Following Richard Nixon’s election as President in 1968, John Mitchell, Nixon’s campaign manager, was asked by the media what to expect when Nixon assumed office.

Mitchell said prophetically long before Watergate, “Watch what we do, not what we say.”

Those words apply to many candidates for public office today.

The are at least two recent examples in Maryland.

Prior to leaving office after two terms, Republican Governor Larry Hogan announced that he had no interest in running for an open U.S. Senate seat in Maryland, formerly held by Ben Cardin.

Hogan went as far as saying his experience as a business executive and eight years serving as governor left him reluctant to serve in a deeply divided legislative body marked by lengthy and often bitterly partisan dialogue and decision-making.

Then, in February 2024, Hogan entered the Senate race, where he easily won the Republican nomination in a primary election but lost in the general election with 42.8% of votes cast.

In 2022, Wes Moore was elected as Hogan’s Democratic successor with 64.5% of votes cast.

Almost immediately following his election, Moore was widely viewed by political pundits in Maryland, Washington DC, and nationally as a potential presidential candidate in 2028.

To date, Moore has said early and often regularly he is not pursuing that goal.

Despite saying that, it has been most interesting watching media reports of what Moore has done in the political arena during his first term as governor.

Moore:

Spoke at the 2024 Democratic National Convention.
Campaigned for Kamala Harris in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Michigan.
Campaigned for Democratic candidates in Virginia.
Appeared on The View where Joyce Behar told him he looked “very presidential.”
Interviewed with CNN following his college commencement speech in southeastern Pennsylvania.
Attended an Aspen Colorado fundraiser hosted by Damian O’Doherty, a Maryland political operative and co-founder of Baltimore based KO Public Affairs.
He shared his thoughts on “bold, purposeful leadership” on a podcast with the NBA’s Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr, and CBS Evening News co-anchor John Dickerson.
Delivered a keynote speech at the South Carolina Democratic Blue Palmetto Dinner.
Attended a fish fry hosted by Congressman Jim Clyburn who is widely credited for a Joe Biden 2020 primary campaign resurgence when that campaign was stalled.
Met with former political advisors to Barack Obama and Joe Biden to discuss a presidential path to the White House through South Carolina.
Spoke to hundreds of political insiders in South Carolina about his personal biography and on his record as Maryland Governor.
Spoke at an NAACP “Fight for Freedom” Dinner in Detroit Michigan.
Spoke at the Virginia Democratic Party’s Blue Commonwealth Gala.

Ultimately, all this travel and schmoozing by Moore may be for naught.

Next year, Moore must win both the Democratic primary election and the general election in Maryland.

The conventional wisdom that he will win both is far from a given.

In polling done earlier this year, Moore’s job performance approval fell to 55% from 61% from polling done in the prior month.

These poll results occurred before Moore signed into law a wide range of tax increases, new taxes, fee increases, and new fees that were approved in the 2025 general assembly session.

As I write this, Moore has an opponent in the 2026 Democratic primary and three potential opponents seeking a gubernatorial nomination in the 2026 Republican primary.

He will also have a Green Party candidate in the 2026 general election.

In the case of the Democratic and Republican primaries especially, but not exclusively, there may even be even more candidates deciding to run.

One wild card in the Republican primary is former Governor Hogan.

Despite his failed U.S. Senate run, a survey done after Hogan’s two terms as governor showed he had a 77% job approval rating that included an 81% approval rating with Democratic voters.

Hogan has not yet announced his decision on seeking a third term ,which the state constitution allows since it would not be a third successive term.

Assuming Moore is the successful Democratic candidate for governor, there is also the hard political reality that not meeting expected vote totals in elections that any candidate is expected to win can be an insurmountable roadblock on a journey to the White House.

Preeminent Maryland political analyst Len Foxwell has observed — “What we have seen in the past where prospective gubernatorial candidates and prospective presidential candidates have been derailed because of weaker than expected showings back home.”

Regardless of who is elected Maryland Governor in 2026, voters in that election cycle and every election cycle in Maryland would be best served if there was no longer a regular mismatch between what some candidates of every party affiliation say and what they do.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

In an increasingly polarized America, one public policy issue with decades of unresolved and widely divergent opinions has been southern border immigration into America.

