UPDATED: Al Mascitti on Markell and Session
I’m missing it, but I hear Al is covering this recent legislative session.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My computer speakers are fixed:
Selander on now making the case for the Admin fairly well.
After the break Al is going to say why the choice “Booze or Schools” was bogus and (I hope Selander will tell why they framed it like that).
Not impressive so far. Critical of Markell administration. By and large and considering the general economy I think Delaware fared pretty well with this budget.
Really, I figured a while back that this budget would not be the barometer of his campaign promises. Can you guess why I was at odds with many in my old party? 😛
This budget was a fiasco, starting with the barely-legal, I-don’t-give-an-eff proposal from Auntie on her closing days. While this budget is not any less important than any budget, it was screwed from the get-go.
Now that this is done and finalized, I consider Markell and the Legislature absolutely on the clock to get it right for next time. He made a promise to thoroughly vet all programs and departments for cuts. If that’s not an offered package by June 30, 2010, then I, too, will join the parade blasting him and others responsible for needing to get it done.
Actually, I’m pretty impressed with Markell. Just look around at the mess of other states with big budget gaps – he was able to negotiate something with the GA, despite the needs for a 3/5 or 2/3 margin on some bills.
I really think all of the GA deserves credit for the budget deal. Is it ideal – heck no, but I think they did a good job under the circumstances. I just hope that this budget is not an end, like, we got a budget so let’s stop thinking about it, but a beginning to a more robust budget package. Delaware needs to have multiple sources of revenue so that we can get through both the lean times and the good times.
When I heard Markell criticize budgeting, he criticized the tactic of across the board freezes and cuts across all departments — it wasn’t just for salaries. The central idea being that across the board freezes and cuts in an environment when costs almost always increase doesn’t think about whether critical or priority functions remain properly able to get their work done. It was not about just salaries, as Al M seems to be saying.
Now that this is done and finalized, I consider Markell and the Legislature absolutely on the clock to get it right for next time.
That’s a great point. I think there was a bit of a bait and switch (for whatever reasons) this time with regard to some items. If it happens again we are in “fool me twice” territory.
Yeah, J, I just didn’t see how aggressive so many people wanted FY’10 to be could ever happen. I really don’t do hard-partisan squabble, so I didn’t find those arguments (er, partisan sniping from both sides) a valid application to this session. Believe me, I’m no fan of the results, but, as I tend to say, I am more of a realist than I am a party person, and this is about what I expected for Markell’s opening session.
At some point along the process, most of us bloggers have acknowledged the over-leverage of the payroll of our state government. They have lots of time now to dig in and see what is no longer necessary or what can be transferred from overstaffed-point-A to understaffed-point-B and increase efficiency.
My point, if I have one, is that I was greatly disappointed in the way the budget was achieved. Markell called upon people to make alternate proposals, but he adopted none of them. It was his way or the highway. And I was especially disappointed at the way they tried to lay this at the feet of John Kowalko by cutting school construction instead of adding as much as one cent to the corporation fee cap.
Also – let’s face it. If Markell was a Republican and played the budget process the way he did there would be tons of shit being thrown at him from me and other aids infected monkeys.
…me and other aids infected monkeys
I always knew there was a reason for your rantings!
I agree that this was a mess for alot of reasons. But next up has to be the long look at review of government ops — this economy is not going to look that much better for next year’s budgeting cycle, I think. Which means that next year, they’ll need to grow up and get more of the shortfall directly from the budget. At some point everyone will know that their taxes have gone up faster than their pay this year and I suspect legislators will hear that loud and clear.
Question as to why taking away funds for school construction rather than other state construction was a good one by Al.
I agree with Al on the appearance of disingenuity of the administration–show us an alternative, and when JK did, largely a total disregard for it.
The cut of school funding to ‘fix’ the lack of passage of the alcohol tax boost was sleazy–it smelled 100% of politics (retribution, spin material) rather than what was right for the state.
