General Assembly Post-Game Wrapup/Pre-Game Show-Thurs., June 18
In the Senate, the big news was the release of SB 121 to the floor by unanimous committee vote, surprising no one save the News-Journal’s headline writer, who used the term ‘surprising’ to describe this development. Nor will it be ‘surprising’ when this long-overdue civil rights measure becomes law, probably by the end of next week.
Sen. Marshall’s bill placing a surcharge penalty on those who rip off Medicaid passed the Senate, as did Sen. Sokola’s bill sunsetting a bunch of inactive boards and commissions. Lots of ‘advisory councils’ that haven’t provided advice in years faced the axe.
In the House, both Rep. Lavelle’s HB 155 and Rep. Gilligan’s HB 230, which were highlighted yesterday, were released from their respective committees.
John Viola’s beer/wine sales in supermarkets bill ran into trouble and was tabled in committee. Those of you with long memories (Stop stalking ‘bulo, willya?) will recall that El Somnambulo predicted that the real beneficiaries of this bill would be the legislators as they collected campaign checks from one side of the debate or the other. He also predicted that the most successful legislators would be those collecting from both sides. Well, debate on the bill has effectively been suspended until January. ‘Bulo can not even begin to guess the over/under (gratuitous legalized gambling reference) on the number of checks that legislators will receive based on this bill alone. Suffice it to say that they all owe John Viola a debt of gratitude as they move into an election year.
Of particular concern to the Beast Who Slumbers is the apparent failure of HB 168 to clear the House Judiciary Committee. This is the bill that would eliminate minimum mandatory sentences. Will anyone who’s ‘in the loop’ please let us know what’s going on here? Aside from the heavy financial lifting, this is one of the most important and necessary bills to come before the General Assembly in a long time.
Lots of other interesting items for those with the time and curiosity to surf the top link.
Allow the Beast Who Slumbers to first wish Sen. Adams a speedy recovery. Any readers of ‘bulo’s know that he strongly disagrees with Adams’ philosophy of government. However, those disagreements have never extended to Adams the person, who is actually a courteous and solicitous human being. Please get well soon, Senator.
Perhaps the most notable piece of legislation on today’s Senate Agenda is Rep. Bill Oberle’s resolution urging DNREC to require all facilities operating in Delaware waters to install ‘closed-cycle’ cooling systems to put an end to massive fish kills. While ‘bulo admires and supports the concurrent resolution, he points out that Concurrent Resolutions do not have the force of law, and that DNREC is not bound by it. He also wonders why this legislation was not done in the form of a bill that would have the force of law. Maybe someone with direct knowledge of this bill can explain.
Lots of action on the House agenda, including several bills that have been debated before in ‘bulo’s General Assembly columns. Feel free to debate them again.
New items to the agenda(s) include Greg Lavelle’s HB 155, which was discussed here yesterday; Melanie Marshall’s HB 156 and HB 183, which appear to try to bring some order to what is currently the Wild Wild West of condominium law; Rep. Longhurst’s HB 200 and HB 208, which appear to try to bring some order and tenant protection to the Wild Wild West of manufactured homes community law; and Rep. B. Short’s HB 170, which would bring Delaware into compliance with certain requirements of Federal economic recovery statute, thus making an additional $21-plus million in Federal Aid available to the State.
As always, click on the links b/c YMMV.
House Concurrent Resolution 7, Rep. Bill Oberle’s resolution, urging DNREC to require all facilities operating in Delaware waters to install ‘closed-cycle’ cooling systems to put an end to massive fish kills is meeting massive opposition from industry.
Citizen activist Richard Schneider initiated this effort last year.
A similar resolution passed the House in 2008 only to be scuttled without debate in the Senate.
This year, HCR 7 passed the House 39-0 and was voted out of committee yesterday for debate today on the senate floor.
NRG, Valero, DuPont, Connectiv are working to water down the resolution in the senate with the hope that an amended resolution will down have run out of time when it would go back to the House for consideration.
Although only a resolution that expresses the intent of the legislature and does not have the force of law, massive industry opposition has raised greatly the profile of this issue and focused attention on the environmnetal degradation their bad business practices have on the Delaware River, Bay and Indian river estuary.
Outraged citizens have responded to the massive industry campaign when they turned out at yesterdays favorable committee hearing on HCR7.
Progressive Democrats from Sussex County, Center for the Inland Bays, Clean Air Council and many others have responded to the industry propaganda campaign to sett the record straight.
Eventually, the State will have to decide on the merits of this resolution when hey issue a new permit for industries in Delaware.
