The arrival of Sine Die in Annapolis demands that we look back at the session and ask a simple question: How can a bill supported by 70% of Marylanders fail to pass for the 10th year?

Once again, the Maryland General Assembly failed to pass the End-of-Life Option Act, which has been discussed in Annapolis since 2015. The bill would have allowed mentally competent, terminally ill Marylanders with less than six months to live access to medical aid in dying (MAID), allowing them to take medication to end their lives peacefully. The bill includes multiple cautionary steps to ensure there is no abuse of the process, which now is authorized in 10 states plus Washington, D.C.

With 70% statewide support in credible and consistent polling, and majority support in virtually every geographic and demographic subgroup, how could this bill have failed again, when early in the session the Senate president predicted it would come to the Senate floor?

In my opinion, there is a three-part answer.

The most immediate reason is that, as I understand it, one senator, who previously co-sponsored and voted for the bill, reversed their support in the days leading up to a committee vote. This meant the bill could not pass out of committee. I can only wonder if this reversal was a political effort to secure support for other bills at the expense of people who are dying. My message to the senator is that it is not right to play politics with peoples’ lives. I expect the senator’s constituents will remember this in the next election.

A second explanation is that opposing witnesses and legislators continue to generate, in my opinion, hypothetical reasons to oppose the bill despite data that refute the theoretical harms. The following is a small sample:

No increases in state suicide rates. The opposition claims suicide rates have increased in states with MAID despite, to my knowledge, no such data in psychiatry, medical or public health journals.

No issue with Hippocratic Oath. Opposition previously claimed MAID violated the oath physicians take in medical school, but a study shows that virtually all medical schools have oaths accommodating MAID. So now the opposition claims it violates the original Hippocratic oath. True, but so does removing kidney stones and performing surgery. We should NOT be seeking guidance from a position stated 2,400 years ago.

No abuse of drugs. Despite opposition claims, to my knowledge there has never been a credible case of unused MAID drugs being abused, because patients do not fill their costly prescriptions until ready to take them, and because the drug powders are now mixed together and realistically cannot be separated or abused.

No patient coercion. After 25 years of MAID in this country and more than 10,000 prescriptions for life-ending drugs (of which about a third were never used), to my knowledge there has never been a credible documented case of a patient being coerced into using MAID.

No need for evaluation by a psychiatrist in every patient. Multiple psychiatrists claimed, in my view without evidence, that only mental health professionals can evaluate patients for disorders that diminish mental capacity. However, two recent studies disprove this belief. Attending clinicians effectively serve this role.

No insurance company denials of care when MAID is available. Despite fears that insurance companies might deny claims to encourage people to use MAID, to my knowledge there has never been a credible case of an insurer denying treatment coverage because the patient qualifies for aid-in-dying.

The final and, at its core, the real reason for most MAID opposition is religion. As simple as that. These individuals believe their religious values should dictate public policy and override contrary views. Indeed, even when it comes to abortion the Maryland General Assembly transcended this religious dogmatism by approving a bill last year to place on the ballot a constitutional amendment allowing a woman’s right to choose. But when it comes to one’s own competent choice for a painless death, others’ religious views prevail.

Under the proposed law no one is required to participate in MAID. Anyone who opposes the law can decide not to participate, including patients, physicians, and pharmacists. But Marylanders should have the option to choose.

The late Congressman Elijah Cummings, for whom the bill is named, put it succinctly in a 2019 supporting letter: “. . . at the end of life, an individual’s right to self-determination about one of the most personal decisions that anyone could make supersedes the moral sensibilities of others.”

Michael J. Strauss is a writer, retired internist, and president of the group Marylanders for End-of-Life Options.

The news that the Arizona Supreme Court has upheld an 1864 law outlawing abortion from the moment of conception (except to save a mother’s life), while also making abortion a felony (punishable by two to five years in prison for anyone who procures or assists with one) sent a shock wave last week through the nation. How could a 160-year-old law make any sense in the twenty-first century? Many have pointed out how vastly conditions have changed since 1864: women have achieved the right to vote; Arizona has become a U.S. state; medical advances have taught us more about women’s reproductive health; technology has enabled the widespread use of birth control. But what has not changed? 