Al’s point, if I may be so bold, is not the strategy so much as the tactics. The tactic of laying the blame for school construction cuts at the feet of Kowalko. The tactic of feigning interest in alternative proposals. The tactic of holding good bills (VCCB reform) hostage, to punish legislators that show the same intransigence as the administration.
The real culprits are the House Rethugs, who chose politics over addressing the state’s most serious budget crisis in 35 years.
If you make a list of the House Rethugs who neither voted for the budget (featuring over $300 mill in cuts), nor voted for any of the revenue enhancers, it’d be in double digits. Meaning that they voted neither for budget cuts nor revenue enhancers, meaning that they didn’t lift a finger to close an $800 mill budget deficit. You can bet that they’ll all campaign on ‘not going along’ with “taxtaxtaxspendspendspend” next year when they’re up for reelection.
Having said that, Kowalko’s behavior the last two session days was unprofessional. The final ‘deal’, as smelly as it was, had the House R’s committing to provide only the necessary vote or votes for minimal passage of each element of the package provided that all the D’s voted for it. Clearly, it had been worked out in both caucuses, and all the D’s had agreed to be ‘on the reservation’. Even John Atkins voted for all the revenue enhancers. Nobody was happy about having to ‘walk the plank’, but they did what they had to do to counter Rethug intransigence.
Everybody but Kowalko. Listening to the live feed, his ‘no’ vote on the liquor tax bill was, to put it mildly, unexpected. And his Rosemary Woods gesticulations notwithstanding, it was a vote of political expediency, not of principle.
Make no mistake. It is not his progressive politics that has made Kowalko a pariah. Terry Schooley, for example, who is almost never quoted anywhere, has quietly been an effective progressive leader on both kids’ issues and education.
No, the reason Kowalko is a pariah is b/c he has set himself up as ‘the last political virgin’, much like the equally unpredictable County Councilman Bob Weiner, he grandstands on virtually every issue, always rushing to the microphones or coming over here to ‘explain’ himself.
And, then most importantly, he committed the single most unforgiveable political sin that there is the last two days: He went back on his word.
Kowalko spends a lot of time portraying himself as a victim. If he wants to see his victimizer, he only has to look in the mirror. He would rather be a beloved martyr than a quietly-effective legislator. As such, he does the progressive cause little good.
And, then most importantly, he committed the single most unforgiveable political sin that there is the last two days: He went back on his word.
How so?
And ES, how would you respond if I told you that your Rep was the reason that the liquor tax didn’t come up for a vote again on Tuesday?
I assume by “going back on his word” you mean that he voted for the budget that included cuts on state workers. If the state workers said, “we are good with this situation” then it would be inappropriate to continue to fight.
BTW – Agree w/ Al on his worries about the tactics being used.
Selander says the choice of cutting school construction was 100% the Bond Bill Committee.
C’mon.
Al Mascitti:
“Markell called upon people to make alternate proposals, but he adopted none of them.”
Markell proposed 8% salary cuts. The final budget was 2.5% salary cuts. Markell signed the budget. What am I missing here?
Oh, and Kowalko: Booze over books.
And guess who wasn’t surprised by Kowalko’s NO vote? Schwartzkopf. Guess who was surprised? The rest of the caucus, because Pete never told them.
The deal had been worked out with both caucuses, including all the members of the D caucus. Kowalko’s surprise vote against the alcohol bill went against that agreement. They would not have run the bill if Kowalko had told them in advance that he’d vote ‘no’.
ES. Bullshit. Call your rep and ask him.
Jason wrote:
“Agree w/ Al on his worries about the tactics being used.”
Yeah, but bloggers using Twitter to spread unattributed and unsubstantiated rumors to try to drive the process is A-OK.
I find myself at odds with much of what the ‘bulo comes down on… but his analysis of Kowalko is spot on.
He is a grandstander and, while he’s great at constituent work and is definitely an energetic legislator, he’s just a lot of bluster.
I would not want to be in his shoes right now. I can see the mailers now… “John Kowalko chose bars and package stores over schools.”
Anyone who’s using Kowalko as a source is using what in literature is known as an ‘unreliable narrator’.