On one side are those who feel strongly that deportations of every immigrant who has not followed long established, but not enforced immigration laws, are long overdue, necessary, and proper. 

On the other side are those who feel strongly that mass deportations of southern border immigrants who have not earned legal immigration status is not feasible, needed, or proper. 

One thing is irrefutable. 

Southern border immigration was a huge issue, if not THE issue in the 2024 presidential and congressional elections, when Donald Trump won the Presidency for a second nonconsecutive term and Republicans secured majorities in both houses of Congress. 

Recently, Harry Enten, chief data analyst at left of center CNN did a deep dive on the current state of this issue during the height of the protests in Los Angeles.

The Columbia Journalism Review calls Enten “a new generation of political journalists focusing on data-driven journalism instead of reporting from the campaign trail.” 

Enten has reported that no group has moved more sharply to the right on immigration than southern border immigrants who went through the long and arduous process to become an American citizen.

They followed the rules and waited patiently for the process to be done. They filled out forms, took citizenship tests, paid fees, and often spent years separated from family while following U.S. immigration law to the letter.

According to Enten, since 2020 this group of immigrants have shifted their partisan allegiance toward Republicans by a large margin. 

In 2020, Democrats held a 32-point lead among these voters on the issue of who best to address southern border immigration issues. 

Today, Republicans are up by a 40-point lead resulting in Enten concluding bluntly, “This group of voters in the American electorate believes that “the Democrats don’t have a clue on the issue of immigration.” 

Enten also suggests, “Trump is begging for a fight on this because he knows what he’s doing so far is working with the American electorate. There is no issue on which Trump is doing so much better than he was in his first term, more than the issue of immigration.”

Enten maintained other polls affirm his conclusions. He cites comparable results from CBS and from Ipsos, a multinational research firm headquartered in Paris. 

Enten says, “No matter what poll you look at, no matter which way you cut it, the American  public is with the Republicans. The American public is with Trump.”

Not necessarily and certainly not guaranteed for the long term.

In reviewing survey results, one must remember they are a snapshot at a given point in time.

American voters are often inconsistent and are always unpredictable. Their views on any and all public policy issues are subject to change dramatically.

After relatively peaceful nationwide “No King “protests, right of center Fox News engaged Daron Shaw, a Republican pollster, and Chris Anderson, a Democratic pollster, for a survey. 

Their survey results included an unexpected shift by unaffiliated (independent) voters on the issue of widely publicized ongoing searches for illegal immigrants led by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. 

Those unaffiliated voters are now expressing concern that ICE efforts are “heavy-handed and cast the deportment net too broadly”.

As I write this, there is breaking news on American military action in Iran. 

That will have a profound impact on the results of any future current events polling results, regardless of who conducts the surveys.

For now, the range of issues and their current interest intensity by respondents to the Shaw and Anderson polling are: 

85% of the survey respondents were extremely or very concerned about the future of America.

84% of the survey respondents were extremely or very concerned about inflation.

80% of the survey respondents were extremely or very concerned about government spending.

78% of the survey respondents were extremely or very concerned about Iran.

69% of the survey respondents were extremely or very concerned about antisemitism.

67% of the survey respondents were extremely or very concerned about immigration. 

The mid-term general elections are less than 18 months from now.

It will be interesting to see which issues if any of the above, or new ones yet to emerge, will have the greatest impact on voter views, turnout, and choices in the midterm elections.

Donald Trump will not be on the ballot, but midterm voters will decide party control of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate during the last two years of the Trump administration.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant in Easton. 

Under current Maryland election law, political parties have the power to decide whether or not to hold closed primary elections.

For example, with closed primary elections, only voters registered with the Republican Party can vote in Republican primary elections, and only voters registered with the Democratic Party can vote in Democratic primary elections.

Unaffiliated voters and voters registered with other parties can vote in post-primary general elections, nonpartisan municipal elections, local judicial elections, and school board elections.

When most Maryland voters were registered as Republican or as Democratic voters this was not widely viewed as an issue requiring review or attention.

That could change based in large part on unaffiliated voter registration numbers.

Currently 907, 638 of Maryland voters are registered as unaffiliated in contrast to 1,007,000 voters who are registered Republican and 2,211,316 voters who are registered Democratic.

