Delaware Legislative Roundup & Preview-June 10, 2009
Here’s what happened in Dover yesterday.
Highlights: In addition to the House passing HB 117, which would move school board elections from May to Election Day, the Senate passed SB 90, which would ban minors from tanning salons w/o a parent’s consent; and the Senate passed SB 148, which provides for $6.5 million in dedicated but unspent revenue to revert to the General Fund.
The House also passed a series of bills sponsored by Rep. Cathcart implementing what ‘bulo considers to be constructive improvements designed to protect residents of the Delaware Psych Center and some other long-term care facilities.
The House also passed HB 149, sponsored by Rep. Bryon Short, which would prohibit mortgage lenders or brokers from charging excessive fees for their services.
Rep. Pete Schwartzkopf introduced a series of bills to increase taxes on alcohol and tobacco, and to increase fees to licensees who sell alcohol. These bills are part of the revenue package for the upcoming fiscal year.
Rep. Ramone finally (thought he’d done this a couple of weeks ago) introduced legislation reducing the size of New Castle County Council. The delayed introduction actually doesn’t matter, though, b/c this is the type of bill that will likely be reviewed either by committee or by a task force during the summer and fall for consideration next year.
And, in a move that has left El Somnambulo scratching his head, Rep. Viola has introduced legislation repealing the ‘Bottle Bill’. While the Beast Who Slumbers realizes that more and more communities have curbside single-stream recycling, he believes that only about 15% of state residents are currently afforded that opportunity. That’d mean an awful lot of bottles being tossed out into the trash and into landfills instead of being returned. If ‘bulo is confused, maybe Tommywonk or another green stalwart can explain it to him.
Really not much of interest today, but please click on the link and inspect for yourself. Looks like a couple of ‘housekeeping measures’. The one exception appears to be SB 156, sponsored by Senator Marshall, which would bring Delaware into compliance with the requirements of the recently-enacted Federal stimulus package, and consequently would enable Delaware to fully-access Federal funds designed to assist the unemployed.
The House does not meet in legislative session on Wednesdays, except during the final two weeks of session. Wednesdays are devoted to Committee meetings. Click on the above links, and then click on any committees of interest, and you will see the bills scheduled to be considered in today’s committee meetings. Many of those bills, once released from committee, can go on the agenda as early as tomorrow.
Here are some ‘notable’ (and, in some cases, important) bills scheduled for consideration today:
House Agriculture Committee: Rep. Hocker has legislation to name the Strawberry Delaware’s Official Fruit.
House Education Committee: Rep. Schooley has legislation to give school districts more local control over decision-making.
House Housing & Community Affairs: Rep. Dennis E. Williams (the one from Brandywine Hundred) has legislation to have Delaware join a national compact to elect the President of the United States by popular vote. ‘Bulo wholeheartedly supports this bill.
House Labor Committee: The Rethugs are once again trying to push through their prevailing wage obsession. Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.
House Manufactured Housing Committee: Looks like Rep. Longhurst has a couple of manufactured housing community bills ready to go. Not clear whether she’ll have the Capitol Police bar the lobbyist she labeled as ‘obstructionist’ from the meeting, as she did from the negotiations.
Anyway, those are the bills that piqued ‘bulo’s interest. Check out all the committees and you’ll find some interesting nuggets as well.
Who ever said that container deposits should accrue to the State as escheat funds was really onto something.
Thanks for doing this, Bulo.
Somewhere I heard or read that an amazing number of the bottles that deposits are collected on end up in the landfill anyway. The rate of return isn’t especially good. So I agree with Jason, container deposits accruing to the state makes sense. One of our anons proposed that, I think.
And I think that the debate over reducing the NCCo Council is going to be a fun one. I’m for it, BTW. And if there is any give on this thing it ought to be in return for WAY more openness by NCCo Council — broadcast ALL meetings online and keep audio and/or video copies up on their website.
Why isn’t ‘Bulo et.al. complaining that Hocker’s bill to name strawberries as Delaware’s Official Fruit represents a conflict of interest since Hocker’s two stores sell strawberries?
Plus fruit roll ups should be the State fruit.
Not to mention that strawberries aren’t really fruits. What a scandal!
When are we going to tax hot dogs, French fries, milk shakes, soda, butter and potato chips? After all, heart disease is America’s biggest killer.
The current GOP budget proposal includes a provision for the state to claim unredeemed bottle deposits, which stores are currently keeping. This is a good idea and one which would likely be passed by our money-hungry legislature if it gets on the floor.
So repealing the bottle bill deposit would allow them to raise the price five cents and not have to give that money back.
