Well, for better or for worse the 2009 legislative session in Delaware has ended. It has been an interesting session. It started with a new Democratic governor, lieutenant governor and Democratic majority in the House. It ended in a bitter fight over the budget. The session was composed of the good, the bad and the ugly.
The good:
The passage of HB 1, the open government bill.
The passage of SB 121 (HB 5), the bill banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Changing of the rules/changing of the guard. That was illustrated nicely by Karen Peterson’s parliamentary procedure to force a vote on HB 1. The times are changing and the old way of doing things is disappearing.
The bad:
The narrow defeat of a bill to alter the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Why is this bad? It’s bad that the bill was proposed in the first place.
The budget crisis
The death of Senator Thurman Adams.
The ugly:
The fight over casino gambling. The legislature did not cover themselves in glory there. It ended up looking like legislators were too heavily influenced by the current racinos.
The “booze over books” fight in the budget at the end of the session. I’m on record saying that I think John Kowalko has taken an unfair share of the blame in this fight (even though I don’t agree with his votes). Everyone came out of this fight covered with mud, IMO.
Looking forward, what do we want to see in the next legislative session? What priorities do you think the progressive Delaware blogosphere should fight for?
My suggestions:
Fix the budget – adopt some alternative revenue sources and fix the PIT to be more progressive. Make sure everyone is sharing in fixing the budget.
Marriage equality – at the very least I would like to see a bill introduced to legalize civil unions in Delaware, although I would prefer full marriage equality for same sex couples.
Put your highlights, lowlights and suggestions in the comments section. As an added bonus, I’ve added some pictures from the SB 121 signing last week from an anonymous correspondent. Word is that the ceremony was packed and the mood joyful. That’s nice to hear after the end of such a contentious legislative session.
Tags: Delaware
‘Bulo thinks that the Medical Marijuana bill has at least a fighting chance of passage, and he thinks that its something that people struggling every day with chronic pain deserve.
He’d like to see if a grassroots effort can help move this bill along.
As to this session, lost in the budget mess, the passage of both HB 1 and SB 121 is truly historic, both in the context of the bills themselves, but what it means in terms of how Dover is changing. While the General Assembly deserves the lion’s share of the credit, having a Governor openly embrace the bills (especially HB 1, which RAM viewed with disdain) was a real key to passage.
What bugs me about anonone’s campaign against Kowalko is what exactly is represented by the brokered deal that he upset: business as usual.
Kowalko’s vote wasn’t “progressive”? What about the administration’s opening budget? What was progressive about that? Or its refusal to adopt different options once those were offered?
What’s progressive about cutting teacher salaries 2.5%? Which is a bigger blow to education, putting off some building repairs one year or docking teachers a week of pay?
What anonone, and those who agree with he/she/it, are advocating is the good ol’ Delaware Way — “nobody liked it but everybody sucked it up.” The administration’s people are saying “others had to make votes they didn’t like,” and then explained how those votes would be used against people in ’10. And the Bond Bill Committee then took its revenge in exactly that way.
There was nothing progressive about anything that went on in Dover this year. And there’s nothing progressive that I can see about anonone.
Jack does not have a great signature.
Jack was using 20 different pens, so that’s why the signature looks like it does. Otherwise, his handwriting is probably like yours and mine.
Twenty different pens for twenty bad ideas.
The legislature failed at almost every thing this year. The budget “deal” did nothing of substance and set us up for a tragedy next year.
The rubbish about a more progressive income tax is pure class warfare and whining by liberals who think everyone else should pay for their unworkable ideas.
Next Year’s Agenda
1. Real Open and Accountable Government
2. Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights
3. Consolidate School Districts
4. Non partisan reapportionment law
5. After Obama’s Health Care Failure, pursue a plan like Delacare for private, Universal Care.
Mike Protack
Nice work Protack, you are finally editing your garbage down enough to fit it on a pink postcard.
Geezer,
I wrote clearly that I didn’t think that Markell’s proposed budget was progressive. I am very disappointed in him and Kowalko.
My campaign isn’t against Kowalko, per se. My complaint is that he voted against a bill that would have raised significant revenues based on bogus numbers and excuses. He even knew that he was going to do this at least a week ahead of time, but did he tell anybody outside of his caucus, like his constituents who vote for him? No. If he had, maybe he might have had some input from people outside “the industry,” like from the people of Delaware about his bogus numbers and reasons.
