Skip to main content

Delaware depending on "robbery by the Government" to fund state programs, one DEFAC member charges

I know that writers at the New Journal very often do not control the titles of their stories, so I'm giving this one the title I hope that Jonathan Starkey would have written (had he enjoyed a free hand), rather than calling it, "Delaware relies on iffy money."

Business groups and lawmakers are raising red flags over the state’s increasing reliance on so-called abandoned property – the uncashed corporate checks and inactive savings accounts nowfunding an oversized portion of Delaware’s cash-strapped budget.
The Delaware Department of Finance expects to collect $631 million from abandoned property next year, up 29 percent. With traditional business and personal taxes still sagging in the wake of the recession, abandoned property collections are expected to fund 15 percent of regular state spending, say projections – up from just 3 percent back in the 1990s.
Delaware, which has also come under fire for aggressively pursuing unclaimed cash, spends about $30 million annually going after themoney. That bill includes millions in payments to third-party auditors who pore over corporate books for unclaimed cash that can be escheated – turned over to the state.
By comparison, Maryland collected just $78 million last year in similar revenues.

Disturbing, but here, however, is what should have been the "money" paragraph used for the title:
Gary Simpson, a leading state Republican who sits on the Delaware Economic and Financial Advisory Council, which provides budget estimates to the state, called Delaware’s reliance on abandoned property revenues “a scary situation. It’s an unsustainable source of revenue, in my opinion,” he said. Even worse, Simpson added, “I think people look at it as sort of a robbery by the government.”
Read the whole thing.

Comments

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 — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...