attempt to set a record for how long he serves in the Senate or public office, Cardin recognized that the time was right to step aside and make way for a new senator. Thanks to Cardin’s lack of ego and sense of responsibility, the Maryland Democratic party is free to conduct a careful, open, and thorough process to select Cardin’s successor.

Contrast Cardin’s decision with the hot mess of California Senator Diane Feinstein’s reluctant decision to announce she would not seek re-election. Her announcement came only after various Democrats began announcing their candidacies for her seat. What was she thinking? Or, better stated, was she thinking?

Feinstein no longer appears able to execute the job of Senator but refuses to resign. Effectively, California will be without a Senator for the next 18 months (assuming Feinstein lives that long). Her continuing health-related absence from the Senate is undermining Democrats’ efforts to resolve the debt ceiling crisis.  Can you imagine Ben Cardin making a similar decision?

In short, Maryland has been fortunate to have Cardin represent us. My hope is that his approach to public service will be the standard against which all candidates to replace him will be judged. Maryland does not need an Elizabeth Warren or a Josh Hawley to represent us. We need a senator with a pristine record of integrity, a commitment to represent all Marylanders, and an understanding that for the Senate to work, senators must collaborate with one another. 

Thank you, Ben Cardin, for your exemplary service. When you leave the Senate next year, you will be sorely missed but not forgotten.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. 

 

Could someone please explain why support for a twice-impeached ex-president recently indicted on 34 felony counts is increasing? I am perplexed. Is Trump really a stronger candidate than he was before losing the 2020 election? And why don’t Trump supporters react to evidence that Trump planned and led the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol?

Many years ago, a client of my law firm with whom I was friendly was indicted and later convicted of defrauding the federal government of millions of dollars. I was shocked at the news, disbelieving it until details were revealed at the trial. When the time for sentencing came, the friend asked me to write to the judge to ask for leniency. I refused. I agreed with the conviction. I was not comfortable with condoning fraud.

I also do not condone insurrection, tax and business fraud, misappropriation of government documents, obstruction of justice, “hush money” payments to sex workers, and sexual assault. Those are only some of the reasons why I want Trump out of politics. The allegations are also the reason Trump’s continuing support among his base is a mystery to me.

The videos of Trump’s supporters smashing windows in the Capitol and using flagpoles as spears against Capitol Police are repugnant but apparently fail to convince most of Trump’s “base” that his involvement in the crime disqualifies him for public office. Still, what about evidence that Trump sexually assaulted—raped—E. Jean Carroll in a changing room at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in New York many years ago? Ms. Carroll says Trump followed her into a changing room and assaulted her. 

A court in New York is expected to find that Trump more likely than not raped Ms. Carroll and award her damages in the civil case. (The statute of limitations precludes a criminal action being brought against Trump.) Mr. Trump, as usual, denies the allegations and has suggested Ms. Carroll is a politically motivated, publicity-seeking liar hoping to profit from the case.

Rape–even an allegation of rape—should be enough to convince people that the accused is a problem. In the case of Trump, not only have 17 other women accused him of sexual assault, but Trump bragged about committing sexual assault on tape (the infamous 2005 Billy Bush tape released shortly before Trump’s 2016 election). And what about the disgusting stories of Trump walking into changing rooms at the Miss America pageant, which he owned at the time, so he could see contestants in various stages of undress?

Trump’s sexual history is disgusting. So why haven’t the sordid details of the E. Jean Carroll rape shocked his followers? That is what I want to know.

Trump will go down in history as a liar. He is likely to be convicted for felonies that involve lies. He is the author of the “Big Lie” that he won the 2020 presidential election, and he has lied about thousands of other things ranging from how wealthy he is to how many people attended his 2017 inauguration, to how he escaped service during the Vietnam war. My question is why anyone would believe Trump when he suggests that Ms. Carroll is lying about getting raped?

Given that the details of the Trump rape case are now out, it appears unlikely that even a loss in the case resulting in a multi-million dollar payment to Ms. Carroll will cost Trump political support. That is tragic. 

