Skip to main content

The problem with hostage deals: they take the money and shoot the prisoners anyway

So the Bond Bill Committee has voted unanimously to spend $8 million in taxpayer dollars to bail out our casinos.

One must assume that their reasoning (if, indeed, reason was involved in the process at all) was to (A) avoid lay-offs in a bad economy, and/or (B) to secure the flow of tax revenue from the casinos for as long as possible.

Neither option plays well, however, as literally the first thing the casinos did was say that $8 million probably wouldn't be sufficient to avoid lay-offs:
However, Dover Downs CEO Ed Sutor indicated Monday that the $8 million, which will be spread out among the three casinos, may not be enough to hold back job cuts.
 If that's the case, then we're down to reason number two, which Wade Malcolm shot in the ass this morning:
And darker days could lie ahead for the state’s three casinos in 2014 and beyond as competition from other states intensifies, and some degree of layoffs could be inevitable in the near term – no matter what action legislators decide to take.
There's more to Wade's story, including the numbers, but you can get that yourself.

You can also read this story, which explains that lawmakers like Senator Robert Venables knew when they decided to donate $8 million in taxpayer dollars to keep private businesses afloat that it probably wouldn't work:
Sen. Robert Venables, who chairs the committee, said the $8 million is “better than nothing” for the casino industry, which has pleaded with lawmakers and the governor in recent weeks forhelp to reduce its tax burden.
There are two realities here.

1.  The General Assembly is just as willing to send $8 million down the tubes as corporate welfare on the off chance the gaming industry will recover as the Markell administration was to bet the farm on Fisker or Bloom Energy.  So now we know just why our legislators don't do any better at counter-balancing the Governor's bad decisions:  given the choice they do just as badly.

2.  That $8 million would not have prevented all teacher lay-offs across the state, but it sure would have been "better than nothing."  As it is, the Bond Bill Committee has just voted to spend money to prevent lay-offs that they already know won't prevent lay-offs.

Apparently neither math nor logic is necessary to make multi-million-dollar decisions with your tax money.

Comments

kavips said…
Or put differently, all members of government can not say no to their friends and close associates, but they can say no to arbitrary outside entities, of whom in a million years, they will never cross their path to be held accountable.

Sounds like me with my kids.
tom said…
@kavips, that is why libertarians believe in pushing all government functions down to the most local level at which they can be performed.

It is much easier to hold legislators & bureaucrats accountable if they are your neighbors than if they are some distant person in Dover or Washington that won't even answer your emails or calls.

Centralization is bad.

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 — ...

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 ...

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...