His perception of reality is laden with conspiracy theories. Ironically, they tend to become self-fulfilling prophecies when you go off the reservation.
They would not have run the bill if Kowalko had told them in advance that he’d vote ‘no’.
He was pretty strident about not voting for the thing as I recall. Maybe they ran it because they thought he would blink?
Also, aren’t you glad your tax dollars are paying Brian Selander to be Jack’s full-time campaign manager?
Bulo, seriously… call your rep and ask him. Pete expected a blink. Instead, he got a finger in the eye. And he was told that he would get the finger in the eye.
I’m surprised John hasn’t called into Mascitti yet, blustering all over the place….
~ revenue enhancers~
Just call them what they are, increases in taxes and fees.
Rescuing my own comment from the WTF John post (only a few saw it), it certainly applies here:
Look, I really don’t think John had anything direct to do with the school construction funding being cut. I swear, had he saw that coming, there would have been much more going on that night in Leg Hall. Is it a result of what happened? Yup. Did John make this his own result? No.
What we should be bitching about (in addition to the deep-sixing of this bill), is that when the bond bill committee met, they went straight for educational funding.
Here are those members, but keep in mind that, per todays News Journal, Oberle was the only vehemently against this cut, so much so, that over the closed-ears ignorance of the rest of the committee, he walked out. Ladies and Gentlemen, your committee of shame:
Robert L. Venables
Patricia M. Blevins
Nancy W. Cook
Harris B. McDowell
F. Gary Simpson
Liane M. Sorenson
—–
Helene M. Keeley
V. George Carey
Michael P. Mulrooney
William A. Oberle (lone dissent – walked out)
Teresa Schooley
John J. Viola
Every single legislator owns that budget, whether they voted “yes” or “no.” No votes don’t get a pass and neither do yes votes, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t agree with JK’s vote on the alcohol tax, nor his reasons behind it. I find it extremely unfair to blame him for the bond bill. The bond bill committee put those cuts in it, and legislators either voted “yes” or “no” on them.
All the Republicans voted no, but allowed a couple to cross over. As far as I’m concerned a “no” vote on a tax increase is a vote to get that money somewhere else. If you vote “no” on tax increases and fee increases, you’re voting to cut something else or increase fees somewhere else.
Oh, ‘bulo, on the “Rethugs,” yes, they hated almost every bit of this and is true they didn’t want most of what was out there, but they also weren’t going to do the government-shut-down trump card that many partisan wonks from my old side wanted them to do (just watch the calls for primaries, starting from our friendly pIlOtician – he’s already dancing around the topic). So, yes, they delivered almost all of the NO votes, as advertised and expected (so any surprise has to be feigned), but in all but that one bill, they refused the cat-calls from the partisan wonkers by not opting for the shut-down. For that, I do give them some (very small in your world, I am sure) credit for telling the party faithful no.
UI – I agree with you that JK should not get blame for the cut in school construction funds. People can make a correlation, but he didn’t choose, from an apparent list of possibilities, anything about education. This is why I listed the members of that committee. Keep in mind, per the news journal, that they ONLY considered education-based projects and that is it. Kowalko has NOTHING to do with that committee.
Deep thought:
Would Markell be throwing Kowalko under the bus if he hadn’t supported Carney in the primary?
Smitty: When the alcohol tax was defeated, it was inevitable that something would have to be cut to make up for the difference. The Bond Bill had been seriously cut to the bone, the Budget Bill (‘bulo thinks) had already been worked. Had it not been the school construction, it would have been something else equally as unappetizing.
Like Oberle, ‘bulo wishes that the Rainy Day Fund was not off-limits. But don’t blame the Bond Bill Committee for making this cut regardless of how distasteful that it was. They had no choice but to act like grownups and to do something they knew that people wouldn’t like.
During this crisis, only the House Rethugs opted for political gain over working to fix this mess. They’re the ones who deserve the lion’s share of the blame for the problems at the end of session. And you’re saying that they deserve our thanks b/c they didn’t shut down state government? OK. ‘Bulo’d also like to thank North Korea for not dropping a nuclear bomb on us while we’re at it.
