Undaunted by the prospect of blowing yet a greater hole in the budget for the next few years, the State Senate joined the House in passing legislation that would ‘remove disincentives’ for job creation for the corporate overlords. The Senate passed the bill with only one ‘not voting’ (Townsend, who was a co-sponsor on the bill), and the bill goes to the Governor. Keep this in mind in June when the Honorables (ongoing h/t to Ralph Moyed) shrug their collective shoulders and lament the ‘tough choices’ (read screw anybody but the corporate overlords) they had to make. They, of course, didn’t have to make them. They made clear that bowing to their corporate overlords is business as usual. A projected $50 mill shortfall to the budget over the first 2 1/2 years the legislation is in effect. Just curious: Who, if anybody, will keep track of all those new jobs the corporate overlords will create now that the ‘disincentives’ have been removed? Based on previous experience, my prediction is ‘Nobody’. A pure unvarnished giveaway.
Delaware’s ‘apology’ for its role in perpetuating slavery passed the Senate. Three no votes. Hocker, Lawson, and Bonini. None of whom have likely ever cracked a history book and read of Delaware’s role in perpetuating slavery.
Here is the Session Activity Report from last Thursday.
OK. Let’s now talk the Delaware Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, and our turncoat governor. The Senate is scheduled to consider a serious minimum wage bill today. Will the same business forces who united to give themselves a $50 million tax break stay together to fight against a reasonable increase in the minimum wage? Rhetorical question. Of course they will. Because it’s always been about transferring yet more wealth to themselves. SB 39(Marshall) increases the minimum wage over the next 4 or 5 years to $10.25 an hour via a series of incremental increases. An amendment would provide for a $15.05 minimum wage by 2023. To me, the choice for the legislators is obvious: Are you going to provide at least a measure of fairness to workers, or are you going to give them the finger while giving the Chamber and the Business Roundtable a $50 mill break over the next three years? To me, that would be patently unfair and would mark any D who takes that approach as unfit to serve. There really is no excuse for anyone who proclaims to be a D to oppose this. If you agree, call your senators. The Senate sponsors are Marshall, McBride, McDowell, Henry, Peterson and Townsend. Where do the following stand?: Blevins, Sokola, Hall-Long, Poore, Bushweller, and Ennis. Oh, and don’t forget Cathy Cloutier and Ernie Lopez, who both at least try to appeal to working-class voters. Call ’em, ask ’em if they intend to support workers. Then let us know what they say.
Here is the rest of today’s Senate Agenda.
HS 1/HB 219(M. Smith) kicks off today’s House Agenda. The bill ‘requires that health insurance offered in this state provide coverage for in vitro fertilization for persons who, along with their partner, are genetic carriers for spinal muscular atrophy’. Clearly we’re talking a small universe here. I just want to know why this should be mandated. Should every special case necessitate legislation like this? I’m not taking a position, just asking the question.
The Total Wines Welfare Bill is also scheduled. Expanded hours during holiday season. The purported reason for this bill is ‘customer convenience’. OK, if the General Assembly is now all about customer convenience when it comes to selling alcohol, there is no justifiable policy reason to prohibit liquor sales in grocery stores. Except, of course, Total Wines lobbies against it.
I’ll be back with an extended look at committee meetings tomorrow. Remember that this is the final legislative week before the six-week break for the Joint Finance Committee. Be wary of shenanigans.