And you’re complaining about me preserving the Delaware Way?
Yes, I am. You keep saying something you’ve never seen is bogus. Sounds like you’re the one with an agenda.
Anon,
Stay in the shadows but please get back on your meds.
I had nothing to do with any cards at any time.
I assume you have some proof? Of course you don’t and you have little intelligence also.
Still the legislature failed us badly. Next year will be worse than this year.
Mike Protack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax#Arguments_against_implementation
Liberals will never have enough taxes and will never be happy until the wealthy are poor.
Mike Protack
Repealing the mandatory minimum sentencing regime still needs to happen, as does restoration of felon’s voting rights.
Reform of the VCCB is a definite Good Thing too.
Consolidate school districts? Are you serious Mike? What about local control? I am certain we have many terribly underperforming districts, why poison them all by combining them into 4 large monolithic institutions headed by the DOE. The DOE???????
Come on now Mike, how about legislation that holds locals accountable in a meaningful way: fiscal oversight is on the right path with HB 119, DCAS is coming to save out horrible DSTP problem, lets start supporting educators and students not combining them into a less tangible mega-district.
Geezer wrote:
You keep saying something you’ve never seen is bogus.
Then show us the numbers.
And why didn’t Kowalko announce his intent to vote against the bill to his constituents before the actual vote?
“And why didn’t Kowalko announce his intent to vote against the bill to his constituents before the actual vote?”
Please find me an example of any member of the GA announcing intent before voting on the budget. Lay off the crack pipe.
HB1 needs improvement beginning in January. It must be amended to include emails between lawmakers. That would calm the fears of Schwarzkopf, who led the fight to exempt email, and it would help prevent the GA’s business being done this way. There also must be some way to prevent all the real debate from happening in caucuses.
Also, the Big Head Committee must be included in open government. It is classified as a caucus, but there’s no real logic to this. A caucus is considered a private organization, and to me if it is indeed private it should not have any influence over state-related issues.
And while I don’t want to see anyone die, I believe Thurman Adams’ departure from the General Assembly is a positive for Delaware. He may have a commendable record, but he had come to treat his seniority and position as a license to decide what he wanted for Delaware, not what was best for the state.
Please find me an example of any member of the GA announcing intent before voting on the budget.
The question is not whether they do or don’t. The question is whether they should or shouldn’t.
The Delaware Way is that they don’t. Why do you think that this is a good thing?
Show us the numbers.
You’ll have to give me a day to get those numbers. If you want to find them yourself, go for it.
It’s not the Delaware Way that they don’t. It’s that way everywhere, and will stay that way until they’re all on Twitter. Because the budget is still put together at the last minute, there’s no way to communicate effectively with constituents.
But you know that. You’re just trying to cover your ass now.
Here, A1, try this mental experiment: Let’s say the whole budget deal had come apart because of Kowalko’s vote — not just the $4 million from booze, the whole shebang. Maybe the GOPs decide not to give their needed vote on any of the tax cuts. Do you think that would have led to a more or less progressive revision of the deal?
Geezer #17:
Why don’t you try sticking to the substance of the discussion instead of ad hominem attacks? Maybe because your first numbers were wrong? (You claimed a $1 per fifth increase in spirit costs when it was actually only 15 cents.) Kowalko said he knew he was going to vote against this bill a week ahead of the vote. He should have announced his intent.
Legislators in other places do it all the time.
Geezer #18:
Who knows? I am not going to speculate about an unlikely hypothtical; I am talking about an important revenue bill in which Kowalko cast the deciding vote against for bogus reasons.
And it cost the schools money.
I find it interesting that it is going to take you a day (at least or if ever) to come up with the numbers that you’re so positive support Kowalko’s and your position. Apparently you haven’t seen them either.
On the future, I like what I have read in these posts. I would like to see the removal of mandatory minimum sentences, a relationship recognition bill introduced and through the house, gender identity bill added to hate crimes law, gender identity anti-discrimination bill introduced and in a House committee, and improved FOIA bill.
I would also like to see fair redistricting. Despite being a member of the party which controls the state house and senate, I believe that it is good policy for our state to have our redistricting done academically, not politically. I believe that their meetings will be open, due to HB1–I would like to see the makeup of the committee which decides this to be bi/non-partisan, and for there to be political science professors there who put democracy before political party. No carve-outs.
No, I haven’t seen them, but those making the claims have shown them to everyone in Dover. Are you seriously claiming that they made them all up? That seems rather foolhardy; there are people in that business and in government who would be able to correct them if it wasn’t true.
An increase of 15 cents on a bottle of spirits? Where are you getting that data? It doesn’t match what I’ve heard.
“And it cost the schools money.”
Wrong again. It means a few projects will be put off for a year.
More to the point, I’d like to know how cutting the Bond Bill saves operating-fund money. Because if that’s the case, the rationale for undoing Prevailing Wage just disappeared.
“I am talking about an important revenue bill in which Kowalko cast the deciding vote against for bogus reasons.”
It was $4 million, 0.5% of the $800 million. So much for important.
You have no way of knowing what his reasons were. You keep pretending you know something about this, but all you’ve got is your “absurdity! absurdity!” claim.
You clearly have a problem with Kowalko, because I haven’t seen your complaints about any other individual in the GA. I don’t know what’s up your ass; I don’t know who you are (several DLers know who I am). I’ll post those figures when I get them. Until then, fuck yourself.
Geezer,
The 15 cents per bottle was what was published in Business Week. I included a reference to the link in my comment about it in the Markell thread.
I am not making the claim that “they made them all up” because I don’t know where they came from. Industry lobbyists perhaps?
In regards to “there are people in that business and in government who would be able to correct them if it wasn’t true:” You would hope this were true, but it isn’t necessarily. There were plenty of people saying that there were no WMD in Iraq before Bush invaded, but nobody listened to them.
When I hear “everybody knows that…” I have learned to ask for the source. What “everybody knows” is often wrong.
Until then, fuck yourself.
Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful policy thoughts.
The only reason that I have a “problem with Kowalko” is that he stated his reasons for voting against the bill in a thread and I think that they’re bogus. And neither you nor he nor anyone in Dover has come up with the numbers even though you claim “those making the claims have shown them to everyone in Dover.”
So if all you got is “fuck yourself” then I guess you don’t have the numbers and never will. You may be a “Geezer” but you’re showing the petulance of a child.
Yes, liars do toss out bad figures, and your link proves it. They took that from the synopsis of the bill. The actual bill raises the tax on spirits by $4.50 per gallon — which works out to 90 cents per fifth.
Yes, industry lobbyists were the ones distributing the data. It was widely available in Dover the last week of the session. Your inability to gather it is not my problem.
There’s a big difference between what goes on in an inaccessible foreign nation and what goes on in the liquor business. Pathetic fail.
No, no, no — I told you to fuck yourself because you seem to be good at it. I’m showing the frustration of DEALING with a child. Because, after all, who but a child wouldn’t give me time to get the data?
Geezer,
The current spirits tax is 3.75/gallon.
Raising the tax to $4.50/gallon is an increase of 75 cents per gallon or 15 cents per fifth.
Oh, and industry lobbyists are sure to be unbiased and acting in the best interests of Delaware’s citizens.
Lobbyists over schools. I get it now.
And “Pathetic fail”? Thanks for elevating the discourse.
According to the Tax Institute, the spirits tax as of Jan. 1 already was listed as $5.76, so I’m now thoroughly confused.
“Lobbyists over schools. I get it now.”
I don’t ever expect you to get it. As noted previously, the data is checkable; falsifying it would be beyond foolhardy. What you don’t know about lobbyists would apparently fill volumes. They might not be good for politics, but nobody who wants a career in it would flat-out lie.
As for “elevating the discourse,” your bumper-sticker attacks on Kowalko have certainly set an enviable standard.
Geezer,
You know I really try to be polite with you because we generally agree on many things.
And it is pretty clear that your understanding of the tax ramifications of this bill were lacking in regards to the amounts and impact on retail prices.
I’ll wait for your numbers, but I hope that you understand why I am skeptical that these marginally higher prices due to modest tax increases would have had anywhere near the impact on sales the lobbyists claimed. I wish that Kowalko would have been more skeptical, too.
Perhaps next time you’ll be a little less quick in calling names and dropping f-bombs.
And your statement that lobbyists “might not be good for politics, but nobody who wants a career in it would flat-out lie” is crazy. Lobbyist lie all the time. All. The. Time. That is what they’re paid to do. Just ask any former tobacco lobbyist, for example.
A1 – When do you suppose that Kowalko should have told his constituents that he was going to vote against the bill?
Keep in mind that Pete KNEW he didn’t have the votes to pass it. So unless he has the votes, he shouldn’t run the bill. If the bill doesn’t get run, then there is no vote to explain to constituents.
But since Pete decided to put it to a vote and it failed (as he knew it would) he put Kowalko in a bad position, not the reverse. Now Kowalko has to explain it to his constituents, which I am certain he will be convincing at.
Also, Kowalko doesn’t sit on the bond bill committee, and they are the ones that chose the path for the cuts. Those cuts weren’t even mentioned until the fact that the liquor bill had lost support was established.
LG asked:
“When do you suppose that Kowalko should have told his constituents that he was going to vote against the bill?
When he made up his mind that he wasn’t going to support. Perhaps if he had told people the reasons, the erroneous information he was basing his conclusion on could have been corrected.
Unfortunately, he chose to listen to lobbyists and not his constituents. If Kowalko had changed his mind, perhaps others would have changed their minds.
“Now Kowalko has to explain it to his constituents, which I am certain he will be convincing at.”
Hardly, LG. He has tried to explain it here without success. Reciting the talking points and bogus numbers of lobbyists and a restaurant owner and comparing it to racino taxes isn’t convincing at all.
It was the wrong vote, and school construction suffered because of it. If liberals aren’t going to hold so-called “progressive” legislators responsible for their votes and rationale for them, who is?
And, yes, I get the bond bill point.
Holding out for taxing the 1500 richest corporations, over a regressive sales tax for alcohol, is a very progressive position.
Som–one of the things the medical marijuana bill DOESN’T need is a grass roots approach. It’s the home-grown that scares people away. This is one bill that could use the muscle of pharmaceuticals, to support all the research out there, to liken the marijuana to purple foxglove and drugs, not a Pagan w/ illegal trafficking. Just a thought…
Very funny, JC.
To add to your thoughts, maybe we could rent some joint and have a pot luck dinner to generate some seed money.
All it would take is some budding interest from some highly motivated people.
anonone–that’s even funnier–“budding interest from some highly motivated people”–such conflicted descriptions! Sorry to be so blunt.
“It’s the home-grown that scares people away.”
Not Clarence Thomas. California legalized pot for those with severe medical conditions. Raich (Raich, et. al. v. Gonzales) used home-grown marijuana under the Act, with the advice of her physician. The DEA destroyed her plants, under the guise of the ‘Commerce Clause.’ Of course, all of the so-called ‘liberals’ on the Supreme Court sided with Gonzales, the DEA and Bush. Thomas’ dissent:
Justice Thomas, dissenting.
“Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”
Yeah, a real right-wing wacko.
I’ve got the 10-year data on spirits sales from 1990 to 1999, but it’s on an Excel spreadsheet. Do you trust me to type the numbers in, A1, or should I not bother?
Unless LG has a better solution, I’ll look into a Scribed account so perhaps we could just post the spreadsheets for you Geezer, rather than the typing. I won’t get to this til lunchtime tho.
It’s not complicated and wouldn’t take long, but since trust is clearly an issue for A1 I don’t want to waste the five minutes if it’s not necessary.
Hi Geezer,
Is there a web link? Sure, I’d be interested in seeing them. Is it just spirits?
Thanks.
Yes, just spirits. No web link I know of. My friend the wine saleman forwarded it to me, but didn’t know of anywhere it’s posted online. I asked if he had data for wine and beer, but haven’t heard back yet.
I’ll type this stuff in when I get a few minutes free.
Here are the numbers that the liquor lobby was passing out in Dover. Anonone, I believe they’re accurate for the simple reason that they are the numbers the industry has to report to the state. Perhaps the state never checks them, but I have no way of knowing that.
The tax was increased effective 1991, and repealed for 1997. The industry’s point was that sales of spirits in Delaware didn’t recover to their 1990 level until 1998. The numbers are similar for low-proof spirits, except that those sales are only about 10% of the high-proof spirits.
90 – 1,343,539
91 – 1,141,460
92 – 1,196,172
93 – 1,206,131
94 – 1,217,743
95 – 1,230,771
96 – 1,229,700
97 – 1,306,934
98 – 1,350,711
99 – 1,405,506
Anonone, you have every reason to attack Kowalko or whomever you want to on their priorities. I think that’s unfair, but whatever.
My objection is to your claim that the numbers are “bogus.” The lobbyists (and those they represent) made the claim that when taxes were raised in the 90s sales went down. That claim appears to be true.
Again, you can say “tough luck,” but that’s different from calling them liars.
Geezer,
Thanks for posting these numbers. I respect the fact that you took the time and effort to do so.
Let me preface by saying that the data does show a 15% drop in spirit sales that quickly recovered to about a 10% decrease over 1990 levels one year later. Several things to keep in mind here:
– There was a 30% tax increase in 1990
– There was a recession in the early 90’s
– Overall alcohol and spirit consumption was in a significant decline nationally (see http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1446127&blobtype=pdf)
– A meta study showed that the price elasticity for spirits is greater than for wine or beer.(see http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121639213/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0)
Conclusion: The tax increase in the 1990’s lowered the sales of spirits, but the effect was far less than that claimed by the industry and Kowalko. This raw data does not separate the effects of the recession and the national trend toward reduced alcohol consumption during this period. Furthermore, the 1990 tax increase was 50% greater than the one Kowalko rejected, and the current tax has not been adjusted for inflation with some estimates saying that it has since 1990 lost 39% of its value. Finally, the greater price elasticity for spirits versus wine and beer suggests that this was the “worse case” of the three beverages.
Kowalko was wrong in voting against this tax based on this data.
OK, let’s do the math.
The tax increase in ’90 was double this one. So let’s cut the 15% sales drop in half. Then we’ll cut it 40% (easier than 39) to account for the national trend (though there’s no way of knowing how Delaware actually compares; we tend to rate high in per capita consumption, but that’s partly because of sales to Pennsylvanians).
So you’re left with about a 4% sales decrease, by your own numbers, a figure that corresponds fairly closely with the administration’s assumption of about a 5% sales decrease in estimating the revenue increase (hmm…you don’t think?….).
You apparently find this drop in business acceptable in service of raising $4 million, 0.5% of the budget gap. If any member of the General Assembly earned the right to vote against such a small piece of the puzzle, surely it would be Kowalko, who took the time and effort to research possible alternative sources of revenue to those originally put forward by Markell. Indeed, one wonders why none of those — rather than a few school construction projects in the Bond Bill, which I was under the impression was a separate budget — was employed to plug the gap Kowalko’s vote caused. The school construction cuts — bricks, not books, and I have a hunch you know that — are more symbolic than harmful. I suspect you know that, too.
I find curious the fact that you have focused on Kowalko through all this. Your brief against him amounts to “he wasn’t a team player,” to which I say, it’s not my team, nor is it his. Is it yours?
Fair enough, Geezer. I understand your point of view. Even though it was only 0.5% of the budget gap, it was still fairly low hanging fruit at point where the state could use any revenue it could raise.
I have no particular bone to pick with Kowalko other than this vote. He is one of the better reps in Dover, for sure. It isn’t about being a team player because I don’t care. What it is about for me is holding legislators responsible for their votes and the criteria on which they base those votes.
Had Kowalko voiced his concerns about this bill prior to the vote, the discussion that we have just had might have changed his opinion.
Thus, my brief against him is that he voted as the lobbyists wanted him to based on their data and not the interests or needs of the citizens.
And, yes, you’re right. I know that it was bricks not books. But “Booze Before Bricks” doesn’t have the same impact as “Booze Before Books,” even though the alliteration is almost as good. 🙂
Anyway, I enjoyed the back and forth in this thread with you and I came away learning a few things from it. I do appreciate your insight, thoughtfulness, and experience.
Take care.
Sorry for being nasty earlier in the thread. We oldsters can get cranky.
You have raised some important points, especially the one about the erosion of this tax over time. Because the tax is based on the alcohol content rather than the price (some states simply add a tax of 20% based on wholesale price), it has decreased as a percentage of the product’s price over time.
The real problem is Maryland, which has not raised its alcohol taxes in something like 50 years.
I don’t know if it’s even possible to do such a thing, but I suppose Markell’s people could talk to O’Malley’s people about increasing those taxes in tandem, so neither state suffers. Such a move would benefit Maryland, which faces the same budget problems as other states, more than Delaware, but I don’t know if state governments ever do such things.
Consider what might happen if Delaware lowered its alcohol taxes instead of raised them — lowered them enough to reverse the flow of business over the Maryland border.
Not only would more Pennsylvanians buy here, so would Marylanders. We could reap just as much tax revenue, perhaps more, on the higher volume.
That’s been Delaware’s happy situation on tobacco taxes for years.