In my first book, Thinking about Women, (published forty years ago), I wrote that in the mid-19th century abortion was becoming an increasingly common phenomenon, especially among White, married, Protestant women. Abortion was big business and becoming increasingly commercialized. One noted woman entrepreneur, Madame Restell, earned an enormous income from her abortion products and spent as much as $60,000 per year on advertising alone. As both the drug industry and medical profession were growing in the second half of the nineteenth century, companies could become very profitable by seizing control of the abortion market. But midwives, the majority of whom were indigenous and Black women, would have to go. The medical profession actively spread propaganda and promoted state laws that restricted the practice of abortion to medical men (and I do mean men). An organization in 1857 called the Physicians Crusade against Abortion urged all states to pass anti-abortion laws. Many did.

As I pointed out in Thinking about Women, these changes were fueled by mid-19th century shifts in the class, racial, and ethnic structure of American life. Physicians were not only incensed by the flagrant commercialization of abortion, but they also feared that the growing rate of abortion among the middle and upper classes would cause immigrants, Black people, and the poor to outbreed White people. According to historian James Mohr, spurred by the growth of Social Darwinism and an increasing nativist movement, the antiabortion crusade appealed to racist fears and portrayed abortion as the work of criminals, backward medical professionals, and immoral social agents. Thus, between 1860 and 1880 and continuing through the first three-quarters of the twentieth century, antiabortion policies included strict criminal laws about abortion and put absolute control of abortion in the hands of the medical profession. 

Until Roe v. Wade in 1973, women seeking abortions and their accomplices were guilty of murder, abortion was defined as a criminal act, and the distribution of abortion information was illegal. Before Roe v. Wade, the death rate from abortion (both legal and illegal) was high—negligible now. Public moralizing that defined abortion in terms of religious beliefs only emerged later and not until about the 1970s. 

I do not for a minute believe that the justices of the Arizona Supreme Court had this history in mind—or, for that matter, that they thought much about who and why women have abortions today. But I do know that, once again, we face the prospect of a new eugenicist movement fueled by widespread fears that White people will soon become a smaller proportion of the U.S. population. Ironically, I also know, based on CDC data, that nationally and in Arizona, women of color are those most likely to have abortions, as are young women of any race or ethnicity. Are current restrictions on abortion a covert way of promoting more white births? 

Generally, we no longer question the value of medical science to inform and manage abortion care. Now the vast majority (75%, according to a Washington Post poll) say decisions about abortion should be left to women and their doctors and I agree. Abortion politics are clearly being partially fought based on religious beliefs, but the Arizona law broadens our perspective to help us understand how the fight for women’s reproductive freedom must be linked to the ongoing fight for racial justice, immigration rights, and the control all women should have over their own bodies. 

Dr. Margaret L. Andersen is the Edward F. and Elizabeth Goodman Rosenberg Professor Emerita of Sociology at the University of Delaware and a resident of Oxford.

 

In the halls of power in Annapolis, where political tides ebb and flow with the speed and unpredictability of the Chesapeake Bay itself, a definitive powerful force has emerged. It is a force that has not only shaped the outcomes of the 2024 Maryland Legislative Session but has also cemented its place as the most powerful voice in the state’s political landscape. That force is none other than House Speaker Adrienne Jones.

As we await the inevitable lists of winners and losers from this year’s session, one thing is abundantly clear: Governor Moore and Senate President Ferguson may hold their respective offices, but it is Speaker Jones who stands tall as the true victor. In the often-turbulent waters of Maryland politics, Jones has proven herself to be a skilled navigator, steering her chamber through the treacherous currents of competing interests and partisan divides with a patient, steady hand.

Regardless of one’s personal stance on her agenda, there is no denying the sheer effectiveness with which Speaker Jones wielded her power. From the outset of the session, she set forth her vision and agenda for Maryland, and seemingly against all odds, she has managed to translate much of that vision into tangible legislative victories. Whether it is tackling pressing issues like education reform, juvenile justice or navigating complex budget negotiations, Jones has consistently demonstrated an unparalleled ability to not only lead but to deliver results.

What sets Speaker Jones apart from her recent predecessors is not just her legislative prowess but her mastery of the political game. In a state where power dynamics are often fluid and alliances shift like sand, Jones has managed to consolidate her influence in a way that few before her have accomplished. Through a combination of strategic maneuvering and shrewd negotiation, she has emerged as the undisputed architect of the Annapolis political agenda.

