Since the Republicans reclaimed a majority of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in the last election cycle, a recurring issue has been the impact of conservative Republican members (notably the Freedom Caucus) on efforts by the House Republican leadership to reach consensus on such issues as government spending, debt limits, aid to Ukraine, and southern border security. 

As that division continues, some observers of the Maryland General Assembly like to say, “With a Democratic supermajority in both houses of our General Assembly here, we don’t have all the division and disruption that they have in Congress.” 

Recent events in Annapolis cast serious doubt on that observation. 

In the current General Assembly session, there has been and is deep divide over the state budget and tax increases to fund it between the leadership of the Democratic super majorities in the State House and in the State Senate.

Last week, the state Senate approved their version of the state budget with relatively little debate and rancor. It ultimately passed unanimously with yes votes from every Democratic Senator and all but one Republican Senator (who was not present that day due to a death in his family). 

The day after the Senate version of the state budget was adopted in the Senate, the Democratic leadership in the Maryland House announced a $1.3 billion revenue plan to be paid for with expanded corporate taxes, legalized internet gaming, and new fees on ridesharing, tolls, and electric vehicles. They did so, maintaining now is the time to adopt tax and fee increases to help ensure there will be full funding in the future for three high-priority initiatives for House of Delegate progressives. Those initiatives include funding public education as called for in the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future (The Kirwan Plan), addressing chronic deficits in the state transportation trust fund, and addressing climate change.

The response to that announcement from the Democratic President in the Maryland Senate was immediate and blunt. He said “I don’t think there’s much room for compromise. We [the Senate] will not be considering wholesale or significant increases to Maryland taxes.”

Extending an olive branch to the Democratic House leadership, the Senate President did say that Democratic Senate and House leaders share the same priorities. He also did not rule out the possibility of the Senate considering a revenue package “next year.” 

At this point, no one knows for sure what will happen on a final state budget that must be approved before the General Assembly adjourns early next month.

The wild card on all the discussions on current as well as future state budgets, tax increases and fee increases is Governor Moore. 

So far, in this budget debate he has embraced the position of the Democratic Senate leadership. Asked if that position would hold beyond the current year, Moore has said, “I just know that the bar for raising taxes not just this year, but for every single year for me, it’s going to be a very high bar.” Last Friday, the governor focused instead on Maryland’s post-pandemic lagging economy and the role of a more robust economy in expanding Maryland’s tax base. Moore said, “For the past five years, Maryland’s economy has grown by .2%. The average state has grown by 7.5. So, we’ve got to get this economy moving. There is a way that we can continue growing, be bold, and also know that any conversations around taxes are going to have a very high bar.”

Now is the time for the governor to say even more. 

He can share his definition of what constitutes a “very high bar” for any discussions on evaluating tax increases. He can share his plans to get Maryland’s economy moving. He can use his office as a bully pulpit to spread the message that his overall strategy is taking bold steps to improve Maryland’s economy, create jobs, retain current jobs, bring new businesses and population to Maryland, and keep current businesses and current residents in Maryland. He can share revenue projections from a more robust Maryland economy that could eliminate, minimize, or delay a need for future tax and/or fee increases.

Last but not least, he can remind the House Democratic leadership that after eight years of Progressive Democratic Governor Martin O’Malley and Democratic supermajorities approving  a wide range of tax and fee increases, Republican Larry Hogan was elected twice as governor and now has an opportunity to be the first Republican to be elected to the U.S. Senate from Maryland since 1968.

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

 

Last November, progressives in Maryland were thrilled when Democratic candidate Wes Moore was elected governor in a landslide after defeating nine much more well-known opponents in a Democratic primary. They were even more thrilled when progressive Democratic candidates were elected to replace moderate Democratic members and Republican members in the Maryland House of Delegates and the Maryland Senate. Those elections further solidified the Democratic veto- proof supermajorities in both houses of the General Assembly.

Going into the 2014 General Assembly session, progressives seemed to be large and in charge. They looked forward to further advancing their progressive public policy agenda.

As the 90-day session begins to wind down, that has not been the case, especially on tax and budget matters. It is increasingly clear the Democratic supermajorities are not monolithic, nor is the Governor fully embracing an aggressive progressive tax and budget agenda.

This outcome was not expected when Governor Moore presented his proposed state budget in mid-January. Then there was consensus that a balanced state budget would be easily approved before or by the end of the session as required by the Maryland Constitution. 

