General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Tues., Jan. 28, 2014
Well. That was quite an ambitious, and welcome, State of the State Address from Governor Markell last Thursday. There is no surer way to jump-start our state’s economy and, not coincidentally, address long-postponed infrastructure deficiencies, than by proposing a massive capital upgrade. Our roads and bridges need it. So do our workers. I suspect that we will hear this week how Gov. Markell intends to pay for the proposed $500 million program. No doubt an increase in the gas tax will be one of the proposed revenue generators.
I, for one, strongly support such an increase. People have choices as to what kinds of vehicles they drive. If they want to drive massive gas-inhalers, that’s their choice. If they opt to downsize, that’s their choice. The fewer massive gas-inhalers out there, the less pollution gets emitted. Those with mass transit and/or car pool options would be more likely to consider them should gas prices rise. There would be fewer unnecessary trips if people really were concerned about higher gas prices. Less traffic, smaller vehicles, less pollution. Why not raise the gas tax to help pay for this engine of economic recovery? There no doubt will be other revenue sources. I, of course want to see some equity restored to our tax code. But I’m completely on board with this proposal.
Lotsa other good stuff in there as well, including specific job skills training for high school students, and an intense campaign to clean Delaware’s waterways. The question is, will D’s respond favorably to one of the best and only Democratic proposals from our D governor. Here are two early reactions:
“I’m going to keep an open mind. In order for us to get there, stir the economy and get people back to work, we have to have an open mind.”
“No gas tax. I won’t do it.”
Know what’s interesting about those two quotes? Both were uttered by the same legislator. The first quote is from Valerie Longhurst in Friday’s News-Journal. The second one is from Valerie Longhurst in Sunday’s News-Journal. As far as the ‘she won’t do it’ meme, maybe it’s time that a real Democrat was House Majority Leader. I mean, she doesn’t get to decide for her entire caucus, does she? Clip ‘n save.
Even by R standards, the Rethuglican response was weak. Here it is in two parts:
1. “B-b-b-but the Veasey Report.” Tell ya what. When the bleeping Koch Brothers and their, wait for it, ilk, stop funneling billions of dollars toward removing democracy from our democratic system of government, I’ll worry about the kind of loophole that Markell used. First Rethug that says, “B-b-b-ut the Koch Brothers…” gets an attaboy from me.
2. “How are they going to pay for it?” Hello. That’s what the Governor’s proposed budget is for, it’s coming this week, and they know it. BTW, I use the term ‘they’ instead of the term ‘we’ b/c Delaware Rethugs don’t give two bleeps about jobs or clean waterways unless the waterways run past their chateaux. Allow me to coin a phrase that describes them: Ir-elephant. You’re welcome.
The real question is whether the legislative D’s will fully embrace this. I sincerely hope that they will. As critical as I’ve been of this governor for not protecting the middle class and the working poor, this is precisely the type of proposal I’ve been hoping for. Well, this and making the filthy rich pay their fair share. Time for D’s to make this a reality, IMHO. Let the Rethugs retreat to the Vicmead Hunt Club to fulminate. And, since John Kennedy Toole is no longer with us, perhaps I’ll be the one to pen a great, but overlooked, American classic: “A Fulmination of Ir-elephants”. Any publisher wish to float me an advance? Plus a membership to the Vicmead Hunt Club? Besides, ‘A Confederacy of Dunces’ is already taken, though no less apt.
Enough artistic license for one paragraph. Here’s what happened in Dover on Thursday in addition to the State of the State address. Two bills of note passed and head to the Governor. SB 21(Henry) passed the Senate with the compromise House amendment that provides for one state employee member of the State Employee Benefits Committee. Incremental progress is nonetheless progress. Sen. Cloutier joined all D’s in voting yes, the rest of the R’s voted no. SB 55(Townsend) requires that members of the Public Service Commission reveal certain financial information. It passed unanimously in the House.
This will be one busy week. The House Business Lapdog Committee will let out a mighty ‘arf’ (Trivia for completists: What did George Will reference when he wrote about a ‘tinny arf’?) and will almost certainly release legislation increasing the minimum wage from committee. This is a rare Tuesday House committee meeting. The Senate holds an Executive Committee hearing today to consider nominations, however consideration of the nomination of Leo Strine to be Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court takes place tomorrow.
