n Maryland’s General Assembly, an insatiable appetite for taxation continues unabated. Rather than exercising the fiscal discipline expected of responsible stewards of the public trust, lawmakers such as Delegate David Moon (D-Montgomery) remain ideologically beholden to the notion that government largesse must never be curtailed, only expanded. The latest incarnation of this fiscal overreach is a proposed 2.5% sales tax on certain business-to-business services – an imprudent scheme that threatens to undermine Maryland’s economic vitality while serving as a mere stopgap in the face of a looming $3 billion budget deficit.

This taxation policy, as reported by Bryan Sears in Maryland Matters, is yet another attempt by Annapolis’ Democratic majority to siphon additional revenue from Maryland businesses rather than confronting the obvious truth: the state government has grown far beyond its means. Instead of addressing budgetary inefficiencies, implementing structural reforms, or cutting superfluous spending, Delegate Moon and his compatriots believe that Maryland’s private sector—already burdened by high taxes and regulatory constraints—should bear even greater financial strain.

Contrast this reckless profligacy with the reasoned opposition of Senate Minority Leader Stephen S. Hershey Jr. (R-Upper Shore), whose statement cuts through the legislative fog like a scythe. “In the Maryland Democrats’ obsession to raise taxes,” Hershey rightly notes, “they have now concocted a new business-to-business sales tax that will make it even more expensive to operate a business in Maryland.” At a time when neighboring states such as Virginia and Delaware offer far more attractive commercial environments, Maryland’s ruling class appears hellbent on driving enterprise across state lines, leaving economic stagnation and job loss in its wake.

The reasoning offered by Delegate Moon is as audacious as it is specious. With the air of an overconfident central planner impervious to the realities of market forces, Moon asserts that his tax proposal “provides balance” to any necessary spending reductions. This is the language of a politician who sees no intrinsic virtue in a leaner, more efficient government but instead views taxpayers as mere financiers of his legislative wish list. Were Moon and his colleagues sincere in their desire to achieve balance, they would begin by excising wasteful expenditures, consolidating redundant agencies, and reining in the bloated bureaucracy that continues to drain state coffers.

This latest revenue grab also serves as a pointed reminder of Annapolis’ historical ineptitude in taxation policy. One need only recall the infamous 2007 attempt to tax computer services – a disastrous experiment that was quickly repealed after a swift and well-justified backlash. The current proposal, which targets accounting, lobbying, and IT services, is simply a variation on that same failed theme, one that will yield similar economic consequences should it pass.

Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City) and his confederates argue that the evolving economy necessitates a revised tax structure. Yet their approach is as unoriginal as it is damaging. A “service-based economy,” as Ferguson describes it, is indeed an economic reality, but the answer to shifting economic paradigms is not to tax innovation and entrepreneurship into oblivion. True economic stewardship requires fostering a business climate conducive to growth, not one that penalizes success with an ever-expanding web of taxation.

Maryland’s taxpayers and business community should be outraged. They should reject outright the fallacious notion that government’s first recourse in times of financial strain must be to extract more from those who produce. Instead, the electorate must demand a thorough reformation of state spending priorities, a commitment to fiscal restraint, and the eradication of policies that punish economic productivity.

Delegate Moon’s proposal is not merely a misguided policy – it is an affront to sound governance. Meanwhile, Senator Hershey and his Republican colleagues, though outnumbered, stand as the last bulwark against this relentless march toward fiscal irresponsibility. Marylanders must rally behind them and demand better from their elected officials. 

The choice is clear: we either capitulate to the unchecked expansion of government and its insatiable hunger for revenue, or we reassert the primacy of free enterprise and responsible governance. Let us hope that reason prevails before Maryland’s economic fortunes are further imperiled… but I’m not holding my breath.

Clayton A. Mitchell, Sr. is a life-long Eastern Shoreman, an attorney, and former Chairman of the Maryland Department of Labor’s Board of Appeals.  He is co-host of the Gonzales/Mitchell Show podcast that discusses politics, business, and cultural issues. 