Currently, 123,324 of Congressional District 1 (which includes all of the Eastern Shore) voters are registered as unaffiliated in contrast to 242,659 voters who are registered Republican and 185,754 voters who are registered Democratic.

Currently, 5,905 of Talbot County voters are registered as unaffiliated in contrast to 11,597 who are registered as Republican and 10,534 who are registered as Democratic.

The unaffiliated voter registrations numbers in Maryland have been noticed by the Open Primaries Foundation. This national organization advocates for open primary elections in America and should not be confused with the Open Society Foundation founded and funded by George Soros.

An Open primaries Foundation spokesperson recently said “The Open Primaries Foundation is dedicated to closing closed primary elections around the country. Maryland is just the beginning.” Another Foundation spokesperson recently said “Nearly a million Maryland voters shut out of voting is a crisis. Independent voters are the fastest growing group of voters in America, but they are treated as second-class citizens in Maryland and across the country. We cannot continue to publicly fund and administer elections that shut these voters out if we want to continue to call ourselves a democracy.”

The Open Primaries Foundation is now collaborating with a Maryland law firm and five Maryland voters on a lawsuit challenging state funding of closed primaries.

All five voters are registered unaffiliated voters and were barred from voting in the partisan 2022 and 2024 primary elections in Anne Arundel County.

The lawsuit claims that state election officials are violating Article 1, Section 1 of the state constitution, which guarantees that every qualified U.S. citizen who is a resident of Maryland shall be entitled to vote in the ward or election district in which the citizen resides at all elections to be held in this State. The suit also maintains state election officials are violating Articles 7 and 24 of Maryland’s Declaration of Rights.

The lead attorney for this lawsuit is former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Boyd Rutherford.

Recently, Rutherford has said the following regarding the lawsuit:

“The constitution says all elections. Nowhere in the constitution does it state anything about primaries or political parties or anything of that notion.”

“It [the lawsuit] is not an attack on the parties. It does not require the political parties to allow Unaffiliated voters to vote in partisan party elections. This action is to prevent the state from funding these primaries that unconstitutionally exclude Unaffiliated voters.”

“Requiring party affiliation to vote creates a barrier of partisan primaries that the state endorses and supports and funds, which is contrary to the plain reading of the state constitution and the Declaration of Rights.”

Some suggest this issue could be and should be addressed in the General Assembly. While that is always possible, it is not probable, at least in the near future.

In 2023, two open primary bills in the General Assembly were never voted out of a committee.

Rutherford has also said “I don’t think the legislature sees it in their interest, even though they should, because it is a question of voting rights. We think the courts need to take it up, just like the Voting Rights Act or Brown versus Board of Education. The legislature alone is not going to do it.”

I agree and suggest that lack of legislative action on this issue affirms Niccolo Machiavelli’s timeless observation on change:

“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than introducing new ways of doing things. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old ways of doing things and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones.”

That said, I optimistically predict that eventually the legal challenge will succeed, and the General Assembly will approve changes to the current law to allow for some form of open primaries in Maryland.

Until then, Maryland’s unaffiliated voters will continue to be observers of, rather than participants in partisan primary elections.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

Few places in America outside of the political arena are more likely to affirm the timeless observation — always expect the unexpected.

This was certainly the case with regard to the 2024 Presidential election.

Relatively few people expected Joe Biden would perform so poorly in a debate with Donald Trump, and that his performance marked the beginning of the end of Biden’s re-election campaign.

Conversely, relatively few people expected Kamala Harris’s performance in her debate with Donald Trump would go well enough to temporarily jump start her ultimately unsuccessful campaign.

Relatively few people expected Donald Trump would win the election for a delayed second term with a significant majority of the popular vote and a solid majority in the Electoral College.

Less noticed, but important to consider, was the unexpected pivots by at least two left of center national newspapers — The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times — on their candidate endorsement decisions.

These pivots were especially noteworthy as all three of them endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, Hillary Clinton in 2016, and Joe Biden in 2020. Expectations were all three would endorse Kamala Harris in 2024. It did not happen.

Only The New York Times endorsed Harris.

The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times did not endorse Harris or Trump.