I remain hopeful that a combination of Trump’s other problems will persuade him to drop out of the 2024 presidential race before the Republican convention next year. (Both Craig Fuller and Al From predicted Trump will not be the party’s 2024 nominee in The Spy’s From and Fuller video posted in the April 27 edition.)  Among Trump’s “other problems” are the virtual certainty of indictment for election interference in Georgia and a multi-count indictment in Washington for crimes associated with January 6, 2021, and related efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Let us hope From and Fuller are right.

Until 76-year-old Trump retires from politics, I will continue to try to understand the psychology of his followers. Political science will benefit from a detailed study of the rise and fall of Donald Trump. I do not want to author that book, but I will read it. 

Trump is a mistake that America cannot afford to repeat. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. 

 

Yesterday President Biden answered the question of whether he will run for reelection in 2024. The answer is yes. While I admire much that Biden has accomplished in the last 27 months, I am troubled. There are too many risks inherent in an octogenarian running for president. Remember, if Biden wins and completes a full second term as president, he will be 86 on the day he leaves office.

Biden’s advanced age, as well as the possibility that the indicted and arguably insane ex-president may win the Republican nomination, is likely to lead to a series of surprises for the rest of this year through election day 2024. The race will be historic. This is uncharted territory.

As we are well aware, people age at different speeds. Many of us have met people ready for retirement at age 50 and others who could and sometimes do work productively into their 90’s. Biden is young for his age, but too old to both run for president in 2024 and serve as our Chief Executive for another four years starting in 2025.  And imagine an 85-year-old as our chief executive in 2028.

The President’s mental ability, stamina, and focus are legitimate worries even if you believe Biden is an exceptionally young 80-year-old. The problem is that healthy 80-year-olds often do not stay that way. Seniors in their 80’s can decline rapidly, especially after a fall or illness. Most of us have experienced such rapid decline with aging relatives which suggests that even if Biden is up for a stressful presidential campaign and four more years as president, the risk of his rapid decline or death cannot be overlooked.

A second worry about the President’s decision to run is that he does not enjoy the enthusiastic support of Democrats. Despite his achievements as president, rank-and-file Democrats don’t want Biden to run even while saying, as I do, that they will support him if he gets the nomination.

What happens if, in the middle of the 2024 campaign season, something happens to Biden that makes it obvious he is not ready to serve four more years? That situation would benefit Republicans. Why take this risk?

In addition to issues directly involving Biden is his choice for vice president. Kamala Harris is a flawed and unpopular vice president. She has not been impressive in her work on border security and has occasionally been an embarrassment on diplomatic missions. It is difficult to imagine her as a competent commander-in-chief. In short, the principal problem with Harris is that given President Biden’s age, if she runs again as his vice president, she is likely to become president. Many strong Democrats I have spoken to want someone other than Harris on the 2024 ticket. Their rationale is not only that she is not the best choice for a potential future president, but that her unpopularity will hurt the 2024 Democratic ticket. Will her presence on the ticket hurt Biden’s reelection chances? Maybe. Why take the risk?

Some Democrats claim the reelection of Joe Biden is the best means of preventing Donald Trump from returning to the White House. That is a legitimate rationale given that, as of today, Trump remains the Republican front-runner. But how likely is it that Trump will remain a viable candidate by the end of the year? 

Polls suggest Trump’s support may decline or even collapse in the coming months. Many voters who supported him in the past want to move on. They are just waiting for the right candidate to emerge. Trump has become boring by repeating the Big Lie, attacking RINOs and prosecutors, and engaging in other strange behaviors. Also, there is the question of how his base will react to his likely indictments for election fraud in Georgia, obstruction of justice, and for crimes associated with the January 6 insurrection.

In my view, a Trump decision to quit the 2024 race increases rather than decreases the risk of chaos in the 2024 elections. Trump’s decision would encourage Democrats to look beyond Biden. Several Democrats who would otherwise reluctantly defer to Biden as the best candidate to defeat Trump, may reconsider their decisions. The president currently benefits from the perception that because he defeated Trump in 2020, he is the best bet to do so again. With no Trump in the race, that benefit disappears.