Here are the House and Senate agendas for today. Rep. Johnson’s Box Bill is on the agenda. The bill would:
prohibit a public employer from inquiring into or considering the criminal record, criminal history or credit history or score of an applicant before it makes a conditional offer to the applicant. It would permit inquiry and consideration of criminal background after the conditional offer has been made. The bill specifies that once a background check is conducted an employer shall only consider felonies for 10 years from the completion of sentence, and misdemeanors for 5 years from the completion of sentence.
A damn good bill from one of our best legislators. And pretty much the only one that catches my interest.
Lotsa action in Wednesday’s committee meetings. Starting with the Senate.
I know that the IPOD Party, if indeed it is a party, will not like HB 159(Jaques). Everybody else? Not so much. Senate Admin. Services/Elections Committee. Passed 41-0 in the House. Could be on the way to the Guv by Thursday afternoon.
Good bill from Rep. Barbieri in today’s Senate Health & Social Services Committee meeting. Unanimously passed the House.
I’m a big fan of HB 56(D. Short), which ‘sets certain regulations for motor vehicle data-reporting devices to prohibit the use by insurance companies of such data for anything other than consideration for premium discounts, requires disclosure to the insured of others who may gain access to such data, and otherwise prohibits insurance companies from releasing such data to others.’ In today’s Senate Insurance Committee.
Some good House bills will be considered in today’s Senate Judiciary Committee meeting.
Here is the complete list of House committee meetings. Here’s what interests me:
Oh, please baby, please, please. Please vote to release HS1/HB 60(Hudson) from the House Business Lapdog Committee. There is no legit reason to prevent the direct shipment of wines to consumers. Underage drinkers are gonna order $80 pinot noirs from Oregon? Puh-leeze. These wines are otherwise unavailable to consumers in Delaware stores. In most cases, the consumers have visited the wineries in question. Can someone please explain to me why those of us who love wine can’t purchase it from small wineries that we’ve visited? There is none, and most states agree. BTW, here’s another interesting and, at first glance, positive, bill that’s being considered in the Lapdog committee today.
Without a doubt, the most interesting committee meeting is that of the House House Administration Committee. The one guarantee? This bill is coming to the floor on Thursday. I support this one as well.
Rep. Darryl Scott has been a stalwart on the issue of personal privacy protection. Here’s a good example of his priorities. In today’s House Judiciary Committee.
Another good manufactured housing bill from Rep. Baumbach. In his House Manufactured Housing Committee.
I look forward to two Thursday agendas chockful o’ interesting bills. Until then, well, there’s always today’s Al Mascitti Show, 10 am to 12 noon at WDEL 1150-AM. You can listen on your radio, or you can stream it.
Tags: direct shipment of wine, El Somnambulo, Featured, Gov. Markell, Steve Tanzer Delaware, Valerie Longhurst
Isn’t the gasoline tax regressive by its very nature? A drive to work is a drive to work, and using same mpg vehicle it hurts the lower wage earner more, no?
You have a choice as to what kind of vehicle you drive, you have a choice as to how close or far you live from work, you may have a choice of alternate methods of getting to and from work.
We’re talking about creation of both pollutants and wear & tear on the roads. Don’t see why a gas tax shouldn’t be in the mix.
Do you think this is a worthwhile proposal? If so, how would you fund it?
Our taxes on fuel are ridiculously low by the standards of other industrialized countries. ..about half of what they should be. So we are basically subsidizing the auto industry.
I guess the cheap fuel once helped Detroit, now the beneficiaries are Seoul and Tokyo.
I would submit that some of the choices that you are saying are choices are not really choices at all. people of lower income do not have real choice on vehicle and often don’t have a choice on where they live relative to an available job
I would support a significant increase in personal income tax and make the system far more progressive than it currently is
People of lower income generally don’t drive those monster SUV’s. And, they generally live closer to their jobs than, say, people who live in Hockessin and commute to Wilmington for work.
Also, keep in mind that the program would help put people back to work who have either been unemployed or underemployed.
I would also support a PIT increase, as I mentioned in the article. But no one source will entirely fund the program.
http://itep.org/itep_reports/2013/06/evaluating-the-motor-vehicle-fuel-tax-reforms-in-bill-20-199.php
Ideas on how to do it right and responsibly perhaps?
An extra dime on a gallon of gas can easily be offset with just a little bit of thought.
For example:
‘Is this trip really necessary?’
Don’t need a think tank to do my thinking for me.
Less driving=less pollution and less wear on the roads.
Kinda like:
Less smoking=less cancer. Which is why I had no problem with jacking up cigarette taxes.
Do you support the proposal, John?