Recently that consensus has been shaken to the core based on five consecutive revised State Board of Revenue Estimates projecting state budget deficits will be the largest since the “Great Recession” which began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009.

Next fiscal year, the deficit is projected to reach $1 billion. In fiscal year 2027, the last year of Governor Moore’s first term, it is projected to grow to $1.3 billion. A year later, it is projected to more than double to $3 billion and could be $4 billion the following fiscal year. These projections do not include the impact of funding to address a $ 3.1 billion deficit in the state Transportation Trust Fund and $8 billion to fully implement the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future (The Kirwan Report). 

As a result, there has been intense and even contentious debate in the Democratic supermajorities on what to do and when to do it. The answer depends on who you ask and where they sit. 

The Democratic House majority leader, Democratic chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, and the Democratic chair of the House Appropriations Committee, are united in saying the General Assembly needs to raise taxes and needs to raise them now. The Democratic senate president and Democratic chair of the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee are saying not so fast, we do not need to raise taxes in this session.

Governor Moore agrees with the Senate leader’s position there is no need for tax increases for now. Asked if that position would hold beyond the current year, Moore has said “I just know that the bar for raising taxes not just this year, but for every single year for me, it’s going to be a very high bar.” His budget secretary has elaborated on Moore’s overall strategy on budgets and taxes going forward by saying “These revenue trends continue to underscore the necessity of taking bold steps to improve our economy, create jobs and bring new businesses and population to Maryland.”  

No doubt the Moore administration is aware of the results when Maryland Democratic General Assembly supermajorities approved a wide range of tax and fee increases proposed by progressive Democratic Governor Martin O’Malley. With a “Change Maryland” message that resonated with Republican, Democratic, and unaffiliated voters, Republican Larry Hogan won two terms as governor and now has an opportunity to be elected to the U.S. Senate.

As is almost always the case In Maryland, final decisions over increasing state spending and increasing state taxes and fees will come down to how much and when? 

The larger question is how Democratic Party control of the state government will be impacted if the current divide between the shrinking moderate wing of the party and the growing progressive wing of the party on budget and tax matters is not resolved.

One unforeseen obstacle to resolving this divide are comments made recently by one high profile progressive Democratic county executive and agreed to by another.

Anne Arundel County Executive Steuart Pittman said the failure of long-standing progressive “tax reform” goals to gain support in the General Assembly is because “Loopholes are everywhere for interests that lobby for loopholes. It’s baked into the system. Legislators survive on a diet of campaign contributions to get into office and to stay there. The largest donors tend to be the very interests lobbying for loopholes and opposing a fair distribution of the tax burden.” Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich agreed with that observation.

Such remarks are not going to help advance progressive positions in the General Assembly even when their party has supermajorities.

Given all the above, one can ask if the dynamics in the state legislature may be open to real change. What if Republican members who are accustomed to being largely irrelevant on budget and tax matters in Annapolis, forge a working relationship with moderate Democratic members on issues of common interest such as spending and taxes? 

Likely? No. Probable? No. Possible? Maybe. 

In politics anything is possible. Ask Larry Hogan and Wes Moore. I suspect both were told early on when they launched their gubernatorial campaigns that winning was not possible.

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

In every election cycle, there are political pundits who use their position on media outlets as a bully pulpit to share their opinions. One of them is Claire McCaskill, a “political analyst” for MSNBC.

Prior to joining MSNBC, McCaskill was a career politician and United States Senator from Missouri who lost her reelection bid in 2018. After accepting her new role at MSNBC, McCaskill said she would “not hold back.” 

She could have also said but chose not to say – In my new role, I will not forget losing my senate race to a candidate endorsed by Donald Trump.

That was confirmed by her comments last week in an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. During her appearance, McCaskill had an epic on-air meltdown over a fact-checking article on Joe Biden in The New York Times.

The article’s headline was “Fact-Checking Biden’s Recent Economic Talking Points.” In the article, The Time’s reporters concluded some of Biden’s statements were either lacking context, misleading, or outright false.

In reacting to the story, McCaskill said “Can I make a suggestion? I move that every newspaper in America quits doing any fact-checks on Joe Biden until they fact-check Donald Trump every morning on the front page. It is ridiculous that The New York Times fact-checked Joe Biden on something. I mean, he vomits lies, Trump vomits lies. Every day, over and over and over again.”  She went on to say, “And it’s just ridiculous that the New York Times is doing a fact-check on Biden, while they let Trump, like they’re numb to the torrent of lies coming out of Trump’s mouth.”  