As we look at the 2024 election, we must also consider the possibility of an economic, foreign policy, or climate crisis that would convince Democrats that the situation is beyond Biden’s ability to manage, even if he did not age another day. Will President Biden be ready to take 3 a.m. phone calls when he is 84? 

Do the risks of a Biden 2024 reelection bid outweigh the benefits? Yes. The president’s decision to run for reelection is selfish and egotistical. Does Biden believe there is no other democrat who could run the country as well as he could? Do you? 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. 

 

If you haven’t watched the videos about the proposed Poplar Farm development published in the Spy on April 8th, you are missing important news that directly affects you.  A developer plans to build 456 homes (210 apartments, 108 single family homes, and 138 townhouses) on what used to be Poplar Hill Farm. In short, once was a small farm in Talbot County will become a densely populated mini town, which will likely result in degrading our quality of life on the Eastern Shore.

The “listening session” included the developer explaining the proposal and members of the community commenting on it. All comments were negative—and with good reason.

I will not review the comments. They are worth listening to, and considering, for their own merits. The same can be said about the developer’s proposal. I listened to both and left feeling sorry for community members who rose in opposition to the proposal. The development seems likely to be approved. I left with a question for the authorities with power to approve the proposal:  Why aren’t you concerned about the additional environmental, infrastructure, and social services stress that 456 new homes, and possibly a thousand new residents, will place on the county? Don’t you care? And forgive me for asking, what reasons do you have other than hoped-for profits to support a huge project like Popular Farm? What don’t I know?

Many of us moved to the Eastern Shore because of its rural character. Many of us were born here and have chosen to remain here because Talbot County is not Anne Arundel, Prince Georges, or Montgomery Counties. If we wanted to live in a rapidly growing suburb, we would move there. We do not.

But there is more to quality of life than just having the privilege of driving by corn fields and being able to drive into Easton and walk around and explore at any time of day. There are also issues involving the county’s ability to serve the sharp increase in population. 

More people translates directly into the need for bigger schools, additional healthcare resources, more police, enhanced and expanded sewer and water treatment, and greater recreational services. Does anyone believe our schools, police, healthcare resources, roads, and other infrastructure are perfect today?  One thousand new residents will undermine improvement efforts.

The problem with new developments is that the developer—the organization inviting new residents to join our community—is not asked to pay for much, if anything, of the costs involved in the expanded services. And by the time the county acknowledges that its schools are overcrowded, the developer has moved on to its next big project. And, if you think about it, rapidly expanded infrastructure and social service needs are often not successfully implemented.

The Poplar Farm development increases traffic on the 322 bypass. (It may be time to stop referring to it as a bypass as the number of local destinations grows.)  Route 322 will get a new traffic light. Oxford Road will not, we are told, despite the new mini town having its second exit on that road. How many cars per day will go in and out of that exit?

It may be premature to envision the need for a complicated new traffic pattern to handle the traffic in and out of the new development, but a cloverleaf or four-lane overpass may be needed in a few years. I am kidding, of course, because that would be a huge new expenditure for the county. The developer will not be paying for it and none of us want that type of thing on the Eastern Shore. 

In addition to traffic, we could talk about whether the new development helps or hurts the health of Chesapeake Bay. What is your guess?

And will the new development make Talbot County schools more successful? Ask any teacher whether increasing class size makes his or her job easier. 

And what about healthcare? Will the new hospital be obsolete before it is built? Will the quality of healthcare in our area deteriorate? The answer is that we do not know. What we do know is that the cost of matching healthcare resources to the population is not a problem on the Poplar Farm developer’s radar screen. The developer will be long-gone by the time we acknowledge we have a problem.

One reaction to concerns about Poplar Farm is to suggest that all of us who moved here from somewhere else are part of the problem. The argument suggests that if future residents brought in by the new development are a problem, so too are those of us, like this writer, who moved here in, say, the last 20 years. There is limited logic in that argument but let me suggest that two wrongs do not make a right. The question we need to ask is what the future of Talbot County and the Eastern Shore should look like.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. 

