The House passed ‘Caylee’s Law’ yesterday, and I got a press release within minutes. I was wracking my brain, trying to figure out who Caylee was, until I got to this ‘graf’ in the release:
Last year, many Americans closely followed the Florida murder trial of Casey Anthony, who was accused of killing her two-year-old daughter, Caylee. After Anthony was found “not guilty,” an online proposal began circulating that called for the creation of a new felony-level crime, dubbed “Caylee’s Law.” The proposal sprung from testimony in the Anthony case. Two-year-old Caylee was last seen with her mother on June 16, 2008, but was not reported missing by her grandmother until July 15, 2008. Her body was discovered in December of that year not far from her home.
So, because of a lurid national case, we now have ‘Caylee’s Law’, despite any history of any such case in Delaware. It, of course, passed unanimously, and is sponsored by virtually every member of the Delaware General Assembly. Here’s what the bill would do:
HB 256 adds “including failing to report a missing child” to the crime of endangering the welfare of a child, clearing up any ambiguity about whether a parent must report a missing child as soon as possible. Under Delaware law, endangering the welfare of a child ranges from a misdemeanor to a Class E felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, depending on whether the child is harmed or dies as a result of the neglect.
I’m not saying that this is a bad bill. It may well close a loophole that needs closing. However, the principal impact of this legislation will be seen, you guessed it, on political brochures from one end of the state to the other. I’m sure Caylee would have wanted it that way.
The House also unanimously passed HB 265(Hudson), which requires insurance companies to make equal reimbursement for oral and intravenous anticancer medications.
The other item I found intriguing was the fact that SB163(Marshall), which would increase Delaware’s minimum wage by $1 over a two year period, and which passed the Senate on January 26, was finally assigned to a House Committee yesterday. And not the committee that you’d expect, which would be the House Labor Committee. No, the bill has been assigned to the House Economic Development/Banking/Insurance/Commerce Committee. It could be nothing, but my Spidey Sense is tingling here. First, the bill is slow-walked. Then, it’s assigned to a committee whose history has been to remove any pesky impediments to economic development, including regulation. Not the most worker-friendly committee, IMHO. Let’s just see what happens here. I do know this: If Jack Markell supports this bill, it passes. If he doesn’t, well, it just could get buried in an inhospitable committee. Stay tuned.
Here’s the entire session report for Tuesday.
A relative paucity of bills in committees today. Two holdovers in the House are really bad bills, though, so let me take you on a trip down Memory Lane:
Bad Bill #1:
“HB 249 (Brady): Here is our second strong contender for Worst Bill of the Year. Not bad as in the sense of being dangerous, like the first contender, which would exempt so-called ‘work product’ from the auditor’s office from public scrutiny, but bad as in special interest legislation that makes a mockery of existing law. The bill would ‘eliminate(s) the continuing education requirements for a real estate broker, associate broker, or salesperson who has continuously held that type of license in Delaware for 40 years or more.’ Now, correct me if I’m wrong here, but isn’t the purpose of continuing education to ensure that licensees remain current about what’s impacting their profession? Wouldn’t it be especially important for someone who has been practicing for 40 years to make sure that they are still in tune with changes to the profession? Why 40, and not some other number plucked out of thin air? And, of course, the key question: Just who is asking for this? My guess? Some wrinkled old person who lives in Gerald Brady’s & Harris McDowell’s districts (they’re the prime sponsors). Someone who, you know, just wants to ‘keep their hand in it’, but is not really practicing. Otherwise, why even introduce a bill like this? Sorry. Either you have continuing education or you don’t. I wouldn’t mind a debate on whether certain professions require CE or not. But, if it is deemed that CE is required to continue practicing a profession, then this bill makes no sense. In the Housing & Community Affairs Committee. Why this bill is not in the House Sunset Committee, I have no idea, b/c that’s where it belongs.”
Guess what? Turns out I was right. From Joe Connor:
“Well ES we knew it would not last:) the constituent behind the Real Estate CE Bill is a man who’s dirty socks you are not qualified to wash. Among other things he was Chair of the Delaware Real Estate commission for 13 years and has had a distinguished Real Estate and political career spanning 50 years. He operates his own shop and goes to the office every day and knows more about Delaware politics that you, I and 10 other people ever will. There are qualifiers in the bill and the mere length of service limits eligibility to less than 20 folks. BTW Maryland extends the courtesy after 10 years of service. As they say” If you don’t know it by now you probably never will” Recite that while gazing in the mirror tomorrow. Bonus points if you guess the gentleman’s name.”
So there you have it. It’s a special interest bill sought by one man whose socks I wouldn’t wash. By definition, that’s both special interest legislation and bad legislation. Either you require CE for everybody or nobody.
Bad Bill #2:
HB 247 (Lavelle): The troglodytes’ attempt to turn back progress on renewable energy. Sponsored by most of the usual suspects. You know, the ones who actually read the propaganda from the Heartland Institute. In the House Energy Committee.
The Senate Executive Committee considers three JP Court nominations as well as one to the Tax Appeals Board.
And, uh, that’s about all that interests me on a slow Senate committee day.
The House Administration Committee will consider HB 192(Hudson), which would move Delaware’s primaries from September to August, ostensibly to ‘ensure the timely issuance receipt and return of military absentee ballots in the general election’. Need I point out that primaries in August would result in even less public participation than a September primary? Far less, in fact. If the Rethugs are serious (it’s their bill), then stop playing games and propose pushing the primaries back to somewhere between March and June. Oh, that would put legislators ‘at risk’ b/c they’re in session. Never mind.
Monsignor Lavelle is at it again. HB 12, to be considered in today’s House Judiciary Committee, would ‘ensure(s) that for a period of two (2) years beginning July 1, 2011 (you need an amendment to change the date, Greg), victims of childhood sexual assaults by adult public sector employees may bring actions. Additionally, in the future sovereign immunity is waived as to the State and its political subdivisions, including school districts, for sexual abuse of a minor by an adult.’ While I have no real problem with the bill, would it be impolitic of me to point out that there really is no state equivalent to the Catholic Church coverup that goes all the way up to Pope Ratzinger? Oh, and I am unaware of any similar plot by state officials like that of the Church to go after the victims’ advocates demanding transparency from the Church.
Unlike the minimum wage bill, Gov. Markell’s legislation giving tax breaks to businesses that hire veterans is on the fast track. HB 275(Jaques) would ‘establish(es) the Veterans’ Opportunity Credit, which shall be awarded to employers hiring qualified veterans. The credit shall equal 10% of a qualified veteran’s wages, up to a maximum of $1,500. Employers may take the credit in the year the qualified veteran is hired and the two subsequent tax years.” In other words, two people apply for a job: a veteran and, say, a conscientious objector. The conscientious objector might be even more qualified than the veteran. The State of Delaware has decided that the employer gets a nice tax break for hiring the veteran even though the conscientious objector was right on the immorality of the wars being fought and may be better qualified. In other words, Affirmative Action for Veterans, but, hey, it’s an election year, and virtually every legislator is on the bill. Wonder how many legislators would be on a bill extending the same tax credit to conscientious objectors…
The Senate has an agenda today. No sense rehashing my thoughts on the respective bills. (Gotta save something for tomorrow.)
You will note that I got this far and never mentioned the name of ‘John Atkins’. It’s b/c that not doing anything about Atkins appears to be ‘business as usual’ for the House Democratic Caucus. In journalistic terms, ‘dog bites man’. For the moment, I must reluctantly agree. Sucks, but, there you go.