If they truly think it’s wrong, though, ‘bulo, why should they support it? Hey, I would (and fully am committed to this) say the same if a D did that against an R. I know this seems like me grasping, but one of the reasons I finally went over the top and turned myself into an “I” were the internal cat calls to shut it all down (from members, didn’t hear much from leaders except that one presser that got attention). That crap don’t fly with me, and it’s apparent it didn’t with the caucus, either…well, most of them anyway. I’d be shocked if all 17 were still in unified agreement when all was said-and-done.
Agreed, ‘Bulo. The politicians are there to make the hard choices. Not shutting down the government is not a hard choice.
I said it was a small thing! 😉
Interesting #34
I don’t get that read. Then again I’m a Fanboy.
‘Bulo, you and I are going have to agree to disagree. There are a hundred ways to make up the difference in the alcohol tax. Which option did they choose? The one that they could put on mailers. Why didn’t they increase a corporate tax? Hmmm. Well, because “John Kowalko chose liquor store employees over large businesses incorporated in Delaware” wouldn’t have the same effect.
Perhaps they could have changed the lightering tax so that it wasn’t an annual license and rather done it on a per gallon basis. But no. “John Kowalko puts liquor stores before oil companies” doesn’t make the papers.
They could have added in an additional tax bracket for people making over $150K for the PIT, but instead they chose to go after school building funds. Because “John Kowalko chose liquor store employees over Chateau Country” hardly moves a single voter.
The only world in which this was a binary choice, was the one constructed to make Kowalko look like the bad guy.
One thing that supports Geek’s POV is that Heffron was on the radio in two beats saying “Kowalko’s vote caused school construction cuts.”
Who gives Heffron his talking points?
Let’s not pretend we can’t connect the dots.
‘Bulo will simply make this point. Whatever the Bond Bill Committee cut would have been unpopular.
Yes, there were alternatives that ‘bulo would have preferred, including (and especially) restoring some progressivity to the tax code by making the % PIT larger for those making over $150 K.
But what you ended up with was a fragile agreement held together by baling wire and ceiling wax. The D’s had to do the heavy lifting and, for the most part, they did.
JK certainly didn’t intend to turn this into ‘booze vs. books’. But he had to know two things: (a) his ‘no’ vote would damage the fragile agreement; and (b) the lost revenue had to be found elsewhere, and once he voted ‘no’, the ‘elsewhere’ was out of his hands. Regardless of his intent, that was the result of his actions. He’ll just have to live with it.
And ‘bulo could even give John a free pass if it was over something that smacked of genuine principle. Selling out to the Teamsters wasn’t it.
It’s a false binary choice, and the second choice was picked to punish someone who refused to follow the orders of his caucus. You might be OK with the way government “works” in Delaware; I’m not. I don’t like party unity by either party, because that’s how the rest of us civilians get screwed. So screw your call for following orders.
BTW, just because something helps the Teamsters doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Despite what a couple of the posters here maintain, the booze lobby did back up its claims with documentation. Show me another lobby that did so.
One more point: If cuts in bond bill spending balances the operating budget, why wasn’t Prevailing Wage overturned? The Minner commission’s report listed the savings at a minimum of $15 million/year. I fought against Republicans on the logic that cutting the Bond Bill doesn’t help the operating budget, yet that’s just what they did.
So why is the Prevailing Wage still being paid? Why are construction unions untouchable but the Teamsters aren’t?
And, Geezer, you have no proof that the Bond Bill Committee did anything just to punish Kowalko. None. Just the conspiracy whispers of people who support JK no matter what. What if they had cut funding to volunteer fire companies or senior centers out of the Grant-In-Aid Bill instead? It would be booze vs. seniors or booze vs. public safety.
No matter what they cut, it was gonna be unpopular. This was a binary choice only in the sense that the revenue that was not approved for the alcohol taxes was gonna have to be made up someway, somehow. And it wouldn’t have happened had not Kowalko opposed the alcohol tax increase.
And it wouldn’t have happened had not Kowalko opposed the alcohol tax increase.