To improve Delaware’s infrastructure? Of course I support that proposal. I am not 100% sure a gas tax is the right way to go
I am concerned though about the adding jobs aspect and feel it needs to be watched closely. Every time Delaware goes for a job grab it seems in the last five years, it comes with a hidden deal with the devil. Or sometimes, not so hidden
It’s not THE way to go. It’s A way to go. Looks like a dime-a-gallon increase would provide about 1/4 of the needed revenue.
Seeing John’s name attached made me wonder how much increase this would cost Delaware’s school bus associations? And the state? Would Christina have to anti up more? Or do they get gas tax free? (I’m sure there is a way one could legalize it if it weren’t already happening).. Otherwise, how many dollars are we talking about costing school districts with this increase? And while at it, does anyone out there know whether DELDOT, or any of the other of the state’s fleets vehicles get their gas? Is it at commercial stations? If not, is it tax free?
A modest gas tax increase would be fine, coupled with also a modest increase in PIT for top incomes only. Let’s see if our Democrats can stand up and be Democrats, or if they are still cowering under the ghost of Reagan.
And maybe it’s time employers figured out how to have more employees work from home.
What is up with that HS1/HB60? HB 60 included beer in the wording, whereas the HS1 only allows wine. I would think that the “not readily available” clause would have soothed the Teamsters/distributor lobby.
As an avid craft beer snob, that is an annoying development.
Also, John is right about the regressive nature of a gas tax increase. I can afford to buy a hybrid vehicle (I actually have 2) because I make pretty good money. But the options for a person in the bottom 2 quintiles of income are much more limited. 10 year old used cars burn a lot more gas than a lot of newer cars. Sure, they can drive less, but to pretend that it isn’t more oppressive to the poorer consumer is silly.
I have a 10 year old car, and it is the cheapest way to drive. It doesn’t make financial sense for me to buy a $30K-plus hybrid, at least not until gas prices increase a lot more, or my driving needs go up drastically. When I do eventually need to replace it, I’ll be looking at a nice 2 year old used car, probably with a conventional engine, since I’m not sure used hybrids are a good value. I’d love to save the planet and all, but I have other things I could do with the cash I save on the purchase price of the car. Hybrids are still too expensive, though they are coming down. For how much I drive, the total cost of ownership is a wash, if not higher for the hybrid. Of course that could change if I get a long commute, but the pay would have to cover the cost of a new car.
The point is that with CAFE standards on the rise, the newer the car, the better the mileage (generally speaking). Also, the newer the car, the more expensive it will be.
I love how fairly well to do White people are deciding they know what’s best for the “working poor” and “middle class”. Yes, raise the minimum wage which ends up reducing job opportunities for teenagers and inner-city youth because the places they work for do not make huge profits (anyone who has ever worked in the fast food industry knows the majority of stores are owned by franchisees and not the big corporate headquarters), support making goods more expensive as trucks, who have high fuel costs, must spend even more transporting goods, and let’s force everyone into buying the cars WE like so WE upper middle-class white liberals can feel good about ourselves for “saving the planet”. Deny allowing the Newark data center project to go through because it isn’t “green” enough. In fact, prevent any discussion of the prevailing wage, because it’s better to have workers make no money than get paid less than what WE decide is good enough (see: Rockwood Museum). And people wonder why the manufacturing recovery in the US has by and large passed Delaware, except when Alan Levin has to literally pay companies to relocate here or expand here. Total number of jobs in Delaware? down about 1,000 from a year ago (source DE labor statistics).
I’m not a big fan of the gas tax increase for a few different reasons, but let’s deal with data: gas tax increases have been shown since the 1990s pretty conclusively NOT to be regressive in a traditional sense of hurting the poor and working poor the most. In fact, gas taxes are only traditionally regressive if the spectrum you consider is limited to the rich and middle class. The original 1991 paper abstract that proved the point is here:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w3578
It has been attacked on many occasions, but if you search carefully you’ll discover it has not been refuted.
However, as to the gas tax being a disincentive toward gas-hogging vehicles, that sorta doesn’t work either. For the most part relative gas tax revenues in Delaware have declined because overall fuel mileage is up, reducing gas consumption. The people who own Hummers and monster SUVs are usually in the “affluent” upper middle classes and up, and the change in the gas tax is not sufficient to alter their decisions about what vehicle to drive. At most, if they feel the pinch, they purchase another vehicle with high MPG for long commutes.
If you wanted to raise revenue AND modify consumer behavior, putting in differentiated registration/transfer fees would do it a lot more effectively–imagine an additional transfer fee of $1,000/”heavy” SUV on top of the percentage already charged. But, of course, that won’t be on the agenda.
