Blog Post

Blueprint or Budget-Breaker?

Kiersten Hacker, Christina Walker, Ela Jalil, Capital News Service • April 2, 2024

No One Knows How to Pay for Maryland's Massive Education Reform


Maryland’s Democratic-led legislature passed the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future in 2021, vowing to pour billions of dollars into the state’s public schools to offer universal pre-K, improve teaching, and make sure students are ready for college or careers.

 

But the General Assembly didn’t outline a long-term plan to fund the ambitious 10-year education reform effort — which increasingly looks like a blueprint for red ink.

 

Diving deep into the reform plan in reporting "Behind the Blueprint" — a multi-part look at the state effort — the Local News Network at the University of Maryland found that the Blueprint is already devouring hundreds of millions annually from the state’s fund balance, which is on target to be fully drained in 2027.

 

And according to a state Department of Legislative Services fiscal briefing released in January, the state will start running a structural deficit in fiscal year 2025 that will multiply nearly sixfold by fiscal year 2029, when it will hit $2.93 billion. Not coincidentally, that fiscal briefing estimates implementing the Blueprint will cost more than $4 billion in 2029.

 

The General Assembly’s plan for dealing with the cost crunch? There isn’t one — at least not yet. Neither Gov. Wes Moore in his State of the State address nor any of the Democratic state legislators interviewed for this story have offered any potential solutions for the coming Blueprint cash crunch.

 

“Several years from now we're going to have to have a much more direct conversation about the long-term costs,” said state Senate President Bill Ferguson, a Democrat from Baltimore City. “But we’re not there yet.”

 

Republicans, meanwhile, see the Blueprint as a budget-breaker.

 

“We cannot pay these billions and billions of dollars in extra monies — not just state but local as well,” said House Minority Leader Jason Buckel (R-1B). “We can't pay for them unless you're going to talk about new taxes — and significant taxes.”

 

The Blueprint’s background

Ironically, the Blueprint was born out of a commission supported by a Republican governor — who later backed away from the plan because of cost concerns.

 

In 2016, then-governor Larry Hogan and the General Assembly created the Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education to assess the public education system in Maryland and determine whether current funding schemes were conducive to student success.

 

Headed by William Kirwan, the former chancellor of the University System of Maryland, the commission came to the conclusion that an overhaul was needed.

 

“One of the ‘aha’ moments of the commission was really to face the fact that, on what we call the Nation's Report Card, Maryland’s score was about in the middle … and moving in the wrong direction,” said Rachel Hise, executive director of the Blueprint’s Accountability and Implementation Board, a state entity that’s making sure school districts adhere to the plan.

 

But Hogan had an “aha” moment of his own after Democrats crafted the Kirwan Commission’s report into comprehensive legislation. In 2019, Hogan criticized the pending reform proposal, telling a group of county officials it would mean “billions and billions more in mandated spending increases for county and state taxpayers,” according to the Frederick News-Post.

 

Hogan vetoed the bill creating the Blueprint in May 2020, saying he did not want to raise taxes amid the covid-19 pandemic to fund the education plan. The General Assembly overrode his veto in 2021.

 

And the following year, voters elected a strong backer of the Blueprint — Democrat Wes Moore — to succeed Hogan, who is now running for a U.S. Senate seat.

 

On the first day of the current legislative session that began in January, Moore said he believes in the reform plan, and he will work with the General Assembly to ensure the Blueprint is implemented properly and sustainably.

 

“I believe in the premise and the promise of the Blueprint. I think we need a world-class education system in the state of Maryland,” Moore said. “I think that's going to be a prerequisite for us to be able to accomplish the economic goal that we're hoping for.”

 


Lofty goals

In the state’s 24 public school districts, the Blueprint and its lofty goals are already beginning to take shape.

 

Each school district has already drawn up a preliminary plan for how it will meet targets for offering pre-K, increasing teacher salaries, and improving student performance. The Accountability and Implementation Board has approved all those plans after first asking for revisions.

 

The Blueprint is meant to revamp the state’s education system by presenting the same opportunities for all students. With a law like the Blueprint, one size must fit all to achieve its goals of maximizing reading and math skills, as well as increasing pathways into college, said Sen. Jim Rosapepe, D-21).

 

“So we want that for every kid across the state. We don't want variation of those goals,” Rosapepe said. “Now, the details of how stuff is paid for — I mean, I think that's a conversation that will be ongoing.”