It also would not have happened had the franchise cap been raised.
Amen, anon.
Touche. Sadly, that was not part of the deal. It should’ve been, but it wasn’t. El Somnambulo touted several features of the Kowalko Plan, and he agrees that it sucks that few, if any, were included in the final plan. Maybe next year…
However, if the Bond Bill Committee had really wanted to screw Kowalko, they would have cut Bond Bill projects directly impacting his district. That’s one reason why ‘bulo thinks the paranoid conspiracy theories are not, in fact, true.
Sadly, that was not part of the deal. It should’ve been, but it wasn’t.
Did Kowalko not give fair notice of how he would vote if the deal did not include the franchise tax? My understanding is that he made himself clear.
Kowalko said it best in today’s News Journal:
“What if they had cut funding to volunteer fire companies”
Didn’t the Snooze Journal do a piece about how the fire companies were VERY flush with cash about 3 months ago??
Sorry, even if I don’t agree with Kowalko on the tax on beer/spirits, I still think he gets a pass on this one as he seems to be one of the few legislators that seem to care
That, once again, is his characterization of events. One word that JK should never use in describing others is ‘obstinate’.
Look, ‘bulo really doesn’t want to trash John Kowalko. He means well, he really does.
But, ‘bulo is not by a long shot the only progressive to urge John to tone things down and instead work with others of like mind to accomplish things in a workmanlike manner. John’s penchant for going public with virtually everything, and the way he says it, is a principal reason he doesn’t get more done.
El Somnambulo admits that he may have been too harsh on John, but ‘bulo just gets so frustrated when someone with the potential to do so much good throws it away with unrelenting self-promotion.
No, ‘Bulo, you haven’t been too harsh.
We HAVE to push from the left. It isn’t enough to elect so-called progressives and then walk away feeling smug.
Kolwalko’s “Booze Before Books” vote sucked.
This budget is not a progressive budget, either. Markell let the progressives who supported him down BIG TIME and so did Kowalko.
Now is not the time to be passive. Now is the time to push ’em to get it right the next time.
‘nonone ‘plauds ‘bulo.
I’m willing to give Kowalko a pass on this because he made his position clear and he stuck to it. The others called his bluff, and he didn’t blink. That said, adding a couple pennies to a bottle of beer would not have caused anyone to go out of business.
The GA also should have added a bracket for $150K and above, as many have stated here, if they were insistent on raising the income tax. I guess I can just add this to my 25% county tax hike and the 2.4% Brandywine School District hike, along with my wife’s 2.5% reduction in pay (and the lack of a raise from the state the last two years).
I think what this process has highlighted is the need to modify the open government law to include caucuses and emails, and to add the Big Head Committee, which the GA somehow classifies as a caucus. Mr. Magoo could see when HB1 was winding its way through the legislature that they would just move the important stuff to the caucuses and email.
I believe the next few months are going to be the most interesting of all – the bloody budget is done. Our elected officials can’t say things were done or were not done because of it anymore. A few promises fulfilled. How about some more change?
Jason’s quote from Honest Abe is the one I am worried about – don’t want the shame to be on us.
“John’s penchant for going public with virtually everything, and the way he says it, is a principal reason he doesn’t get more done.”
It’s not like ‘bulo to be so naive. Show us the progressives who worked behind the scenes and got a lot done despite reluctance from leaders of his/her own party.
This is merely the convenient excuse used to criticize someone who won’t play along with the established power structure. Yes, it comes off as grandstanding, but he’s not faking it.
In a one-party system, it’s especially important that someone in that party be willing to call out its leaders when they err.
Kowalko’s a big boy. I’m sure he understands the form his punishment was bound to take. Just as I’m sure he understands that his greatest danger comes not from Republicans but his fellow Democrats.
Ultimately there’s no particularly compelling reason to raise the alcohol excise tax beyond “we can,” while there is a compelling reason not to, “we’ll lost some business to Maryland.” So what it really came down to was a call for everyone in the caucus to set aside individual principles for the sake of the deal with the GOP.
