Crybaby Cathcart
What is it about Republicans that makes them think that when they lose election after election, and are the minority in both Houses of the General Assembly, that they are still entitled to write all legislation or at the very least have legislation crafted the way they see fit.
The House Republican caucus blocked a scheduled vote on Senate Bill 234, which would institute statewide curbside recycling in Delaware. And the reason why they blocked it was because Republicans were not consulted.
House Minority Leader Richard Cathcart, R-Middletown, said his caucus threatened to close ranks and oppose a proposed “universal” recycling plan unless the administration postponed the vote until Tuesday. […]
The bill — which creates a 4-cent recycling fee for some beverage bottles while eliminating the state’s 5-cent bottle deposit on the same containers — needs at least one Republican vote to meet a requirement for a 60 percent majority.
“We are sick of it,” Cathcart said afterward, noting that the partisan blockade of S.B. 234 was intended as a demand for “simple courtesy” and a call for bipartisanship. “We want to be participants in the process. Not spectators.” […]
Hey Cathcart, you are participants in the process. You can participate by voting for or against the legislation. If you are this pissed off about not being consulted, vote against the legislation. Of course, we will lambast you for putting your own personal temper tantrum ahead of the people of the State of Delaware, but that is the breaks when you act like a child on our dime. Your job, in case you have forgotten, is to serve the people of Delaware, and you serve them by passing legislation to address state issues. Now, it is perfectly legitimate to vote against a recylcling bill because you oppose the compulsive nature of it, or because you don’t like a four cent fee. Those are substantive differences.
But the reality is, you and your Republicans are in the minority, which means that, more often than not, you will have substantive differences with the legislation the majority produces. If the majority has the votes for passing the legislation it wants…. newsflash…. it doesn’t have to cater to you. And in this case, the Recycling Bill has Republican co-sponsors. It will pass. It is bipartisan. So there goes one of the reasons Crybaby Cathcart cited in pulling this stunt. He wanted bipartisanship, well, the bill is fucking bipartisan.
Cathcart’s second reason is as assine as his temper tantrum. He needs until Tuesday to have the bill reviewed by outside third parties? In case you didn’t know, “unnamed third parties” is NewsJournalian for lobbyists. The lobbyists employing Cathcart need more time. To do what I dunno. Maybe the lobbyists can’t find a legitimate reason to oppose this bill. Maybe they have to bring in Frank Luntz to word play some scary phrases.
it’s the sense of entitlement they have. It takes years and years and years of ego stroking by “small businesses” and “hard working” folks.
then PRESTO, a sense of purpose and magical thinking that just because you are the minority doesn’t mean that your way of thinking isn’t the right way.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
oh and coons is a marxist!
Ive got more on the, which by the way includes three members of Cathcart’s caucus as co-sponsors:
Cathcart says he needs time to have unspecified “third parties” review the bill, which has broad support from the business and environmental communities. Most of Delaware’s environmental organizations are behind the bill, though some have expressed understandable reluctance to give up the bottle deposit system. The relevant commercial interests are on board, including retailers, grocery stores, restaurants, beverage distributors, independent trash haulers and the Delaware Solid Waste Authority.
Thanks Tom. So you are saying Cathcart’s reasons are even more bullshitty than I thought. In other words, he has no reason for this delay other than his temper. Is that correct?
I think Cathcart is working with CRI to make sure Tommwonk’s Green Police don’t violate my anus with a nightstick. God bless you Mr. Cathcart!!!
The worst thing would be for recycling supporters to act like spectators. Contact your state representatives. Ask that they bring SB 234 for a vote on Tuesday, that they vote against amendments that would weaken or even kill the bill, and that they vote yes on Tuesday.
E-mail or call them today, and call them back Monday or Tuesday morning to ask if they will be voting on the bill on Tuesday. Don’t give up until your state reps have said yes.
Here’s the really good news, Cathcart has a great opponent in the election. Richard Griffiths is going to relegate Cathcart to the status of private citizen in November.
What if we disagree with the fee set-up? What if we don’t see why beverages with bubbles should be taxed, except if they’re in two-liter bottles (because the two-liter soda pop bottle was invented by a Delaware Dupont employee doncha know) or unless they’re champagne or unless…
The current bottle bill is the generation-old bastard result of the League of Women Voters’ insistence they’re relevant and Bobby Byrd’s representation of the beverage industries. Why should we perpetuate such a lopsided bit of legislative garbage? Is it OK, considering how much lower the stakes are here than they were in the HCR debate, if we oppose this one in hopes of a better solution (say, a 5-cent fee on ALL beverage containers, including and especially bottled water)?
Geezer, if you disagree with any substantive part of the bill, guess what….
You vote against it.
DD: I was reacting to Tommywonk’s suggestion, not defending Cathcart. As much as I support recycling, I’m dismayed by (though understanding of) Markell taking the path of least resistance here.
By the way, I will discuss the bill on the air with Allan Loudell of WDEL at 5:33 this evening.
But not with us? Someone asked you a question. You haven’t answered it.
The point is that Cathcart expressed no policy reason for his hissy fit–other than his frustration with his own impotence. If that lasts for more than 4 hours, shouldn’t he call his doctor or something?
How does it work in Delaware that a minority can “block” a vote on a bill? What are we, the US Senate?
Who the hell gave Cathcart a desk drawer veto?
You were asking about the fee?
The 4 cent fee, which goes away in four years, replaces the 5 cent deposit, of which 88 percent goes unclaimed. I and my neighbors put those bottle in a bin on the curb.
As for spreading the fee to other containers, it’s a reasonable question. Placing the fee on bottles currently subject to deposit creates the minimum economic effect on retailers and consumers.
It also creates the minimum political disruption. Is that a bad thing? The fee structure may seem clunky, but we’re not starting with a clean slate. Last year the General Assembly passed a bill to eliminate the deposit system and put nothing in its place. Now we are within one role call of making statewide curbside recycling a reality in Delaware.
That’s a net loss for me, Tommy. Currently I separate those bottles and get the money back. And we could easily change the law so those unclaimed bottles benefit the state rather than the bottlers (the result of another piece of Byrd’s ledgerdemain).
My point is that if we hold out for a better bill, it’s not like we’re forgoing health care. We’re just stuck with a clunkier system.
Frankly, I prefer dropping off my own recyclables. I’m not interested in single-stream curbside. I”m not that lazy.
Anon-The bill is a 3/5 majority bill. The D’s are one member shy of a 3/5 majority in the General Assembly. Hence, the game-playing by Cathcart. Did the same thing last June on the tax bills, releasing just enough votes to allow passage while enabling members to run on an anti-tax platform.
Geezer: I take your point, but I have next-to-no hope that ‘holding out’ would result in a better bill. And, for this session of the General Assembly, it would likely result in no bill.
Which would mean taking your chances starting next January with a new General Assembly. I’d feel more comfortable moving the ball as far forward as possible this session.
I just don’t see this as matter on which we need to make such incremental progress. That was the whole selling point on the bottle bill, which turned into a huge pain in the ass for retailers, a small expense for consumers, and a nice windfall for the big guys on this block, the distributors and bottlers.
Such incremental “progress” hasn’t done us much good. Neither has the LWV, which has resisted any and all calls for reform – mainly because it’s the only thing they’ve accomplished in so long that they’d have no reason to exist otherwise.
If you want to know what Cathcart and the rest of the people in his clown car are really after, check out this issue as handled by the CRI.
Actually, the League of Women Voters agrees with dropping the deposit in order to achieve statewide recycling.
As for the CRI piece, I will offer a critique this weekend. Stay tuned.
Recycling may not save tonnage, but it does save volume in a landfill.
“What is it about Republicans that makes them think that when they lose election after election, and are the minority in both Houses of the General Assembly, that they are still entitled to write all legislation or at the very least have legislation crafted the way they see fit. ”
We’ll be sure to quote you after the elections in November…
I really don’t understand CRI. Are they a think tank or are they an advocacy organization? Some of their investigative reporting has been excellent and hard-hitting. I’m guessing Lee Williams MUST be cringing at the fact his bosses are turning the organization into a wingnut talking-points factory
I really don’t understand CRI. Are they a think tank or are they an advocacy organization?
An advocacy organization. You’ve been away too long.
I’m guessing Lee Williams MUST be cringing at the fact his bosses are turning the organization into a wingnut talking-points factory
And this is different from working for the News Journal… how?
lol..anon nails it! Also..Mike, a point of order…I don’t think that something that was conceived as a wingnut talking points factory can be “turned into” a wingnut talking points factory.
Mike – Lee Williams IS a wingnut. He’s especially passionate about guns, which is why the whole housing authority ban got so much “coverage.” He’s an ex-cop who who believes almost every government institution is corrupt. Look back at his coverage for the psychiatric hospital for the News Journal and you’ll see how he operates – toss out a bunch of alarming anecdotes, tie together unconnected problems, get indignant when people won’t talk to you because you’re a jerk and then go to the Republicans for comment, and ride the tails of their “investigations” for several months.
For those who haven’t had the pleasure of meeting him in person, here’s Mr. Williams in action:
http://criblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/102309-gun-range1299.jpg
With Geezer. I pay substantial taxes for curbside recycling I don’t use, and deposits I reclaim. We should have a comprehensive bill that covers *gasp* cans and water containers, as well.
I have, from time to time, depended on well-constructed bottle bills for eating money. I see no reason Gov. Markell should collect a dime of it.
“I pay substantial taxes for curbside recycling I don’t use,”
Peanuts compared to what we are all going to pay when Cherry Island is closed.
True dat, J. This is about avoiding the building of another landfill. I currently recycle more than I throw away. It wasn’t like that before I had curbside recycling, unfortunately. I have heard many others make the same observation.
And while collection of bottles and the nickles that they may garner can sometimes earn you enough for a dinner of Ramen noodles, most of the money right now is going to pay for unreported junkets for people like Minner, in private jets, with Tigani money (just as an example).
The rich have gotten richer in this deal and being able to pick up scraps doesn’t make the bottle bill worth saving in its current form.
I think it is called doing your job. The Democrats need Republican votes to pass this bill. They should seek Republican input. Do Dems have to? No. If they don’t and the bill fails, that is their fault.
Anything proposed by the Delaware GOP is a waste of time to consider and Cathcart is like so many GOP office holders, a double dipper who sucks beaucoup bucks from the state. The only bigger leech was Roger Roy and Vince Lofink who now has a wife running to get another paycheck courtesy of the county.
CRI is a front group for Charlie Copeland and the duPonts. They fund it and they keep it going. Copeland, the darling of the GOP got beaten so badly in 2008 that anyone else would be forgotten, but not him.
As long as the GOP loves a guy like Copeland the longer they will lose and lose and lose.
I’m not using curbside recycling because I’m not consuming in that way… so no one is expanding the landfill for me.
And LG, putting a sales tax on beer and sodapop is a regressive tax, and that’s all it is. We should fix the bottle bill, agreed. The bottle bill in Massachusetts funds the state from unredeemed deposits. AWESOME. Let’s do that. Let’s write a significantly tougher bottle bill, turn excess money over to the state, and stop pretending this is a real bill.
After you’ve been homeless, LG, you can sneer at a ramen dinner, ok? I used can deposits to donate to Obama, last cycle. The kids helped me collect them. I was grateful I had that luxury.
I’m not interested in saving the bottle bill in its current form. I’m interested in extending the 5-cent fee to ALL bottles, so we can stop pretending that recycling isn’t affordable.
Brooke – there is no deposit on cans, so I’m not sure how you used can deposits to donate to Obama. And to call it a regressive tax is somewhat true and somewhat false. It is a tax on luxury. You can live a perfectly fulfilled life without 20 oz. of soda or 12 of beer. And pretending that just having everyone else consume in the way that you do, might be great, but it isn’t public policy.