 

Cheryl Bost, president of the Maryland State Education Association, said the teachers union is fully behind the Blueprint.

 

“We have a shared understanding that our goal is for students to succeed academically and become valuable citizens in our state and in our country,” Bost said. “In order to do that, we have to make an investment in public education. I think for the most part, the Blueprint identifies where that money has to go.”

 

What it doesn’t do, however, is identify where the money will come from. Bost, whose union represents 74,000 educators in the state, acknowledged the concerns about the Blueprint’s cost. But she indicated the increased spending on education is both needed and long overdue.

 

“We constitutionally have to provide a public education for all students, so the investment is needed,” Bost said. “And when some people balk at, ‘Oh, it's all this money’ — well, we've been starving public education for many years.”

 

The budget dilemma

The Blueprint remains fully funded in Moore’s latest fiscal year 2025 budget proposal, leaving many lawmakers to turn their attention to other legislative issues this year. Ferguson, the Senate president, said in terms of current Blueprint funding, “we’re more than fine.”

 

But that’s not so in the long term. The cost of implementing the Blueprint is projected to grow from $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2024 to $4.1 billion five years later, according to the Department of Legislative Services. Meantime, the state’s structural budget gap is set to balloon every year through 2029 — when Legislative Services expects it to be $2.9 billion and the Moore administration says it will be about $3.5 billion.

 

Closing that budget gap will be immensely difficult, said Christopher Summers, president and CEO of the conservative Maryland Policy Institute, who also said the Blueprint should be paused.

 

“Raising taxes (is) not going to solve this problem, and I think the governor knows that,” said Summers, who has been critical of the Blueprint for years.

 

The Blueprint calls on school districts to increase education funding too, thereby prompting Summers to say that county budgets face the biggest fiscal threat.

 

But in Annapolis, lawmakers from both parties acknowledged that the General Assembly will have to make some tough decisions in the years to come as the Blueprint’s bills come due.

 

“I think we know the reality that we're facing. And I think there's gonna be a lot of discussion about that,” said State Sen. Guy J. Guzzone, a Democrat from Howard County. “I just don't know that there's an immediate answer.”

 

One obvious solution would be raising taxes to cover the state’s coming shortfalls. But Senate Minority Leader Stephen Hershey, a Republican from the Eastern Shore, said a solution lies in cutting back the demands of the Blueprint rather than paying for the sweeping overhaul as it stands.

 

“Republicans have stated very often that we need to move to a ‘Blueprint lite’ or you know, some type of education reform that takes some of the important components of the Blueprint, but at the same time is affordable and allows counties to make decisions on which parts of the Blueprint are more meaningful in each of their public school systems,” Hershey said.

 

Democrats, however, back the current Blueprint, despite its cost. Del. Ben Barnes, a Democrat who chairs the Appropriations Committee, said legislators should start talking about a long-term payment plan for the Blueprint now. The shared values between the legislature and the governor will bring them together, Barnes said, to solve the Blueprint budget dilemma.

 

“This legislature, the governor, we share values, and those shared values include all the priorities of the Blueprint,” Barnes said. “Getting to children who live in communities of poverty, taking care of special needs students, I mean, these are what we all ran on. And so I feel confident we'll find the revenue we need to support that program.”

 

Several state officials have said they are looking to the Accountability and Implementation Board to issue recommendations regarding the Blueprint’s budget challenges. The board has made policy proposals included in bills that, if passed this legislative session, would adjust the law without changing the finances.

 

In addition, the board is set to release additional recommendations this legislative session.

 

“What the AIB has suggested is, let's try to implement it the way it's intended. And if it doesn't work, if it's no longer the right thing to do, then we need to change it,” said Hise, the board’s executive director. “But for many things, we haven't gotten to that point yet.”

 

 

Capital News Service is a student-powered news organization run by the University of Maryland Philip Merrill College of Journalism. For 26 years, they have provided deeply reported, award-winning coverage of issues of import to Marylanders.