This issue only applies to retrofited plants since new facilities are required to have cooling towers.
Your suport and presence today in the Senate for HCR 7 that is not watered down woud be a big help.
John Flaherty
I find it odd that HB231 giving people unpaid time off to go to parent-teacher conferences did make it out of committee.
I guess in this economy it seemed like a cost to be borne by businesses.
Sometimes bills don’t make it out of committee b/c there are so (too) many committees and it’s hard to maintain a quorum for a lengthy meeting. Don’t know if that was the case w/HB 231.
And when John Flaherty talks, people should listen and act. He is in essence the only person in Dover lobbying full-time on behalf of good government. ‘Bulo feels completely comfortable urging DL readers to contact their senators and urge them to vote for an unamended HCR 7. Major tip of the sombrero to John for updating everyone on this situation.
“I guess in this economy it seemed like a cost to be borne by businesses.”
All businesses are rich. They can afford it.
While HB170 brings in $22 million this year, it sets us up for a big fall later requiring additional millions spent in the future. Especially since our U/E fund is in pretty good shape comparatively.
But hey, all businesses are rich. They can afford it.
Question: when the state gets the $22 million in federal money, will they call it a $22 million “cut” like they did with Medicaid?
`nonone wants to know when the bill requiring businesses to provide 48 weeks of paid vacation is coming out of committee?
And keep an eye out for SB144 (Violent Crimes Comp Board reform) to make it onto the floor of the House.
Would be interested if school boards, DSEA and others awaken in time for Lavelle’s vengeful 155.
Statutes of limitations exist for a reason. If someone’s wronged you, you’ve got two or three years, depending on the situation, to put a judge on the case. If you’re a minor, the deadline doesn’t start until you turn 18. If you don’t step up, then shut up. If someone busted my nose at the Banning Park ball field when I was 14, I can’t go running to court 30 years later.
The exception created two years ago was an extreme, but apparently necessary, measure due to the cover-up, now appearing to be world-wide, in the RC molestation scandals. The legislation was promised to be a once-in-a-lifetime exception to normal statutes of limitations, because of the massive, grisly nature of the offenses and institutional cover-up.
No such pattern of massive cover-up existed in public schools. There have been teachers behaving badly, but these miscreants are regularly flushed out. There is no need for this legislation.
Question: when the state gets the $22 million in federal money, will they call it a $22 million “cut” like they did with Medicaid?
Well since this is not what they did with Medicaid, the answer is no.
There is a legit cut in Delaware funds used in Medicare. The recovery funds backfill much if not all of those lost expenditures. The State makes no claims — contrary to your insinuation — to cutting the Medicare program itself.
“There is a legit cut in Delaware funds used in Medicare. The recovery funds backfill much if not all of those lost expenditures. The State makes no claims — contrary to your insinuation — to cutting the Medicare program itself.”
So it’s not being paid for by the state, it is being paid for by the federal government, and Markell listed it as a cut in his proposal.
Rather than FSP one dimensional cartoony view of HB231, I’ll be guided by JC’s take on whether encouraging people to go to parent/teacher conferences by giving then a few hours of unpaid time off is a bad thing that will destroy small business in Delaware.
“Rather than FSP one dimensional cartoony view of HB231, I’ll be guided by JC’s take on whether encouraging people to go to parent/teacher conferences by giving then a few hours of unpaid time off is a bad thing that will destroy small business in Delaware.”
It’s not a bad thing. The question is where is the problem that this the solution for? Are there people out there who want to attend their children’s functions who are not permitted to? If so, then it makes sense.
There is a legit cut in Delaware funds used in Medicare. The recovery funds backfill much if not all of those lost expenditures.
FSP won’t be happy with spending cuts until there is blood on the floor.
Geekster: SB 144 needs to make it out of the Senate first…unless Kowalko is gonna introduce it as a House Bill with a new #. Say-y-y-y, ya don’t suppose…
“FSP won’t be happy with spending cuts until there is blood on the floor.”
Actually, I’ll start being happy when I actually see a cut. Shifting funds from the budget to the federal government is not a cut.
The solution is simple. We need a reduction in force. Stop punishing 100% of the state employees because we have too many administrators. As soon as the legislature wraps their head around that, the sooner we can close the gap.
Shifting funds from the budget to the federal government is not a cut.
It is a cut. It is a cut in the amount of money Delawareans have to pay for this program. Which is currently the job — cutback on the money Delawareans pay. The fact that you’d like to see a wholesale cutback in the program — no matter where the funds come from — is what forces you into this silly game of semantics.