In her rant, McCaskill never refuted the conclusions in the Times article.

Regarding fact-checking fairness, McCaskill needs to recognize three facts that she is either unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge.

Fact #1 – Her claim that Donald Trump has not been routinely subjected to rigorous fact-checking is simply not true.

PolitiFact, a nonpartisan fact-checking website launched by the Tampa Bay Times, and now owned by The Poynter Institute (a nonprofit learning center for journalists), has regularly tracked Trump campaigns and White House years. 

Their website notes that Trump has been fact-checked thousands of times by different news organizations since he entered politics. 

After Trump, the three most-fact-checked politicians were former President Obama with 603 fact-checks, 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton with 301 fact-checks, and President Biden with 286 fact checks.

Progressive national media outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post are not cheerleaders or apologists for Trump.  

Fact #2 — On their website PolitiFact reports “The Washington Post’s Fact-checker column sought to collect every statement by Trump during his one term as president. They ended up with 30,753 items.

Fact #3 — New York Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger responded to McCaskill’s attack by acknowledging the White House has been “extremely upset” over its coverage of Biden. He then said, “We are just stating the truth fully and plainly, but we are also doing that in a way that is unemotional. We are not anyone’s opposition and we’re not anyone’s lap dog.” 

In her tirade, Clair McCaskill asked, “May I make a motion?” Without waiting for an answer, she plowed ahead with her suggestion that “every newspaper in America quit doing any fact-checks on Joe Biden until they fact-check Donald Trump every morning on the front page.”

I have a motion too. I suggest every America ignore self-absorbed talking head pundits who are often wrong but never in doubt. This is especially the case with former elected and appointed politicians desperately trying to be important and relevant without interest in or capability of vetting their opinions.

Voters are best served with knowledgeable researchers’ fact-checking every candidate, elected official, and high-level appointed official without regard to their party affiliation or issue positions. Voters are also best served with knowledgeable journalists choosing the best media outlets to share the fact-checking results. 

That is what the voting public needs and deserves.

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

Recently, multiple media outlets reported the Biden administration may revise a previously announced schedule on mandated new limits on emissions from vehicles using fossil fuels.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) projected these new limits would lead to 67% of new cars and light-duty truck sales being all-electric by 2032, an enormous increase given current sales of 7.6% in 2023.

Recent news from Ford makes that increase projection appear even more enormous. Last month, Ford announced they are reducing production of the F-150 Lightning all-electric pickup truck from the previously planned production rate of 3,200 per week to about 1,600 per week based on soft demand for EVs in the U.S. auto market.

The current emission mandate schedule has been strongly opposed by the United Auto Workers union, by manufacturers of about 97% of the new vehicles sold in the United States, and by 4000 new car dealerships across the country.

A new version is on its way. One may ask why and why now?

The sub headline in a recent New York Times article says it all.

“The change to planned rules was an election-year concession to labor unions and auto executives, according to people familiar with the plan.”

This is not surprising.  Opposition to and political consequences of maintaining the current schedule has been noticed by the Biden re-election campaign.

Labor support has long been a key element of an enduring political coalition used most effectively by the Democratic Party, in national elections and especially so especially in vote rich blue states.

That labor support for Biden was first put to a test last year when the EPA initially proposed the new emission level schedules.

The Biden re-election campaign got a shot across the bow then. The president of the United Auto Workers Union announced the UAW was withholding its endorsement of Biden’s re-election bid citing their concerns with the aggressive schedule for a transition to all electric vehicles.

In public comments, that the UAW filed regarding the proposed rule, they pressed the Biden administration to relax the compliance timeline. In discussions with senior White House officials, they repeated that request. Following those discussions Biden administration officials said the union’s comments had “resonated.”

Beyond the threat of the UAW to withhold an endorsement, other comments that likely resonated with the Biden reelection campaign was an observation by University of Michigan political science professor Barry Rabe.

Speaking on Michigan politics and Donald Trump, Rabe said, “Mr. Trump has focused on the anxiety over electric vehicles that pervades that auto-making state, one of a handful of swing states where the election is likely to be decided. Whenever he [Trump] comes to the state, this comes up. And this is not abstract in Michigan, it’s a real question.”

By early January of this year, the EPA sent a revised version of its auto emissions limits to the White House. It included the longer time frame requested by the UAW.