Saying people have a choice of what they drive is an asinine.
Steve Newton wrote:
“The people who own Hummers and monster SUVs are usually in the “affluent” upper middle classes and up, and the change in the gas tax is not sufficient to alter their decisions about what vehicle to drive. At most, if they feel the pinch, they purchase another vehicle with high MPG for long commutes.”
Fine. Let ’em pay for their bad habits. If we’re not gonna raise the top rates, and we should, at least we’ve found one tax that will impel them to pay their fair share.
The minimum wage bill cleared the House committee yesterday. While a House amendment has been prefiled, it only makes the effective date of the bill June 1, 2014 instead of Jan. 1, 2014. The stall tactics succeeded, at least to an extent.
Will a cost-of-living increase be added? So far, no.
Anyone who thinks that everyone has a choice as to the car they drive, a choice as to where they work, a choice of Alternate methods of transportation (In Delaware?) sounds like the same out of touch Rethugs that they are bashing. Might be the most out of touch comment I’ve ever heard come from someone on this site. “Why don’t you poor people just go buy a hybrid?” You people who live in Dover, Middletwon, and every other place lower than Newark, why can’t you just take the bus or the train to work in Philadelphia? Why can’t you people just take a job down the street from your home? Give me a break…. Let them eat cake El?
This El guy has been adopted by the Markell team big time. Instead of adjusting the tax code, they’re gonna hit people that are hurting the most. And the blog that is suppose to speak out for the little guy says… Let them eat cake!! Ridiculous
You are aware that some of the biggest gas guzzlers are older cars. You do know that the poor drive the older cars. You are aware that most of those older cars are also things like minivans and SUVs… family vehicles. Not all are hummers buddy.
This wouldn’t hurt anyone other than families trying to make it in their 2004 explorer.
A tax levied on gas that is earmarked specifically for transportation improvements is more of a user or impact fee than anything else. It doesn’t matter what your income is, you are still using the roads and still helping to create the reasons why DelDOT needs to get repairs or expansions done. PA finally caved and added a .10 gas tax this year to help fix their infrastructure that is actually falling dawn and unsafe for use. Other states are doing the same thing. And they are doing the same thing because the need to repair roads and to expand some capacity doesn’t go away by just shaking your pitchforks at the problem.
Right, and a lot of that money goes into good paying jobs. This is not just a capital improvement program. Perhaps even more importantly, it’s a jobs program for working Delawareans.
Sorry I didn’t respond sooner, Black Cobain, I was too busy sifting through my job options with the Markell Administration.
I have to laugh at Markell’s $5.00 a month plug to describe the family hit to the wallet that this gas tax would cause. I guess it slipped his mind that most of us don’t have state police driving us in a state owned SUV… At ten cents a gallon, $5 dollars equals 50 gallons. 50 gallons = 1000 miles and 1000 miles in a full month is a light month of driving….
Speaking more accurately would be to say $20 a month for a family with teenagers and just let it go at that…
People have choices as to what kinds of vehicles they drive. If they want to drive massive gas-inhalers, that’s their choice.
People (particularly in Sussex) who work in construction, landscaping, agriculture, HVAC and a lot of other blue-collar jobs don’t ‘have a choice.’ Neither do families who would prefer to survive an auto accident in this world of distracted text’ers.
Rethugs don’t give two bleeps about jobs or clean waterways unless the waterways run past their chateaux.
Like Biden’s house in ‘Chateux Country?’
Less smoking=less cancer. Which is why I had no problem with jacking up cigarette taxes.
Less fat, less fat people= less heart disease (the biggest killer in America). How about ‘jacking up’ taxes on butter, ice cream, sugar, soda, bacon, etc., etc., ad infinitim?
Leave the bacon alone.
“How about ‘jacking up’ taxes on butter, ice cream, sugar, soda, bacon, etc., etc., ad infinitim?”
Simply taxing sugar would do a hell of a lot of good. No need to go overboard.
Why not a transportation tax on all citizens and businesses for transportation. This would cover all users and uses of our transportation infrastructure. Roads Public Transit and Bike lanes and pathways. $100.00 a year would bring in over 100 Million. Based on Delaware’s population of about 940 thousand. Make it a sliding scale too. Fair every one pays something. As it stands now Governor Markell’s Transportation policies are currently unfair towards lower income and those with disabilities. Bus fares going up 200% and in some cases more for those with disabilities, and an increase in the gas tax adversely affects folks with lower incomes more so than those who make more money.