General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Tues. March 15, 2016
This entire session has been one giveaway after another to the corporate behemoths. Thursday’s session continued the trend with the Senate voting unanimously to fatten the corporate coffers (at the expense of the state’s coffers) by $10.6 mill by FY 2019. Look, I understand that we don’t want to lose any more jobs, but the state has essentially become a one-trick pony in recent years. And, for all that we’ve doled out in corporate welfare, we’ve only retained a small fraction of the jobs that once were the backbone of our economy. And now the county is jumping on the bandwagon. And all the public officials are praising each other for moving so swiftly to ‘save’ the paltry number of DuPont jobs that were ‘saved’. What is lacking is the ‘vision thing’, to quote Bush the Elder. Plus, a thoughtful discussion as to whether the millions we’re tossing to the companies extorting us would be better spent elsewhere. Thankfully, we’ve got John Carney bringing his inspiring vision to–uh, never mind.
Here is today’s Senate Agenda. I’ve got some serious questions about SB 202 (Sokola). Last session, the General Assembly passed legislation changing the minimum insurance requirements for school bus operators to reflect current industry standards. SB 202 exempts the Department of Education, any public school district, or any charter school from those requirements. OK…can someone tell me why? Does this mean that said entities are subject to no liability for accidents and injuries that may occur? Contractors are not exempt, but apparently DOE, school districts and, of course, charter schools, would be exempt. Can somebody talk me down here?
Today’s House Agenda features a bill I never thought would make it out of committee. HB 124 (Wilson) would create a constitutional amendment requiring that the General Assembly dole out a minimum of $10 mill annually for Agricultural Land Preservation. Let’s see, corporate welfare, farmers’ welfare, and don’t forget cops’ welfare, I think you can see what kind of welfare the General Assembly ignores.
I’m also not too keen on HB 99 (Briggs King), which ‘adds Department of Correction, Probation and Parole vehicles to the list of “authorized emergency vehicles” as used in Chapter 41 concerning the Rules of the Road’. I assume that means that they can race as fast as they want on the roads. Just one question. Why? And under what circumstances?
And, we have yet another ridiculous special license plate bill. SB 164 (Ennis) establishes a special license plate for paramedics and retired paramedics. Just remember, kids, it’s an election year.
A bill that should have been part of last year’s budget deliberations highlights Wednesday’s House Committee meetings. HB 216 (Kowalko) increases the annual corporate franchise tax ceiling by $15,000 to $195,000. Actually, an amendment goes even further and raises the ceiling to $250,000. Even Markell’s own Secretary of State has said that this is chump change to these corporations, and that it wouldn’t have a negative impact on Delaware. Let’s see if this obvious revenue source is tapped before the General Assembly finally taps out all Delawareans living from paycheck to paycheck. In the House Revenue & Finance Committee.
Other House Committee highlights:
*Legislation ‘modernizing’ the operations of the Office of the Bank Commissioner. I always worry whether bills like this are, at least, consumer-neutral. In the Business Lapdog Committee.
*I like this bill placing restrictions on telemarketers. Looks like this is Matt Denn’s work. Bipartisan sponsorship. In Business Lapdog Committee.
*Rep. K. Williams’ bullying bill. Requires substantiation of alleged bullying in order to enable the withdrawal of a child from school. House Education Committee.
*Now here’s a bill I really don’t like, even if the intent may (or may not) be laudable. HB 283 (Mulrooney), the so-called, wait for it, “Veterans, Skilled Workers, and Community Workforce Act”:
requires that on all state-funded construction, public works, or improvement projects that contractors and subcontractors must draw 30% of their workforce from the Representative District where the project is located, and 5% of their workforce from eligible Delaware veterans. Such projects are to be governed by a Project Labor Agreement with the Delaware Building and Construction Trades Council to provide structure and stability and promote efficient completion.
How does this bill suck? I think it’s bureaucratically impossible to make this bill work. Who is gonna keep track of which workers are from which districts? What happens when a project crosses district lines, which many of them do? Why is what should be a governmental function being farmed out to the Delaware Building & Construction Trades Council (Rhetorical question. I know why, I also know that it’s a formula for cronyism.) Oh, speaking of cronyism, we’re now gonna add yet another political element to the prioritization process. If, say, to choose a name completely at random, Pete Schwartzkopf makes noise about a project that he wants done ASAP in his district (and which would employ a significant number of people from his district), does DELDOT ignore the Speaker’s lobbying, or do they placate him? Anybody who has ever seen a contract awarded by DELDOT to a contractor knows that many of the project lists are long, many of them a series of road-paving projects. The same crews generally work together. We’re now gonna need a slide rule to make sure that these rules are being followed, that the crew composition must change as they go from project to project? It’s gonna inevitably lead to increased costs, inefficiency and longer waits to get the contract done. Finally, I, for one, am sick of giving veterans special priority on every goddamn thing. (BTW, we can add veterans’ welfare to the list.) At least until pacifists are given the same special privileges. In the Labor Committee.