The great satirist P.J. O’Rourke once quipped that giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. Were he alive to observe the ongoing legislative session in Annapolis, he might have found his analogy woefully inadequate. 

While I have been out of town for the past few weeks, the Maryland General Assembly, led by an insatiable Democratic majority and enabled by Governor Wes Moore, is once again indulging in its annual fiscal bacchanalia at the taxpayers’ expense.

Among the latest misadventures in legislative chicanery is a proposed 2.5% tax on business-to-business services – a brazen money grab expected to net more than $1 billion. This is a classic maneuver from the left’s playbook: impose new taxes on businesses under the guise of sparing middle-class families, all the while knowing full well that these costs will be passed along to consumers. The notion that businesses will absorb this new levy without consequence to Maryland’s economy is the kind of economic illiteracy that can only flourish in the cloistered confines of a one-party legislature.

Even as businesses brace for this latest assault, Moore’s efforts to prune Maryland’s sprawling and bloated bureaucracy remain conspicuously absent. Despite his lofty rhetoric about fiscal responsibility, the governor has shown little appetite for meaningful structural reform. Instead, he and his legislative allies have chosen to double down on a well-worn strategy: spend more, tax more, and pray the economic consequences don’t arrive before the next election cycle.

Nowhere is this penchant for reckless spending more evident than in the ongoing funding debacle surrounding the so-called “Blueprint for Maryland’s Future.” Governor Moore, perhaps sensing the state’s impending fiscal catastrophe, had the temerity to suggest a modest pause in certain elements of the plan. But within mere minutes – literally, five minutes in the House Ways and Means Committee – Democratic lawmakers summarily rejected the governor’s attempt at prudence. Instead of responsibly reassessing the plan’s feasibility, they have chosen to hurl more taxpayer dollars into the ever-expanding maw of Maryland’s public education bureaucracy, heedless of a looming $3 billion budget deficit.

And then there is the Child Victims Act, a piece of legislation whose moral authority was never in question but whose fiscal implications were callously ignored.  One of the law’s chief proponents, Delegate C.T. Wilson, now finds himself stunned – stunned! – by the sheer volume of claims against the state, a predictable consequence of removing the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse lawsuits. With roughly 3,500 cases filed against Maryland so far, the state now stares down billions in potential liabilities. Wilson, after years of righteous advocacy, is now backpedaling, scrambling to amend the law and limit the damage.

Meanwhile, in a move so predictable it borders on self-parody, Maryland lawmakers have proposed a tax on sugary beverages – a paternalistic scheme projected to raise $450 million annually. The ostensible aim is to fund free school meals and childcare subsidies, but the ultimate effect will be to place yet another financial burden on working families who can ill afford Annapolis’s ever-growing appetite for their hard-earned dollars. Once again, the progressive governing class believes it knows best how to regulate personal choices and fill the state’s coffers in the process.

Throughout all of this, one thing remains clear: when the Maryland Legislature is in session, taxpayers must guard their wallets with vigilance. Rather than exercising fiscal restraint, our elected officials continue their unchecked expansion of government largesse, heedless of the consequences. Instead of streamlining government to meet economic realities, they create new taxes and pile new obligations upon future generations. And instead of learning from past mistakes, they march blindly down the well-trodden road of ever-increasing expenditure, convinced that the answer to every problem lies in the bottomless purse of the taxpayer.

Governor Moore, for all his soaring rhetoric, has proven unwilling – or unable – to curb this profligate spending spree. His occasional gestures toward responsibility are swatted aside by a legislature that views any attempt at fiscal prudence as heresy. The result? More spending, more taxes, and an ever-deepening budget hole that Maryland’s working families will ultimately be left to fill.

As this legislative session grinds on, the citizens of Maryland would do well to remember one unassailable truth: when government gathers in Annapolis, it is rarely to serve the people. More often than not, it is to serve itself.

