Skip to main content

Delaware politics as usual: another laugher from Senate Dems on the Treasurer

How funny is this?

Democratic lawmakers will waste little time next week in going after Delaware Treasurer Chip Flowers. 
The Senate Executive Committee, led by Senate President Pro Tem Patricia Blevins, D-Elsmere, will consider a bill to give an unelected board, not the popularly elected Flowers, the sole authority to make decisions on how to invest a $2 billion taxpayer portfolio. 
Members of Gov. Jack Markell’s administration authored the bill last year, but lawmakers punted it on the final day of the legislative session in June after a behind-closed-doors meeting with Flowers and members of Markell’s cabinet.
Let me count the ways:

1.  Senate President Pro Tem Patti Blevins (D-Highmark) is going to go after someone for bad fiscal management practices, and make them accountable.  This would be the same Senator Blevins who helped gin up the deal that in allowing Highmark to buy out Blue Cross Blue Shield of Delaware and establish a private insurance monopoly in the state, while also exempting Highmark from a $175 million reserve requirement and taking away most of the Attorney General's oversight powers.

2.  The rest of our Senate Democratic leadership--you know, the folks who impotently watched the train wreck that was Fisker, spent millions bailing out racinos, and routinely wastes tens of millions on corporate welfare every session--is now to be considered the paragon of financial oversight!?

3.  . . . or should that be the lapdogs of the Governor's office?  The article admits that Jack Markell's people, not our financial genius Senators, wrote the bill.  I would be willing to bet you that that before the last week of the session no more than three Senators could have even explained to you what the Cash Management Policy Board was, or what it did.

4.  And this piece of serious watch-dog financial legislation was "punted ... on the final day of the legislative session in June after a behind-closed-doors meeting ...."  You know what?  Most of these Democrats will be out there this year running on government transparency, standing in front of a record of closed-door-meetings, illegal task forces, and secret AG opinions, and the thing of it is that they don't even have the class to be embarrassed by their own hypocrisy.

5.  Chip Flowers is an easy target:  from his Alaska trip to his penchant for sticking his foot in his mouth every time he gives an interview.  Most Democrats don't really like him (do I hear the word "uppity" instead of "assertive" or "hard-charging"?), which is why he barely beat Colin Bonini the first time around.  But the reality is that Chip Flowers is a distraction.  Chip doesn't have a damn thing to do with Delaware's $150 million budget shortfall, with the losses on Fisker, with the ridiculous decision to bet future budgets on casino gambling.  He's part of a package put together to keep you from noticing that the State of Delaware is not just on the financial edge, but also that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans has the slightest idea what to do about it.

Last year the distractors were marriage equality, transgender equality (both good things but nothing to do with economics), gun control, and the illegal charter school task force.  This year, if the early whispers are any guide, the distractors will be Chip Flowers, gun control, and the minimum wage.  What these distractors are intended to do is allow our legislators to seem to have momentum, and to throw themselves celebratory parties, while (as usual) secretly writing a budget that protects their corporate contributors at all costs.

The Chip Flowers Control Act--a new substitute for a legislative agenda.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I'm just happy someone else is out looking for distractors too.

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 ...