Weeks later, the United Auto Workers endorsed Biden.

Historically the UAW has been a major political force in Michigan. Despite a diminished membership, their endorsement will help them in energizing and mobilizing their members in get out the vote initiatives for Biden in November.

If that happens, it will further affirm that the Biden administration has ramped up a “pedal to the metal” campaign mode regarding public policy issues that impact voters in a handful of key battleground states such as Michigan.

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

Larry Hogan’s recently announced U.S. Senate campaign is off to a good start.

Shortly after his announcement, a survey conducted by Emerson College Polling, The Hill and DC News Now showed Hogan tied with one possible strong Democratic opponent (David Trone), with 42% supporting each in a general election matchup and 16% undecided. The survey also showed Hogan leads in a general election matchup with another possible strong Democratic candidate (Angela Alsobrooks) 44% to 37%, with 19% undecided. The Republican primary survey results showed Hogan at 43%, undecided at 43%, and none of the other candidates at more than 9%. All the survey results have a 3% +.– margin of error.

Recently, one conservative candidate from Anne Arundel County withdrew from the Republican primary and endorsed Hogan.

In Larry Sabato’s widely read and influential Political Crystal Ball, J. Miles Coleman wrote, “In response to Hogan’s announcement, we downgraded our rating for Maryland from Safe Democratic to Likely Democratic.” That news will energize and mobilize donors who had previously viewed a Democratic win as a given.

Going forward, Hogan still faces at least three obstacles. All are formidable but none are insurmountable.

The first obstacle is Robin Ficker in the Republican primary. Ficker is aggressively appealing to Republican primary voters who may still be angry over some of Hogan’s actions while serving as governor. Those actions include Hogan’s unwavering support for covid lockdown mandates, moderate governing style, criticisms of Donald Trump and Trump supporters, and his refusal to support Dan Cox for governor after Cox defeated Hogan’s endorsed candidate to succeed him in a GOP primary.

To conservative Republican primary voters considering Ficker, Hogan can remind them of a guiding principle of conservative icon William F. Buckley and often repeated by conservative icon Ronald Reagan — support the most conservative candidate … who can win.

The second obstacle is the Democratic candidate for November ramping up a messaging blitz (already launched by Trone and Alsobrooks) that was highly effective in the last midterm elections. That message is all Republican candidates are a grave threat to abortion rights, and all are aligned with Donald Trump.

To all voters with concerns over the future of abortion rights, Hogan can remind them he is on record saying that as a senator, he will not vote for a national abortion ban. He can also tell them he will respect the outcome of a statewide referendum in Maryland on an amendment adding the right to an abortion to the state constitution.

The third obstacle is all of Hogan’s opponents in the primary and general elections, reminding voters about all the reasons Hogan gave when he was strongly encouraged but declined to run against incumbent U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen.

To all voters concerned about those reasons, Hogan can remind them the public record includes the reasons why he is running now. In reviewing that record it is clear Hogan mentioned “I said I wasn’t going to walk away from politics, I was going to try to be a voice, standing up to try to fix things, and you can’t just sit back and complain about things if you’re not willing to try to make a difference.”

Hogan can say his willingness “to try to make a difference” reflects his acceptance of the call to action in Teddy Roosevelt’s Man in the Arena speech –

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

It will be most interesting to see what Larry Hogan’s 2024 campaign strategy and messages will be.

More interesting will be if his messages in this election cycle will resonate with a majority of Maryland voters just as his Change Maryland message did when he was elected governor.

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

Last week’s announcement by former Governor Larry Hogan that he is running to succeed retiring U.S. Senator Ben Cardin triggered immediate and widespread speculation on if he will be the first Maryland Republican to be elected to the Senate since 1980.

Larry Sabato veteran political observer at the University of Virginia has shown caution in his reaction to this news.

For now, Sabato has shifted his rating on the race to replace Cardin from Safe Democratic to Likely Democratic.

He has done so assuming Larry Hogan will be the Republican nominee.

This is a good assumption, but not a given.

Currently there are currently six other Republicans who have filed for the nomination with the state board of elections for the spring Republican primary election.

Conventional political wisdom is Hogan will be the Republican nominee.

Now more than ever conventional wisdom in the political world has been turned upside down and sideways.

The political world is now a VUCA world, one characterized by high and increasing levels of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity.

Recall the conventional wisdom when Larry Hogan announced his first campaign for governor.

Conventional wisdom then was no Republican could win statewide in deep blue Maryland.