 

Common Sense for the Eastern Shore

Fighting the President’s Executive Orders

By John Christie • April 2, 2025
Among Donald Trump’s most recent targets is what he calls “rogue law firms.” At 6pm last Thursday, March 27, he issued an Executive Order (EO) aimed at my old law firm, WilmerHale, as one of those “rogue” firms. Approximately 15 hours later, the firm filed a 63-page complaint challenging the EO on multiple constitutional grounds. The EO is an “unprecedented assault on the bedrock principle that one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit” and constitutes an “undisguised form of retaliation for representing clients and causes Trump disfavors.” And by 8pm on Friday, March 28, a little over 24 hours after the EO was first issued, a federal district court judge in Washington granted a request for a temporary restraining order, blocking key provisions of the EO from taking effect for now. In doing so, the Court found that “the retaliatory nature of the EO is clear from its face. There is no doubt that it chills speech and legal advocacy and qualifies as a constitutional harm.” The Executive Order The EO and a so-called “Fact Sheet” that went with it recites that the Administration is committed to addressing the significant risks associated with law firms, particularly so-called “Big Law” firms that engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale) is yet another law firm said to have abandoned the legal profession’s highest ideals and abused its pro bono practice by engaging in activities that “undermine justice and the interests of the United States.” The specific examples offered in support of this conclusion: The EO asserts that WilmerHale “engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends,” an apparent reference to the firm’s representation of Trump’s political opponents — namely the Democratic National Committee and the presidential campaigns of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The EO cites WilmerHale’s “egregious conduct” in “supporting efforts to discriminate on the basis of race,” an apparent reference to the firm’s representation of Harvard in the Students for Fair Admissions litigation. The EO accuses WilmerHale of “backing the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes,” an apparent reference to the firm’s litigation related pro bono practice and successful challenges to immigration related policies. The EO accuses WilmerHale of “furthering the degradation of the quality of American elections,” an apparent reference to the film’s involvement in challenges to restrictive state voter-identification and voter-registration laws. The EO singles out certain current and former WilmerHale partners, including Robert Mueller, for special criticism by describing Mr. Mueller’s investigation as “one of the most partisan investigations in American history” and having “weaponized the prosecutorial power to suspend the democratic process and distort justice.” The EO then Revokes security clearances held by WilmerHale attorneys; Prohibits the federal government from hiring WilmerHale employees absent a special waiver; Orders a review and the possible termination of federal contracts with entities that do business with the firm; Calls for the withdrawal of government goods or services from the firm; and Calls for restrictions on the ability of WilmerHale employees to enter federal buildings (presumably including federal courthouses) and on their “engaging” with government employees. WilmerHale’s Complaint WilmerHale engaged Paul Clement, a former Solicitor General during the George W. Bush administration and a well-known advocate frequently representing conservative causes, to represent the firm in this matter. Assisted by some 15 WilmerHale litigators, the complaint names the Executive Office of the President and 48 other Departments, Commissions, and individual Officers in their official capacity as defendants. A variety of constitutional violations are alleged: The First Amendment protects the rights of WilmerHale and its clients to speak freely, and petition the courts and other government institutions without facing retaliation and discrimination by federal officials. The separation of powers limits the President’s role to enforcing the law and no statute or constitutional provision empowers him to unilaterally sanction WilmerHale in this manner. The EO flagrantly violates due process by imposing severe consequences without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The EO violates the right to counsel protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and imposes unconstitutional conditions on federal contracts and expenditures. The complaint alleges that WilmerHale has already suffered irreparable damage in the 16 hours since the EO issued. The firm has been vilified by the most powerful person in the country as a “rogue law firm” that has “engaged in conduct detrimental to critical American interests. The EO will inevitable cause extensive, lasting damage to WilmerHale’s current and future business prospects. The harm to the firm’s reputation will negatively affect its ability to recruit and retain employees. Further Proceedings Temporary restraining orders constitute emergency relief upon a showing of likely success on the merits and irreparable harm were the temporary relief not entered. A later hearing will be held in order for the judge to determine whether a preliminary injunction should be issued preventing the government from executing the EO during the continued length of the litigation. Editorial Note: In light of the recent capitulation of several “Big Law” firms to the unreasonable and unconstitutional attacks by the Trump administration, WilmerHale is providing a blueprint for resistance as it fights back. More law firms need to be inspired by WilmerHale’s response to Trump’s demand for revenge on his so-called political enemies. John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.

