More Money Less Problems
In another sign of the improving economy, tax revenue has increased an additional $165.1 million.
The Delaware Economic and Financial Advisory Council’s April revenue report mirrors continued positive growth seen last month when the panel projected a $155 million surplus for the current and 2012 fiscal years. DEFAC on Monday approved a $168.5 million revenue increase above earlier projections. Lawmakers can spend up to 98 percent of that sum, or $165.1 million. The Legislature’s budget-writing Joint Finance Committee will hammer out how to spend the extra cash during two weeks of meetings that begin May 16. […]
In the next few weeks, Markell will make recommendations to the JFC on how to spend the surplus on one-time economic stimulus projects, said Ann Visalli, director of the Office of Management and Budget. Several members of the JFC have indicated they want to use a surplus to restore some of Markell’s $100 million in cuts to the $3.4 billion operating budget.
May I suggest that Governor Markell and the General Assembly do precisely that, especially concerning cuts to programs that help the poor. Lt. Governor Matt Denn, in his meeting with the Progressive Democrats for Delaware earlier this month, indicated that this was the horrible nature of our budget process: that the Governor has to draft his proposal before knowing the revenue projections from DEFAC. And thus, they have to propose cuts or spending pursuant to last year’s revenue projections. Well, now some of those cuts can disappear. Further, this money must not be placed into the hands of the rich via new tax cuts. The rich in this state and this country have not been asked to sacrifice, while the poor and the middle class have borne the burnt of program and spending cuts, not to mention the fact that they pay a disproportionate share of taxes.
no way. we are going to need all that money to re-train teachers about “parent a” and “parent b”
are you aware that government does not exist to make a profit?
Don’t spend the surplus. Put the surplus IN THE BANK. And keep it there. Take it from a long-time small business owner, that’s the difference between entities that survive and those that tank.
Don’t spend the surplus. Put the surplus IN THE BANK. And keep it there. Take it from a long-time small business owner, that’s the difference between entities that survive and those that tank.
A rainy day fund is not a bad idea, but not when we have to borrow elsewhere to pay for it. Small business owners who keep cash in the bank while running operations on a maxed-out credit card are doomed.
I guess Delaware Republicans are highly qualified to advise about “entities that tank.” Here’s some advice: If you want Delaware to follow Republican advice, go win a few elections.
Send out $500 checks to everyone and start a vanity war somewhere (New Jersey, I’m looking at you.)
Republican economic theories have never been tried, so how do we know if they work?
We have a constitutionally mandated rainy-day fund; that’s why the GA can budget only 98% of revenue per year.
Delbert, with all due respect, the state is not a small business. It’s not a business at all, but if it were one, it would not qualify as “small.”
In 2009 Republicans were advocating spending the rainy day fund. Go figure.
This, in small scale, proves what I have been saying about the federal budget. I’ve said that tax increases should not come until spending is under control, because the
DemocratsCongress wouldn’t use the increased revenues to cut the deficit, but to increase spending.Well, y’all didn’t increase taxes, but have some higher projections on revenue. And what do you want to do with it? Why, of course, you want to spend it!
Federal spending is largely out of control because when Republicans are in power they start wars they don’t pay for, implement tax cuts they don’t pay for and add to Medicare without paying for it. The “out of control spending” is because the GOP thought that deficits didn’t matter. Until, of course, you crashed the economy and deficit spending was crucial. And to this day, you still can;t find many in the GOP particularly serious about controlling spending. They still want the wars they don’t want to pay for, they aren’t giving back any Medicare benefits and clearly don’t want to give up their tax cuts.
So let’s not have any more idiocy from you, Dana, about who increases spending.
Correction, invest it. When broke-ass Republican losers like Dana comment on governmental budgets, those comments are informed by all the stupid financial choices they’ve made which landed them in fearful penury.
Down here at the station house we hope they’ll spend it on phased plasma rifles in the forty watt range so we can stay a step ahead of the criminal element.
How about some bucks for the disabled of Delaware who havent had a cost of living raise now in more than 8 years. Our providers are living hand to mouth to care for these severely disabled. The private providers are saving the State millions of dollars by running these programs on the cheap. Staff are paid a fraction of what State workers are paid for the same job. Every year we parents run to Dover with our palms up begging for money and every year it remains the same, no money for you….it doesnt matter whether republican or democrat…we cant get these people to go and see how our sons and daughters are living. They dont care.
Dana: in the case of the disabled…no legislature and no democratic governor has EVER given our disabled what they need. Never…Ruth Ann Minner cut them to the bone. Since then there hasnt been a penny given to providers. Thats why staff working at these jobs (nobody wants) make $8.75 a hour if the state workers did it would cost more than $25 an hour. Why do you think the state contracted away its duties and reponsibilities under the law! So they could nickle and dime the providers. Why do you think abuse and neglect is always rampant. Oh I forget the disabled are just
“useless eaters”, so lets just give them enough to keep people alive. When abuse happens lets cover it all up…thats what they do starting at the AG’s office.
How much money is in the Rainy Day fund, and how come WE arent allowed to know. We have asked that question every year and no one has an answer…fuzzy math or just no transparency.
What the state should do, is charter it’s own bank. It could then utilize the federal reserve fractional banking system to loan themselves the money at no interest. We could then repair and rebuild our infrastructure without debt or interest.
Cassandra wrote:
How ’bout facts, instead? We know that President Bush and the Republicans spent too much, way too much. But when we look at the deficits for FY2004 and forward, we see them steadily declining through FY2007, the last year that the Republicans controlled the Congress, and then jumping up in FY2008, the first budget passed by the Democrat-controlled 110th Congress, from $160 billion to $459 billion. More, total federal spending jumped from 19.6% of GDP to 20.7%, all just before the recession began.
Since then, with the Democrats controlling the Congress, and President Obama signing about half of the FY2009 spending bills — the Congress deliberately delayed them until President Bush was out of office — total federal spending jumped to 25.3% of GDP in FY2009, and President Obama projected that total federal spending, even after he assumes that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be over, and with the assumption of solid economic growth, will remain between 22.3% and 23.6% of GDP through FY2016, as far as he projected into the future. Those numbers are higher than federal spending in any of the Bush years, whether the economy was in recession or growth.
So, the notion that President Bush is somehow responsible for even higher spending under the Democrats is pure bovine feces.
The data are from the Historical Tables in President Obama’s proposed FY2012 budget.
Anyone here see that bit of sleight of hand? We’ve actually been through this before, but here is Dana thinking I forgot this. There is a difference between deficits and outlays. Outlays = SPENDING. Deficits = money you spent that you didn’t have. Using the table you provided, what is clear is that the outlays (SPENDING) never slowed down during the BushCo era. What DID change was revenues — and revenues (income) slowed through 2004 — then modestly increased through 2008. The column marked Outlays (SPENDING) increases every single year that BushCo was in office — whether the Dems were in charge of the House or not.
So I’m back to asking you for no more idiocy, Dana, about who increases spending.
You can be assured, tax cuts are coming. And not for those who most need it.
The broke ass dems are the source of all evil in Delaware, stealing and fraus are SOP when they are not listening to the morning moron at WDEL.