But perhaps most importantly, Speaker Jones has done all of this while staying true to her principles and remaining deeply connected to the needs of her constituents. In an era marked by divisive rhetoric, Jones has shown that effective leadership is not about scoring political points or advancing personal agendas but about serving and representing the interests of all Marylanders.

Make no mistake: Speaker Adrienne Jones is not just a powerful figure in Annapolis; she is a transformative leader whose influence will be felt for years to come. Whether you agree with her politics or not, there’s no denying the indelible mark she has left on the Maryland political landscape. As we reflect on the outcomes of the 2024 legislative session, let us remember that true power is not measured by titles or positions but by the ability to effect meaningful change. And in that regard, Speaker Jones stands head and shoulders above the rest.

Clayton A. Mitchell, Sr. is an attorney who resides on the Eastern Shore.

 

Editor’s note: journalist and filmmaker Scott Rensberger has lived part-time in Oxford for the last eight years quite contently for most of that time. But last year, when a simple inquiry about a stormwater flood gate near his home went unanswered after several attempts to reach Town Hall, Scott began increasingly worried about the town’s management and commitment to transparency.

More recently, after a community debate on the actual salary of the town manager, he faced a similar stonewall when requesting the precise compensation figure for the position. His response was to use his background as a professional storyteller to highlight his concerns.

This video is approximately nine minutes in length.

I am aware that Hillary Clinton is a controversial figure. I am also aware that she made significant errors during her campaign for the presidency—most notably not paying sufficient attention to Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. But even her most ardent detractors would probably agree with her “it takes a village” mantra. We can all agree that it takes a village to raise a child, to get serious initiatives off the ground, and most certainly to lead a country as complex and diverse as the United States. 

Joe Biden has assembled an impressive and accomplished “village.” If he wins the 2024 election and for some reason is unable to serve his four-year term, you can be sure that competent professionals are at the helm. Let’s just take a look at the experience of a few of his current appointees.

Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. Blinken has more than 20 years of senior foreign policy experience. He was a member of the National Security Council and served as deputy national security advisor and deputy secretary of state. He attended Harvard and got his law degree from Columbia. 

Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen. Previously she led the Federal Reserve and has also led the White House Council of Economic Advisors.

CIA Director William Burns. Former positions include deputy secretary of state, undersecretary of state for political affairs and U.S. ambassador to Russia. He has held senior positions at the State Department under the administrations of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. 

I could go on about all the other appointees, but you get the idea. Each appointee has impressive credentials and credible experience. And when you peel the onion back further, their deputies also have experience that makes sense for their positions and gives citizens a peace of mind that they are up to the task at hand.

Now let’s assume that Trump gets reelected. First off, many of Trump’s former appointees never want to get close to the man again. So, there’s that. But here is a look at some of his appointees in his last administration. 

Senior Advisor to the President and Director of the Office of Economic Initiatives and Entrepreneurship Ivanka Trump. Before accepting this appointment and moving into an office in the White House, Ivanka Trump developed her own line of fashion items which included clothes, handbags, shoes, and accessories. While Trump was president, Ivanka applied for 36 trademarks in China. Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom dropped Ivanka’s fashion line in 2017 because of poor sales. Soon afterwards, other retailers followed suit. 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Before becoming Secretary of State, Tillerson was chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil. Tillerson lasted in the position for a little more than a year. During his tenure, new applications to work for the Foreign Service fell by 50 percent and four of the six career ambassadors as well as 14 of the 33 career ministers departed. Trump later called Tillerson “as dumb as a rock.” Trump replaced Tillerson with Mike Pompeo who later supported Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson. Carson was a neurosurgeon and became famous for separating a pair of conjoined twins joined at the back of the head. The Economist claimed HUD to be directionless under his leadership and stated that his mission was to undo whatever the Obama administration had done. HUD saw a massive exodus of career officials during Carson’s tenure. While HUD Secretary, Carson ordered $31,000 of furniture for his office when he had a budget of $5,000. He later canceled the order when he became subject to an Ethics Committee investigation. 

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. DeVos was Republican National committeewoman for Michigan and served as chair of the Michigan Republican Party. She was known for being an advocate for charter schools and for being the wife of Amway CEO Dick DeVos. (I am originally from Michigan. My Michigan friends were appalled that the Secretary of Education did not support public education.) The president of the American Federal of Teachers called DeVos, “the most ideological anti-public education nominee” since the position existed. During her confirmation hearings, DeVos suggested that guns might have a place in schools due to the threat of grizzly bears. DeVos was nowhere to be found during the last year of Trump’s presidency and was seldom seen walking the halls of the Department of Education. She resigned her position after January 6.

Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross frequently fell asleep during meetings. Secretary of EPA Scott Pruitt was charged with misusing public funds, illegal activities, and corrupt practices. His mission was also to deregulate the EPA. 

I could go on about Trump appointees, but you get my drift. And given some of his frightening campaign promises, one can only shudder at the likely caliber of prospective appointees. 

Aesop’s quote: “A man is known by the company he keeps.” I think we can all sleep a little sounder with Biden’s appointees at the helm. Otherwise, we may be “lost in the fun house” and never find our way back home.

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of a federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on reading, writing, piano, gardening, biking, kayaking, and nature. 

 

 

Cambridge’s City Manager, Tom Carroll, resigned Monday over what he says is a lack of progress in changing the direction advanced by the Cambridge Waterfront Development Inc. (CWDI) for Cambridge Harbor. Mr. Carroll is the second City Manager to leave under this City Council in less than 3 years.  So, what is CWDI and what are the problems?

CWDI is an independent non-profit agency set up in 2018 and funded by the City, the County and the State.  The members of the board of CWDI were appointed (not elected) by the three entities. The purpose of CWDI is to oversee the development of the approximately 35 acres of land where the old hospital was on the Choptank River.  By creating a single entity such as CWDI, the City, County and State allow developers to deal with just one agency instead of having to deal with the three different governmental entities.  This idea has been used all over the US to develop areas but usually agencies such as CWDI hire experienced, professional development companies. CWDI is trying to develop the property on its own.

Our CWDI wants to set itself up as a permanent organization to handle all real estate, tax issues and maintenance in its area of control – very much like becoming a city within a city.  CWDI is setting up funding streams using increased real estate taxes to pay for employees’ salaries and maintenance operations.  This area of the City could have different codes and rules made by an appointed group and not by elected City officials.  CWDI would have a separate maintenance organization, separate equipment to maintain its properties and a separate marina which it will operate.

Our CWDI wants the City, County and State to put up over $50 million for infrastructure – sewers, electrical, streets, parks, parking lots, sidewalks, and public art, etc. before any companies have committed to the project.  The City would have to take out a huge loan of $33 million to net $22 million and would have to wait at least 30 years, if not more, to get paid back though increased taxes.  It is estimated that the City and County would, with interest, pay $60 million over the life of the loan (or $2 million a year between the governments).  

Keep in mind that even after the taxpayers have put up $60 million over 30 years for the Cambridge Harbor project, CWDI would, under their current proposal, still have a funding gap of millions. They would need to seek funding from other public subsidies or come back to the City for more funding to close this gap.

Our CWDI has an additional problem in that there is not enough “economic value” (taxable land) to make the project work financially for the City.  CWDI has set aside almost the entire waterfront from the bridge around to the Richardson Museum for nonprofit use.  In addition, they are planning to put the “Y” in the premier spot on the site.  (CWDI states that there is no deal with the Y but if you follow the money, CWDI has spent $5,000 on plans for developing the old “Y” site and the “Y” has spent $47,000 of the City’s ARPA funds on plans for the CWDI site). 

Our CWDI is very guarded with its information. It refuses to give the City pertinent information and is not cooperating with the City.  Therefore, we now have two amphitheaters being planned, one at the Packing House and one at Cambridge Harbor. The City will also have two marinas – the old City Marina, which is not full and needs a lot of work, and now a new proposed and taxpayer-subsidized marina at Cambridge Harbor.  It seems like there could be better coordination for multi-million-dollar projects like marinas and million-dollar projects like amphitheaters in a small City like Cambridge. 

Our CWDI does not provide the public with minutes of its meetings, detailed budgets or the details of its plans. CWDI has been in existence for over 5 years and has yet to announce one private company committing to the site.  Therefore, the City is being asked to develop the site with no tenants in sight.  It could be a very lonely, expensive place.   

There seem to be major problems with the CWDI, and the public does not know enough to make a fair assessment because the information needed is being held tightly.  I can only assume that if the City Manager finds it so troubling that he feels he needs to resign, then the City Council should take action and lay out the issues to the citizens.

What can you do?  Contact your City and County Council representatives and tell them to withhold any funds until all the issues are worked out in open sessions.  Enough of this closed-door decision-making – let the light shine in and let the citizens know what is going on.