In the case with The Washington Post, publisher Will Lewis announced a new no presidential endorsements policy at the Post, not only for the 2024 presidential general election, but for future presidential general elections.

In announcing new policy Lewis said, “We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way. We see as a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions — whom to vote for as the next president. I am very excited about this new clarity and transparency and cannot wait to see it brought to life in our opinion section. Every Day.”

He also wrote in a memo to the staff at the Post — “This is not about siding with any political party. This is about being crystal clear about what we stand for as a newspaper. Doing this is a critical part of serving as a premier news publication across America and for all Americans.”

Jeff Bezos, the owner of The Washington Post and founder of Amazon, who purchased the newspaper after it was owned by the Meyer-Graham family for over eighty years, also recently wrote a memo to Post employees.

He wrote, “We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too, of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.”

Bezos also wrote, “There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job.”

In the case of The Los Angeles Times, Dr. Patrick Soon Shiong, a surgeon and entrepreneur who has been is the owner and Executive Chair of the paper since 2018, asked the editorial board to do a factual analysis of the policies of Harris and those of Trump during his first term.

He also asked them to provide their understanding of the policies and plans of Trump and Harris that they presented during this campaign and its potential effect on the nation in the next four years.

He wrote, “In this way, with this clear and non-partisan information side-by-side, our readers could decide who would be worthy of being president for the next four years.”

He noted the board “chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision.”

Going forward, it will be most interesting to see what The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times decide on their policies regarding presidential general election endorsements in the 2028 election cycle.

I predict The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times will maintain their most recent policy decisions and will not make general election endorsements in that election cycle.

I also predict The New York Times will maintain their most recent policy decision and will make general election endorsements in that election cycle.

For now, all I can write with certainty is they all have the power and a demonstrated willingness to retain or change their endorsement policies at any time for any reason.

That said, always expect the unexpected in the political arena.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

In the U.S. Congress, there are 461 “support a cause” caucuses for members to join, ranging from the Appalachian National Scenic Trail Caucus to the Zoo and Aquarium Caucus.

Most are so little known; one would be challenged to name five without a search on Google.

One that is well known is the House Republican Freedom Caucus, based on their historical adversarial relationship with the House Republican Caucus, aka the Republican Conference.

The Freedom Caucus is deeply committed to a conservative approach on public policy issues.

It is a force to be reckoned with within the House Republican Conference based on the fact that the conference has a thin majority requiring almost unanimous party unity to pass bills.

Since late last year, the House Freedom Caucus chair has been Congressman Andy Harris.

Harris replaced former Republican Congressman Bob Good, who narrowly lost a bid for re-election in a primary election to a challenger endorsed by President Trump.

Good had a well-deserved reputation as a dogmatic “my way or the highway” legislator.

Like Good, Harris has a strong commitment to the House Freedom Caucus principles.

Unlike Good, Harris has demonstrated a leadership style reminiscent of former Republican U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen.

Dirksen was a 36-year member of Congress who served for 10 years as Senate Minority Leader.

Like Harris is now, Dirksen then was a strong advocate for conservative fiscal principles, especially on federal government spending and the national debt.

Dirksen was also a pragmatic legislator who understood success in the legislative arena requires practicing the art of the possible, in other words, pursuing accomplishments that may be achieved, rather than pursuing accomplishments that can never be achieved.

Dirksen summed it up perfectly when he said, “I am a man of principles, and one of them is flexibility.”

To date, Harris has used the Dirksen philosophy in his leadership of the Freedom Caucus.

Following his election as caucus chair, Harris said, “The best way to advance the conservative agenda is to not be constantly viewed as an obstacle.”

After a relatively orderly election of Mike Johnson as Speaker of the House, Harris said, “That was an example of how I think we should operate, which is to actually come to an agreement — because, you know, we are reasonable people. Come to an agreement. They’re not going to be perfect for everybody, but they’re going to move us in the right direction.”

That approach has not gone unnoticed by Congressman Dustin Johnson, chair of the House Republicans Main Street Caucus, a caucus whose members have more moderate views than members of the Freedom Caucus.

Congressman Johnson has observed that he “loves working with Andy Harris.”

He also has observed that Harris’s predecessor (former Congressman Good), was “a more difficult personality to get to ‘yes.’”