Undaunted and with a memorable message that resonated deeply with Maryland voters –“Change Maryland” — Larry Hogan went on to defeat the incumbent Lieutenant Governor and then was reelected to a second term.

Conventional wisdom was wrong.

After eight years of years of Hogan serving as governor, conventional wisdom was that Kelly Schulz would be the Republican nominee to succeed Hogan.

Schulz was a former Republican member in the Maryland House of Delegates, a former Hogan cabinet secretary for two departments – the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, and the Department of Commerce, and was endorsed by Governor Hogan.

Conventional wisdom was Kelly could be branded as best person to continue Governor Hogan’s governing philosophy and style that resulted in extraordinarily high job performance rating during his two terms.

Former Maryland House of Delegates member Dan Cox opposed her in the primary.

Cox’s frustration with Hogan’s policies (especially his aggressive public lock down policies on Covid control) and Hogan’s moderate approach to governing led to a decision by Cox to introduce a House resolution to impeach Hogan.

While that resolution went nowhere in the House of Delegates, it energized and mobilized enough Republican primary voters who shared Cox’s frustration with Hogan to propel Cox to winning the GOP gubernatorial nomination.

Conventional wisdom was wrong again.

In a VUCA political world there is no question that Larry Hogan is a gifted politician who twice proved conventional wisdom wrong.

There is also no question he is a politician whose decision to pursue a run for the U.S. Senate reflects thinking that fortune favors the bold.

The question to be determined is will his bold move in increasingly blue Maryland result in his election to the U.S Senate and perhaps beyond or be recorded in his biography as a noble but impossible goal.

Stand by.

As they often say in the TV news world — “stay tuned as this is a developing story.”

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

In the 2024 General Assembly session, discussion is again underway on changing the roles and responsibilities of local Republican central committees and local Democratic central committees.

The primary focus of these committees has historically been on recruiting and supporting political candidates.

Under current law, local central committees also have a key role to play whenever a vacancy occurs in the General Assembly resulting from “death, disqualification, resignation, refusal to act, or expulsion of a state senator or delegate, or in the case of a senator’s or delegate’s removal from the city or county from which he or she was elected.”

When that occurs, the local central committee or central committees in the legislative district with the same party affiliation as the departed member are charged with making a recommendation to the governor on a replacement. The recommended individual must have the same party affiliation as the departed member. The governor, in turn, “must, in accordance with specified procedures, appoint a person affiliated with the same political party to serve the remainder of the vacating senator’s or delegate’s unexpired term.”

Such appointments are far more common than one might think.

Of the 188 members currently serving in the General Assembly, almost one fourth were not elected by the voters, but were appointed to fill a vacancy and complete an unexpired term.

Even more vacancy appointments may occur in 2024 if incumbent General Assembly members win bids for other offices and resign from their present office.

Reaching consensus in changes to the current vacancy process has been and is elusive. Presently, there are three proposals under active consideration, each with supporters and opponents.

One proposal would allow central committees to fill vacancies but would require public notice of vacancies and information on a central committee’s application and interview process. It would also require central committee interviews and votes to be open to the public and central committee members who apply to fill a vacancy to recuse themselves from the recommendation vote.

Another proposal would also allow central committees to continue to fill vacancies but subject their recommendations to voter ratification under certain circumstances. Recommendations made in the first two years of an unexpired term would be subject to voter approval in the next presidential election. In the second two years of the unexpired term, the appointed individual would have the option of running in the next state election.

A third proposal would replace the current appointment process with special elections. If the vacancy occurs within the first three years of a term, voters in the district would fill that vacancy through special primary and general elections. If the vacancy occurs within the fourth year, central committees would name an initial replacement who would have to run for election in the next primary election. This proposal requires an amendment to the state constitution which needs a three-fifths vote of approval in the House and the Senate then voter approval in a statewide referendum.

Concerns have been raised about this third proposal based on estimated costs incurred by local and state boards of elections to administer multiple special elections.

The General Assembly is currently discussing a proposed 63.1 billion dollar annual state budget. They are also discussing moving forward on an additional 3.8 billion dollars in new state and local funding for public education over the next ten years as mandated by the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future (the Kirwan Report).

Emily Scarr at the Maryland Public Interest Research Group recently opined that special elections are “the cost of having a democracy. People have [a right] to vote for who represents them. It’s a fundamental thing and if we’re not spending money to ensure that right, what are we doing?”

I agree.