Clayton A. Mitchell, Sr. is a life-long Eastern Shoreman, an attorney, and former Chairman of the Maryland Department of Labor’s Board of Appeals.  He is co-host of the Gonzales/Mitchell Show podcast that discusses politics, business, and cultural issues.

 

Maryland politicians love to tout their environmental credentials. From Annapolis to Baltimore, they celebrate ambitious climate goals, promote expensive renewable energy projects, and impose stringent regulations on businesses, all under the banner of making Maryland a “green” leader. But in reality, Maryland is not green—Maryland is irresponsible.

The state’s environmental policies are not about sustainability; they are about virtue signaling. Instead of practical, balanced solutions, Maryland pursues costly and inefficient programs that burden taxpayers, drive away businesses, and produce little measurable benefit for the environment.

Take offshore wind, for example. Governor Wes Moore has aggressively pushed for an expansion of offshore wind energy, promising jobs and clean energy. Offshore wind is a promising technology, but it remains in its early stages of development and has yet to prove itself as a reliable, cost-effective energy source. These projects are often plagued by cost overruns, delays, and unpredictable energy production, making them an uncertain foundation for Maryland’s energy future.

Maryland’s broader commitment to renewable energy follows a similar pattern. While the transition to cleaner energy sources is an important and worthwhile goal, the reality is that renewables—at least in their current state—are insufficient to meet the high and rising energy demands of businesses and households. 

Instead of acknowledging this reality and ensuring a measured, practical transition, Maryland’s leadership is charging ahead with premature policies that retire fossil fuel generation without securing adequate replacement capacity. The result? The rather ridiculous situation in which Maryland is phasing out its own fossil fuel generation, only to turn around and import… fossil fuel-generated electricity from other states at a premium price.

Maryland’s energy crisis further exposes the state’s failures. As Pennsylvania State Senator Kristin Phillips-Hill recently pointed out—as reported in a recent article by Fox 45 News’ Jessica Babb—Maryland already imports about 40 percent of its energy from other states, including Pennsylvania. Many of these electric generation plants use fossil fuels. With the upcoming decommissioning of the Brandon Shores power plant in Maryland, that number is set to rise. Phillips-Hill didn’t mince words:

“Governor Moore likes to tout that he is green, and Maryland’s green, and nothing could be further than from the truth, absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. Maryland is not green. Maryland is irresponsible.”

As Jessica Babb reported, even Maryland’s own energy officials acknowledge the grim reality. Paul Pinsky, Director of the Maryland Energy Administration, admitted at a legislative hearing this month that the state is unlikely to meet its goal of 100% clean energy by 2035.

Babb also reported that officials from PJM, the regional grid operator, have described Maryland’s energy outlook as “dire.” Meanwhile, Pennsylvania residents and businesses are forced to bear the cost of Maryland’s failed policies, as energy projects like the Cuffs Run Hydroelectric Project threaten farms, forests, and waterways to accommodate Maryland’s growing demand.

Making matters worse, Maryland lawmakers have doubled down on flawed policies with misguided legislation like Senate Bill 1 (SB1). Instead of addressing the state’s growing energy crisis, SB1 further limits competition in the retail energy market by imposing stricter licensing requirements, marketing restrictions, and regulatory oversight on electricity and gas suppliers. This reduction in competition makes it harder for Marylanders to shop for lower-cost energy options, forcing them into expensive, regulated utility plans with fewer alternatives.

Additionally, SB1 expands the Public Service Commission’s (PSC) authority, increasing financial assessments on public service companies—costs that will inevitably be passed on to ratepayers. Rather than protecting consumers, the bill burdens them with higher costs at a time when inflation, supply chain issues, and broader economic pressures have already made energy unaffordable for many Maryland households and businesses. The bill’s restrictions on marketing “green power” also create unnecessary barriers to alternative energy solutions, potentially slowing the transition to affordable renewable energy rather than accelerating it.

