Chris Coongeniality Has A Sad. He misses his old buddy:
They were often legislative foes, but they were also personal friends. Senator Chris Coons shared memories of South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham on ABC’s “This Week.”
The Delaware Democrat, who had dinner with Graham Thursday when both men were in Turkey for the NATO summit, said the South Carolina Senator had a hard childhood, having been orphaned at an early age.
“And he never imagined he’d be a United States Senator. He was in a good mood, having just won his primary, and he was very focused on Ukraine,” said Coons.
Coons said Graham was working on a bill to pressure Russia to end its war with Ukraine.
“And Lindsey told me that President Trump had just said to him (that) he would support the bill, and it’s my hope that we will take up and pass this bill in Lindsey’s memory this week, when we all get back to session,” said Coons.
Coons added that he loved Graham “like a brother,” meaning he could always forgive him after a knock-down, drag-out Senate battle.
“The (Brett) Kavanaugh confirmation was exceptionally ugly (oh yes, that). There were other things he did (that) I really, really disagreed with and thought were bad choices and violated our shared values, but I also saw him, in his best moments, fighting fiercely for the underdog in America,” said Coons.
Coons also called Graham one of the funniest men he’s ever known.
“In a tense diplomatic situation with a challenging meeting, he could break the ice, he could make everybody crack up–the very first trip I took with him, I wrote down a whole list of Lindsey-isms,” said Coons.
Translation: He moved in lockstep with Trump (his latest in a series of father figures) to destroy the country, but he was quick with a quip and a wonderful solo dining companion.
This is what’s wrong with Chris Coons, and what’s wrong with the Senate. Collegiality over corruption.
Following a challenging budget year, two Dover leaders are offering up a revenue source proposal to resolve the city’s tight financial margins: new fees on certain tax-exempt properties.
Dover City Councilmen Roy Sudler and Brian Lewis proposed at a committee meeting last week that the city levy an impact fee of $1 per square-foot of building space on tax-exempt properties larger than 50,000 square feet in the city.
The proposal includes a list of 20 properties that would be subject to the yearly fee, including the Delaware State University (DSU) campus, Bayhealth Medical Center, the Delaware Technical Community College Terry Campus and Legislative Hall.
If approved, the concept would require institutions like Bayhealth, DSU and the state government to each pay the city more than a million dollars annually.
“Everyone should have to pay their fair price,” Sudler said at the meeting. “Job creation does not pave roads, institutional growth does not clear stormwater networks, and prestige does not fuel emergency rescue vehicles.”
Right, and DSU students and faculty don’t patronize Dover businesses, same holds true for Bayhealth. Or, um, not. Just one problem, though:
In addition to passing an ordinance within the city government, the impact fee would necessitate a charter change to be implemented. Charter changes require an affirmative vote by two-thirds of each chamber in the General Assembly to be approved.
While the proposal appears to have initial support within the city, it is not clear whether city leaders would be able to lobby their state counterparts to support the fee. (Yes it is.)
State Sen. Trey Paradee (D-Dover), whose district includes the majority of the city of Dover, said he does not believe the impact fee is constitutional, nor would it be successful if put to a vote in the legislature.
“It is politically impossible for them to do,” Paradee said. “It would just never happen.”
Paradee said the Constitution’s supremacy clause – which states that state law takes precedence over local law – is evidence that the city does not have the authority to implement what he described as “essentially a tax on state property.”
Much ado about nothing.
Mitch, or ‘Mitch’, Surfaces. Someone put the WaPo sports page in ‘Mitch’s’ hand:
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Sunday that he will return to the Senate after a weeks-long hospitalization in a statement seeking to put to bed rampant speculation about his health.
McConnell, in a lengthy note to constituents, said he was placed in the hospital after falling last month and also has dealt with a “mild case of pneumonia.” His office also released a photo of the senator holding Sunday’s edition of The Washington Post sports section.
The White House comms office claims that the stations are privately owned and receive no government subsidies. But the White House has also claimed that Iran has no military capabilities—and yet we’re back in a shooting war with them. Which is to say: There is no reason to believe that the administration’s statements about Freedom Fuel are true.
The company itself is a mystery. It does not respond to press inquiries and accounts of its corporate structure differ—no one seems to know if it is a chain of independently owned operators or if the locations are all owned by a single entity.
The corporate parent, however, applied for its trademark on the same day Trump first posted about Freedom Fuel—which is either a remarkable coincidence or, you know, close coordination between the White House and this “private” business.
Also, the White House claims to know a great deal about the company’s business strategy:
A White House official told ABC News that the Freedom Fuel Network is a private company not associated with the president, that is “simply reducing their margin to make prices at the pump more affordable for drivers in Philadelphia and New Jersey.” . . .
“There is no other entity or person subsidizing the lower gasoline costs,” the official said.
How would the White House official know this information? How would they know that Freedom Fuel stations are still profitable and that the cheap gas is only a reduction of profit margins? Or that no other person or entity was subsidizing a loss on sales?
Seems suspicious to me!
According to industry data reviewed by ABC News, selling gas at that price point, under the current market conditions, would likely eliminate any profit and potentially cost the 25 participating stations a total of more than quarter million dollars every month.
They’ll lose money on every sale, but make it up in volume?
Only thing we know for certain?–Trump and/or his family are making money off this scheme. Hmmm, maybe it’s Venezuela.
What do you want to talk about?