Do you want to make a case for cutting back the entire program? Than just make it. Sidling into your argument by trying to pretend that the Delaware portion of spending on this program is not reduced already puts any argument you might make behind the credibility ball. Play the semantics games with the folks from your party who are delighted to suspend the meaning in their dictionaries.
“It is a cut.”
No. It isn’t. You can twist words to make it sound like a cut, but it is not. The money is still being spent.
“Do you want to make a case for cutting back the entire program?”
One, I have made Medicaid recommendations, two, I’ve called several times for the state to study the Medicaid program and three, I’d just like to see something cut. (I’ve clearly made my case on what I’d prefer that to be.)
OK, John Manifold (et al), for some reason, the state website won’t load for me right now, so tell me something about HB155. What is it about HB155 (keep in mind I can’t see it right now), that makes this so anti-victim as you have painted it, rather, I should ask, makes it so anti-public-employee because their victims have less rights than other abuse victims? Seriously, all I get from this is Lavelle is bad for introducing it, but how dare he give victims of public-employees equal footing of those from the RCR. That’s what I’ve read. So tell me, how does HB155 differ from that summary, given I can not view it at this time?
There is no twisting — if the State is spending fewer of its tax dollars on Medicaid then it is a cut. By definition. Altho I’ll stipulate that math is not exactly your proven strong suit.
The federal dollars backfilling means than the program itself does not suffer a cut, but there is no doubt that the State’s contribution is less this year.
But this is the thing, isn’t it? Playing the dumb games at the expense of having to do the heavy lifting of talking about something real.
“the program itself does not suffer a cut”
“the program itself does not suffer a cut”
“the program itself does not suffer a cut”
“the program itself does not suffer a cut”
“the program itself does not suffer a cut”
“the program itself does not suffer a cut”
“the program itself does not suffer a cut”
Show me something that we did last year that we won’t do this year, next year or anytime in the foreseeable future, and then you can talk.
Re. #17:
…but how dare he give victims of public-employees equal footing of those from the RCR…
should have said…
…but how dare he give victims of public-employees equal footing of those from the RCC…
I’m not the one making up an argument out of whole cloth here — much like you’ll do today, tomorrow and for much of the foreseeable future. All I am doing here is pointing out that playing with the semantics in a way that misrepresents pretty much the entire universe that a “cut” has to live in does not substitute for an argument for cutting the program — which is what you want to argue for here.
But then, if you want to spend your time defending the semantics, then have at it. And don’t be surprised when folks say you have no ideas.
FSP: The proposed budget is $2.9 billion. This year’s was $3.3 billion. Shifting costs from state to feds will save Delawareans tax money — just as Bush policies that shifted federal expenditures to the states helped drive the last several years of far-over-inflation state budget increases. You can either play this game non-partisanly, or don’t bother playing at all.
“And don’t be surprised when folks say you have no ideas.”
Anyone who would say I have no ideas would be flat-out lying, which I used to think was above you. Used to.
“You can either play this game non-partisanly, or don’t bother playing at all.”
Partisan? Really? What’s partisan about asking whether or not the state has reduced its ongoing financial obligation before punishing small businesspeople and taxpayers by taking a higher percentage of their income?
Or, how about this: what do we do next year, when we haven’t addressed Medicaid and there’s no federal money to spend?
And cassandra, you USED to be able to have a debate like this without being a pissant and taking potshots.
Looks like you’ve been DL-ized.
There are no potshots here. I really am intolerant of just substituting revised semantics for an argument. Really intolerant, which you already know.
And there was not one single idea in this:
Question: when the state gets the $22 million in federal money, will they call it a $22 million “cut” like they did with Medicaid?
Not one. Just your own potshot at the Medicaid program not being cut in the way you’d like to see it. You couldn’t just make that case without having to redefine “cut”?
If that makes me DL-ized, then so be it. But we’ve been though this often enough for you to know I will challenge this kind of stuff on its own terms — which substitutes content for an attitude.
What’s partisan about asking whether or not the state has reduced its ongoing financial obligation before punishing small businesspeople and taxpayers by taking a higher percentage of their income?
What do we do next year, when we haven’t addressed Medicaid and there’s no federal money to spend?
“The proposed budget is $2.9 billion. This year’s was $3.3 billion. “
Dave, how can you possibly argue that this is not a cut in the Medicaid budget?
That’s about a 12% cut at a time when the need for Medicaid funding will be greater than ever, due to the economy.
I favor increasing the Medicaid budget for next fiscal year.