Chuck McFadden is the president of the Cambridge Association of Neighborhoods.

 

In a notable twist of political dynamics, Governor Wes Moore, a fellow Democrat, finds himself at odds with members of his own party in the Maryland House of Delegates over budget priorities. Moore, who has consistently pledged not to raise taxes, now faces the daunting prospect of vetoing a budget bill proposed by fellow Democrats that would do just that. This predicament underscores a deeper rift within the party and raises questions about the alignment of fiscal policies with Democratic principles.

Governor Moore’s $63.1 billion budget proposal marks a departure from conventional approaches, emphasizing fiscal restraint and economic revitalization without resorting to tax increases. As a former investment banker, Moore brings a keen understanding of budgetary intricacies and the imperative to align government spending with tangible outcomes. His commitment to fiscal responsibility resonates with many Marylanders who seek prudent management of taxpayer dollars.

However, the budget presented by Democratic lawmakers in the House of Delegates diverges sharply from Moore’s vision. Their proposal includes tax and fee hikes, directly contradicting Moore’s promise to voters and his principled stance against burdening Marylanders with additional taxes. For Moore, vetoing such a budget bill becomes his only recourse to uphold his pledge, setting the stage for a contentious showdown within the party.

The crux of the disagreement lies in differing approaches to addressing Maryland’s fiscal challenges. While Moore advocates for targeted spending cuts and strategic investments to spur economic growth, some Democratic legislators favor revenue-raising measures to bridge budget gaps. This ideological discord reflects broader debates within the Democratic Party about the role of taxation and government intervention in fostering economic prosperity.

Moreover, the House Democrats’ insistence on tax hikes disregards the potential consequences for Maryland’s economic competitiveness and affordability. Raising taxes could stifle business growth, deter investment, and exacerbate financial strain on households already grappling with rising costs of living. In essence, it’s a gamble with Maryland’s economic future that Moore, as Governor, cannot afford to take lightly.

As the budget proposal moves through the legislative process, Governor Moore faces a pivotal moment in his tenure. His commitment to fiscal prudence and his promise to voters hang in the balance, with vetoing a tax-increasing budget bill emerging as his only viable option. This decision carries significant political implications, shaping perceptions of Moore’s leadership and the Democratic Party’s priorities in Maryland.

In the end, the outcome of this budget battle will reverberate beyond partisan lines, impacting the lives of every Marylander. It’s a test of principles, leadership, and fiscal stewardship—one that Governor Moore must navigate with unwavering resolve and a steadfast commitment to the promises he made to the people of Maryland.

The author is an attorney who resides in Stevensville, Maryland.

 

I have often heard it said that the Delmarva Peninsula is the third most vulnerable region to sea level rise in America. Whatever our rank, we are certainly among the most vulnerable regions to rising seas due to our low-lying landscape and also because our region is sinking ever so slightly. Lower Dorchester County is already feeling severe effects, with many houses elevated or abandoned and school bus routes regularly thwarted by high tides. Critically, most of our towns on the Eastern Shore started as port towns and regularly experience “sunny day flooding” along with seasonal hurricane threats.

What to do about an existential global threat which is causing early and painful impacts on the Eastern Shore. Starting in 2012 Eastern Shore Land Conservancy worked with towns and counties in an attempt to get ahead on climate change and sea level rise. The main lessons from that work were adapt or retreat. Unfortunately, retreat is a tough topic – I think because we are all part oyster and prefer to just stay put once we set down roots here. And adapting to rising seas is an enormous challenge given the pervasiveness of the problem and the high cost for each wetland restoration, flood barrier or road raising.

In my retirement, I have remained engaged in climate change adaptation and have tripped over a number of bright people working on new ideas and having real success. Here are a few hopeful ideas:

Using sediment dredged from our boating and shipping channels for shoreline stabilization, beach nourishment, and marsh restoration. The Maryland Port Administration has been doing this for years in areas around Baltimore and at Poplar Island and more recently in restoring Barren and James Islands off Dorchester County. Similarly, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources is using a coordinated approach to marry local channel dredging with nearby shoreline stabilization and marsh restoration needs. One of my family’s favorite parks – Ferry Point Park at Kent Narrows – was built using material dredged from nearby channels and  has now become the Shore’s largest natural baby pool;

Creating nonprofit “resilience authorities” to finance the immense cost of climate change adaptation. In response to Maryland legislation authorizing local governments to create “resilience authorities,” Annapolis and Anne Arundel County created their own authority aimed at efficiently financing the tremendous number of projects needed to adapt to sea level rise and climate change. In their first year this Resilience Authority raised nearly $20 million for adapting to coastal flooding, extreme weather events, and other climate related threats. While much of the early funding is Federal and State grants, these authorities are built to utilize creative new funding mechanisms including selling carbon or other resilience credits. Charles County similarly created their own authority and others are in process.