A recent example of Andy’s leadership philosophy was in full flight was his role in securing support from the Freedom Caucus members in the House for H.R. 1, a top legislative priority of the Trump administration and described by Trump as a “big, beautiful bill.”

After a great deal of contentious debate within the Republican Conference, H.B.1 was approved in the full House by a one-vote margin (215 yes votes and 214 no votes).

Every Republican House member who voted on H.R. 1 voted yes with only two exceptions and every Democratic House member who voted on H.R. 1 voted no.

Neither of the two Republicans who voted no are members of the Freedom Caucus.

In a move that was somewhat surprising, Harris voted present.

In a social media post after the vote, he wrote that he did so “to move the bill along in the process.”

With regard to moving the bill along, there is no certainty when or even if H.R 1 will make its way to President Trump for signature into law.

There are already indications members of the Republican majority in the Senate may pursue significant revisions to H.R. 1, and there are rumblings from the Republican majority in the House that anything less than minor Senate changes will result in pushback from the House.

One thing that is certain so far is that as House Freedom Caucus chair, Harris has had measurable success to date with the following leadership strategies:

“The best way to advance the conservative agenda is to not be constantly viewed as an obstacle.”

“Come to agreements. They’re not going to be perfect for everybody, but they’re going to move us in the right direction.”

Those strategies should guide future dialogue, deliberation, and decisions by the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

 

Monday May 26th is Memorial Day in America. 

The first version of an American Memorial Day occurred in May 1868, three years after the end of the American Civil War. 

Then named Decoration Day, it only honored Union soldiers who died in that war.

It was followed by many local observances of remembrance, during which volunteers placed flowers on the graves of all Civil War veterans. 

Only after World War I and World War II did these observances evolve into honoring the sacrifices all members of all the U.S. military who died during wartime service. 

In 1968, Congress and then President Nixon approved permanently scheduling the national observance to the last Monday in May, and in 1971 Congress and then President Nixon approved the official name of the national holiday as Memorial Day.

Memorial Day remains the only one of three military-related holidays that honors individuals who died as a result of serving in the U.S. military during a time of war. 

Sadly, in today’s world, Memorial Day no longer receives the attention and respect it deserves.

For many Americans, Memorial Day is just another three-day holiday weekend.

It is a time for family gatherings, picnics, trips “downy ocean”, catching up on household chores, and watching sporting events, most notably the Indianapolis 500 car race. 

Memorial Day is also almost universally considered to mark the beginning of the summer season. 

It is not that way everywhere, especially in The Netherlands, also referred to as Holland.

The Netherlands has a Remembrance Day every two years where they commemorate three major events in their history.

The events are the anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe, the end of a five-year occupation by Germany during that war, and remembering those in military service who died during World War II.

A major element of their remembrance occurs at the in American Cemetery Margraten, a village in the most southern part of The Netherlands.

Margraten has a memorable place in European military history.

The village is close to a highway built originally by the Roman Empire that was used by Caesar, Charlemagne, Charles V, Napoleon, and Kaiser Wilhelm II. 

In May 1940, Nazi soldiers used the highway on a successful campaign to occupy the Low Countries of Europe – The Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg.

In September 1944, Nazi troops used it again to retreat from the Low Countries they had occupied for four years.

In November 1944, the American Cemetery Margraten was developed as the final resting place for 8,288 Americans who died in World War II. It also includes a Wall of the Missing with the names of 1,722 individuals classified as missing in action. 

Burials include five recipients of the Congressional Medal pf Honor, America’s highest recognition for gallantry in combat beyond the call of duty. The burial also includes soldiers whose rank ranges from Private First Class to Two Star General.

Unique to the cemetery is the deep and lasting connection it has with residents of the Margraten community.

Since 1945, they have “adopted” grave sites in the Netherlands American Cemetery.

One weekend every two years, they bring flowers to the graves and post pictures of the fallen.

More than 3,000 photos are on display that weekend next to headstones and on the Walls of the Missing. 

This tradition is so revered that there is a long waiting list to serve as volunteers for this solemn undertaking.

It is very unlikely Americans will ever come close to replicating the Margraten way of celebrating a Memorial Day tradition.