Incidentally, anecdotally, in my experience as a ‘Court Appointed Special Advocate’ volunteer for needy and abused children, I have seen many, many good uses of Medicaid dollars.
FSP – why on earth would you be pushing for actual cuts in service delivery for Medicaid, at a time when need has never been greater?
“FSP – why on earth would you be pushing for actual cuts in service delivery for Medicaid, at a time when need has never been greater?”
I’m not. But when the state says they’ve cut $300 million from Medicaid, and what they’ve really done is shifted the cost to federal funds, I don’t call that a cut.
“The proposed budget is $2.9 billion. This year’s was $3.3 billion.”
Perry, that’s the whole budget.
“What do we do next year, when we haven’t addressed Medicaid and there’s no federal money to spend?”
Oh, perish the thought, we might just have to raise taxes a little bit!
Listen, we’ve gotten off track here. What I’m saying is this: the state is about to tell us that small business owners and taxpayers need to foot the bill for a gaping hole in a huge state budget, without any evidence that the state has cut ANYTHING. The state continues to employ 50% more government staff per capita than the average state, and no one can explain why.
Does anyone agree that the state should at least be able to say that they’ve cut SOMETHING before they hit up business owners and taxpayers for hundreds of millions of dollars?
And is anyone going to answer my questions in #26?
“Perry, that’s the whole budget.”
I understand your point, Dave.
Nevertheless, when you look at the whole budget in terms of the need for the funding, there will be less next fiscal year. I call that an overall cut in the whole budget, and I don’t like it!
The 2.9 billion, I believe, is the Governor’s proposed budget, which always gets added to by the JFC and the legislature.
By the way, $300M+ of that $400M is that Medicaid funding by the federal government, and that reflects no cut in the program.
“The state continues to employ 50% more government staff per capita than the average state, and no one can explain why.”
Economy of scale is certainly a factor, which is why I favor school district consolidation.
And there are probably other areas that can be consolidated.
We seem to have an attitude in DE that we are actually made up of three separate states that we incorrectly refer to as counties.
There is a lot of unnecessary division/segregation in this state. We don’t need to behave this way, and may actually save lots of money if we get our statewide act together.
“By the way, $300M+ of that $400M is that Medicaid funding by the federal government, and that reflects no cut in the program.
OK, so $300M+ from the Feds, added to $2.9B, comes up close to $3.3 billion. So you are saying that the amount of dollars for the next fiscal year will be just a little bit less than this year.
Markell would call that a cut because less state money is appropriated for next fiscal year.
I still say that, because of the economy, we will probably need more than $3.3 billion next fiscal year.
“Markell would call that a cut because less state money is appropriated for next fiscal year.”
He has, and he will.
School district consolidation might eliminate $20 million in salaries. At the top end.
“Statutes of limitations exist for a reason.”
Unless you’re the Catholic Church. Then we’ll suspend them for two years, during which time you can accuse a priest (rightly or wrongly) of abusing you. If you’re a public employee, according to John Manifold, you should not be held to the same standard.
“No such pattern of massive cover-up existed in public schools. There have been teachers behaving badly, but these miscreants are regularly flushed out. There is no need for this legislation.”
Except that they aren’t regularly flushed out, or w don’t know because the public school system has not been subject to the same scrutiny as the Catholic Church. And of course there was no cover-up, except perhaps here: Giannotti reported Holt’s behavior to the principal, Betty Pinchin, in early February 2006, but no action was taken, the suit said.
Holt, according to the suit, was suspended from teaching for three days, but both Holt and the school district attributed her absence to illness.
Holt was arrested in April for allegedly having sex with a 13-year-old student. A month later, Giannotti said, she (Giannotti, not Holt) was fired. (News Journal, Feb. 2008)
When the Catholic diocese pointed out the unfairness of trying to defend itself against 50 year old charges, it was ridiculed. Why the double standard when people like John Manifold use the same argument for public agencies and employees? And if there was no great cover-up or abuse to worry about, then the state should not fret about the few lawsuits it would face over the next two years.
I’m not defending the wrongs of the church here. They have paid, sometimes dearly and deservedly. I’m only asking that everyone be treated equally.
The 2007 law already permits victims of child sexual abuse to sue their perps, even if they were public school teachers.
Another Mike is swimming upstream on this one. Today, the nephew of New York’s Cardinal O’Connor filed suit in Delaware charging sexual abuse:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/religion/20090618_ap_latecardinalsnephewclaimsabusebypriest.html
Keep trying to swerve the readers, but decades of institutional sexual abuse and coverup are the wholly-owned subsidiary of the Roman Catholic Church. Sad, disgraceful, but true.