Now is the time to address the outsized role of political central committees and the governor in the process to fill vacancies in the General Assembly.

The way to do that is a new process that maximizes opportunities to let the voters decide.

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant. He lives in Easton.

Representatives from the Maryland State Department of Education, Maryland Association of Boards of Education and Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland met recently with members of the Ways and Means Committee in the Maryland House of Delegates.

At that meeting, all three advocacy groups expressed their support for fully funding the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, also known as the Kirwan Report.

Along with the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future there is another issue that has had and will have a significant impact on public education in Maryland.

That issue is chronic absenteeism.

The Maryland Department of Education defines chronic absenteeism as missing more than 20 days in a school year, no matter the reason.

WYPR, the public broadcasting corporation’s flagship radio station in Baltimore recently introduced a news report on this issue with the following lead in:

“Chronic absenteeism ‘real concern’ Maryland lawmakers & educators aim to address.”

WYPR cited Maryland Board of Education data indicating that over one-third of Maryland K-12 students missed 10% or more school days last year, with 54.1% of Baltimore City students and 34.7% of Baltimore County students hitting that mark.

The consequences of chronic absenteeism are serious and long lasting.

Maryland Board of Education President Clarence Crawford has observed that ‘chronic absenteeism can adversely impact a child for a lifetime.” He noted research has shown that “chronic absenteeism impacts test scores, grades, and children’s ability to be able to graduate.” He also noted “chronic absenteeism increases the likelihood of engagement with the criminal justice system.”

Especially disheartening in the Maryland Board of Education data that nearly 35% of children in kindergarten statewide are chronically absent.

Sue Fothergill, a senior fellow at Attendance Works (a national nonprofit dedicated to raising awareness about the negative impacts of absenteeism), says “In early grades, some of our families think, ‘Well, it’s just kindergarten, or it’s just first grade, children can miss a few days here and there, it’s not that big of a deal.’ The reality though, is that those are the most important formative years, not just for learning to read, but learning social emotional skills, and establishing habits that help those young people throughout their careers. When a child is chronically absent in kindergarten, they are less likely to be proficient in reading by third grade as at that point, teachers often switch to content-focused learning. It becomes much harder to catch a child up and be able to learn how to read as they matriculate through their years, because they’ve missed those formative years.”

Governor Moore and state lawmakers are aware of and have already demonstrated a level of concern and action on this problem.

At a recent “Improving Student Achievement” event in Washington D.C Governor Moore said, “We know that there are real obstacles we still have to address.”

In the State House and the State Senate, legislation has been introduced to establish a task force to study chronic absenteeism in Maryland’s public schools.
The legislation as introduced, requires the task force to report its findings and recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly by December 1, 2024.

Going forward, local and state funding levels for the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future will continue to generate enormous amounts of dialogue and deliberation at local governments throughout Maryland and in the General Assembly. That is to be expected as the Blueprint is a multi-year initiative that mandates a projected $3.8 billion increase above current levels of local and state funding for public education in Maryland.

A critical element of success in public education requires more than mandated increases of local and state funding.

It requires more than awareness of, concern about, and discussions on the issue of chronic absenteeism.

What is needed is a sense of urgency on action to address chronic absenteeism in every public school in Maryland.

David Reel is a consultant who provides counsel and services on strategy, advocacy, and media on public affairs issues. He lives in Easton.

When the opening day of the 2024 Maryland General Assembly Session was called to order, Delegate Sheree Sample-Hughes was the Speaker pro tempore in the House of Delegates, the second highest position for a member of the House Democratic Caucus.

By the time the session adjourned, Delegate Sample Hughes had been replaced from that position.

Leadership changes in the Maryland General Assembly are not unusual.

What makes this disheartening is that Delegate Sample-Hughes, who represents parts of Dorchester County and parts of Wicomico County was the only Eastern Shore legislator with a high leadership position in the House Democratic caucus.

Her replacement as Speaker pro tempore is a Delegate from Baltimore.

Delegate Sample-Hughes earned and deserved much more respect and much better outcomes on this matter. To date she has had a long and distinguished career in public service.

After serving two terms as a member of the Wicomico County Council, she was elected to the Maryland House of Delegates.

In the House, she is serving or has served as a member of the Economic Matters Committee, Judiciary Committee, Rules and Executive Nominations Committee, Health and Government Operations Committee, Spending Affordability Committee, Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive and Legislative Review, and the Rural Health Care Delivery Work Group.