 

In case you missed it, Florida enacted a new gun law this week. Championed by Governor Ron DeSantis, the bill allows “permitless carry” of concealed firearms. Under the new law, qualifying Floridians can carry a concealed firearm without getting a permit or undergoing training on how to handle a gun. Anyone who is a citizen over 21 and does not have certain felony charges or certain misdemeanor domestic violence charges can purchase a gun and “start packing.”

There’s more to the new law, but “permitless carry” is the provision getting the most attention. Florida joins several other states, including Alaska, West Virginia, Alabama, Oklahoma and Ohio, and a handful of other mostly Republican leaning states in allowing permitless carry.

Maryland does not have “permitless carry” and that makes me feel safer. I don’t want untrained gunslingers bringing guns into churches, schools, grocery stores, concert halls, and even my home without my knowing about it. (I tried to think of a less politically charged way to reference the people who will choose to start carrying concealed loaded guns without first being trained in how to use them but could not think of anything else.) 

Dare I say it? The concept that concealed weapons make the world safer is nonsense.  For every shooting prevented (usually by someone shooting the shooter dead), there are more than an offsetting number of accidental shootings and deaths. The number of such “accidents” increases dramatically among people not trained in the use of firearms.

Curiously, just as Florida continues to expand “gun rights,” Maryland is considering a new law that goes in the opposite direction. The legislation, Senate Bill 1, adds new restrictions to the process of getting a carry permit and, most importantly, would prohibit anyone from knowingly wearing, carrying, or transporting a firearm on private property without the consent of the owner. The bill also prohibits guns “under certain circumstances” in areas such as courthouses, hospitals, schools and “areas where alcohol is served.”

The bill is now pending before the House of Delegates. It is sponsored by Senator Waldstreicher (D-Montgomery County), who indicates that the legislation was drafted in response to the Supreme Court decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, a decision that found that “law abiding citizens” do not need a “good and substantial” reason to be permitted to carry a concealed weapon.

I am hopeful that Senate Bill 1 will be enacted into law. Absent any break in the impasse on new national gun safety legislation, we need Annapolis to pass the bill.  Unfortunately, that may not happen.

Although Maryland is a progressive state with a clear need for stronger gun safety laws, Senate Bill 1 faces strong opposition.  Among the groups opposing the bill is the National Rifle Association (NRA), which tells us: “Senate Bill 1 expands gun-free zones where law-abiding citizens will not be able to carry for self-defense. This patchwork of so-called “sensitive areas” does nothing more than create confusion for law-abiding citizens, while being ignored by criminals. Proponents fail to explain how disarming law-abiding, trained, and licensed individuals will accomplish safety from criminals who do not obey the law. They present no plan to disarm violent criminals, who already ignore existing laws.”

I will spare you a rebuttal of the NRA’s claims except to suggest that fewer guns on the street and fewer people carrying guns, concealed or otherwise, makes for a safer Maryland. 

How many more mass shootings, accidental gun deaths caused by children gaining access to improperly stored loaded weapons, and suicides will it take before America accepts that the Second Amendment was never intended to make buying and using a gun dramatically simpler than buying and driving a car?

And what about those of us who hunt or feel the need to have a gun in our home for self-defense? There is nothing in Senate Bill 1 that will impinge on your rights. Hunters and law-abiding citizens should support Senator Waldstreicher’s bill. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. 

 

Call me a masochist, but I watched the entirety of Donald Trump’s March 25 rally in Waco, Texas. I watched it to confirm my belief that he is getting crazier. I was curious about what he might say about his possible indictment by the Manhattan DA. I wondered what sort of crowd he would attract and how it would react to a typical Trump rant. I got all those answers, but I also got a primer on the policy proposals that Trump would pursue if (heaven forbid) he returned to the White House.

I had assumed I knew all about Trump’s policies. In a way, we all have made such assumptions. Ask people on the street what Trump stands for, and they will mention Trump’s wall, trade, America First, lower taxes, fewer regulations, opposition to climate change, and “culture wars.” Those who hate Trump will mention racism, his history of sexual assaults, grift, the January 6 insurrection, and The Big Lie.