The bottle bill will never work unless stores are required to take back bottles, with penalties for those who give customers a hard time about it.
The current GOP budget proposal includes a provision for the state to claim unredeemed bottle deposits, which stores are currently keeping.
Actually, I think through the magic of accounting, there is an adjustment on invoices that effectively pushes the deposit to the distrbutor, not the store that sold it. If the bottles are returned, it’s on the store to give it back to the distributor (usually through the delivery driver) and a credit appears on a subsequent invoice.
Oh, here’s the kicker…when I was in management for a certain Delaware drug store chain, now owned by an evil corporation, the driver for Coke refused to take any bottle returns unless it was a full case. Absolutely not the way it is supposed to be handled. We had only one customer who returned his bottles…one-at-a-time.
In case you missed the subliminal equation, current deposits are ultimately held by the distributors, not the store, not the state. When they are forfetied (most of them, by far), the distributor gets the coinage.
When will our lawmakers learn that sin taxes are never the answer to budget shortfalls. It is never a viable option since its is proven that people will curb these things to avoid the increased price. And since we are in a recession, (depression to follow this year) why would we want to increase fees on any small business?
Now about the Electorial College. Having electors was added to our constitution for a reason. Our Founding Fathers knew that different areas had unique views and thoughts. Having an electorial college helps spread out the differences from state to state. If it went to strictly a national vote, only the metropolitan areas would have a say. This also the reason we have the 10th Amendment (which is ignored today) because states know themselves better than the federal government. Large blanket policies do not work.
Does Hocker’s bill allow Package Stores to sell strawberries?
No, but rumor has it that Hocker wanted to expand the bill to designate “Migrant Laborers” as Delaware’s Official Strawberry Pickers, but that encountered legislative resistance…
As to Phil’s argument for the Electoral College, that’s pure BS. The candidate who gets the most votes should win. Period. After all, isn’t there something in that Constitution thingy about one man (woman)/ one vote?
“As to Phil’s argument for the Electoral College, that’s pure BS.”
Right. After all, what did the Founders really know about the founding of the Republic?!
callerRick: I’m guessing you’re not serious about imposing a “fat tax.” But if you were, you would/should exempt hot dogs and butter, which are legitimate foods. Just taxing soft drinks and snack foods, which have no nutritional value and have prices that are set mainly by what the market will bear, would get us a long way toward wiping out the deficit.
Currently, a Delaware voter’s Presidential vote counts more than a vote in larger states because the ratio of electoral votes to number of voters is much higher than most states.
Whether this is fair or not, the fact is that changing the Presidential vote to a national majority vote diminishes each Delaware voter’s influence on the outcome. It may well be in the national interest to have the presidential election decided by a national popular vote, but it is not in Delaware’s interest as it reduces our influence on the outcome.
The Electoral College protects the interests of small states, so Phil is, in a broad, vague way, on the right track.
The idea that “city dwellers” would have too much power on a straight popular vote smacks of racism, no? Or does Phil claim that all cities, no matter where in the country, are more alike than, say, all suburbs?
‘Bulo argues that it is in EVERYone’s interest to have the President elected by the Popular Vote.
As to your argument about the foresightedness of the Founding Fathers, how can ‘bulo possibly argue with the people who limited voting privileges to white male landowners?
And that’s what constitutional amendments are for.
BTW, as ‘bulo understands it, the Compact wouldn’t officially end the Electoral College, although it would have the effect of ending it. Here’s how. The legislation provides that, at such point that the number of states ratifying the Compact exceed 50% of the total available electoral votes, the states ratifying the Compact will cast all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
You’re right, one man/one vote. That vote chooses electors, which vote for the president. I hate how people are so narrowminded when it comes to their own views.
The 2000 election is a perfect example on why there needs to be an Electoral College. If it went strictly by popular vote, Al Gore would of won by 0.5% of the vote. Even though he had a slight population majority, his views did not reflect the views of the country as a whole.
Just look at the state by state results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege2000.svg
Better yet, look at the county by county results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:File-2000prescountymap.PNG
These images just enforce how a few metro areas would be able to enforce rule over and entire country.
Oh, and by the way, I didn’t vote for Bush in case you are going to go that, “It’s because your candidate won!” route.
And that’s what constitutional amendments are for.
Good luck in getting the smaller states to support it. It is against their interests so they won’t.
the states ratifying the Compact will cast all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
So, like in 2004, Delaware’s electoral votes would have been cast for Bush. No thanks.