She is also the House of a Delegates representative to the Rural Maryland Council whose mission is to bring together citizens, community-based organizations, federal, state, county, and municipal government officials, as well as representatives of the for-profit and nonprofit sectors to collectively address the needs of rural Maryland communities. The Council provides a venue for members of agriculture and natural resource-based industries, health care facilities, educational institutions, economic and community development organizations, for-profit and nonprofit corporations, and government agencies to cross traditional boundaries, share information, and address in a more holistic way, the special needs and opportunities in rural Maryland.

Responding to this recent turn of events, Delegate Sample – Hughes said her removal was based on her not supporting legislation that was favored by the Democratic leadership in the House of Delegates. She noted her lack of support for that legislation was based on her being respectful of and responsive to the views of her constituents on that legislation. In that regard, she said, “Where we are today, is that I stood by my convictions and stood up for my constituents. The phone calls and the emails that I received last session on three bills that were, you know, top bills in the state, but I still had to vote my district.”

With a super majority, the Democratic caucus has complete control of the House and has votes to spare on every action during the session including approval of or rejection of legislation. The bottom line is Delegate Sample – Hughes was not needed by the Democratic Caucus to ensure passage of “top bills in the state.”

Following her removal as Speaker pro tempore, Delegate Sample – Hughes observed that the position of Speaker pro tempore has never defined her, and she will continue to do the work that the people of District 37A sent her to Annapolis to do.

All things considered, opening day 2024 in the State House was truly a sad day.

What happened to Delegate Sample – Hughes was far more than her being replaced in a high-level leadership position.

Everyone on the Eastern Shore loses when any member of the Maryland House of Delegates who strives to fulfill their moral obligation to faithfully represent those whom they serve may trigger consequences.

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters. He lives in Easton.

A reader who responded to my most recent previous commentary — “Voters Deserve Better from Presidential Candidates Going Forward “, suggested because I serve at a consulting firm that provides counsel and services to Republican candidates, it “seems that my mission is to create false equivalency between the two presidential candidates and obscure the facts.”

What it seems to be to that reader is not what it is.

That reader is using argumentum ad hominem, a rhetorical strategy where one attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person offering an opinion, rather than attacking the substance of the opinion itself.  

In my commentary, I wrote about a previous divisive gubernatorial election in Pennsylvania. I suggested it provides good advice for whomever the candidates will be for president in 2024.

I did not mention the names of any current or future 2024 presidential candidates.

At this point in the 2024 election cycle, I do not know who candidates will be.

I do know this.

I am not an apologist for or zealous supporter of former President Donald Trump or any other Republican candidate.

I am not an apologist for or zealous supporter of President Joe Biden or any other Democratic candidate.

I am not an apologist for or zealous supporter of any third party or independent candidate.

My guiding principle in the political arena has always been never to support or vote for a candidate based solely on party affiliation. My support and votes are based solely on how closely a candidate’s views on public policy issues align with my views on those issues.

My guiding principle when writing guest commentaries is acceptance of the thinking of Frank Luntz who said this about messages — “It’s not what you say or write. You can have the best message in the world, it’s what people hear or read. The person on the receiving end will always understand it through the prism of their own emotions, preconceptions, prejudices, and preexisting beliefs.”

Presently my views on the two most likely major party candidates for President in 2024 are perfectly captured in a recent commentary by syndicated columnist Cal Thomas titled The Evil of Two Lessers.

In it, Thomas includes the following thoughts:

“Some voters in recent elections have complained about being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. In the 2024 election, it appears we are heading for a worse choice – the evil of two lessers.”

Thomas writes, “Donald Trump continues demeaning and defaming anyone who disagrees with him. He repeats unproven claims that the 2020 election was ‘stolen.’

“A myriad of other inaccurate statements has apparently had a negative influence on President Biden who has joined him in the mud pit. In his recent speech near Valley Forge, America will become like Germany in the ’30s. The very future of democracy is at stake, he [Biden] claimed.”

Thomas goes on to write, “This isn’t Biden’s first trip into the mud. During the 2012 presidential campaign Vice President Biden told a Black audience that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney “would put you all back in chains.”

Thomas ends his commentary about 2024 by asking the question “Where is this corrosive language getting us? Why can’t we have a true debate over the best ways to fix our problems? Claiming your opponent would rule like a Nazi, or that the other is a crook, solves nothing.”

I agree.

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who lives in Easton.