I have an email out to the Gov’s office asking for his take on the Kowalko/Liberalgeek plan. I have to think that the sheer practicality of some of the suggestions made will carry some weight. – jason330
Governor Markell has always said that the last thing that he wants is to have to cut state salaries to make up the budget deficit. He said that this is the best that he has been able to do and if it is to be avoided, bring ideas and data. So far, only John Kowalko has done so.
Some of Markell’s opposition to Kowalko’s ideas (this is opposition to certain tax increases that predates the actual Kowalko presentation) is a fear that businesses will leave Delaware if business taxes are increased. Perhaps this is true, but I have yet to see any solid data to convince me either way.
One of Gov. Markell’s complaints was that he has not had adequate time to do a top-down analysis of state budgets. He said that most Governors have a full year to work on the budget, but that he had a small fraction of that before he had to submit a budget. Fair enough.
I propose that this year, we adopt the Kowalko changes (pick enough of them to eliminate the need for a pay cut) and we put a one year limit on all of them. This starts the clock for Governor Markell and his staff to find their measures to redesign government to be meaner and leaner. Governor Markell will get a lot of pressure from the business community/lobby to not raise taxes, but he can deflect those concerns with the one year time limit. Sure, these are tax increases, but their short-term status will offset any companies that are considering a move. For example, companies with $660M or more in worth, they would pay an extra 60K in franchise tax due to a raised cap (Markell’s proposal would raise it by 15K). This 60K is about what these companies would spend on an entry level accountant. They are not going to leave the state of Delaware (and tens of thousands of lawyer fees) to relocate to Nevada. This is especially true if we make this a single year event.
Some of this could be for naught if the financial picture gets worse in 2010, but we can have a real discussion about this in the next year to decide what things we want to live without in our government. It is a discussion that we need to have, but not one that needs to be done while we walk a tightrope. If we can come to a consensus now (not impossible) we can actually get started on remaking government sooner, rather than later.