Anonone, it’s already passed in some small states. ‘Bulo was actually kinda surprised. Here’s the state-by-state breakdown:
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
As to Phil’s argument, he is simply arguing against one man/one vote and, for that matter, proportional representation. Elections should be decided by the voters, not some kind of arbitrary formula that he’s trying to whip up. The only poll that matters, or should matter, is the one that takes place on Election Day. On Election Day 2000, more people voted for Gore than Bush.
And, as much as ‘Bulo detests Bush, if he won the popular vote, as he clearly did in 2004, then he should be elected President.
“callerRick: I’m guessing you’re not serious about imposing a “fat tax.” But if you were, you would/should exempt hot dogs and butter, which are legitimate foods.”
Just stay the hell away from my scrapple…
Just stay the hell away from my scrapple…
I agree with FSP on this!
As do all of the uprooted Marylanders I have to send shipments of scrapple to a couple times a year.
Wow, a race card! Must of hit a nerve….
Awesome! Arbitrary formula eh? Didn’t realize I was a member of the constitutional congress… Phil is for arguing for the constitution that some people forget exists.
I support going to a national majority popular vote IF it totally ends the electoral vote system. I don’t support this hybrid voluntary state-by-state approach. Since the current system benefits Delaware, then don’t change it to potentially make our votes not count at all in the actual system being used.
Time would be far better spent instituting national election standards including paper ballots and public campaign financing than this proposal, which potentially disenfranchises Delaware voters en masse.
“callerRick: I’m guessing you’re not serious about imposing a “fat tax.” But if you were, you would/should exempt hot dogs and butter, which are legitimate foods.”
I understand your point, but one could say that “legitimate” foods contribute to heart disease as much as “illegitimate” ones do, and are thus, like tobacco, a burden on our health care system.
Of course, we all know that politicians couldn’t care less about our health; smokers are simply a convienient target for revenue-raising.
Hey, I love scrapple, too, and would argue it’s a good source of protein thanks to the pork liver. My problem isn’t the fat per se, but the emptiness of the calories in snack “food” and soft drinks. By definition, they are luxuries — tiny ones, yes, but still inessential and detrimental to health.
Anonone raises a good point about the Compact being ‘voluntary’. However, as the Beast Who Slumbers understands it, once the 50% plus one threshhold has been reached via state approval, the Compact is a legally-binding document. In other words, the electoral votes must be cast for the popular vote winner.
The sort-of ‘Alphonse-Gaston’ scenario that anonone envisions would be a deal-breaker for ‘bulo as well, but it doesn’t appear possible if, and it’s a real big IF, ‘bulo properly understands the Compact. He also doubts that states would have already ratified the Compact were it not iron-clad.
And that’s what constitutional amendments are for.
“Good luck in getting the smaller states to support it. It is against their interests so they won’t.”
Exactly. And since a collaboration of only thirteen states can stop a Constitutional Amendment, abolishing the Electoral College isn’t going to happen…period.
I support the electoral college, even if it gave us Bush. Without the EC, states like Delaware will never see a Presidential candidate visit again. Never. We are too small. Campaigns will be waged in the big cities, on the coasts.
Whether he has agreed or disagreed with many of these comments, the Beast Who Slumbers is thrilled that so many people with differing viewpoints have chosen to discuss them.
These are precisely the sorts of conversations that legislators should be having and, for that matter, that readers of blogs like this one should be having.
Based on the response, El Somnambulo will continue providing legislative grist for your intellectual mill through the end of session.
The compact really is noneforceable. A minority of states could bind the voters of a state to follow a small plurality of the voters. In other words, we could fall into factionalism. National campaigns could fall to regional parties. A narrow regional candidate with 25% could win a Presidential election. Under our system that is very unlikely. It requires a national appeal across a wide swath of the country. Hardly any Democracy in the world would go for that.
I don’t understand the appeal to saying that you toss away your vote as a state and blindly give it to whatever candidate wins a narrow plurality maybe one who doesn’t even win a state. It eliminates the concept of federalism in Presidential Elections. It is the end of the United States and the beginning of the the Republic of America. That deserves a constitutional vote not a backdoor compact.
Ah, the old argument for “one acre, one vote.”
Hint: you can’t say you favor having a popular vote election and then argue against it in the very same post.
Why not? Do you not understand the concept of federalism? It would seem that your guys would be doing the same. They oppose popular vote on a local level and favor it to override Federalism.
Do you have a problem understanding the difference between people in their local state voting on an issue and being forced to vote for being bound by a minority vote that they opposed by a majority? This bill does not even require a majority vote. Even parliamentary democracies don’t go that way. There is nothing Democratic about that proposal and it violates Federal Republican principles. It makes no sense.
David, you are assuming that people know the difference between federal and national…..