In response to my recent article on this subject in The Spy – Next Generation Energy Act: Powerless Policy, Costly Consequences – some readers took issue with my argument that Maryland’s current energy policies are failing. Comments included:

• “Maybe we should hold the electric monopoly accountable for refusing to cut into their profits and taking our tax dollars without getting with the times or living up to their promises. Like the dam Exelon owns and refuses to repair or clean up with their BILLIONS of dollars.”
• “Other countries have converted almost completely to green energy, and people are paying lower utility bills than ever.”
• “Fossil fuels are the PAST.”
• “Ridiculous. You want a return to the prioritization of fossil fuels? Oil? Coal? No way.”

These are passionate responses, but they ignore a fundamental reality: Maryland is failing to produce energy responsibly. While some claim that other countries have transitioned to green energy with lower costs, they ignore the subsidies and government intervention required to make those systems function. They also overlook the fact that Maryland’s renewable energy policies have resulted in higher costs and greater energy insecurity.

Maryland’s failures do not stop with energy policy. The state constantly blames Pennsylvania for pollution in the Chesapeake Bay while ignoring Maryland’s own mismanagement of stormwater runoff, failing wastewater treatment facilities, and sewage overflows into the Bay. The same politicians who claim to be environmental champions have allowed this infrastructure to deteriorate while pushing billions in spending toward trendy and unproven green initiatives.

Beyond the environment, Maryland’s overall governance is equally irresponsible. The state’s tax policies drive away businesses and residents, making it less competitive regionally. Its education system, despite record spending, continues to underperform. Crime in Baltimore remains a crisis. Yet, instead of addressing these pressing issues with pragmatic solutions, Maryland’s leadership remains fixated on grandstanding over climate policies that are more about politics than results.

If Maryland truly wanted to be a green leader, it would invest in practical solutions: modernizing roads and infrastructure, aggressively promoting nuclear energy development, gradually phasing out fossil fuel generation plants over decades as economically viable green energy capacity develops, improving local environmental management, and encouraging innovation rather than regulation. Instead, the state doubles down on ideological policies that have a high price tag and accomplish little.

The progressives are allowing themselves to be beguiled by their chronic lofty rhetoric and utopian fantasies, all while ignoring the economic burdens on ordinary working and middle-class ratepayers, energy instability, and environmental mismanagement that their policies continue to create. Maryland is not green. Maryland is irresponsible. And until the state prioritizes results over rhetoric, that won’t change.

Clayton A. Mitchell, Sr. is a life-long Eastern Shoreman, an attorney, and former Chairman of the Maryland Department of Labor’s Board of Appeals.  He is co-host of the Gonzales/Mitchell Show podcast that discusses politics, business, and cultural issues.

 

Maryland’s foray into the progressive “green agenda” has led to a cascade of lamentable energy policy decisions that are both short-sighted and economically burdensome. The impending closures of the Vienna and Brandon Shores electrical generation plants provide a stark example of the perils inherent in abandoning pragmatism for idealism. These facilities, pillars of reliability in a state that once prided itself on self-sufficient energy production, are being shuttered due to policies driven by an insatiable zeal for fossil fuel eradication. What remains is a state that now imports more electricity than it produces, paying exorbitant prices for the privilege of being energy dependent.

Consider the Vienna Generating Station, a modest yet dependable 167 MW oil-fired plant. It quietly performs its duty in the background, a workhorse of energy supply for the Eastern Shore. The Brandon Shores facility, by contrast, is a behemoth, generating 1,370 MW of coal-fired energy with a pair of stalwart Babcock & Wilcox boilers feeding General Electric turbines. Together, these plants are capable of powering nearly two million homes. Yet, in the name of environmental orthodoxy, both facilities are being cast aside without an adequate replacement, a move emblematic of the naivety and hubris that so often accompany sweeping political mandates.