*When Rep. J. J. Johnson eventually leaves the House, he will quietly leave behind an admirable legacy when it comes to corrections reforms. HB 211 is another example of that legacy. The bill ‘ limits the use of shackles and other physical restraints on children appearing in juvenile delinquency proceedings except in situations where the court determines that the use of restraints is necessary and there are no less restrictive alternatives that will prevent flight or physical harm to the child or other courtroom participants’. You would think such a bill would not be necessary. You would be incorrect. In Judiciary Committee.
*HB 212(Collins) is yet another giveaway to business masquerading as a jobs creation bill. Tax credits for hiring people, as if businesses are going to hire people only based on the tax incentive. An R election brochure bill. Revenue & Taxation.
*The fast-tracking of SB 200 continues apace. The $10-plus mill in extortion payments to business will be on the Governor’s desk by late Thursday. Revenue & Taxation.
Wait! Don’t leave just yet. We’ve still got Wednesday’s Senate Committee Schedule. The notables:
*Hmmm, this one doesn’t make much sense to me. SB 161(Hocker) prohibits schools from opening before Labor Day. Seems more aimed at tourism than education. Setting aside the question of whether public education should play second fiddle to tourism, the proponents only looked at the immediate pre-Labor Day impact. Did they look at the early summer impact if schools have to stay in session longer? Did they look at how student performance wanes as the days get warmer? Betcha they didn’t. Not that it should matter. Senate Education Committee.
*SS1/SB163(Peterson) follows up on last year’s bill reclassifying certain offenses as non-violent offenses, and adjusts how that impacts ‘habitual offenses’. Those convicted of multiple Title 11 non-violent offenses would no be able to petition the Court for adjusted sentences, and those convicted of three Title 11 violent offenses would be subject to enhanced penalties. Senate Judiciary Committee.
*SB 203(McBride). Looks like the General Assembly goofed big time (or some downstate folks snuck one through). SB 203 ‘restores the authority of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (Department) to assess criminal penalties against violators of the Wetlands Act and Subaqueous Lands Act (Acts), when appropriate. The Department previously possessed this authority, but it was inadvertently repealed by the 2013 amendments to the Acts. The Department’s enforcement of significant violations is limited without criminal penalties’. Wonder how many no’s this will get from downstate. Natural Resources & Environmental Control Committee.
Since we can’t talk about this stuff on the Al Show any more, share your comments here.
Tags: Delaware General Assembly, El Somnambulo, Steve Tanzer Delaware
I’m going to use your GA agenda posts when JFC starts freaking over the next budget and the chasm it needs to fill.
As far as SB202, I can’t offer any more info..I have no idea why that language is being removed. Title 14 section 2904 cites 48 Del. Laws, c. 119, § 1 which gives different coverage amounts as far as I can tell:
(1) Bodily Injury Coverage, including passenger hazard of:
(a) $5,000.00 for the injury or death of any one person, and
(b) Total coverage of either $100,000.00 or an amount equal to $5,000.00 plus $2,500.00 times the rated capacity of the bus for the injury or death of any number of persons in any one accident, and
(2) Medical Payment Coverage of $1,000.00.
Striking the language in 2904 would revert the coverages back what I just cited? Which were enacted in 1951.
What a sickening spectacle our legislature has become. So much deep thinking…. We appear to be only a few sessions away from one of the worthies drafting a bill that urges a Delawarean (veteran, state police officer, paramedic, or retired paramedic) to hurry up and win the Power Ball lottery.
My guess on SB202 is that the minimum coverages are being removed is because the state is self-insured.
My guess is that the state is giving itself and the districts an exemption because it intends to claim sovereign immunity if a child ever dies in an accident with a state employee behind the wheel of a bus.
As for charter schools, I don’t see this as special treatment. If the law is changed for school districts that operate their own buses, charters (as public schools) should follow the same rules. But, as far as I know, no charters operate their own buses … so the contractors they use would be subject to the higher standards.
Rep. J.J. Johnson, is one of the most decent, empathetic people in Legislative Hall. It’s nice to see that someone else recognizes what a great legacy he will leave behind.
Another corporate give away. Why am I not surprised? I am surprised though that Bryan Townsend voted for it and is listed as a co-sponsor. I heard him speak at an event where he spoke against these corporate welfare systems and give aways. To go from Not Voting on the DE Competes Act (which wasn’t a horrible bill) to being a co-sponsor for this crap sandwich give away to DuPont, is weird. At least Competes is attractive for other companies to establish here, but this is soley a handout to Uncle Dupi. I just don’t understand him, and am starting to believe what people say…. that he supports whatever the people in the room with him at that time support. If I’m wrong to feel this way, let me know. Interested to hear another point of view.
I was wondering about that myself.
So pretty much the telemarketing bill says that for those firms who are complying with the Federal Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act must also comply with the Delaware act which requires registration and a bond. And this applies to all including out of state and out of country operations.
Hopefully the Consumer Protection Unit doesn’t ask for an increase in staffing to execute this I know they are already busy with the folks who are fixing Microsoft Windows.
This isn’t a bad bill. It’s just a silly bill.
I’ve heard Townsend talk about it a couple times. He has said these kinds of bills need to be coordinated more and we need to figure out the impact of them and we shouldn’t act like they’re the magical solution. He’s pretty unimpressed with the whole thing and he said something about DEDO. I asked him at a lunch about the Research bill and he said that it impacts many more people and research than just DuPont but he still thinks this kind of stuff should all happen with coordination and ahead of time instead of in panic mode.
But I still kinda wish he’d voted No on it even if it helps more than just DuPont. He’s fighting the good fight and sometimes a No vote is a good reminder.
I think Townsend just sold you a pile of horse crap. I own a small business in Dover. Delaware Competes changed the filing schedule for every company in the state to better align with their cash flow. That piece alone is a win for every small business in the state. Also, the restructuring of the way the state calculates corporate income tax impacts every company who hires here and owns property here, and is a far greater draw for companies looking to move to Delaware.
This Innovation crap is just for companies like Dupont and Incyte. What other companies in Delaware would ask that the $5 million cap on R&D tax credits be lifted. Don’t know many small businesses that are investing that kinda cash into R&D. Hell, they didn’t even hide this stuff from the synopsis….
“Section 2 also expands the scope of the New Economy Jobs Tax Credit to include provisions covering retained jobs for companies involved in or resulting from a corporate restructuring.”
Now how many businesses does that effect on an annual basis. Also, how often to we give companies tax credit for “NOT” taking jobs away. So if Dupont acquires another company, all they have to say is… “Hey, we’ve retained these jobs after this merger… more money please?”
I’m with Bane, I don’t trust this guy either. Everyone I talk to in the hall says that he’s a liar and a sneak,
I certainly have not and will not support any of these corporate tax welfare bills. DuPont recently built and opened a $200 million solar panel manufacturing factory in China that employs thousands of Chinese workers and Delaware taxpayers are left with some extremely costly crumbs in Wilmington. Let me point out to the News Journal reporter that there will be opposition to this ravaging of the taxpayers’ wallet and I certainly will do my best to convince my colleagues of the illegitimacy of such policies that offer no return on investment for Delaware taxpayers. In addition DuPont has built and opened a $200 million factory in China that employs thousands of Chinese workers to manufacture solar panels that are sold under the DuPont
My point is that making that product (Oreos for instance) Moving 600 jobs from Chicago to Mexico across the border for dirt cheap wages and rueful working conditions benefits only those multi-billion dollar corporations and their CEOs (see DuPont/Dow $80 million bonuses) while idling thousands of American workers who no longer have spendable income to support the consumer spending that is needed for local businesses to survive. Ross Perot was right about that sucking sound. For example: DuPont $200 million factory built in China (recently opened) employing thousands of Chinese workers manufacturing solar panels for sale back here, or Johnson Controls recently constructed and opened battery manufacturing facility ($150 million) in China for distribution from the Delaware distribution center in Middletown that taxpayers invested millions in infrastructural and road improvements. For example DuPont spinoff headquarters staying in Wilmington while a significant majority of the actual jobs of the agricultural research branch goes to Iowa leaving Delaware with 1700 layoffs of well-paid positions and only a potential for job growth with a price tag of $16 million for Delaware taxpayers. The list goes on and on.
I agree Rep Kowalko…
What about this
“Section 2 also expands the scope of the New Economy Jobs Tax Credit to include provisions covering retained jobs for companies involved in or resulting from a corporate restructuring.”
I understand giving companies tax credits for hiring people, but since when do we give corporations tax credits for “NOT FIRING PEOPLE”
So let me get this straight. The next time DuPont acquires another company, they can come to the State and County to ask for millions of dollars so that they don’t have to fire people. However, then they they can turn around and get a tax credit for not firing the people that we just paid them not to fire.
YOU CAN’T WRITE THIS STUFF!!!!!!