And here are a few bright people at the forefront of helping communities – all of our communities – adapt to threats arising from climate change: Matt Fleming – is Executive Director of the Annapolis and Anne Arundel County Resilience Authority and has not only raised a ton of funds, but also targeted those funds toward underserved communities; Brad Rogers – is Executive Director of the South Baltimore Gateway Partnership which is spearheading an ambitious project which will connect South Baltimore’s poorest communities with parks, trails, redevelopment and community amenities in ways that address flooding and systemic racism; Holly Fowler – is with Council Fire consulting and is coordinating large chunks of the above work with the environmental knowledge and personal grace needed for complicated projects with myriad partners and shifting politics. Thanks to all of you for your efforts.

As a global community, we have a daunting challenge in reducing our emissions sufficient to meet the Paris Agreement target of 1.5 C degrees of global warming. On the Eastern Shore we must do our share to limit these greenhouse gas emissions. But we also must use every innovation possible and accelerate our adaptation to the coastal flooding and other climate change impacts we already face.

Rob Etgen retired in 2021 after a 40 year career in conservation – the last 31 years as President of Eastern Shore Land Conservancy. In retirement Rob is enjoying family and working on global and local sustainability issues with Council Fire consulting out of Annapolis.

Hypocrisy is as old as time. Just ask Shakespeare. But one cannot help but be gobsmacked as we watch today’s hypocrisy rise to disturbing heights. Here are just a few examples. 

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Here is what McConnell said about January 6, 2021: “There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day. The mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name. These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags, and screaming their loyalty to him.” 

On March 6, 2024, McConnell endorsed Trump as the Republican candidate for President. And let us not forget the fact that McConnell blocked Merrick Garland’s appointment to the Supreme Court in the last year of Obama’s presidency by refusing to even bring his nomination to the Senate floor. Then, in Trump’s last year in office, he aggressively pushed through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. I lay a large part of the current Supreme Court’s dysfunction squarely at the feet of Mitch McConnell. 

Evangelicals. Evangelicals defend their support for Trump because they say even Jesus was flawed. This is a bridge too far. The Judge in the E. Jean Carroll case said that Trump committed rape. He is well beyond flawed. How many of the 10 Commandments has Trump violated? I count nine. (I am giving him credit for honoring his father and mother, but I did not give him a pass on killing given his muddled and slow response to the beginning of the pandemic and his failure to endorse or promote even the most basic gun control policies.)

Supreme Court. During their confirmation hearings, every modern Supreme Court nominee has opined on the importance of not politicizing the Court. I would argue that today’s Court must be close to being the most political Court in history. How is it even possible that Clarence Thomas, whose wife is an ardent Trump supporter who privately urged Trump’s Chief of Staff to overturn the results of the election and attended the rally that preceded the January 6 riot, does not recuse himself from the question of whether Trump is immune from prosecution? And then there is the issue of the timing of certain Justices choosing their retirement dates based on the political party of the current president. Does that not smack of “political?”

Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL). Last week Gaetz sanctimoniously questioned Hunter Biden. He asked, “Were you on drugs when you were on the Burisma Board?”  Seriously? Matt Gaetz has been accused of using illegal drugs, showing images and videos of nude women he was sleeping with in the Capitol and even on the House floor. He also has been accused of sex-trafficking—taking underage girls across state lines. 

Representative Lauren Bobert (R-CO). She said she was running to represent Colorado to, “support Conservative values.” In the last year, police have been called to her home on more than one occasion over “domestic violence” issues. She was caught vaping and fondling her date at a performance of Beetlejuice which she denied until a video was released. She then apologized. 

Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH). Jim Jordan has turned attacking Democrats into an art form. He relentlessly attacked Hunter Biden for violating a subpoena. Jordan voted against enforcing subpoenas for people like Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows. Former Republican Illinois Representative Adam Kinzinger called Jordan’s hypocrisy “mind-numbing.” Oh, and by the way, Jordan violated his own subpoena.