The result? Maryland has found itself in the unenviable position of importing between 1,000 and 6,000 MW of electricity hourly from neighboring states. The financial repercussions of this dependency are staggering. Residential energy users—those hapless pawns in this misguided game of green chess—now face significant increases in their monthly bills. BGE has outlined a series of rate hikes, culminating in a $26 monthly increase by mid-2025. Of that, nearly $10 is tied directly to the state’s lack of adequate generation resources, which necessitates reliance on the PJM Interconnection and its escalating capacity market prices.

In fairness, utilities like BGE and PEPCO are not entirely to blame for the state’s energy woes. They are operating within a regulatory framework that compels them to implement state-mandated energy efficiency programs while managing the fallout from supply chain disruptions, inflation, and the pandemic. Yet, these companies are the public face of the crisis, and it is their customers who bear the financial brunt. Meanwhile, Virginia’s Dominion Energy, operating under a regulated utility model, has shielded its customers from similar price hikes by maintaining control over its energy generation assets. The contrast is illuminating and ought to serve as a cautionary tale.

Lest I appear ingratiating to the public utilities (which is not the purpose of my message), they bear some blame for the present crisis. Senate Bill 1, which was passed in 2024 by the Maryland General Assembly over the strenuous objection of small businesses and ratepayers across the state, rewards profligate spending from the government-subsidized utilities by eliminating consumer choice and retail competition. 

No longer can Marylanders compare prices between BGE and private retail suppliers, and choose the plan that is most affordable, best fits their lifestyle, or allows them to secure all their energy from renewable sources. Instead, everyone is herded to what is euphemistically referred to within the industry as “standard offer service,” which is a polite way of describing a relationship in which consumers must accept what the big utilities charge, because they have no other options.

The outcome of all this is predictable and obvious to anyone who has taken high school economics. Rates are skyrocketing. Reports of predatory business practices are on the rise. And even as Maryland families struggle to balance the costs of food, electricity, medicine, and other mandatory expenses, the utilities still petition for higher rates.

The progressive proponents of Maryland’s green agenda may well congratulate themselves on their commitment to combating climate change, but the data suggests that these efforts are unlikely to have any measurable impact on global temperatures. The Climate Solutions Now Act is a monument to aspiration rather than achievement, its goals predicated on the dubious assumption that renewable energy projects can be brought online quickly enough to replace fossil fuels. 

Yet PJM’s own data paints a grim picture: only 5% of proposed renewable projects have historically been completed. Even if the state were to succeed in building solar farms on an unprecedented scale, it would require approximately 35,000 acres of solar panels to replace the output of Brandon Shores alone.

In an August 2024 essay, Michael Powell, an energy and environmental attorney with the law firm Gordon Feinblatt, astutely observes that the laws of supply and demand remain in effect despite the legislative wishes of Maryland’s policymakers. The forced retirements of fossil-fueled generation, coupled with sluggish progress on renewable energy development, have created a perfect storm of scarcity and skyrocketing costs. PJM’s latest capacity auction saw prices in the BGE delivery area soar to an astounding $466.35 per megawatt day, nearly sixteen times higher than the previous year’s rates. Such numbers are not the harbingers of a smooth transition; they are the tolling bells of policy failure.

The root cause of this debacle is not merely the retirement of fossil fuel plants. It is the reckless pace at which these retirements are being forced upon the energy sector without a viable plan for replacing the lost capacity. The Climate Solutions Now Act of 2022, a hallmark of Maryland’s current political regime, mandates rapid electrification across transportation, home heating, and other sectors, all while sidelining the very energy sources needed to power this transition. The predictable result has been a mismatch of supply and demand, one that threatens not only economic stability but the reliability of the grid itself.

The broader implications of Maryland’s energy policy extend beyond economics. As thermal generators retire at a rapid clip, the state’s ability to ensure grid reliability is increasingly called into question. Governor Moore’s ambitions for energy-intensive data centers and widespread electrification will only exacerbate the strain on an already overburdened system. PJM’s warning of a “potential timing mismatch” between plant closures and renewable capacity additions should be heeded, yet there is little indication that state leaders are willing to adjust course.

