More Clueless: Tom Carper or Evan Queitsch? YOU Decide.
No, this is not a career award, although that would surely be worthy of discussion. Or not.
No, this is based on items taken directly from the News-Journal’s website.
Contender #1: Evan Queitsch.
You may have read that double-dipping State Senator Gary Simpson is retiring from his post as ‘Director of Alumni Relations’ at the University of Delaware after 20 years. Prior to that, he was General Manager of the Delaware State Fair. Along with the Delaware River & Bay Authority, the Delaware State Fair is arguably THE #1 Good Ol’ Boys feeding ground in Delaware. Simpson was first elected to the Delaware State Senate in 1998, so he’s been a double-dipper for the last 13 years.
To ensure that I in no way distort the thoughts of Mr. Q, allow me to quote in verbatim and in entirety the reason for his nomination in his own words:
I am glad to see that Senator Simpson has found a way to avoid any future problems with his status as an employee of an organization that gets millions of dollars in funding from the State of Delaware. I hope that more legislators will do the same thing and understand that it’s time for them to choose one branch of government or the other. Are you legislators OR public servants? I applaud Senator Simpson for coming to this conclusion.
Uh, Evan? Have you read the article? He just wants to spend more time with his grandkids. He will have two fat pensions to live on, and he will continue to work on building his third pension while collecting his salary as a State Senator. He said nothing about ‘doing the right thing’ here because it never even crossed his mind. When it comes to elected officials, it rarely does.
Contender #2: Tom Carper.
First, read this article, roll it around in your subconscious, and then come back.
The chickens came home to roost as our Democratic, yes, Democratic, U. S. Senator Tom Carper spoke before the Delaware Farm Bureau yesterday.
Our Democratic, yes, Democratic, U. S. Senator Tom Carper called for a culture of thrift from the Federal government and, like his predecessor Bill Roth, cited an anecdotal example to support his empirical proposal:
Carper, a Democrat who is up for re-election next year, cited an example of wasteful spending he’s found in the Defense budget in which the Pentagon spends eight times the cost of parts for certain helicopters.
Why, it’s Bill Roth’s $200 toilet seats all over again.
Except the intellectually dishonest/bankrupt (you decide) Carper knows that you ain’t saving $3 trillion on overpriced helicopter parts.
No, our Democratic, yes, Democratic U. S. Senator Tom Carper says that you’ve gotta adopt the Catfood Commission proposal (Simpson/Bowles)…:
…to reduce deficit spending by $4 trillion over the next decade with $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of new tax revenue. “The best jobs bill we could have is a bipartisan deficit reduction package,” Carper said at a Delaware Farm Bureau meeting at the Modern Maturity Center in Dover.
I have no way of knowing if this is what Carper really thinks, or whether it’s the result of the computer program surreptitiously implanted into his cranium by either Ed Freel or Joe Lieberman, depending on which conspiracy theory you believe.
I do know this. Our Democratic, yes, Democratic, U. S. Senator Tom Carper is no Democrat. He is Bill Roth with lousier constituent services.
OK, kids, time to pick: More clueless, Evan Queitsch or Tom Carper?
Tags: Tom Carper; State Senator Gary Simpson; Evan Queitsch; Steve Tanzer; El Somnambulo;
They are both equally clueless, but Evan has more integrity.
Senator Carper, the best jobs bill would be a jobs bill. A bill cutting SS benefits in order to allow your wealthy investors to continue enjoy the lowest taxes in the industrialized world is not a jobs bill.
Carper = Roth
Carney = Castle
By the way, there was no Catfood Commission proposal. They couldn’t agree on a proposal or a report, but this fact does not interfere with the villagers acting like they did.
Evan Q has no integrity. He’s a convict, he refused to pay his landlord and then refused to pay what the court ordered him to pay, and he was/is one of COD’s goons.
If (Carper = Roth) then,
Carper = US Senator until 2027, and
Carper = Deceased in 2029
Uh oh, Jason adds mathematical wizard to his resume.
With Jason the Juggernaut at its helm, can anyone stop D’s4K?
El Somnaambulo – You of all people should know that I’m fair in my criticisms of both parties and the corruption in politics. Neither Democrats or Republicans are safe when it comes to that. I believe that Senator Simpson in his roles with the state BEFORE his election is not disqualified from holding office. If Tony DeLuca was a FORMER Dept. of Labor official who was elected to the Senate, that would be one thing but he holds BOTH positions at once. I have no problem with people earning a pension, even a state pension, from one job and then beginning another career and earning a pension from that. How many 20 yr military members earn a retirement from that career by age 38, get out and earn another 20 year pension at another job? I begrudge no one an opportunity to change careers and to benefit from the time they put into those careers. My PROBLEM is when they hold an elected office WHILE they work for another branch of the government. And make no mistake, I believe that DTCC, DSU and UD are government agencies no matter their public/private status because let’s face it, they ALL get massive taxpayer funds handed over to them.
Senator Simpson’s employment with UD has been of as much heartburn to me as DeLuca, Viola and Keeley’s employment with the state has been. There are others, in both parties, who I believe, use their role as elected officials to garner favor for their full time employer. There are many ways to fix this behavior, like making the elected representative positions “a public service” and only paying costs for expenses or a per diem. The problem is that a legislature full of people who are benfitting from their own largesse, is unlikely to vote a rod against itself. We need REAL leaders and REAL people with common sense and an ethical compass to go down there and make these changes.
I think a stepping stone to a move like the one above is to make it more difficult (or impossible) for state employees or those who represent places like UD, DSU and DTCC as employees, to serve as elected officials. The fact is that whatever his reasons, Senator Simpson has retired from UD and while I don’t condone his 13 yr run “double dipping”, I do applaud him for taking the step to become compliant with a real ethics reform movement that is coming to Dover. I think we all should give him credit for that while understanding that for 13 years he was just another name on that list of people who were grabbing with both hands.
I’d say Carper is ACTING more clueless. I think Evan is sincere, and Carper either is not or ought not be, so he’s clearly the more craven, sycophantic and devious. Those are all worse than “clueless.”
Sorry, but I call bullshit, Evan.
Agreed (with Geezer). As much as Evan is a hypnotized wingnut, I get the feeling that if I could ever truly convince him to see a thing my way, he would fight for it with the same energy he now devotes to his lunatic causes.
Carper doesn’t even come close to that standard of principles.
Has the definition of “double dipping” changed over time? I could have sworn that when we first starting talking about double dippers it referred to people who had a state job, retired, came back on as a consultant, collected pension and “salary for consulting” from the state?
Kind of like they would retire, and the State would say, “We don’t have anyone who can do this job.” and so the retiree gets pension and pay. I would swear on my life that’s what we used to mean by “double dipper.”
Call BS MJ, that’s your problem. I’ve stated my position and now people get to decide if they agree or disagree…I expect plenty of opposition, especially here…and that’s ok, because I believe in what I believe.
@thenewphil – My definition of double dipping is someone who has a more than one taxpayer funded job at a time. A person for instance, who works at the Department of Labor and is also a Senator. I go a step further though and I include people whose jobs are at places (like UD, DSU and DTCC) that receive massive taxpayer funds and also serve on the legislature. Whether they are in the committee that determines their funding or not…they have an undue influence on that funding for their place of business. I think there is also room to discuss the kind of thing that you’re talking about. For me, it’s just time to clean things up down there and I think it has to start with putting people down there with some kind of a clue about ethics and some idea of right and wrong.
Evan, you believe only in yourself. You’re as big of a fraud and grifter as your dear Chrissie-pooh. You’re a goon, a convict, and a deadbeat. It’s not my problem, it’s yours, because facts are facts.
Pete Schwartzkopk was accused of double dipping for having a police pension and being in the legislator. So the phrase double dipping is flexible to be used against anyone at anytime. Chris Weeks accused Pete of “gaming the system” for putting his life on the line as a police officer, then getting elected to the legislature. Real classy, eh?
@Evan, The “undue influence” claim could be leveled against members of the private sector as well. There are elected officials who steer legislation to favor certain private sector companies. The private sector doesn’t have a monopoly on ethics or right and wrong. In fact, business’ exist to make a profit, not to do the ethical.
But what do you call someone who rails against gov’t yet worked for the gov’t, has a pension from it, and gets work in the private sector lobbying because he worked in gov’t? Newtie dipping?
Or someone who rails against wasteful gov’t spending yet had a job as renovating the White House? Urkle dipping?
And Joe Booth? Evan, please do explain…. private sector business man turned “i don’t know what the job is because it has just been invented or how much I am getting paid to do it” working for the state.
MJ, you have no idea what/who I believe in. You have no desire to know and that’s ok. I expect at least a few close minded folks like you who spout half of the facts without knowing anything about how the whole story is played out. It doesn’t bother me to have you call me names because I know that I am not those things. I know what I believe and those who meet me and spend time talking with me also come away knowing it. There are many people who have changed their opinions about me in a positive way from meeting and speaking with me. I don’t expect to change every mind but I hope to change more than I don’t.
I’ve long since answered your charges, taken responsibility for past actions and decisions and continue to make amends for the times I’ve made mistakes. I’m as human as anyone else is. You can keep harping on that if you want to…that’s your choice but these tactics are not going to decide elections anymore.
@SussexAnon – The problem is that the public sector workers and workers for companies that recieve state taxpayer funds make decisions that directly benefit themselves. Even if they don’t serve on the committee, they have the office next door to the person who does.
2nd – I think if you separate the private sector from government and stop subsidizing everything, you lower the possibility that a private sector employee could steer money his way.
3rd – Railing against government…if that’s defined as calling for a LIMITED GOVERNMENT that stays out of peoples lives and reduces the interference into their everyday comings and goings, I don’t think there’s a problem with that. Look, as I’ve said, I begrudge no one the chance to change careers, to use their past career as a building block for their next one or for receiving the pensions/retirements that they worked for.
@SussexAnon cont’ – I don’t know the details of Sen. Booth’s employment but I can tell you this, if he has a taxpayer funded job and is an elected official, I would say shame on him. I’m a registered Republican and I’m running on the Republican ticket but make no mistake about this folks, I believe in PRINCIPLE over PARTY and if something is wrong, it’s wrong no matter who is doing it. I’ve said that I thought Senator Simpson being at UD and in the Senate was as untoward as Senator DeLuca’s employment with the Dept. of Labor. I don’t know how much more clear I can be on this issue, regardless of affiliation, right is right and wrong is wrong.
Evan, let me call you a wahbulance, because I can see the tears of shame streaming down your face from Sussex County. I’d be surprised if you get 25% of the vote. And if exposing the truth about someone is a “tactic,” well, the voters will find out the truth about deadbeat/convict/goon Evan Q.
“Chris Weeks accused Pete of “gaming the system” for putting his life on the line as a police officer, then getting elected to the legislature. Real classy, eh?”
Well, then I’m not classy either. Take that “putting his life on the line” BS and pound it like sand. State police have a difficult job, and not just because they “put their lives on the line.” So do lots of other people, and they don’t get the sweetest pension deal in the state. I’ll grant you, at least Pete is earning his post-retirement money the hard way.
The first thing the state should do to save money is negotiate a new deal with the state cops, boosting the full-pension retirement service from 20 to 25 years and raising the age at which retirees can start drawing from it. It will never happen, but it should. And we should also charge more for the extra officers sent to Sussex County; with some encouragement, maybe they’ll start their own county police force so we can shrink the State Police.
“the voters will find out the truth about deadbeat/convict/goon Evan Q.”
Really? That’s what you object to? Or do you object to his politics? Why not leave the ugly oppo research stuff to his opponent and debate him on the issues instead?
“And make no mistake, I believe that DTCC, DSU and UD are government agencies no matter their public/private status because let’s face it, they ALL get massive taxpayer funds handed over to them.”
By that standard people who work for banks, utilities, car makers, hospitals, CHARITIES, etc should not be allowed to run for public office, either, right Evan? All of those people work in areas that receive “massive taxpayer funds.” Or how about those small business owners who get small business loans from the state?
Evan was paid by the O’Donnell campaign and the O’Donnell campaign said that Chris Coons shouldn’t hold office because he was part of the Gore family and would vote WL Gore’s interests, so let’s add people who work for corporations that are affected by US laws to the list.
By the standards that Evan has set and the standard that he backed in the 2010 US Senate election, the only people who could hold office would be unemployed deadbeat grifters looking for a big payday.
Anon: Are you staking out your position on an issue just to disagree with someone you don’t like? Or do you think it’s OK for people to get jobs at UD, DSU or especially DelTech after they’re elected? Because I don’t. My position is closer to Evan’s than the one you seem to endorse in your comment above.
Geezer, Evan is clear. Let me roll back his quote one more sentence:
“My PROBLEM is when they hold an elected office WHILE they work for another branch of the government. And make no mistake, I believe that DTCC, DSU and UD are government agencies no matter their public/private status because let’s face it, they ALL get massive taxpayer funds handed over to them.”
At no point does Evan make the distinction between being employed by the government before being elected or after. Evan is against both.
Is your position that a school teacher should not be allowed to run for a seat in the State Legislature? Or is your position that a sitting state legislator should not get a high paying job in the state government? Mine is the latter, not the former. Evan’s is neither.
Geezer, to paraphrase Barney Frank (a hero of mine), debating Evan Q would be like debating a dining room table.
“Is your position that a school teacher should not be allowed to run for a seat in the State Legislature?”
My true position is that the legislature should be full-time, and nobody should be allowed to have an outside job. Since that’s not going to happen, I agree with the position you have clarified.
But if given a choice between the status quo and Evan’s position, I would choose Evan’s. I doubt it would be constitutional, however. That’s one reason I prefer my solution: Shrink both chambers — to maybe 29 reps, 15 senators — and use the savings to increase the salaries. A lot of laziness gets hidden behind the “part-time” ruse.
LOL – and Geezer called ME the DL scold??
after reading this thread I think Geezer needs to reassess that comment
so much for “fuck off,honey” right Geez?
nice condescending, mysogynistic term ….
Don’t fight; we can all be scolds.
I know that once you put up a post, you lose control of where the thread will head.
But my point about Evan Queitsch was that somehow he interpreted Gary Simpson’s decision to retire from the U of D (and collect a big fat pension from there) to spend more time with his grandkids as some sort of noble gesture towards ending double-dipping, when it was nothing of the sort.
I think that we’ve kinda sunk to ad hominem insult territory towards Queitsch as the thread has continued. That wasn’t my intent, and it’s neither necessary nor appropriate, IMHO. Anyway, over and out.
BTW, might I suggest that the message that Queitsch claims he’s making could well be one that, employed by a Democrat in a primary, could lead to DeLuca’s defeat and perhaps the defeat of some of DeLuca’s henchpersons?
somehow he interpreted Gary Simpson’s decision to retire from the U of D (and collect a big fat pension from there) to spend more time with his grandkids as some sort of noble gesture towards ending double-dipping
I thought Evan’s comment on that was tongue-in-cheek and a pretty good shot at Simpson.
“nice condescending, mysogynistic term ….”
Check the record. You called me “honey” first. I took it as a term of endearment.
Pertinent sections from Article II of the Delaware Constitution.
§ 14. Holding dual office or having interest in army or navy contract.
Section 14. No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he or she shall have been elected, be appointed to any civil office under this State which shall have been created, or the emoluments of which shall have been increased during such time. No member of Congress, nor any person holding any office under this State, or the United States, except officers usually appointed by the courts of justice respectively, attorneys-at-law and officers of the militia, holding no disqualifying office, shall during his or her continuance in Congress or in office be a Senator or Representative; nor shall any person while concerned in any army or navy contract be a Senator or Representative.
§ 20. Disclosure of personal or private interest of legislator in any pending measure.
Section 20. Any member of the General Assembly who has a personal or private interest in any measure or bill pending in the General Assembly shall disclose the fact to the House of which he or she is a member and shall not vote thereon.
It would seem that the only restriction on holding office while simultaneously being a state employee is that the state position cannot be an appointed position. Otherwise legislators are free to seek employment in a state office as long has they disclose that interest and not vote on any legislation that affects that position.
For those strict constitutionalists (I am assuming Evan is one) for whom the constitution is absolute, the pledge “Finally, when I get to Dover I’ll support a bill that precludes state employees from holding office or seeking reelection if they become employed by the state while in office (as Sen. DeLuca did)” would seem to be on direct contradiction to the constitution unless you are proposing an ammendment to the constitution. While DeLuca’s job may violate a federal regulation, I find it amusing that Evan would rely upon and support federal encroachment upon state’s rights to achieve his ends.
While DeLuca’s positions may be inappropriate, I am more concerned about folks who espouse the inviolate nature of the constitution, states rights, and local control coupled with protests against federal regulation and mandates, all the while supporting and advocating exactly what they are against. I would like to understand how Evan reconciles his beliefs, convictions, and principles with his stated goals and objectives.
Added Thought.
A number of years ago “cafeteria Catholic” (a pejorative phrase) came into vogue in referring to Catholics who pick and choose what parts of the Catholic doctrine they followed. I kinda had an ouch! moment when I first heard the term because it fit me to a T. I got over it but it sure hit close to home!
In thinking about politics, politicians, and wanna be politicians, it seems to me that the phrase “cafeteria conservative” or “cafeteria patriot” might be an appropriate term for what I see happening today. We have farmers in Sussex County who rant and rave against federal regulation, while checking their mailbox for their federal farm subsidy check or those who state unequivobably that the Constitution is inviolate and cannot be changed, while proposing to do just that. I’m not picking on farmers (or conservatives for that matter), they are just a convenient example of those protest against federalism while sucking at the federal teat.
I suppose the prejorative term could even be applied to liberals, although I can’t think of an example off hand. I usually refer to it as intellectual hypocricy or dishonesty, but I wonder if the “cafeteria” prefix is more appropriate? I cannot ask for regulation that benefits me unless I am also willing to accept some regulation that does not benefit me (but benefits others). That’s why, even though I believe that abortion is wrong, I have no right to compromise the freedom of woman to do as she wishes. I guess that makes a me cafeteria something or other (independent? or is that redundant?). The world is probably a simple place for the binaries (those for whom everything is black and white). For me, it is much more complex. I have to think my way through everything looking for logical fallacies, beneficial outcomes,etc. becoming frustated when my beliefs conflict with logic. I am never held hostage by my beliefs but by my obsessive nature to reason my way through things using facts and data.
I’ll not be responding to the attacks on me as a person in this thread going forward. It’s ok that the ultra left may not like me, I expect it and I accept it. My hope is that my position on the issue of double dipping will bring the ethics debate into the forefront of the conversation here.
@Dave, a strict Constitutional conservative like myself understands that the Constitution wasn’t “perfect” when written but rather contains a mechanism through which it can be changed. With that said, as I understand the State Code, laws passed by the Assembly become part of the Constitution (this is different from the U.S. Constitution which requires Amendments to alter it) and so I think that it’s time we address this issue.
@puck is more right than wrong about my comment on Sen. Simpson. I know Senator Simpson and I like him. I don’t mean any disrespect in my concerns about his working for UD and being a legislator but those concerns exist none-the-less. I’m less concerned with the reasons why he left the UD position and more concerned with the fact that he’s now in compliance with the law as I would like to see it changed.
@Geezer I agree with a lot of what you say but to the anonymous posters point…I think that a teacher shouldn’t be able to run for office, nor should a State Senator be given any job within the state government. This is just good ethics. We can disagree on the degree and I’m open to understanding why some might think it’s ok for a teacher to run…but let me add a final clarification to my argument to make it clear. I’m not against a teacher retiring from his/her job with the school and then running for office while collecting their pension earned while being a school teacher. They earned the pension, they’re passionate about education and those things are OK. I don’t think it’s an ethical problem.
Queitsch: “I think that a teacher shouldn’t be able to run for office” – Is this the dumbest opinion of the year? In Queitsch’s world, only unemployed grifters should be “able to run for office.”
Of course a teacher should be able to run for office. The question is, should an elected official have a teaching job.
With our part-time legislature, it is unreasonable to say elected officials cannot have full time jobs. And in a state where the government is the biggest employer, it is tempting but difficult to say elected officials cannot have state jobs.
Eventually you run into the inherent conflict of having part time legistators in a state where the government is the biggest employer.
Evan,
As long as the State of Delaware is the largest employer in the State of Delaware, then the legislature will be filled with State Employees. Why? The answer is simple. OUR LEGISLATURE IS TO BE MADE UP OF AND REPRESENT THE EMPLOYMENT ENGINE OF THE STATE. Therefore, one could say that the legislature is a mirror of our state.
LL: If I’m not mistaken, the state is the largest employer in every state in the U.S.
Geezer, that is my point. When we had manufacturing jobs our legislature was full of DuPont, Zeneca, Gore, etc. we had representatives like Petrilli, Davis, Roy, Corrozi, Oberle and Spence. As those industries moved their jobs to other communities, the school teacher groups and others in state government began to run for office.
If we had industry other than government and school districts, perhaps we would have some economic growth that was not associated with Wal-Mart and the Chain Restaurants.
LL: Check the total number of people employed in any industry you care to pick. Automobiles are a good example. DuPont would be another. Most large manufacturers are making more goods than they did back in the 70s, but are employing significantly fewer people to do it. Manufacturing jobs disappear not just to cheap-labor countries, but to mechanization. Manufacturing employment is dropping in China, and not only because Chinese labor is now more expensive. Robots are cheaper than employees.
LL: Another point: How many bankers do we have in the General Assembly? Add together all the banking jobs in Delaware and it’s higher than the government employment (and let’s stop pretending teachers are state government employees, please). But they don’t show up as legislators.
Back in the day, a company like DuPont was willing to let middle managers who had stalled on the career ladder pursue legislative careers. Nowadays, those who stall on the career ladder are looking for new full-time jobs. Most private employers would not be willing to allow employees the time off to join the legislature.
Lana:
I think you’re making several interesting generalization and employing some mighty false logic in your argument.
Disclaimer: I am a public school teacher and very active member of my local union.
First off, in your paragraph above, you assume that a + b must equal c. By saying that BECAUSE there were more private-industry folks in the legislature in years’ past and BECAUSE there were more manufacturing jobs in years’ past that the declining in manufacturing jobs can be directly attributable to this. I don’t buy it. However, if true, would that prove some craven ridiculousness on behalf of the corporations, whose goals it would OBVIOUSLY be to stack the legislature?
Sorry, if the only way corporations can bring good paying jobs to this state and country is to see to it that they stack our legislature, then forget about it. I disagree with that premise, though, which is why I also disagree with most of your argument. Respectfully, I just think it’s a little out there.
Now onto your second paragraph, which is really just a poor generalization. There are certainly many other professions held by those in our legislature who work in the private sector. Government and school district employees in no way hold a monopoly over the legislature, though it wouldn’t be too far of a stretch to say perhaps some do have too much control.
Geezer:
We agree that things are done differently in our “service” economy. The GA is made up of citizens, and any citizen should be allowed to serve in our government.
Of the people, for the people, by the people. The constant is all of these is ; the PEOPLE.
I think that legislators whose primary employment is in the private sector can have more of a pernicious conflict of interest than legislators who are employed by state government. Nevertheless, the only way to eliminate all conflicts of interest is to do what.Geezer recommended above: make legislators full time employees who are forbidden to have their finger poked into any.other pie.
Also, election reform and public campaign financing.
I am a Democrat and a former coworker of Evan’s. I worked with him day in and day out and got to know him pretty well. We have had lively conversations, maybe some heated, but know this. He is not the clueless man painted in this article and this borders on slander and libel. I may differ with him politically on some things but I wouldn’t go so far as to defame the man. You owe him an apology.
As for clueless I would like to know where Tom Carper was when that Fiskers car deal/loan guarantee was being negotiated, and why those jobs are in Finland instead of Delaware.
Marie, a person with a clue would not propose that teachers not be legally allowed to run for office. Such ideas are an anathema to a democracy.
I don’t think Carper gets credit for the Federal loan to Fisker. That was a Department of Energy win, which secured American jobs for the design work on the Fisker Nina, and for setup work in the Newport factory, making way for the manufacturing jobs to come building the Nina there.
“make legislators full time employees who are forbidden to have their finger poked into any.other pie.”
That has not worked in the U.S. Congress where lobbyists all all stripes hold sway. Perhaps Delaware legislators should be full time but not because conflicts will be eliminated. Someone always wants something from government, whether it is private citizens, advocacy groups, business, and even state agencies.
There is no way to absolutely eliminate conflicts of interest. What we need to do is ensure that government is transparent. Not just the legislature, but commissions such as the PSC. It is only through the harsh light of day that we the people can remain vigilant and involved. The Delaware constitution is clear about conflicts and those who have such interests must recuse themselves. Financial disclosure of those interests needs to be visible to everyone. We need to be careful about creating regulations and rules in an attempt to “cure” every ill because the creative legislators who have the intent can always find a way around those rules. Government needs to be visible to the people, not just because we have a right to know but because the only way we gain confidence in our leadership is to see what they do and leave nothing to the imagination or rumor mill. Just a thought.
I’ve heard it said that lawyers shouldn’t be allowed to run for Congress because it would be a conflict of interest. Anyway as it stands now, no ordinary citizen, regardless of their current job, teacher or otherwise, can AFFORD to run for office because it is beyond the reach of many to pay to get on a ballot.
Marie. that was a nice try at obfuscating Queitsch’s vile views on who should and should not be allowed to run for office.
Queitsch’s expressed opinion is despicable to any one who cares about democracy. You might think a bit harder about that before you try to defend him.
Dave, I never intended my suggestipn to be a panacea for all governmental problems. I would include public.financing of elections and transparency.
Vile? Get off your high horse. It’s a political issue, not a moral one.
“That has not worked in the U.S. Congress where lobbyists all all stripes hold sway.”
At least they have to hire lobbyists. That’s better than DSU hiring legislators, or the Dept. of Labor giving jobs to the otherwise unemployable.
Let me speak on this issue, since it was a major issue in my campaign last year for state representative.
I’m a full-time employee for DelDOT, in a mid-level, non-appointed position.
There are anumber of reasons why current state employees can, and should, run for elected office:
1. We are citizens, with the same rights as our neighbors. To say a state employee should be denied one of the fundamental rights of his or her citizenship, is both absurd and insulting.
2. We know state government. We know what is working, what is not working. Many of us have numerous ideas of improvements we can make to state government, and we know othervareas where improvement is sorely needed.
3. None of us are millionaires. We are part of Delaware’s middle class. Our kids go to public school, we sometimes struggle with the mortgage, and sego without so our kids can have a good Christmas.
However, current office holders should not be able to accept a paid position with the state. How could anyone honestly say that a sitting legislator was hired fair and square. How could any agency not hire a state senator, or representative. This was among my proposals for reforming state government.
Some of you might be calling BS, because you remember that halfway through the campaign, I announced that if elected, I would resign from DelDOT.
I did that because:
1. The “double dipping” issue was costing me a lot of support.
2. At about 50k a year, a representative’s salary would have been a raise.
3. The main reason was that if I had two jobs, I would have little time for my lovely wife and two awesome kids.
Speaking of awesome kids, I have to go now, and check my 15 year old’s homework.
Have a great week, everyone.
Jim
Dana,
“never intended my suggestion to be a panacea for all governmental problems”
I am sure you didn’t. I was just pointing out that many members of our Congress are conflicted even though they are full time. I would even go further and suggest that they may even been more conflicted because as we all know, one of their objectives is to keep that full time job, which unfortunately takes a great deal of money. I guess my key point would be that when we suggest that full time may be the cure, we need to have a vision of what GA would look like and how they would act if they were full time.
I wonder if full time, coupled with term limits would work at the state level. Congress/U.S. Gov’t is highly complex and it does benefit the public to have folks with some experience. But at the state level, it may be less complicate and the members would probably have a great deal of knowledge of the issues because Delaware is a small state. As I said, the problem with full time is that no one wants to leave – hey it’s a steady paycheck. Would trading full time for term limits work?
Marie, I guess you’re another one who gets their information on Fiskar from 9/12 meetings and CRI. Fiskar is building their high end car, the Karma in Finland. It was always supposed to be built there, it was never going to be built in Delaware.
Let me repeat that for the teabaggers here, THE KARMA WAS NEVER GOING TO BE BUILT IN DELAWARE. NEVER.
The NINA is going to be built in Delaware, there are already over 200 people working at the GM plant in Newport getting it ready for production.
Between 9/12ers and other teabagging organizations it’s a miracle any real information gets out there.
“It’s ok that the ultra left may not like me, I expect it and I accept it.”
Actually, we don’t like goons and grifters. As for ultra left, I’d rather be considered that than a teabagger. At least we have functioning brain cells and don’t respond to a loud horn like a bunch of Morlocks.