General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show-Cinco De Mayo, 2011
Gotta get this in before everyone, including me, finds themselves wasting away in MediocreMargaritaville later hoy.
And what better morning pick-me-up than yet a third consecutive day talking about Senate roll calls?? Thought that’d get the sangre flowing.
Some stuff I just can’t make up. Turns out there’s a le-e-e-tle progress, but not as much as a normal person would expect. On Tuesday, I praised the Senate for putting the roll calls online. On Wednesday, I took it back as the roll calls weren’t on line. On Thursday…I’ll let you decide. Turns out that the roll calls are now put on line, but only after the Senate has changed the Legislative Day. Which means that you won’t get Tuesday roll calls on line at least until Wednesday after the Senate reconvenes and ‘changes the legislative day’. Which also means that you won’t get the Senate roll calls for Thursday until Tuesday. Which also means that you won’t get the Senate roll calls for Thursday, May 12 until Tuesday May 31. I’ve stopped trying to figure out what kind of thought process goes into such decisions, and, for the sake of your mental health, you should too.
There’s one other glitch to discuss, and it pertains to redistricting. You may, or may not, recall that the General Assembly passed legislation last session requiring prison inmates to be counted, for census purposes, at their last-known address, not at the prison location where they are currently housed. Turns out that nobody told the software contractor in time, and the contractor says it’ll cost money to rejigger the numbers, money I don’t expect the General Assembly to spend. As screw-ups go, this is a small one. Look for a bill, probably one line long, that addresses this. We’ll still have maps no later than the end of this month.
Next to no official action yesterday as both the House and Senate primarily conducted business in committee meetings. We don’t even yet know which bills were released, but we will when the House and Senate reconvene today and the committee reports are read into the record. We do have some excellent clues, though, as certain bills that were being considered in committee yesterday are on today’s agendas.
Let’s take a look at said agendas, shall we? The Senate sure has its priorities straight. Tony DeLuca’s bill addressing a crisis situation within the Delaware Commission for Italian Heritage And Culture is first up, and why not? Go to the Commission website here (yes, this is a state agency), and see the vital role this agency plays in exchange for your tax dollars. The site hasn’t been updated since February 10! Perhaps this bill will enable the Commission to publicize the St. Anthony’s Italian Festival…on the state’s dime. Call it economic development. I’m a big fan of Rick DiLiberto, but, I’m sorry, the state has no business spending money on this nonsense. This holds true for any and all other ‘commissions’ that might be doing similar ‘work’ with state funds.
Don’t think that I like SB 53(Bushweller) either. Just what we need, give the big insurance companies more investment ‘flexibility’. Call it economic development. Worked out great for AIG. This has all the earmarks of a Karen Weldin Stewart bill. Advice to Senate: If you don’t understand it and/or agree with it, don’t vote for it.
Law-abiding Representative John Atkins’ bill to legalize the shooting of fattened doves in a barrel on Sundays on commercial game preserves is on the agenda. Passage will be like shooting fattened doves in a barrel, something everyone but Dick Cheney can master, should they be so inclined. Call it economic development.
To the shock of no one, I am beating a point to death. And that is that you can label virtually any bill a boon to economic development, and it’s much easier to sweep aside any objections because opposition stands in the way of economic development. I believe that we’re on such a kick in Delaware right now, and that we’ll pay the price later for not examining ‘economic development’ legislation more rigorously. Yes, I’m exaggerating for effect here, but I’m trying to make the point that there are risks to Delaware residents and Delaware taxpayers in passing bills that are labels masquerading as substance. Sometimes, a giveaway is merely a giveaway, and Delawareans end up with nothing to show for it.
The House Agenda features at least four notable bills, three of which are worthy of passage. The fourth, of course, is Gerald Brady’s latest video camera/speed monitor jag, HB 66. In attempting to make the bill both workable and intelligible, he has introduced two amendments that may make the procedures so convoluted that no municipality will want to pursue this. One can only hope.
I commend Representatives Keeley and Kowalko for HS1/HB 57 and HS1/HB 58, which address the plight of homeowners facing foreclosure. Major props to the Attorney General and his staff for taking the lead on this. Both bills have strong bipartisan support and, frankly, it’s difficult to envision anyone voting against this legislation.