In Waco, Donald Trump delivered a 92-minute speech. I did not have my stopwatch out, but more than an hour was about himself. Trump lamented the “weaponization” of the justice system that he claims has victimized him with endless unfair and ungrounded investigations. He vilified his supposed torturers, calling them Marxists, scumbags, globalists, and Democrats. 

He also surprised me by playing a rendition of the right-wing anthem, “Justice for All,” performed by a choir of people jailed for the January 6 insurrection. While they sang, a video screen showed pictures of the riot. Later in the speech, the defeated ex-president said, “some of them are patriots.”

Watching the first hour of Trump’s speech was a challenge. Unlike in-person attendees, I could press the pause button to take a break from the endless stream of complaints about the 2020 election and much more. Press reports suggest that a noticeable number of attendees streamed out of the event before it was over. That’s not surprising given the Texas heat and what, to that point, was Trump being Trump.

Eventually, Trump turned to what he would do if re-elected. Focusing on those proposals or claims that are not already widely known, here are a few things worth remembering:

After suggesting that President Biden is leading the world into World War III, Trump claimed that only his election could prevent it. He did not elaborate on which Biden’s policies were making a world war inevitable, but they appear to focus on Ukraine.

Trump claimed the Russian invasion of Ukraine would never have happened if he were president. He implied that his relationship with Vladimir Putin was the key. He then indicated that if elected president in November 2024, he would settle the Ukraine war “within 24 hours,” acting even before he was inaugurated.

Trump promised to “clean up America” not only by curtailing illegal immigration but by executing “the largest mass deportation” in history. After claiming that “smart” dictators and others were emptying prisons, insane asylums, and mental institutions and sending the inmates/patients to the U.S., Trump indicated he would send them back. If the “original countries” refused to take them back, Trump said he would cut off all American aid.

Trump also said he would address growing Chinese economic and military power. He plans an all-out trade war against China to stop the importation of most Chinese goods. Trump did not address how such a trade embargo might impact the U.S. economy or how the Chinese might react.

Education is also a focus of Trump’s policy proposals. He did not call for improving the quality of schools or making American students more competitive in science, technology, engineering, or math. Instead, he promised to prohibit federal funds to any school with a vaccine or mask policy or that permitted the teaching of critical race theory. Also, taking a page from Florida Governor Ron “DeSanctimonius,” he called for parental control of schools. He condemned the “mutilation of children” and an end to “the participation of men in women’s sports.” Trump indicated parents should have the right to fire school principals who “are not getting the job done.” 

Not part of Trump speech, unsurprisingly, was any discussion of an issue essential to our future on the Eastern Shore—climate change. Trump bragged about his withdrawal from the “disastrous” Paris Climate Accords in his speech and repeatedly called for “restoring” American energy independence.  

These are not the only Trump policy proposals mentioned (or not mentioned) in the speech, but, in my view, are the most important.                                                                               .   .   .

Curiously, while writing this piece, I searched in vain for a transcript of Trump’s remarks. I found none. I reviewed Trump’s speech by listening to the entire hour and 40 minutes and reading various news reports. Does the “fake news” industry have it in for Trump? In a way, it does. Trump has lied so often and engages in so much offensive rhetoric that the mainstream press tends to ignore him. Trump considers that unfair. Maybe it is, but it is also unfortunate. To understand the risk of Trump winning the White House in 2024, it is necessary to understand the issues he is running on and the promises he is making. 

Some of the nation’s most prestigious newspapers and media outlets have ceased following Trump. I could not find coverage of the speech in The New York Times. The Washington Post had an article, but it was a feed from the Associated Press—the paper that prides itself on its coverage of politics apparently did not send its own reporter to Waco.  What does that tell you? 

If you still support Trump or believe he is being treated unfairly, I urge you to watch the video. It is available on C-SPAN without any editorial comment.   If you have already rejected Trump and pray nightly for him to disappear from the political stage, I urge you to listen to the speech. Only by knowing Trump can you ensure his defeat. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. 