Maryland’s voters, many of whom supported the politicians driving these policies, are now reaping what they have sown. The progressive agenda—heralded as a triumph of environmental stewardship—has delivered instead a litany of unintended consequences. Higher energy bills, reduced reliability, and an ever-growing dependence on out-of-state power are the fruits of this misguided experiment. The state’s green ambitions may be laudable in theory, but in practice, they have proven to be a costly exercise in overreach.

In the end, one cannot help but marvel at the irony. Maryland’s policymakers, so eager to lead the charge against climate change, have unwittingly saddled their constituents with an energy crisis of their own making. To those who championed this agenda, congratulations are indeed in order: you have achieved precisely what you set out to accomplish, though at a price far higher than anyone is willing to pay.

Clayton A. Mitchell, Sr. is a lifelong Eastern Shoreman, an attorney, and former Chairman of the Maryland Department of Labor’s Board of Appeals.  He is co-host of the Gonzales/Mitchell Show podcast that discusses politics, business, and cultural issues. 

Governor Wes Moore, in his rhetorical dexterity, assures Marylanders that his tax proposals target only those who have prospered most, a genteel euphemism for the bludgeoning of the state’s economic backbone. He speaks of fairness, of the moral imperative to require the wealthiest to contribute their fair share, and in so doing, he emplthe oldest trick in the book: the sleight of hand by which the populace is made to believe that their pockets will remain untouched. But as Delegate Steve Arentz and the Joint Republican Caucus have rightly pointed out, the Governor’s budget is a masterpiece of obfuscation, an intricate tapestry of misdirection designed to obscure a reality that is far less sanguine.

The Governor proclaims that 82% of Marylanders will either see a reduction in their taxes or experience no change at all. But what he fails to illuminate, what remains ensconced in the shadows of his rhetoric, is the simple, inescapable truth articulated by Senate Minority Whip Justin Ready: “Every Marylander will pay more in some sort of tax or fee combined under this budget.”

One needs only glance at the litany of new levies to perceive the extent of the ruse. 

The Governor’s budget does not, as he would have it, simply tax the nebulous “rich.” It taxes the working man and woman placing an order from Amazon; it taxes the weary commuter trading in an old vehicle for a newer, more reliable model; and it taxes the small business owner struggling to navigate Maryland’s already inhospitable regulatory labyrinth. 

The elimination of the trade difference tax credit alone ensures that anyone purchasing a vehicle in Maryland will pay tax on the full price rather than the adjusted difference – a change that will affect every motorist, irrespective of their socioeconomic status. It is, in short, an unambiguous assault on the citizenry masquerading as a targeted measure against the elite.

House Minority Leader Jason Buckel, in his sober assessment, has noted the Governor’s penchant for “giving with one hand while taking with the other.” A reduction in corporate tax rates, an idea long championed by Republicans, is dangled before Maryland’s business community as a sop. The concurrent increase in personal income tax rates ensures that small businesses filing as pass-through entities will see no relief. Senate Minority Leader Steve Hershey correctly identifies this as a direct hit to Maryland’s job creators, a policy poised to stymie growth rather than foster it.

This is not the first time Maryland has entertained the seductive folly of punitive taxation against its most productive citizens. Senator Paul Corderman reminds us that when Governor O’Malley imposed a millionaire’s tax in 2008, the state hemorrhaged $1 billion in net tax base as residents fled to more hospitable climes. That revenue now services the needs of Virginia, South Carolina, and beyond—states that had the good sense not to disincentivize prosperity.

The Governor’s defenders will doubtless point to spending reductions, but, as Delegate Jeff Ghrist sagely observes, these are reductions in the rate of spending increases, not genuine cuts. Meanwhile, the state continues to lavish resources on projects of dubious necessity. “There’s $60 million to study the Red Line,” Delegate Jesse Pippy quips. “I mean, has this thing not been studied enough?”