Remembering Tom Timberman

By Bill Flook & CSES Staff • April 2, 2025
Tom Timberman was one of the founders of Common Sense for the Eastern Shore. Sadly, he died last month. He will be missed. Common Sense exists because of his leadership and inspiration. His vision was to provide factual and timely commentary and analysis on topics that concern people who live and work on Maryland's Eastern Shore, and to provide factual reporting to help readers shape their own lives. It was important to Tom, as it is today to the editorial board, for Common Sense to help voters to be aware of the effects — personal and local — of decisions made at the federal and state levels. Especially relevant now is this from our Mission Statement: “We seek an America responsive to its citizens and its constitution.” We reprint this tribute from Bill Flook, President of the Democratic Club of Kent County : Many of us were deeply saddened to learn of TomTimberman’s passing last week. It’s hard to believe that such a strong Democratic voice is gone. I worked with Tom for much of the past decade on many good projects promoting our values and activities, including helping on his campaign for County Commissioner, and I’ll particularly miss following his lead as Captain of the Dawn Patrol. Our group met most Saturday mornings for coffee and some good chat, before heading up to Dems HQ to set up the booth there. We’ll miss you, Tom!

The Truth About the FY2026 Md. Budget HB350

By Jared Schablein • April 2, 2025
After over 12 hours of debate over two days (and a whole circus from the other side), the Maryland House of Delegates has passed HB 350, this year's state budget, and sent it to the State Senate. This budget is a deal between House Democrats, Senate Democrats, and Governor Wes Moore. It faces our state's $3 billion deficit head-on not with fantasy math, but with real choices: smart cuts and fair new revenue. This is what grown-up governing looks like. How We Got Here: Maryland’s budget problems didn’t start overnight. Leaders began warning about a shortfall in 2017 when Governor Larry Hogan was in office. Hogan made our state budget bigger every year, but the legislature wasn’t allowed to move money around or make common-sense changes. By law, they could only make cuts. In 2020, Maryland voters changed that. Starting in 2023, lawmakers finally got full power to shape the budget, not just cut from it. Instead of fixing the problem, Governor Hogan used federal COVID relief to hide our fiscal instability. Then, before leaving office, he drained our state’s savings from $5.5 billion to $2.3 billion to boost his image. Today, we are facing a new fiscal arsonist. Donald Trump’s trade wars and cuts to federal programs hit Maryland hard. We have more federal jobs and agencies than any other state, so we felt it worse than most. A University of Maryland study says Trump’s tariffs alone could cost us $2 billion. Trump/Musk's policies caused over 30,000 people in Maryland to lose their jobs, offices to shut down, and promised investments to disappear. These federal cuts added another $300 million to our budget deficit. COVID relief gave us a short break and even created a fake surplus under Hogan, but that money is gone now. Meanwhile, housing, healthcare, and college prices have gone way up. The Trump–Musk White House is making it worse by cutting even more funding, eliminating research, and gutting the services we rely on. That’s why Maryland had to act. We needed a real plan to protect working people, fund our schools and hospitals, and keep our state strong. Why Cuts Were Needed Trump’s trade wars and cuts to federal agencies hit Maryland harder than any other state. A University of Maryland study says those tariffs alone could cost us $2 billion. That hurts real people: A chicken farmer on the Eastern Shore is paying 25% more for fertilizer. A dock worker in Baltimore has fewer ships to unload. A restaurant owner in Western Maryland can’t afford eggs and tomatoes. We’ve lost over 30,000 jobs. Offices have shut down. Promised investments disappeared. The decisions of the Trump/Musk administration added $300 million to our state deficit.
No mandate. Image: CSES design.

No, Mr. Trump, You Have No “Mandate”

By Jan Plotczyk • November 19, 2024
 The 2024 presidential election was over swiftly. The Associated Press called it at 5:34 am on Nov. 6, and by 8 am, President-elect Donald Trump was crowing about the “ historic mandate ” given to him by the American people. A “mandate”? Turns out not. Trump jumped to an early lead on election night, but in the following days, his lead diminished as mail-in and provisional ballots were counted. A Baltimore Banner article on Nov. 6 highlighted the “Trump shift” that had occurred in every political subdivision in Maryland, even in counties where Democrat Kamala Harris won. This shift described the increase in Trump support since his loss to President Joe Biden in 2020 . As of Nov. 6, the biggest Trump shift was an 8.1% increase in his support in red Cecil County, but there were also shifts in the central Maryland counties that are the state’s Democratic strongholds — 4.3% in Montgomery and lesser amounts in other blue counties. Fourteen counties recorded shifts of 4% or more. On the Eastern Shore, every county had a shift over 4.5% except Talbot (2.7%), and the five largest shifts were Shore counties. For the state’s Democrats, it did not look encouraging. But as mail-in and provisional ballots were counted across the state, the Trump shift was reduced everywhere, and as of Nov. 16, disappeared altogether in Garrett (-1.2%) and Charles (-0.1%) counties. The shift dropped below 3% in all Maryland counties. Cecil’s shift became 2.1%. Montgomery’s shift dropped to 2.9%. Talbot’s shift declined to 0.2%, lowest of the Eastern Shore counties. Now, instead of five, only two of the highest five shifts were in Eastern Shore counties. The red bars in the chart below represent the Trump shift percentage values as of Nov. 16, in ascending order. The grey bars represent the misleading (and ephemeral) Trump shift percentage values as of Nov. 6. Please note the degree to which the Trump shift lessened and disappeared in the 10 days after the election. Another red mirage. But if you had only read the Nov. 6 article and not looked at the updated data, you would have been fooled into thinking Trump support is stronger than it is.
School board elections. Image: CSES design