Finally, much to the chagrin of law-abiding Rep. Atkins, the legalization of medical marijuana is likely to successfully waft its way through the House Chamber today.
Allow me to create a mathematical formulation for Rep. Atkins:
Shooting Doves in a Barrel on Sundays=Right Message to Our Youth
Providing Medical Marijuana to Relieve Chronic and Excruciating Pain=Wrong Message to Our Youth
Wonder which youth he’s talking about. Must be ‘Youth Who Can’t Think for Themselves’. In other words, the kind of people Atkins relies on for reelection.
Hasta La Vista, Baby!
I enjoy your regular reports on the legislature. One can’t get this in such a concise form anywhere. Buena suerte on SB # 17 w/SA 3, SA 4. I like to see Atkins cry.
Gracias.
Rep. Atkins is proposing several amendments that could strengthen the medical marijuana bill but it seems there is a real urgency that this NOT be sent back to the Senate …. why is that? This is an incredibly important peice of legislation and I would think that all parties would want it to be as comprehensive and fine-tuned as it could possibly be. Please examine Mr. Atkins’ amendment proposals. From what I have read, they are logical and provide safety mechanisms that will strengthen the bill and diminish the presence of a number of loopholes. Please answer this: What do we do about the State worker who gets random drug testing because he drives a DelDot truck and retains an authorization for use of medical marijuana? Has anyone considered how this might impact state agency testing like this? Where is the research that justifies the quantity that this bill allows an individual to possess? What measures are in place to deter distribution of the high grade medical marijuana that those with an ID card might do? What assurances are in place to secure transport of this substance? Does the current language talk about tamper-proof containers? What if Jenny from the Block decides she needs to smoke her medically-endorsed joint with her 2 year old in the car with the windows closed for an hour ride? There are only a handful that I see in Leg Hall, including Rep. Atkins, raising these questions. I commend them for not giving in to the go-along to get-along mentality. Rush jobs typically make for bad jobs.
It always amazes me when people dream up every conceiable (and several inconceivable) doomsday scenarios and then says that we must regulate the hell out of it to “protect the 2-year-old in the backseat.” Yet these are many of the same people who cry “Nanny state!” when the legislature tries to pass other regulatory bills.
I am not a proponent of over-regulation nor do I cry “Nanny State!”. Just answer the questions.
Didn’t mean to imply you were, and I apologize for that.
A lot of the questions you raised were addressed in committee and hopefully will be restated again and reported.
Reading the synopsis of the bill, which is the first way to get some answers: Six ounces is less than the federal government has determined is a one-month supply for patients on the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program. Also the bill prohibits use in public places. A car outside the garage would probably meet that standard.
Well, ‘Professor’, in trying to answer your questions, I went to the legislative bill-tracking, and discovered that, while three amendments have indeed been introduced, none, I repeat, NONE, of them are sponsored or co-sponsored by your favorite law-abiding legislator. Don’t believe me? Knock yourself out:
http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis146.nsf/vwLegislation/SB+17?Opendocument
Which means that he plans to spring them on everybody from the floor, if he actually has them at all, and then complain that they weren’t given serious consideration. Introducing ‘gotcha’ legislation from the floor is not serious legislating, and Atkins is not a serious legislator. But he’ll get his sound bite out there, which is all that attention whore cares about.
BTW,next time that you come over here and demand that we ‘just answer the questions’, make sure that there’s material to study. Something any self-respecting professor could tell you.
I understand what the bill says BUT I was looking more for the research that supports the 6 ounces. I believe that the bill specifically says that it is banned on PUBLIC transportation – DART, City of Wilmington bus, etc. – but makes no mention of private transportation like your car. By specifically using the language ‘public transportation’ this leads one to conclude that it does not include private transportation. Perhaps an example of this might be that you cannot hop on a City of Wilmington bus and drink a beer but you can certainly get in a car as a passenger and drink a beer?
Don’t know how many Commissions like the Italian American one exists, but it seems to me that a way to monkey wrench this one would be to propose a bunch of amendments that would create more ethnic group Commissions. That could backfire, of course, but the point should be that this kind of stuff isn’t necessary any more.
Alternatively — wonder if *I* could apply to the Italian-American commission (pdf)?
El Somnambulo: I did talk with Rep. Atkins and he indicated that he has indeed been in two days of discussion with Senator Henry and Rep. Keeley regarding these amendments and details. I take great offense to your harsh post. I am simply trying to engage in a healthy discussion on this forum. Perhaps if you didn’t get fired from Leg Hall you would know more inside details – something any self-respecting, self-proclaimed know-it-all could tell you. As a doctor of education who lives in New Castle County and works at an institution of higher learning, I find usefulness in hearing more than one opinion on a matter. You, El Samnambulo, are a bully who obviously doesn’t understand the merits of a healthy debate. Do you always talk to women so disrespectfully?
I guess you’re too busy polishing the glass over your cash-and-dash doctorate from Wilmington U. hanging on the wall at your “institution of higher learning” to read the bill and do some research. So I’ll do it for you.
I believe that the bill specifically says that it is banned on PUBLIC transportation – DART, City of Wilmington bus, etc. – but makes no mention of private transportation like your car.
Here’s exactly what the bill says (again, since you can’t be bothered to actually read it):
§4904A. Limitations.
(a) This chapter shall does not authorize any person to engage in, and does not prevent the imposition of any civil, criminal, or other penalties for engaging in, the following conduct:
…
(3) Smoking marijuana:
(A) on any form of public transportation; or
(B) in any public place.
What’s a “public place”? It’s instructive to examine the definition as given in another part of the Delaware Code:
“Public place” means any area to which the general public is invited or permitted, including, but not limited to, parks, streets, sidewalks or pedestrian concourses, sports arenas, pavilions, gymnasiums, public malls and property owned, occupied or operated by the State or by any agency thereof.
So yeah, you can’t smoke your joint on the street.
Is Atkins so concerned about public health that he’s next going to propose that smoking cigarettes in private vehicles be banned? ‘Cause I’d love to see him try to explain that to his constituency.
Get a grip, dr. of education.
If Atkins really was in discussions with Henry and Keeley he would already have the answers to these questions, since much of this has been dealt with in Committee. If Atkins has amendments to spring here, he is just trying to monkey wrench the process.
Dr. of Education’s definition of healthy debate: “Just answer the questions.”
I was talking about your personal vehicle not the street. Furthermore, I DO NOT have a degree from Wilmington University.
Professor: I have placed your latest comment in moderation since you have attempted to out me. I might point out that, based on the information that you have provided, I could easily out you, including your name, the state agency for which you work and from where you’re blogging, and the position you hold, but I won’t.
Suffice it to say that if you’re writing about my ‘buddy’ Brad Bennett, you’ve never read a single word I’ve written about him.
El Somwhateveryourfakenameis,
It has recently come to my attention from several House staffers that you seem to be obsessed with me on this website, specifically when it comes to my amendments to SB 17. Please do us both a favor, put your big boy pants on and call me directly at the Capitol at 744-4181 so we can discuss your concerns.
John
From several House staffers?
Yes, OK then.
El Som’s concerns are pretty much all over this thread (which is something of its point). You *could* just decide to address them directly right here.
Uh, no John. You and I both know the lies that you’ve brought over here concerning me, as do the other contributors to this site. Just so you know, I’ve got ’em documented.
My lack of respect for you is well-known and well-earned.
You may think that by pretending to be finding out for just the first time that I’ve written unflattering things about you will fool our readers, and you might be right. But you can’t fool me, and you know it.
And, you and I both know that you haven’t heard from ‘House staffers’. Your latest attempt to out me via a surrogate comes from someone other than a House employee, someone who is carrying your water. I have that person’s name, state employer, state e-mail address, and position, which I will NOT be putting on the blog b/c we don’t believe in outing on the blog.
But next time, John, don’t bring my ‘buddy’ Brad Bennett into it. Neither you nor your surrogate have bothered to read anything I’ve written on that topic if you truly believe that I’ve been a supporter of his. Although I don’t know why you and your surrogate would diss another caucus member. Actually, I do. It’s all about you, and if dissing Brad Bennett helps you make whatever point you’re trying to make, then you’ll diss Brad Bennett.
I am not interested in your amendments, none of which have even been prefiled. Put on YOUR big boy pants, and be honest with our readers for once. Come clean. We’ll give you all the space you need as long as you observe the rules.
BTW, THAT’s something that will never happen.
Yes, I could. Except for the fact that we are being called to the House floor as we speak. Thanks
John Pieceofshit: Why don’t you go back to wife-swapping and leave legislating to the people with brains?
And you, “dr.” of education: Why don’t you try getting a degree in an actual academic discipline and then come back with your insults? If you worked at a real institute of higher learning you’d say what it was. I’m guessing DelTech, since most politically “active” turds like you are on Lonnie George’s payroll. Get a real degree and a real job and then we’ll talk.
[ never mind ]
I wonder if the good doctor of education could tell us all how El S could tell he/she was a woman (see comment at 12:33 PM).
I never brought up Rep. Bennett. He is a personal friend of mine and has been for many years. Again, if you want to speak to me the offer stands. If not, blog your little hearts out. I’m off to do the peoples work. Thanks
Has John been drinking again?
“Has John been drinking again?”
How could anyone tell? There’s scant lucidity either way. Perhaps someone could check for bruises on his wife.
or his mistress?
One more comment about economic development. Cutting the top rate from 6.95% to 6.75%? Now, THAT’s economic development, at least according to our Governor, who more and more looks like THEIR governor.
Atkins does the bid’ness of the peoples:
http://www.delawaregrapevine.com/12-06atkinsID.asp
http://www.delawaregrapevine.com/1-07atkinsanalysis.asp
http://www.delawaregrapevine.com/3-07atkinsback.asp
Oh, one more thing, Dr. of Education. ‘As a doctor of education who lives in New Castle County’? Really?
I can prove beyond dispute that that is a lie. And, guess what?
You know it. And so does John Atkins.
If you give me the go-ahead, I’ll print the proof. If not, I’ll honor the standards of the board. But I just want you to know that I know who you are. Sucks to be outed, doesn’t it?
Let this be a warning to all – don’t mess with the Zohan, or in this case, El S.
Sucks to be outed, doesn’t it?
Geebus! Take off your mask on a radio program and its on!
No, really, its on. Out this buttwipe.
How do you out someone who advertises every week here at DL that they are going to be a guest on the Al Mascitti and then uses their real name? Dont YOU out YOURSELF every week on live radio?
Welcome back, ‘John’s friend’.
Guess these are what you would call ‘bullet points’? You, um, forgot to mention the one about outing where I work, which is verboten.
The rules apply to John, ‘you’, and ‘your’, I mean his, surrogate. Unless you’re drunk and the police have got your back.
We’re ‘Delaware Liberal’, not the Delaware Way (not the blog, the way things have been done here for at least a century). Legislators don’t get ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ cards. And ‘surrogates’ don’t get rewarded with…nah, that’d be violating our board policies.
10-4 El, good buddy…..(wink,wink)
Congratulations to El Som for getting Atkins to actually talk to Democrats by posting on this blog.
BTW, Atkins, talking to a few people on a committee is not introducing amendments in committee. Just sayin. Maybe you have the best of intentions, but introducing amendments on the floor is a tried and true way to kill a bill. See: Domestic Partner Bill.
And as for Geezer, DelTech is an institution of higher learning. Sorry it doesn’t meet your standards whatever they may be. Way to be a D#*k and insult teachers. There are democrats and liberals who teach at DelTech.
Geezer’s point, I think, is that Del-Tech, more than any other institution, is THE Delaware Way Higher Ed institution.
How could it NOT be with the longstanding political network of its president, and the numerous politically-connected people who work there?
As to whether John Atkins’ surrogate works there, John knows, the surrogate knows, our contributors know, and I know. And we’re not talking…yet.
I agree w/ El Som. I don’t think Geezer was denigrating Del Tech as an institution. His ridicule is directed at corrupt administrators like Orlando George & his lackies.
On the other hand, I’m friends w/ several grads & they call it both “Del take us” and “Tinker Toy Tech”. Draw your own conclusions.
“There are democrats and liberals who teach at DelTech.”
Of course there are. So what? I would probably describe Lonnie George as a Democrat and liberal. He’s also a greedy, swollen-headed pig who used his political career and subsequent sinecure at DelTech to enrich himself at the public expense.
If I had to guess which “institute of higher learning in New Castle County” would employ a defender of John Atkins, I would guess Wilmington University, the go-to place for degree-challenged pols to burnish their educational credentials. But because the commenter ruled that out, my second guess is DelTech, for the reasons El Som and anon40 pointed out.
Really, is pointing out the limits of a community college the sort of thing that usually gives you the vapors?