Further compounding the issue, Governor Moore’s budget revives a problematic proposal to shift the State Department of Assessments and Taxation (SDAT) costs nearly entirely to county governments. As Kevin Kinnally, Legislative Director for the Maryland Association of Counties (MACo), details in Conduit Street, counties currently reimburse the State for 50 percent of SDAT’s operating costs, a system that ensures fairness, consistency, and uniformity in property assessments. However, the Governor’s proposal seeks to increase this share to 90 percent, imposing an additional $21 million burden on counties—a move that has been repeatedly rejected by the General Assembly in prior sessions for good reason.

Kinnally warns that this cost shift threatens the integrity of Maryland’s property assessment system. The current centralized model ensures unbiased valuations and taxpayer confidence but shifting 90 percent of assessment costs onto counties risks undermining objectivity, as local governments struggling with funding pressures may be incentivized to manipulate assessments. Moreover, the proposed change disregards the shared benefits of SDAT’s work, as property assessments support both county and state revenues. 

The Department of Legislative Services has cautioned against this shift multiple times, warning that it reduces the State’s incentive to manage SDAT’s budget responsibly. Instead of seeking real budgetary reforms, the Governor’s approach burdens local governments already grappling with fiscal challenges in education, transportation, and public safety.

Then there is the absurdity of the 75-cent fee imposed on delivery orders from retailers. The Governor and his legislative allies, ensconced in leafy suburbs replete with Targets, Trader Joe’s, and Wegmans, may find it fashionable to decry the perils of online retail. It is easy, after all, to rail against the corporate behemoth of Amazon when one has the luxury of meandering through Williams-Sonoma for kitchenware or popping into Harris Teeter for gourmet cheese. 

But what of those in Maryland’s urban cores and its rural outposts? What of the Baltimorean who lives in a food desert where the nearest grocery store is a mile away, but the nearest liquor store is on the corner? What of the farmer in Garrett County, who, faced with a dearth of local retail options, must rely on deliveries for necessities and other purchases?

This fee is nothing short of a direct penalty on those who have the least access to brick-and-mortar retail. It is a tax on necessity masquerading as a tax on convenience. The well-heeled suburbanite may sneer at those who rely on Amazon for household staples, but in vast swaths of the state, online retail is not a luxury — it is a lifeline. The Governor’s delivery fee, then, is not merely an attack on consumers; it is an attack on the very people his rhetoric purports to defend.

The fundamental question remains: what does Maryland gain in exchange for this proliferation of new burdens? Will the deficit be meaningfully reduced? Delegate Jason Buckel provides a sobering reality check: “If we eliminated the additional Blueprint spending that we started, what would the budget deficit be? $700 million.” That is to say, the state finds itself in fiscal peril not because it taxes too little, but because it spends too much. The Governor’s budget does nothing to address the structural spending issues that have led Maryland to this precipice. Instead, it opts for what Taxpayer Advocate David Williams rightly calls “a lot of smoke and mirrors.”

The Governor’s assertion that he is cutting taxes for lower- and middle-income Marylanders is, in the end, demonstrably untrue. It is a carefully curated fiction, a fairy tale designed to placate while the machinery of taxation grinds inexorably forward. The burdens already imposed—from last year’s tobacco tax to the rising car registration fees—have left many Marylanders gasping for economic air. In Baltimore, where BGE rate hikes and water bill increases are already straining household budgets, this latest round of taxation is not merely inconvenient; it is punitive.

Senator Justin Ready, in his customary clarity, poses the question that should be at the forefront of this debate: “Why don’t we fix what’s broken with state government? And that’s our addition to spending and programs.” This, of course, is the question the Governor neglects to entertain, for to do so would be to acknowledge the true source of Maryland’s fiscal woes. 

And so, the charade continues, the smoke thickens, the mirrors reflect an illusion of relief where none exists. Meanwhile, Marylanders—rich, poor, and everyone in between—are left to foot the bill.