Success of Right-wing School Board Candidates is a Bad Omen

By Jim Block • November 19, 2024
How many times were Common Sense readers told that the 2024 election would be the most important ever? Whoever the winner, people knew the results would not unite the country but further divide it. One place of divisive conflict on the Eastern Shore, indeed almost everywhere, is the local school system. Two extreme right-wing organizations targeting school board control have made their presence known on the Eastern Shore. Moms for Liberty , according to its website , wants “to empower parents to defend parental rights at all levels of government.” In the recent election, Moms for Liberty endorsed at least two Cecil Co. Board of Education candidates. One of them, Sam J. Davis (who got 44% of the total vote ), lost his race to Diane Racine Heath (55%). Another Moms for Liberty candidate, Tierney Farlan Davis, Sr. (57%), defeated Dita Watson (42%). Both defeated candidates were endorsed by the Cecil County Classroom Teachers Association . A second active conservative organization is the 1776 Project PAC . This PAC’s mission statement declares that it “is committed to reigniting the spark and spirit of that revolution by reforming school boards across America. Since progressive-led efforts to lockdown schools during the covid epidemic, test scores have declined, parents and students are increasingly worried about violence both in and out of the classroom, while politicians and activists push their own ideology.” Of the eight Eastern Shore school board candidates the 1776 PAC supported, three were unopposed. The five competitive races were won by 1776 PAC candidates; the average margin of victory was about 12%. The Talbot Co. candidate Ann O’Connor wrote a piece for the Delmarva Times and the Easton Gazette denying that her candidacy had received “endorsements from Moms for Liberty or any other group.” On the other hand, on X , we read that the 1776 PAC gave “huge congratulations to Ann O’Connor . . . for being elected to the now-conservative Talbot County Board of Education!” One might wonder whether or not any group gave her an endorsement. In a late October, the Washington Post ran a long story about the significant partisan cash flowing into Maryland school board races. In theory, Maryland school board elections are nonpartisan, because state law prohibits party labels on school board ballots. On the other hand, according to the Post, the 1776 PAC “has spent a total of $75,409.58 on 13 Maryland school board candidates across Cecil, Queen Anne’s, Talbot, Calvert, Somerset and St. Mary’s counties.” That sum and the other money spent on school board candidates does not indicate the strength of passion in the candidates and their supporters. Our governments are obligated to allow, if not to support, all citizens in their exercise of their First Amendment rights. Assuming freedom of speech applies to students and teachers , the last thing public school administrations should do is wrongly to restrict material that teachers teach and students learn. But when students learn that school systems inappropriately control what is taught, they will be at best confused. On one hand, they are taught they have free speech; on the other hand, they learn that in school, they don’t. Have we just been through American history’s most important election? If these school board elections diminish our Constitutional rights, the sad answer is yes. Jim Block taught English at Northfield Mount Hermon, a boarding school in Western Mass. He coached cross-country and advised the newspaper and the debate society there. He taught at Marlborough College in England and Robert College in Istanbul. He and his wife retired to Chestertown, Md., in 2014. 
Vote 2024. Image: CSES design