 

I’ve been lambasted by a number of Spy readers after declaring Everything Everywhere All at Once trash after watching only 20 minutes of the film. I was called unprofessional, stupid, bigoted, and worse. The more polite readers shared their experiences with the film, with several indicating that they, too, found the opening of the film tedious or chaotic but came to like, or even love the film after giving it a chance.

Setting aside the name-calling, the Spy readers who criticized me are right, sort of.  If I could write the piece again, I would watch the entire movie before commenting on it.  But I say “sort of” because what I did—rely on a first impression—is something most of us do most of the time.  

I trust my gut, rely on my own eyes, and “know what I like.”  But I also agree with Ronald Reagan’s advice of trust but verify.  I “verify” when my first impression leaves enough of a doubt that I suspect error or conclude that my first impression is not sufficient to serve as the basis for a conclusion.

Over the years, I have reached thousands of conclusions based on first impressions and live comfortably with those conclusions every day.  Some conclusions may be wrong, but if they have minimum impact on others, what is the harm in living with them?  As I see it, it is my business.

A few examples of first impressions that led to conclusions are my distrust of Fiat and Chevrolet branded vehicles. I worked at a gas station in Germany many years ago and encountered what I recall was an endless string of mechanical failures that the drivers of the Fiats who stopped in for gasoline had experienced.  I remember parts falling off the interiors of the cars and owners seeking help in reattaching them. In the case of Chevrolets, a friend had a miserable little car called a Chevette (not to be confused with a Corvette).  One day we were driving down Route 95 and the engine suddenly died. I have not trusted a Chevy since.

Other examples of first impressions include food (if the first bite tastes awful, the rest likely will stay the same), music (if the first few bars cause a headache, the remainder could kill you), and politicians (Trump lost me in 2015 with his bigoted rhetoric as he rode down a golden escalator to announce his candidacy for the presidency.)

If I extrapolated the criticism I received on my comments on Everything Everywhere, I would buy a Fiat and drive it for a year or two to determine whether the company has resolved its quality issues. I would give Donald Trump a second chance, reread The Art of the Deal and a dozen or so of his other books, and quit describing him as a threat to American Democracy.

As you might guess, I’m not about to shut up about Trump until he leaves the political stage. In so doing, I accept that I will continue to provoke anger on the part of his base of supporters, whom, by the way, seem to consist of people who seem indifferent to sedition, sexual harassment, grift, racism, and a lot more.  

Speaking out against Donald Trump is, in my view, doing readers a favor.  Even if my “research” on Trump is incomplete, if my opinion prompts anyone to reconsider their support of Trump, I am doing good.

Similarly, when I offer an opinion about Easton, saying that it is a great place to live or visit, I confess that there are things about Easton that I don’t know.  Maybe if I knew more about Easton I would tell people to visit Chestertown or Cambridge before visiting Easton.  Is that a problem? Is it unprofessional to praise Easton, endorse a restaurant where I enjoyed a good meal, or to opine that Toyota makes better cars than another company?  I do not think so. 

Even when writing comments on the Oscar awards and particular movies, I think it is OK to share one’s opinions.  A condition on commenting, of course, is that one’s comments should not be racist or hurtful to anyone.  But advising people to avoid particular films, silence certain music, support Ukraine in repelling Russia, and to embrace social equity and justice, is not wrong.  Isn’t opinion writing what that term means—sharing opinions?  When a writer puts his or her name on a piece, it implies it is an opinion. And for those who accused my criticism of Everything Everywhere of being racist, how do they defend the gratuitous violence against police and IRS agents in the film?

After reviewing the criticism of my criticism of Everything Everywhere, I have decided to continue to offer opinions on politics, culture, social justice, and even movies. I made that decision after reading and considering the comments I received. I did not read every comment, but I read enough to know that I should have watched all of Everything Everywhere before commenting on it.  I also am confident that had I watched the entire film, I still would not have liked it.  It is not a crime to admit that. And, come to think of it, I told my readers I had not watched the entire film before condemning it as “trash” so they could take that into account in deciding whether my opinion was worthy of their consideration. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects.