General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Tues., March 20, 2012

When we last left the House Democratic Caucus, black smoke was pouring from the Leg Hall chimney and nobody, not even the crickets, was making any noise about the fate of Rep. John Atkins. A reasonable person would have concluded that pulling rank on state police for having the nerve to pull Atkins over for speeding was not considered sufficient grounds by the Caucus to sanction Atkins for his action. End of story.

Until Sunday. Thanks to Cris Barrish’s story in the News-Journal, we find out that Atkins had to be lying about his (lack of) involvement in a tire-burning incident at his father-in-law’s place. We also found out that the Georgetown Volunteer Fire Chief, the 911 dispatcher, and a couple of others helped Atkins to cover up the nature of the fire and Atkins’ involvement in it. In other words, we found out what we already knew: Atkins is incapable of telling the truth; Atkins holds himself above the law; and Atkins consistently has public officials covering his back. The Caucus now knows that this story is yet another example of Atkins’ unfitness to hold public office.

Today, the Caucus will meet again. I think it’s to the point where, no matter how strongly Pete Schwartzkopf tries to prevent his reclamation project from being punished, the Caucus as a whole and, in particular, Speaker Bob Gilligan, will in some manner sanction Atkins.   It’s also time to face the fact that Pete Schwartzkopf was flat out wrong about John Atkins. Atkins has demonstrated that he has not changed one bit. Schwartzkopf’s caucus knows it, and most of the members want nothing to do with Atkins. Pete is no longer dealing from a position of strength here. I think the caucus should banish Atkins immediately, and take away his committee assignments. If the voters in the  41st want to send Atkins back, knowing full well that he will have no power, then good for them. But he is an embarrassment to the House Democratic Caucus, and he should be made to leave the caucus. It’s not like the R’s would welcome him back.

A quick wrap-up from Thursday. The Senate passed a bill that Jack Markell doesn’t want. The bill would add public employees to the State Employee Benefit Committee. Since the bill now goes to the House, it will be quite interesting to see if this bill meets the same fate as HB 126: buried in the House Administration Committee with Pete Schwartzkopf guarding the desk drawer. Here’s the entire session report.

Before today’s pre-game show, let’s talk a bit about Pete Schwartzkopf. Up until now, he’s been an exceedingly effective Majority Leader. He has effectively guided the caucus to a powerful position in the majority. He headed the recent redistricting process that was the antithesis of what Tony DeLuca did in the Senate: He consolidated and strengthened the Democratic majority in the House. And, as much as I strongly disagree with his burial of HB 126, he is doing Jack Markell’s bidding there, and it’s time that Markell got called to answer for this. Exactly why is requiring transparency for two universities that receive something like $135 mill annually from the state ‘not a priority’? Does Markell really want some sort of Paterno-like Penn State coverup on his political resume? Yes, Schwartzkopf is playing the strongman here, but he is only doing what Markell wants him to do. Time for Jack to answer for this.

But continued support for Atkins is all on Schwartzkopf. Atkins has blown his second chance, and seeing what Schwartzkopf who, as we know, has higher political ambitions, does now will be worth the price of admission. Tune in tomorrow, fans, for the latest installment of ‘As the Tires Burn’.

Today’s Senate agenda features three House bills, one of which is a natural for campaign brochures everywhere, even though it does next to nothing. Allow me to quote from myself from earlier this session:

Rep. Brad Bennett has introduced legislation to place an added fine on ‘crimes against seniors’. Presumably, foreclosing on their homes and throwing them out into the streets will not be included. According to the News-Journal article, this $100 ‘users’ fee’ on those convicted of crimes, including misdemeanors, against seniors, would be dedicated to ‘new services’ for seniors, not as a stopgap for Medicaid cuts:

Two items of note here: (1) $200-300K won’t go very far. (2) This goes against the traditional argument, usually made by former Joint Finance Committee chair Nancy Cook, that revenues should all go to the General Fund and not be dedicated. That’s the reason, for example, that lottery funds in Delaware don’t go to senior citizens’ services, as they do in Pa. Of course, the real reason why Nancy Cook fought the specific dedication of funds was so that Nancy Cook could consolidate even more power as chair of JFC. Having said that, with all the hands that will be held out for these dollars, I don’t see how this bill can ultimately have much impact. But I’m prepared to be proven wrong.

The bill, of course, will have an impact on incumbent protection. And that’s the only impact this bill will have. Which is OK, as that’s the only impact that’s really intended.

We’ve previously discussed most of the bills on today’s House Agenda. I still have questions concerning HB 270, to wit:

Not quite as sure about HB 270(Osienski), which would ‘provide(s) that a person who is convicted of graffiti and was under the age of 21 at the time of the offense shall lose his/her driver’s license for a period of 30 days for the first offense and between 90 and 180 days for a second or subsequent offense’. I don’t (a) see the link between graffiti and driving privileges, can’t they do public service or something?; and (b) why the specific age designation? Why should someone under 21 be treated differently than someone over 21? Shouldn’t the penalty be the same?

Yep, so the real intrigue today is the continuing soap opera of John Atkins. I have consistently said that ‘no good can come’ of the continued enabling of this serial prevaricator. But, unlike Atkins, I cannot tell a lie. I want this to go on and on and on. As do, if they’re being honest, bloggers everywhere.