At the very least, we all can take time sometime during the Memorial Day weekend to pause and reflect on the words Abraham Lincoln included in his Gettysburg Address.

He said in part:  

“It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain —that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people , shall not perish from the earth.” 

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

 

In my most recent column, I wrote about the following three thought-provoking news reports on Maryland’s bond ratings and fiscal policies that merit immediate attention of Governor Moore and the leadership of the General Assembly:

• Decisions by Moody’s to downgrade Maryland’s fiscal outlook from stable to negative for the first time since 2011.
• Unanswered questions on how to address structural state budget deficits driven in large part by state funding obligations for the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future.
• The potential for Maryland to experience similar outcomes to those recurring in Delaware where businesses have relocated or are planning to relocate their Delaware incorporation after concluding that state has a hostile to business environment. 

Now comes the unwelcome news that Standard & Poors Global Ratings (S&P) has issued a negative outlook for outstanding revenue bonds issued by the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA). 

Since 1971, MDTA has been responsible for building, operating, improving Maryland’s toll facilities, and financing new transportation projects.

Currently MDTA operates, maintains, and collects tolls on the Fort McHenry Tunnel, Harbor Tunnel, Chesapeake Bay Bridge, Hatem Memorial Bridge, Gov. Harry W. Nice/Sen. Thomas “Mac” Middleton Bridge, Millard Tydings Bridge, and Maryland Route 200, aka the Intercounty Connector highway in Montgomery County and Prince George’s County.

MDTA is also in charge of the massive job of rebuilding, reopening, and operating the Francis Scott Key Bridge that will, at some point, once again connect Anne Arundel County and Baltimore County.

While Standard & Poors recently reaffirmed MDTA’s current AA bond rating, they also downgraded its outlook on MDTA’s bond rating from stable to negative. They warned of the potential for future changes, in part due to S&P’s uncertainty over the costs of building the Key Bridge replacement.

These costs have been estimated to be at least 1.8 billion dollars.

Funding sources for those replacement costs are uncertain, especially if the Trump administration continues to aggressively pursue further reductions in federal government spending. 

What if only some or none of the $ 1.8 billion promised by former President Biden for bridge replacement will ever be delivered by the federal government? 

Such an outcome is possible given a Republican President and a Republican Congress.

In any event, S&P does not foresee raising the recently reaffirmed AA bond rating upward “given MDTA’s relatively high debt burden and additional borrowing plans.”

Conversely, S&P has warned there is “at least a one-in-three chance they could lower the rating within the two-year outlook based on final costs to replace the Key Bridge along with MDTA’s s $5.1 billion capital improvement program.” 

Currently MDTA has $2.1 billion in outstanding debt. In fiscal 2026, which begins July 1, 2025, that debt amount is expected to “increase significantly” to $2.6 billion, according to an analysis of the General Assembly’s nonpartisan Department Legislative Services. 

That analysis projects outstanding MDTA debt will increase to $3.3 billion in fiscal 2027, before peaking at $3.8 billion in fiscal years 2029 and 2030.

Those amounts are slightly less than that provided for in MDTA’s statutory authority on a borrowing cap.

To date, MDTA seems unconcerned by these negative news reports.

An MDTA spokesperson has said, “The agency will continue to meet its debt payment obligations despite the loss of the Key Bridge and temporary loss of associated revenues, the MDTA expects to remain in compliance with all board directed financial policies and trust agreement covenants.” 

One has to ask — Is that based on rigorous analysis or wishful thinking?

I predict all the above news will result in Governor Moore calling a special session of the Maryland General Assembly well before the next regular session convenes in January 2026.

If and when a special session is held this year, Governor Moore and the leadership in the General Assembly have a responsibility to every Maryland taxpayer.

That responsibility is simple and achievable.

Collectively and individually, they need to acknowledge, understand and respect the observations in all of these bond rating reports.

They need to give special attention to Moody’s report, which includes the following: “The negative outlook incorporates difficulties Maryland will face to achieve balanced financial operations in coming years without sacrificing service delivery goals or adding to the weight of the state government’s burden on individual and corporate taxpayers.”

 

It is imperative that in any special session and in future regular sessions, decisions on state spending levels, spending cuts, new taxes, tax increases, new fees and fee increases be based solely on economic realities.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.