Skip to main content

If John Carney actually wants to be governor. . . .

. . . then he's going to have to denounce Ruth Ann's $708,000 giveaway to Kraft Foods at the same moment she's demanding tens of millions of dollars back from every school district in the State.

But he won't do that, because he can't.

And that's why he won't be governor.
Labels:

Comments

a most peculiar nature said…
I couldn’t agree more.

I was wondering where the heck this money came from. It seems so insignificant an amount, compared to the total investment. I mean, $708,000 is probably what Kraft would need to re-carpet the administrative offices and get new desk chairs.

I traced this to the “Competitiveness Fund” grants that are available through the Economic Development office. It appears to me that companies have to actually apply for this money. I looked at the application, and was wondering how a gazillion dollar corporation could justify needing $708,000 unless it is just one of those cases, “Well, it’s there, we might as well go for it”.

The actual cash comes from something called the Delaware Strategic Fund and comes of the capital budget.

Poor timing, indeed for kissing the ass of a corporation that would have made the investment anyway without this paltry sum. Paltry to Kraft, that is. Not to other parts of the State that need it.
April 14, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Anonymous said…
I found this whole story bizarre, including the disturbing picture in the News Jouranl of Aunt Bee drinking Tang.

I'm guessing the $708,000.00 should cover their property taxes and state payroll taxes for the year. Thanks to the Economic Development office that tab gets spread around to the entire state...Thanks!
April 14, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...
44 comments
Read more

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...
22 comments
Read more

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...
31 comments
Read more