The real need here is a return to the principle of democracy — majority rules. Not 60%, or 67%, or 75% — 50% plus one. By subverting this in a moment of political callowness, we now have a system in which the minority holds the power.
The compelling reason to vote for the alcohol tax was that, for better or for worse, it was part of the formula to close the $800 mill budget gap.
If many of the bloggers here, including Geezer and El Somnambulo, were making the decisions, no doubt the formula would have been much different.
As to JK, he may not be faking it. But, he makes himself far less effective than progressives like Schooley, Sokola, and Peterson when he makes himself the center of every conflict.
And, Geezer, answer this with your head instead of your heart. Do you think that, going forward, Kowalko will be MORE effective b/c of what he did at the end of session, or LESS effective?
El Somnambulo thinks that JK is at a crossroads: He can either opt to be the Pied Piper of the Blogosphere with his admirers skipping merrily behind him, or he can resolve to become a truly-effective legislator.
The Beast Who Slumbers believes that the two are mutually-exclusive, and he sincerely hopes that John chooses the latter option.
for better or for worse, it was part of the formula for better or for worse, it was part of the formula
El Som… in all of this, I have still not heard anyone make the case why the alcohol tax was preferable to lifting the franchise caps, or why cutting schools was preferable to both.
The people who disrespected JK before will continue to disrespect him. And voting for the alcohol tax would not have changed that, and would not have increased his effectiveness one bit.
We heard the same thing about Karen Peterson, that her FOIA bill and petition would reduce her effectiveness. How’d that work out?
I think JK has laid down a marker that he isn’t going to be concerned about bullshit retaliation from the good ol’ boys. It’s about freakin’ time.
Don’t we already have enough Dems who will compromise their principles if a Republican says “Boo” at them? (or a conservadem boss, for that matter?). Is it too much to ask that we have just one Democrat who will stand on Democratic principle?
In terms of effectiveness, JK has issued a wake-up call that there will be a price paid for ignoring progressive policies. How long have we been waiting for someone to do that?
“El Somnambulo thinks that JK is at a crossroads: He can either opt to be the Pied Piper of the Blogosphere with his admirers skipping merrily behind him, or he can resolve to become a truly-effective legislator. ”
Does The Slumbering Beast think quiet effectiveness would have gotten the Victims Compensation Board bill out of the grave? I don’t.
What you’re preaching is that JK should go along with party leadership in the hope of said leaders someday smiling benificently and moving someone’s pet bills forward. It doesn’t work that way with Democrats — a few leaders, plugged into certain unions, pull the strings. The back-benchers are treated like dogs — favored pets, maybe, but incapable of feeding themselves.
The Doddering One (me) also finds it curious that you would lump KP in with the other, more mainstream Dems you mention, because she, too, has frequently gone public to call out her party leadership. In her case, however, she has nothing to lose — Minner had already fired her and party leadership endorsed Tim Shelton when she announced her intent to run for her current seat. If she is quieter in doing so than JK, chalk it up to her less intense personality and decades of experience in elected office.
JK’s agenda does not match my own in several regards, but he is the only legislator with both a brain and disdain for a party leadership that, whether Democrats like to acknowledge it or not, drove the state into the ditch in which it currently rests.
Dear El Somnambulo,
I absolutely told the majority leader almost a week before that floor vote that I was changing my vote on the alcohol. I absolutely told him the day of the vote that I was not voting for it and that he would have to get that votes from the R’s if he wanted to pass it. I told him my position and why and was frankly honest that I would not vote for it. I can’t believe he would not share that with the Governor. One of my caucus colleagues asked when I decided and after I informed him that I had talked to leadership well before the vote he seemed surprised that leadership had not made him aware of that. He also seemed shocked that they went forward with the vote not having a commitment for 25 yes votes. There were also some of my colleagues who felt very strongly that CTF funding, DEDO strategic funds or “rainy day” funds be used by the Bond Bill Committee before any school construction be threatened. I never broke my word or my promise, there were threats made to allowing HB253 to the floor and there was a message conveyed to me by a dear friend and colleague in the Senate that if I did not change my vote “they” would lay the school construction issue in my lap. That’s not a conspiracy theory that’s threats. You should take the advice of those who said contact your representative for the true details.