And yes, I know, Washington and Jefferson and some other Founders had slaves while preaching equality and freedom. FDR had mistresses and occasionally was known to use racial and antisemitic slurs. JFK had affairs. Carter had lust in his heart. Clinton lied about affairs. And Hillary had emails on her private server. So, lies and hypocrisy are not limited to only one party. Maybe this current batch of hypocrisy seems so disgusting and reprehensible and frankly disappointing because this is our time. 

Still, I contend that this abundance of hypocrisy in our time is dangerous. It promotes partisanship and distorts truth. 

Nathaniel Hawthorne once said, “No man for any considerable period can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true.” Amen.

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of the Federal Human Capital practice of an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, gardening, piano, kayaking, biking, and nature. 

 

In order to pay for upcoming structural deficits and increased spending in the Maryland operating and capital budgets, tax and fee increases have been informally discussed among some members of the General Assembly.  One such potential tax proposal is to increase the Maryland Sales and Use Tax.

In the ongoing discourse over whether to increase Maryland’s sales tax, a candid revelation from a Western Shore delegate about a decade ago offers a prescient glimpse into the prevailing sentiments within the state’s political landscape. The delegate’s straightforward admission, “Clay, if you think the urban delegations cares about Kent County, I’m going to tell you ‘No’ “, serves as a sobering reminder of the historical disparities between the Western and Eastern Shores. This revelation, shared with me approximately a decade ago, sheds light on the perennial struggle faced by the Eastern Shore in securing fair and equitable treatment in the halls of Annapolis.

As I reflected on this insight in an article I wrote for Center Maryland in December 2014 (“There’s a Blue Dog Room in Maryland’s Third Party”), the stark reality emerged that the Eastern Shore, with its old-style conservative Democrats and Republicans, finds itself vastly outnumbered by the progressive Western Shore Democrats who wield considerable influence in the state’s political landscape. The sentiment expressed by the Western Shore delegate encapsulates the prevailing attitude in Annapolis—one where the concerns of the Eastern Shore, particularly those related to the impact of undifferentiated tax policies on local businesses, are met with a dismissive “who cares” attitude from many progressive leaders.

It is against this backdrop that an increase in Maryland’s sales tax takes on a more sinister hue. The Eastern Shore, already grappling with a political climate that marginalizes its concerns, now faces the prospect of an additional economic hurdle in the form of a heightened sales tax. The notion that Eastern Shore residents would willingly pay a 6 ½ % to 7% premium to make purchases within Maryland, especially when the neighboring state of Delaware beckons with a tax-free haven, is a testament to the shortsightedness of such a tax policy.

To argue that Marylanders will voluntarily pay the “use tax” for their Delaware purchases that are imported into this state is laughable. The complexities of cross-border economic interactions, particularly with a state boasting a tax-free haven, belie the simplistic notion that such an increased Maryland sales tax adequately compensates for the financial burden placed on Maryland’s Eastern Shore residents.

The juxtaposition of economic trajectories between Middletown, Delaware, and Kent County, Maryland, further accentuates the potential consequences of a sales tax increase. While Middletown, Delaware experiences a surge in economic growth and prosperity, neighboring Kent County, Maryland languishes in stagnation. This stark divergence prompts a poignant question: Does anyone in Annapolis wonder why neighboring jurisdictions can experience such disparate economic outcomes when the areas share a geographical border?

The Eastern Shore’s economic interdependence with Delaware is a reality that cannot be ignored. As policymakers deliberate on tax policies, they must heed the warning signs from the past and recognize the consequences of an unjust burden on the Eastern Shore. A myopic focus on urban priorities at the expense of rural communities threatens the delicate balance of Maryland’s economic ecosystem.

In conclusion, a sales tax increase, when viewed through the lens of historical neglect and dismissive attitudes towards the Eastern Shore, reveals itself as a potentially divisive and detrimental policy. Annapolis must reckon with the reality that fair and equitable treatment of all Maryland residents, irrespective of their geographic location, is essential for fostering a thriving and united state. Only through thoughtful consideration and inclusive policymaking can Maryland hope to bridge the divide and create an environment where the economic well-being of all its residents is safeguarded.

Clayton Mitchell is an attorney who resides on the Eastern Shore