Election 2024 — The Aftermath

By Peter Heck • November 19, 2024
It’s probably too early for a real analysis of why the Harris/Walz ticket was defeated in this year’s presidential election, although there are plenty of people taking a crack at it. For a couple of interesting examples, take a look at Heather Cox Richardson’s Nov. 6 column , or David Brooks in the New York Times. Important factors certainly included sexism and racism. Many Americans still aren’t ready to accept a woman leader — especially a Black woman. And I spoke to one local person who said that many Black men he knew were wary of voting for Harris because she had been a prosecutor, putting other Black men and minorities behind bars. Whether or not that was a factor, Harris’s share of the Black vote was some 10% lower than Biden’s. But the most significant factor was probably voter turnout. According to a Nov. 11 New York Times story , Democratic turnout was significantly lower than in 2020. This helped produce a narrow majority in the popular vote for the Republican ticket. Trump’s total nationwide was about 74 million votes, roughly the same as he received in 2020. Harris, on the other hand, was at 70 million — roughly 11 million less than President Biden’s 2020 total. If those voters had come out again and voted mostly Democratic, Harris would have some 81 million votes to Trump’s 74 million, giving her the popular vote. Depending on where the voters lived, that could have produced a very different result in the Electoral College and the election itself. Though the Electoral College totals imply otherwise, this was really a close election. Incidentally, a reaction against incumbents may be another significant factor, and a global rather than a U.S. phenomenon. An article in the Financial Times notes that every incumbent party — on both ends of the political spectrum — in developed countries lost significant vote share in an election this year — an astonishing turn of events. Here on the Eastern Shore, nobody should be surprised that the majority of the voting public went for the Republicans. The area, after all, is predominantly rural and conservative, with a few blue enclaves such as Easton and Chestertown. While town-by-town results on the Shore are not yet available, in Talbot County, in which Easton is the largest town, Trump won by some 500 votes. Queen Anne’s gave Trump the win by about 9,000 votes. Local elections were not on the ballot in 2024, but local officials on the Shore — mayors, sheriffs, state’s attorneys, county commissioners, delegates to the General Assembly, etc. — largely reflect that Republican dominance. And day-to-day life is more directly affected by these people in all communities than by anyone in Washington. Still, what happens on the national level will have its effect on all of us. The architects and supporters of Project 2025 are going to be part of the new Trump administration, and he has appointed some of the project’s supporters already. Those appointees are probably going to be quite adamant in pushing through their agenda. Even if they can’t accomplish everything, some of the proposed plans ought to be cause for concern, above all the weakening of women’s rights, especially reproductive freedom. And with the Senate, possibly the House, and the Supreme Court effectively on the same page as the administration, the constitutional checks and balances will be severely weakened. If, as he said he would, Trump imposes heavy tariffs on imports, almost every economist predicts that consumer prices will rise, thus making it harder to control inflation. If a mass deportation of immigrants gets underway, many jobs will go unfilled, particularly in construction and food service. This will further hurt the economy. It’s possible that pressure to fill those jobs could raise wages. If RFK Jr. brings his anti-vaccine beliefs to the health department, another pandemic — a new covid strain, or just the regular flu — could kill millions. If Elon Musk starts cutting back what he perceives as governmental waste, programs benefitting local communities are likely to suffer, again removing dollars from local and state economies. The foreign policy implications of some of Trump’s statements could be significant. He has threatened to pull the U.S. out of NATO. This may be unlikely, but that political stance may encourage current and would-be aggressors in Europe and the Middle East. And Trump has said he will end the war in Ukraine in one day. Does he really have that much influence on Putin? Or does Putin have that much influence on Trump? Time will tell. Looking down the road, one also has to consider Trump’s health. Born in June 1946, he will be 82 by the end of his term. What if he becomes incapacitated, physically or mentally? A stroke, a heart attack, or just the rigors of old age in a stressful office — all are possible. Would Vice President-elect Vance, a former venture capitalist in the technology sector, continue Trump’s policies, or would he have ideas of his own? At one time, Vance criticized many of Trump’s positions. If Trump is no longer in charge, could there be a period of infighting as various factions within the party and administration assert their own priorities? Any of that could have significant effects, and it’s not unlikely, given Trump’s age. So it looks as if we are about to live in “interesting times.” Some people are talking about leaving the country, while others are still trying to understand what just happened. Many are already looking forward and starting to concentrate on the 2026 midterms, when Republicans could consolidate their gains or Democrats could make a comeback. May we all get through these times to the point where we can tell a younger generation the kinds of stories our elders told us about the Great Depression or the Civil Rights movement — hopefully, with something resembling a happy ending. Peter Heck is a Chestertown-based writer and editor, who spent 10 years at the Kent County News and three more with the Chestertown Spy. He is the author of 10 novels and co-author of four plays, a book reviewer for Asimov’s and Kirkus Reviews, and an incorrigible guitarist. 
Show More
Share by: