To date, more than two dozen lawsuits have been filed challenging the authority, power, goals, plans, initiatives, and actions of President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

No doubt many more lawsuits will follow.

The rulings by lower court judges on the already filed lawsuits are mixed.

Some lower court judges have ruled a president has broad constitutional authority to fire, demote, or reassign federal executive branch employees without input from, or approval of Congress.

Other lower court judges have ruled a president does not have broad constitutional authority to fire, demote, or reassign federal executive branch employees without input from or approval of Congress.

Appeals of lower court judge rulings to the U.S. Supreme Court are not a matter of if, but a matter of when, as well as exactly how they will be addressed.

Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute, has already predicted a majority of the justices will support a ruling in approving DOGE’s authority, plans, and actions.

In a recent commentary, The Supreme Court is Poised to Restore the President’s Executive Power, Shapiro writes, “Article II of the U.S. Constitution begins with a simple declarative sentence: ‘The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States.”

He also writes “A majority on the Court now seems set to return to that view.’”

That majority of the Court referred to by Shapiro is presumably Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Coney Barrett.

These six justices are often referred to collectively as a right of center bloc.

Shapiro gives special attention to Chief Justice Roberts.

He refers to a 2005 Supreme Court majority opinion written by Roberts on presidential authority. In it, Roberts explained Article II authority in the U.S. Constitution “generally includes the ability to remove executive officials.” He also says that is “a power that is necessary to ensure the accountable and effective execution of federal policy.”

Shapiro also notes that Roberts has stated, without the power to remove executive-branch officers, “the president could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities; the buck would stop somewhere else.”

The key word in Chief Justice Roberts thinking is “generally.”

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines “generally” as often or regularly.

It does not define “generally” as “always.”

That is affirmed by recent actions by Chief Justice Roberts on two lower court rulings on DOGE.

In the first action Chief Justice Roberts, along with Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Supreme Court’s left of center bloc of Justices in blocking President Trump’s efforts to freeze $2 billion in foreign aid funding and temporarily blocking budget cuts.

In the second action, Roberts and Coney Barrett agreed with a majority of their left of center colleagues on a decision that the court would not overrule a temporary order from a lower court to stop Trump from firing the head of the Office of Special Counsel.

These two actions refute the idea that members of the conservative bloc are unified and consistently unable to reach agreement with members of the left of center Justices.

It also demonstrates that Roberts and Coney Barrett are willing to side against Trump in legal challenges on certain DOGE Issues.

Most importantly, it affirms that the issue of presidential authority and power will require extraordinarily intense dialogue and deliberations amongst all the justices on the short term and long-term ramifications of their ultimate decisions.

Payvan Ahdout, a law professor at the University of Virginia, suggests the court is “open to a role for judicial review of these [DOGE] decisions, but they just have not yet reached consensus on what that judicial role should be.”

Going forward, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Coney Barrett could be part of majority member rulings that all, most, some, or few of DOGE actions are unconstitutional or could be constitutional with revisions.

If both do so, the outcomes will be 6-3 majority rulings for DOGE.

If only one does, it will still be 5-4 rulings for DOGE.

Conversely, if both join again with three of left of center Justices to sustain lower court challenges against DOGE it will be 5-4 rulings against DOGE.

Ultimately, every Supreme Court review and ruling on every lower Court DOGE ruling will determine the future scope of DOGE’s constitutional authority, plans, efforts, success, or failure to meet projected results.

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

 

Hardly a day goes by without continuous updates from Washington DC on plans of and actions by the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency, commonly referred to as DOGE.

President Trump created DOGE with an executive order on the first day of his second term, affirming it is a key element of his second term agenda. Elon Musk is heading DOGE as a Special Government Employee.

Strong resistance to DOGE started immediately and has not slowed since then. A lawsuit challenging the legality and authority of was filed the same day DOGE was created. Since then, numerous lawsuits have been filed, including those charging DOGE’s efforts to access federal agency data violate federal privacy laws.

As of now, questions on how many and exactly how the U.S. Supreme Court will address these lawsuits is anyone’s guess.

One question not receiving much attention is the history of and possible lessons learned from past efforts on improving government efficiency and reducing government spending.

The first such effort occurred in 1947 when Congress created the Commission on the Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, commonly referred to as the Hoover Commission, as former President Herbert Hoover chaired it.

In 1953, Congress approved the Second Commission on the Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government also commonly referred to as a Hoover Commission, as former President Hoover chaired it.

In 1982, former President Reagan created The President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, commonly referred to as the Grace Commission, as it was chaired by corporate executive J. Peter Grace, who was an industrialist and CEO of W.R. Grace and Company, a diversified chemical company.

In 1993, former President Clinton launched the National Performance Review (NPR), also commonly referred to as Reinventing Government. Leading it was former Vice President Gore.

Former President Obama established three groups. They were the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform whose co-chairs were former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, the Domenici-Rivlin Debt Reduction Task Force, chaired by former U.S. Senator Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin, former director of the Office of management and Budget and former Federal Reserve Board Vice Chair. The third group, Campaign to Cut Waste, was a large group of Obama administration officials with the stated goal of “hunting down and eliminating misspent tax dollars in every agency and department across the Federal Government.”

In a recent article on President Trump’s DOGE initiative, John Kamensky, Emeritus Senior Fellow at the IBM Center for The Business of Government, and Mark Abramson, President at Leadership Inc. suggest the following key elements are important for success in federal government spending change efforts:

“Making government work better can gain significant support in Congress as was seen in the first Hoover Commission and the Reinventing Government initiatives. When recommendations need congressional approval, being fast can make a difference. When a reform initiative spans the life of more than one Congress – and there is a chance that either house may flip to the opposing party – then bolder recommendations can be jeopardized. Moving fast also allows more time to focus on implementation. This was a strength of the Reinventing Government initiative.

Reform efforts that try to make government cheaper, such as by eliminating programs or reducing headcount, necessarily involve Congress. Such an emphasis was a stumbling block for the Second Hoover Commission and the Grace Commission. Including career civil servants in the work of a reform initiative can increase the success of the “improving program” initiatives since they can gain “buy-in” from the civil service. In contrast, the ‘eliminating programs’ approach has been predominately staffed by individuals outside of government, and civil service ‘buy-in’ was not sought.”

Kamensky and Mark Abramson conclude with writing, “At the time of this writing, DOGE has not been operating like any of these past reform efforts, where the need for change is assessed, and recommendations are made for the President and Congress to act upon.”

I suggest there is a crucial omission from their observations on the underlying rationale on President Trump’s decisions to move quickly and aggressively on the DOGE agenda. Those decisions include bypassing Congress for input on and approval of DOGE goals and operations.

I suggest Trump’s thinking reflects a sense of urgency on addressing the steadily increasing national debt. In 2000, that debt was $5.659 trillion, approximately fifty-six percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By 2010, the national was $13.562 trillion, approximately ninety-three per cent of GDP. It is projected to reach $37 trillion in June of this year.

Despite current and yet to be filed court challenges to DOGE, it remains to be seen what the final decisions will be on those court challenges, especially any rulings handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I suggest any mandates on congressional involvement on DOGE plans and actions may not be relevant going forward, even if the courts rule that a president cannot implement DOGE activities without some levels of congressional input and/or approval.

The current Republican majorities in Congress have been relatively uninvolved in any efforts to slow down or stop DOGE plans and actions.

If court rulings do limit the scope and authority of DOGE, I suggest Congressional Republicans will move to approve whatever is deemed legally necessary to allow DOGE plans and actions to continue.

As always, that could change based on the results of the 2026 midterm election cycle, which is already underway.

I further suggest, if Republicans retain control of Congress in the 2026 mid-term elections, they will be even more inclined to approve future DOGE plans and actions at least through the end of Trump’s second term.

If the Democrats regain control of the House, the Senate or both, DOGE will be no more than a footnote in the history of Trump’s second term.

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

Forty-five years ago this month, a nuclear reactor at the Three Mile Island electric power generating station in central Pennsylvania experienced a partial nuclear meltdown.

It is the worst accident involving nuclear power generation in American history.

On the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES), it is rated as a Level 5 event — an “Accident with Wider Consequences”.

One of those wider consequences was a dramatic and long-lasting shift on the public perception on the safety and feasibility of nuclear power plants, even with post TMI design and operating improvements for new nuclear power plants.

Despite those improvements, some concluded that accident and how it was mismanaged marked the beginning of the end of nuclear power as a source for electric power in America.Ultimately, the accident did not result in the demise of the U.S. nuclear power industry, but it did halt its historic growth.

Fast forward to today.

Unexpected and extraordinary increases in electric bills are a huge issue throughout Maryland.

They are generating extensive media coverage and massive statewide public outrage greater than the proposals to increase taxes and cut spending in order to balance the state budget. 

Former U.S Senator Everett Dirksen once said: ‘When I feel the heat I see the light.”

Presently, the heat is being felt by elected public officials, including legislators in Annapolis.

Based on that heat they are increasingly open to a wide range electrical generating options that could result in lower electric bills. 

One option was succinctly captured in a recent headline for a Capital News Service article –

 Craving more energy, Maryland looks to nuclear power.

That “craving” has led to a four-bill package of legislation introduced by the Democratic leadership of the in the General Assembly at the request of Governor Moore. 

One of the bills proposes a procurement framework to support the development of both traditional nuclear power plants and small modular reactors (SMRs) in the state.

If and when that occurs, any new reactors would join the Calvert Cliffs plant in Calvert County, Maryland’s only traditional nuclear power plant. 

Owned and operated by Baltimore-based Constellation Energy since it became operational in 1975, Calvert Cliffs is the largest nuclear power plant on the East Coast. It generates about 40% of all electric power used in Maryland an amount equal to another 40% that is generated and imported from outside of Maryland.

Support for increased use of nuclear power in Maryland is not universal. 

Jorge Aguilar, a regional director at Food and Water Watch, a national environmental advocacy organization, has said, “Maryland should be alarmed that state leaders want to build out these astronomically expensive and dangerous nuclear plants in Maryland to meet the state’s energy needs. These plants would be expensive to build and produce hazardous nuclear waste. Maryland should be pushing the grid operator to approve renewable energy projects faster. I think Maryland leaders really need to double down on truly clean energy, like wind and solar, as well as batteries. Not nuclear.”

That message will resonate with many of the progressive members in the General Assembly but will not with the small but vocal Freedom Caucus in the state House. 

That caucus is suggesting the following changes in Maryland’s energy: reopen closed and keep currently open coal-fired power plants scheduled to close, stop “EmPOWER Maryland” fees on electric bills, repeal or revise the state law that requires higher margins of clean energy to be used statewide and reduce spending $180-million dollars on a state climate department.

While this approach of the Freedom Caucus may be helpful in increasing public awareness of the caucus and its proposed energy agenda, it will not move the needle with the Governor or the steadily increasing numbers and power of progressive legislators in Annapolis.

Regardless of the levels of support or opposition to more nuclear power, there are two realities that will determine its impact on higher electric bills for now and in the future. 

The first reality is the 90-day General Assembly session ends on April 7, 2025. 

Between now and then, the Governor and General Assembly leaders will be fully engaged in efforts to secure consensus and a majority of votes on a balanced state budget.

The second reality is, even when new policies on approving and encouraging greater use of nuclear power, the schedule for building and opening new nuclear power plants is a long one.

The period from proposal, approval, building, and opening can range from six years to twelve years. Construction time alone for the Calvert Cliffs plant was seven years.

Accordingly, nuclear power will not provide immediate or short-term in lower electric bills. 

What is urgently needed is the Governor and General Assembly leadership to agree on all the underlying causes of higher electric bills and then pursue short term and long-term solutions.

On the question of more nuclear power plants in Maryland, the answer is — probably yes, but not a given, and most certainly, not soon. 

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

Next month is National Kidney Month.

According to information posted on the National Kidney Foundation website, thirty-seven million adults in America have chronic kidney disease.

Ninety percent don’t know they have it.

Approximately seven hundred and fifty thousand individuals have irreversible kidney failure that requires regular dialysis or a kidney transplant just to survive.

Almost one hundred thousand of those critically ill individuals are on transplant waitlists.

The average wait times for a transplant range from three to seven years, depending on where the patient lives.

For some, that wait is ultimately futile.

The Kidney Foundation reports that only one in five on the waitlist receive a kidney transplant every year and every day an average of ten people who need a kidney transplant die.

Until recently, I had no more than a vague awareness of the tremendous need for kidney donors.

The catalyst for learning more about this matter resulted from a chance encounter at a recent meet-and-greet event.

While chatting with another event attendee, I noticed she was wearing one of the ubiquitous “ribbon pins” that are used by many to express support for countless causes.

The color of her ribbon was green.

I had never seen that color before, so I asked her about it.

She smiled and said quietly, “I’m an organ donor. I donated one of my kidneys”.

I told her I knew two individuals who were kidney transplant recipients, but never met a live-organ donor.

I asked her if she donated it to an immediate family member, a relative, a close friend or someone she knew.

Her unexpected reply shocked me.

She said, ” I have no idea who received it. I never asked and they never told me. All I know is someone desperately needed lifesaving help and I wanted to provide it.”

I finally recovered enough to state the obvious — her selfless actions were a wonderful thing for her to do.

It was much more than wonderful thing to do but at that time more appropriate words escaped me.

I finally followed up with telling her I was glad I saw and asked about her ribbon.

She smiled again and said, ‘‘I too am glad you saw it and asked about it. I don’t wear it for recognition or compliments. I wear it as a way to raise awareness of how important it is to be a live organ donor and the wonderful lifelong feeling it provides on making a real difference in this world.”

Before we went our separate ways, she said thank you for listening and learning more about this cause.

I have not seen her or talked to her again, nor do I know who she is.

I will never forget her and her story.

I have since learned that green ribbons are not just for live kidney donors.

They can be worn by anyone as a symbol of support for those giving hope and sharing life through organ, eye, and tissue donations.

I realize now, the best way to honor the green ribbon wearer I met is to share her story in this commentary.

I know recognizing her by name is not possible, nor is it the proper thing to do.

She already told me she was not seeking recognition or compliments for her compassion and extraordinary gift.

This commentary is not a call to action to become a live organ donor. I have no doubt I ever will and respect all those who choose not to do so.

My hope is this commentary will help advance her goal of raising awareness of the need for live organ donors and the wonderful feeling it provides her in making a real difference in this world.

All of us can do that by simply remembering and perhaps even telling her story to others.

We can also watch for those wearing green ribbons.

When we do see them, I suggest we take a minute to listen to their unique story, whatever it may be.

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

 

Since the Maryland General Assembly convened for a ninety-day session last month the state budget has been the focus of intense attention, an intense focus that generally occurs later in the session.

Projected state budget deficits have driven early debates on spending cuts, tax increases, personal income and business tax adjustments, fee increases, and “rainy day” fund transfers.

Given the challenges in reaching consensus on the Governor’s proposed $67.3 billion budget, and majorities in the House of Delegates and the Senate, these debates have been and will continue to encounter unexpected twists and turns.

Last week, Maryland Senate President Bill Ferguson speaking about a new challenge said lawmakers will likely have to look for “several hundred million more dollars” in additional cuts or taxes to cover anticipated decreases in federal funds coming to Maryland.

Despite these challenges, a balanced budget as mandated by the state constitution will most likely be approved by the General Assembly and sent to the Governor for his approval just before or at midnight when the General Assembly adjourns on April 7.

If that does not happen, the Governor will need to call for a special session for a budget approval for the first time since 2012.

Another state budget issue that will be challenging but which has not yet received much attention is long term funding for the state’s $21.2 billion six-year transportation trust fund.

This fund provides capital investment funding for the Maryland Aviation Administration, Maryland Port Administration, Maryland Transit Administration, Motor Vehicle Administration, State Highway Administration and The Secretary’s Office, as well as Maryland’s investment in the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.

Currently, almost a third (31%) of the transportation trust fund’s annual revenue comes from a 46.1 cent per gallon gas tax, a tax that is automatically adjusted based on the rate of inflation.

There are increasing concerns that even with future annual automatic gas tax rate increases, it is not a long-term reliable funding source for the transportation trust fund.

There are three driving trends leading to the gas tax reliability concerns: less gas consumption due to improved fuel efficiency of new gas-powered vehicles, increasing use of electric and hybrid vehicles, and less driving by those working from home who seldom or never drive to or from work.

The Eastern Transportation Coalition (ETC), a partnership of nineteen states and the District of Columbia focused on connecting public agencies across modes of travel to increase safety and efficiency. is proposing mileage-based user fee (MBUF).
ETC has already done a four-month MBUF demonstration pilot in Maryland with voluntary
participation of over 170 drivers.

In their analysis of the Maryland pilot results, the ETC concludes, “in general”, drivers would have paid the same amount with an MBUF as they would have with the gas tax.

They do not elaborate on how they define “in general”.

The response to the ETC proposal from the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) is “MDOT continues to partner with the Eastern Transportation Coalition on the work that the Coalition is doing to learn more about the feasibility of MBUF as a sustainable transportation funding option for the future, but has no next steps planned at this time.

I suggest MDOT’s non-committal for next steps at this time is very appropriate.

There is a wide range of unanswered questions on the ETC demonstration pilot results specifically, and the MBUF concept in general, that need to be addressed before MBUF is given serious consideration as an alternative to a gas tax.

How reliable are ETC conclusions that MBUF and gas tax driving costs are close to equal?
Are those conclusions applicable statewide in Maryland, especially on the Eastern Shore where long commutes to Annapolis, Washington and Baltimore are common?
If the goal is increasing revenue for the transportation trust fund, why replace one revenue source for another with no net gain on revenue?
Will 170 drivers reporting positive pilot demonstrations with an MBUF experience from voluntary driver surveys generate enough political support for legislative approval of a statewide WBUF when there are over four million licensed drivers in Maryland?
What are the projected long-term trends on sales of gas efficient vehicles?
What are the projected long-term trends on sales of all electric vehicles?
What are the projected long-term trends on sales of hybrid vehicles?
What are the projected long-term trends on work from home workers?

Complicating matters on this issue is another gas tax-related proposal reducing the mass transit operating expense subsidies paid from the state transportation trust fund.

Under current law, 50% of the transportation trust fund goes to pay those subsidies since fares cover less than 10% of the total operating costs of mass transit systems.

The question is: will the General Assembly and Governor approve a new mandate that at least 35% of the operating costs of a mass transit system must be covered by fare revenues, and just as with the gas tax, fare must be adjusted regularly based on the rate of inflation.

Until all of the above questions are answered, going slow on any replacement of the current gas tax system with an MBUF system is necessary, prudent, and realistic.

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

Well before and since his swearing in on January 20, President Trump has been moving aggressively to secure Senate approval of a team of cabinet and sub-cabinet members to implement his Make America Great Again agenda.
To date he has achieved significant, but not yet universal success on those approvals.

Currently there are at least three of his nominations where Senate approval is in various stages of uncertainty.

They are Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kash Patel for FBI Director, and Tulsi Gabbard for National Intelligence Director.

Earlier last month Trump’s nomination of Pete Hegseth to serve as Secretary of Defense was approved in the Senate by the narrowest of margins.

Following contentious committee hearings on his background and competence, Hegseth was confirmed only after Vice President Vance broke a 50 -50 vote tie vote with a yes vote for him.

If any of the pending Trump nominations fail to receive full Senate approval, it will be the first time since 1925 when a Republican-controlled Senate rejected a Republican President’s cabinet nomination. The President then was Calvin Coolidge and failed nominee was Charles Warren for Attorney General.

Trump’s immediate Democratic predecessors – Barack Obama and Joe Biden had all their cabinet nominations approved by the Senate. In both cases there were Democratic majorities in the Senate and some of their more controversial nominations were withdrawn from consideration before full Senate consideration of their nominations.

The reasons for resistance to Trump are not surprising.

Over five hundred years ago political observer and philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli wrote the following timeless observation on change.

“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.”

In 2024 Trump ran and won on a change platform and his commitment to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things in Washington.

That is similar to the goal that former President Obama expressed when he first ran for the presidency.

Early and often on the campaign trail Obama said, “Washington is broken. My whole campaign has been premised from the start on the idea that we have to fundamentally change how Washington works.”

After the election to his first term, Obama said with confidence that he had not miscalculated how difficult it would be to change Washington.

He said, “I didn’t overpromise. And I didn’t underestimate how tough this was gonna be.”

After four years in office and his election to a second term Obama acknowledged with a combination of frustration, regret, and self-reflection, that he had in fact miscalculated and underestimated how hard making changes was going to be.

He said “I’m the first one to confess that the spirit that I brought to Washington, that I wanted to see instituted, where we weren’t constantly in a political slugfest … I haven’t fully accomplished that. Haven’t even come close in some instances. And, you know, if you ask me what’s my biggest disappointment [it] is that we haven’t changed the tone in Washington as much as I would have liked.”

Time will tell if Donald Trump acknowledges and says much the same thing after the end of his second term.

The first test of success or failure for Trump will occur in less than two years.

In November 2026, all the seats in the House of Representatives and one third of the seats in the Senate will be up for election.

Historically, but not always, these elections are largely a referendum on a President’s performance and agenda.

If the Republicans do lose control of the House and/or the Senate in 2026, any unapproved elements of Trump’s MAGA agenda will likely be stalled, if not stopped completely.

Conversely, if that does not occur, the odds for success for Trump in continuing to advance his MAGA agenda are greatly increased.

It also increases the odds for Vice President Vance securing the Republican nomination for and winning the election as President in 2028.

Going forward, only one thing is certain.

Either way, we will soon be better able to affirm or challenge the thinking that in the political world, pursuing real change is often an exercise in futility, no matter who is elected president.

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

On January 15, Governor Moore presented his proposed $67.3 billion state budget to the General Assembly.

His proposed budget includes the following:

Approximately $2 billion in spending cuts
Approximately $1 billion in new revenue from select tax code changes and fee increases
Additional select tax code changes
A state initiative comparable to the new federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) that will identify $50 million in savings that can be accomplished by implementing greater efficiencies in state government operations and programs

The proposed budget includes the following tax changes:

Maintain an income tax rate of 5.75% for those earning over $300,000 annually
Increase an income tax rate to 6.25% for those earning up to $500,000 annually
Increase income tax rates to 6.50% for those earning $1.2 million or more annually
Add a 1% surcharge on capital gains for households earning more than $350,000 annually
A flat 4.7% tax rate for Maryland singles earning less than $100,000 annually
A flat 4.7% tax rate for married Marylanders filing jointly earning less than $150,000 annually
Doubling the standard deduction from the current $2,700 for single taxpayers and $5,450 for head of household, a surviving spouse and taxpayers filing jointly
Double the state take on sports betting from 15% to 30%
Raise the tax on casino table games from 15% to 20%
Increase the tax on recreational cannabis from 9% to 15% (effective in 2028)
Eliminate the inheritance tax
Lower the estate tax threshold from $5 million to $2 million (except for agricultural property)
A 75-cent fee for retail deliveries by companies with $500,000 or more in annual earnings
Increase the fee for vehicle emission inspections from $14 to $30
Double the late fees for vehicle emission inspections from $15 to $30
Limit the trade-in credit on car sales, which lowers the amount that can be taxed on a car purchase, to sales of no more than $15,000
Phase in higher vehicle registration fees in two years instead of the previously approved three-year schedule
Add a fee for motorists who pay their registration fees annually instead of biennially

For existing or new businesses, Moore proposes to cut the corporate tax rate from 8.25% to 7.99% by the beginning of fiscal 2028.

This proposed change anticipates legislative approval of combined reporting for corporations headquartered in Maryland.

That is not a given despite the fact that combined reporting has been and is a top priority for progressive members in the General Assembly and progressive advocacy organizations. Preventing combined reporting has been and is a top priority for Maryland businesses and businesses advocacy organizations.

Last but not least, Moore proposes tapping the state’s “rainy day fund” for about $500 million, while leaving more than $2 billion in the fund.

That is a draw down that maintains the current balance requirements for that fund.

All these proposals as well as others will be subject to intense discussions and deliberations between now and April 7. The only certainty is April 7 is the last day for the General Assembly to approve a balanced budget and send it to the governor.

There are almost countless ‘what if’ scenarios that could occur between now and then.

I suggest they include:

What if the General Assembly reduces or eliminates the governors’ proposed budget cuts?

What if the General Assembly adds or increases the governor’s proposed spending levels coupled which requires their approval of a funding source for that new or increased funding?

What if Governor Moore uses line-item vetoes if either occurs?

What if the General Assembly overrides those vetoes?

What if the proposed tax increases result in “wealthy” residents leaving the state like it occurred when roughly 30% of Maryland’s millionaires left the state after the income tax rate on more than $1 million of income was increased from 5.5% to 6.25%?

What if low and middle-income taxpayers leave Maryland because of the projected fee increases which will offset any proposed modest income tax revisions?

What if combined reporting is approved and businesses move their headquarters to other states?

What if the $50 million in savings from the initiative to identify and implement greater efficiencies in state government operations come in lower than expected or not at all?

What if, when all is said and done, Wes Moore’s actions lead to negative impacts from Maryland voters and the media on his re-election and pursuit of a national office?

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

Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu said: “A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.”

On the issue of American border security and immigration laws reform, that journey may be close to starting that single step with the enactment of the Laken Riley bill in Congress. 

Riley, a University of Georgia student, was murdered last February while jogging on the university campus. 

Her convicted murderer had been detained three times since arriving illegally in the United States but the U.S. Border Patrol and police in New York and Georgia released him from custody each time. 

Riley’s murder as well as the circumstances surrounding it generated widespread national and international media coverage. That coverage led to intense and sustained public outrage.

As a result, last March the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Laken Riley bill allowing federal detention of illegal immigrants arrested for committing certain crimes in the United States.

Based on opposition from Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, the House passed bill was never brought up for a vote in the Senate.

Countless Americans viewed this lack of action as more affirmation that federal immigration policies and procedures needed major changes. Many Americans also concluded major changes were needed with border security and immigration policy makers in Washington D.C.

Sensing that way of thinking, then Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate and the U.S House of Representatives branded themselves as change artists. They did so in two ways.

They effectively utilized the communications and messaging counsel of Frank Luntz: 

“The key to successful communication is to take the imaginative leap of stuffing yourself into your listener’s shoes to know what they are thinking and feeling in the deepest recesses of their mind and heart. Get your audience to visualize… imagine. Only when people can see a better future will they consider a change.”

They also effectively utilized the communications and messaging counsel of Adam Grant: 

“It’s better to overcommunicate and sound redundant than to under-communicate and seem unclear and uncaring. It turns out that repeating yourself is vital to effective communication. Psychologists have long demonstrated that with repeated exposure to ideas, we start to like them more. The greatest barrier to communication is the illusion that it occurred. Reinforcing a message makes it more familiar and more memorable.”

Donald Trump and Republican candidates did that and did it exceptionally well.

As a result, Donald Trump achieved the greatest political comeback in American history. Trump’s coattails also helped elect Republican majorities in the House and the Senate.

Trump and the Republican Congressional leadership know they have to move quickly to demonstrate to the public that they are taking measurable steps to deliver on a better future. 

The first step was to re-introduce this year, another Laken Riley bill in the House and make it the first policy vote of the 119th Congress. 

It is working so far. 

The reintroduced Laken Riley bill was approved in the House with the support of all the Republican House members and forty-eight of the Democratic House members. 

Unlike last year, the House bill has been moving quickly through the Senate also with bi-partisan support.

All indications are it will be sent to President Trump soon for signing into law.

Democratic Senator John Fetterman said, “I support giving authorities the tools to prevent tragedies like this one while we work on comprehensive solutions to our broken system.”

Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego said, “We must give law enforcement the means to take action when illegal immigrants break the law to prevent situations like what occurred to Laken Riley. I will continue to fight for the safety of Arizonans by pushing for comprehensive immigration reform and increased border security.” 

Democratic Senator Mark Kelly said, “I support this effort because federal authorities need to protect our communities from criminals. Keeping Arizonans safe is my top priority, and I’m committed to working with Republicans and Democrats on solutions to secure our border and fix our broken immigration system.” 

Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “While I do not support this particular bill, I stand ready to work with both sides to pass smart, effective, tough and commonsense legislation to secure our borders and reform our immigration system.” 

While there is still no consensus on the details, bi-partisan support going forward for further legislation indicates that a growing number of Democratic members of Congress are accepting the clear messages from voters in the 2024 election cycle.