Clayton A. Mitchell, Sr. is a life-long Eastern Shoreman, an attorney, and former Chairman of the Maryland Department of Labor’s Board of Appeals.  He is co-host of the Gonzales/Mitchell Show podcast, which discusses politics, business, and cultural issues. 

 

As I stated in a prior article, if Governor Moore adjusted the approach to mandatory spending, I would applaud him. In my opinion, he has recently taken a first step in acknowledging and acting upon the structural fiscal problems.

Maryland Governor Wes Moore has taken an important step toward addressing the fiscal challenges posed by the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, a comprehensive education reform plan initially designed to restore the state’s public schools to their former standing among the best in the nation. By proposing substantial adjustments to the Blueprint, Moore is demonstrating a willingness to adapt the state’s priorities to align with its financial realities—a move that deserves recognition as a necessary and pragmatic approach to governance.

In a plan detailed by Pamela Wood of The Baltimore Banner, Moore’s proposed legislation, titled the Excellence in Maryland Public Schools Act, aims to save the state more than $1.6 billion over four years. The governor’s proposal would pull back on some of the Blueprint’s more costly and challenging components, such as the implementation of collaborative planning time for teachers and additional funding increases for high-need community schools. These adjustments reflect a more careful consideration of what is feasible given current constraints while preserving the Blueprint’s overarching goal of educational excellence.

Governor Moore’s focus on redirecting savings toward strategic investments in literacy, math, and teacher recruitment is noteworthy. Under his plan, $236 million will be allocated to hire instructional coaches to improve reading and math education, a move inspired by the “Mississippi Miracle” that saw significant improvements in test scores. Additionally, $34 million annually will support paraeducators in obtaining full licensure and help conditionally licensed teachers advance in their careers. These targeted investments underscore Moore’s commitment to student outcomes rather than adherence to rigid funding formulas.

Governor Moore’s proposal to pause or scale back certain programs has not been universally embraced. Democratic leaders in the General Assembly, such as House Speaker Adrienne A. Jones and Senate President Bill Ferguson have expressed reservations about significant changes to the Blueprint. As Wood reported in The Baltimore Banner, Ferguson emphasized the importance of implementing the Blueprint with fidelity, noting that he believes the fund remains adequately financed for now.

However, Moore’s willingness to reevaluate the plan reflects a deeper understanding of the state’s fiscal realities. Mandated spending under the current Blueprint framework is projected to create a structural budget deficit within two years. By addressing these concerns head-on, the governor is laying the groundwork for a more sustainable financial future while maintaining his commitment to improving educational outcomes for Maryland’s students.

As Republican Senator Steve Hershey cautioned in his recent emailed weekly legislative report, Governor Moore’s broader fiscal policies, including his proposed FY26 budget, may face resistance. While the budget includes measures to stimulate economic development, such as reducing corporate tax rates, it also introduces new taxes and fees that could disproportionately impact small businesses and high-income earners. Republicans, Hershey warned, are unlikely to support the budget in its current form, citing concerns over tax hikes and their potential economic consequences.

Governor Moore’s efforts to balance fiscal responsibility with educational innovation are commendable, but further action is needed to bring mandated spending under control. Moore’s proposal represents a good start, signaling a willingness to engage in meaningful discussions about the state’s priorities and how best to achieve them within the constraints of its budget.

Although Governor Moore has made this initial step, there is still a very long way to go. Governor Moore’s leadership in navigating these complex issues reflects a nascent pragmatic approach that prioritizes outcomes over ideology. By beginning to reshape the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, he is starting to chart a path toward a more sustainable and effective education system that meets the needs of students while respecting the state’s fiscal realities. The success of these efforts will depend on continued deliberation and collaboration as well as a shared commitment to achieving the best outcomes for Marylanders.

Clayton A. Mitchell, Sr. is a lifelong Eastern Shoreman, an attorney, and former Chairman of the Maryland Department of Labor’s Board of Appeals.  He is co-host of the Gonzales/Mitchell Show podcast, which discusses politics, business, and cultural issues.