Thank you,
John Kowalko
John,
There was no legitimate reason not to vote for that bill.
The suggestion that sales would drop by 15% if people had to pay a quarter more for a 6 pack is ludicrous and comparing this tax with the racino tax and job losses is just a red herring.
In your note above, it is clear that “they” told you that the cuts would come from school construction without this revenue. And that’s exactly what happened.
Some people here had given you the benefit of the doubt by saying you didn’t know where the cuts would come from when you voted against this tax. But you did know and voted against it anyway.
So “John Kowalko: Booze over Books” still stands.
I hope you make a wiser and more progressive choice next time.
“The suggestion that sales would drop by 15% if people had to pay a quarter more for a 6 pack is ludicrous ”
You keep saying this, and you still have nothing to back it up.
A1, the threat that the vote would be layed in his lap came on the last night of the session. There was no vote that night on the alcohol tax. Why?
Well, I have been told that the bill had lost even more support after Kowalko’s no vote. Instead of needing 2 Republican votes to offset Kowalko’s No, they now needed 2 more. And if Pete had actually gone out to seek another Republican vote, none of this would have mattered.
Instead, Pete did a Kabuki dance out on the floor to look like JK’s vote was out of the blue.
Geezer,
I am not making the assertion that sales would drop 15%, therefore isn’t up to me to back it up or prove it.
Until you can show me a recent data-based Demand curve, Kowalko and you have nothing to back up this assertion.
Otherwise, despite hand-waving and blue face arguments, the assertion that beer sales are going to drop 15% because people have to pay 2 cents more per can is absurd.
For a simplistic model, if one assumes a linear demand curve and the current cost of a bottle of beer is $1.00 and the demand for beer went down 15% for every $0.02 price increase, then beer sales would drop to 0 (zero) if the price went up by only $0.13.
Show us the numbers.
Hi LG,
Thanks for the comment. Interesting, but the details and the politics of the vote aren’t that compelling to me.
When Kowalko decided not to vote for that bill is somewhat immaterial to me; why he voted against it is more important to me.
I think that the reasons that he gave for voting against it are bogus.
A1: The data the industry gave out is based on what happened in the early ’90s, so there is no “recent” data.
As for assertions, you keep claiming anything but your beliefs are “absurd.” That’s an assertion, and you have nothing to back it up with. I can track down those numbers from the ’90s, which you will then claim aren’t relevant. I’ll post them when I get them.
Thanks, I’ll look forward to the posting.
And times have changed quite a bit from the 90’s, even you’ll have to admit that.
By the way, it is up to the person making the claim to prove the validity of their supporting data. I don’t make any claim that sales will go down or up by any percentage; it is Kowalko, “the industry” and you that did. Based on a simple data analysis, I think your numbers are bogus.
For you to say “That’s an assertion, and you have nothing to back it up with” is ridiculous when I clearly showed based on a simple model why your numbers are absurd on their face.
Kowalko, “the industry” and you, on the other hand, have shown nothing to support your assertion. Zero. Zilch.
Show us the numbers.
See what I mean? I haven’t even gotten the numbers yet, and you’ve already dismissed them.
What’s changed since then is the price of gas. If it gets back to $4/gallon, fewer people will make the drive.
By the way, the “2 cents a can” argument is how the Markell administration framed the issue. It’s not reality. The tax is imposed on a gallon of beer, wine or spirits. That comes to a nearly $1 increase on a fifth of spirits, the category in which Maryland’s prices are lower than Delaware’s.
So before you make your numbers-based argument, try to gather the right numbers, eh?
According to Business Week it is reality:
“One of the measures introduced Tuesday would raise alcohol taxes by two cents per 12-ounce can of beer, three cents per 5-ounce serving of wine, and 15 cents per bottle of liquor, effective Sept. 1”
15 cents per bottle increase on spirits, not $1.00, OK?
Show us the numbers.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D98NPS9G0.htm