There is no question a wide range of different opinions between Republicans and Democratic lawmakers on exactly how best to proceed are far from resolved.

That said we can all hope the enactment of the Laken Riley Law will be the first step on a long bi-partisan journey to achieve meaningful border security and immigration reform. 

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

One of the many surprises in the last presidential election was Donald Trump winning in three “blue wall” battleground states — Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Now that the reality of a second Trump term is sinking in, some Democratic members of Congress, Democratic governors, Democratic state attorney generals, and a large group of issue advocacy groups are working diligently to put up a new “blue wall” in Congress to delay or derail President-elect Trump’s congressional agenda.

That proposed “blue wall” currently has an unexpected crack in an unexpected place–the United States Senate with John Fetterman, the Democratic U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania.

Elected to the Senate in in 2022, Fetterman is the most unpredictable and unconventional member of the Senate since Arlen Specter, a former Senator who was also from Pennsylvania.

Once elected, Fetterman was widely expected to be a conventional partisan progressive and a reliable supporter for progressive public policy positions.

Since his election he has demonstrated a level of independence that has surprised and disappointed progressives, and surprised and pleased conservatives.

Fetterman has regularly and forcefully expressed staunch support for Israel in their ongoing war with Hamas.

On immigration, Fetterman has said, “I support a secure border.” He also supports the deportation of undocumented immigrants arrested for crimes committed in America. He has said he doesn’t know why anyone finds it controversial, that people illegally in the U.S. who commit crimes “need to go.”

Now Fetterman is publicly challenging Democratic members of Congress who are developing strategies to resist and derail Trump’s agenda in Congress.

In a recent interview with Jonathan Carl on ABC News “This Week”, Fetterman said he hopes Trump is successful in his second term and he’s not “rooting against him.” This follows Fetterman’s pre-election endorsement of Kamala Harris for president and endorsing former long term fellow Democratic U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania — Bob Casey.

He also said, “If you’re rooting against the president, you are rooting against the nation. So, country first. I know that’s become maybe like a cliche, but it happens to be true.”

That observation is consistent with Fetterman’s thought that in moving forward, Democrats can’t get wrapped up in “freaking out” over every move that Trump makes.
Most recently, Fetterman affirmed his independent nature by accepting an invitation to meet with President-elect Trump in Florida.

Fetterman announced his acceptance decision with his usual candor and bluntness, “President Trump invited me to meet, and I accepted. I’m the Senator for all Pennsylvanians — not just Democrats in Pennsylvania, I’ve been clear that no one is my gatekeeper. I will meet with and have conversations with anyone if it helps me deliver for Pennsylvania and the nation.”

Fetterman has walked his talk with regard to his role as a Senator in voting to confirm or reject confirmation of some of Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees.

Fetterman was one of the first Democratic Senators to meet with Pete Hegseth, Trump’s choice to serve as Secretary of Defense.

He has said he will vote to confirm Elise Stefanik as Ambassador to the United Nations and Marco Rubio as Secretary of State.

He is still considering if he will vote to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Security.

While Fetterman’s approach to working with the Trump administration is not yet widely accepted by Democratic members of Congress, it is not unique.

At least one Democratic member of Congress has already embraced Fetterman’s approach to the Trump administration.

In a New Year’s Day New York Times guest essay, Congressman Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y. urged fellow Democratic lawmakers to drop the resistance movement and work with Trump in his second term.

Suozzi wrote, “As a Democratic member of Congress, I know my party will be tempted to hold fast against Mr. Trump at every turn, uniting against his bills, blocking his nominees and grinding the machinery of the House and the Senate to a halt. That would be a mistake. But
as a common-sense Democrat who won in a district that Mr. Trump also won, I am certain our closely divided electorate would rather have bipartisan solutions than political gridlock.”

Going forward it will be most interesting to see if cracks in any congressional “blue wall” of resistance get bigger and deeper.

While to date such cracks may be relatively small, they could expand to a point where a “blue wall” of resistance strategy is futile on stopping Trump’s ambitious second term agenda.

With slim Republican majorities in Congress, especially in the House, any support by Democratic members of Congress for Trump’s congressional agenda significantly increases the odds for approval of that agenda.

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