Skip to main content

The simplest question of the day to answer . . .


Bloom surcharge tops $5; lawmakers ask why
Now, of course you can read this question two ways--but either way it is still simple to answer:

Reading ONE:  Lawmakers ask why the Bloom surcharge has risen so high?

Simple answer:  Because, like Nancy Pelosi, they apparently weren't paying attention when the original deal went through.

Reading TWO:  Lawmakers ask why Delaware's government was stupid enough to buy a pig in this particular poke?

Simple answer:  Because no matter what stupid stuff they do, people are still convinced that voting for Democrats and Republicans actually represents a choice, so there is no real electoral accountability for our politicians.

Here:  think about this--

If a similar surcharge, averaging say $2.5 million per month since mid-2011 had been in place, we'd have already raised $75 million of the $100 million that Governor Markell claims is necessary to clean up pollution in Delaware's waterways instead of funding a plant that might might MIGHT someday employ 80 people.

I'm not necessarily advocating such a surcharge or tax, because, as I have written before, there are other ways to find the money for critical environmental and infrastructure projects.

What I am pointing out is that our legislators and our Governor and our "economic development" people NEVER EVEN HAD THE CONVERSATION about whether or not this was the right priority to make you spend millions of your own money on before they did it.

And now, like they aren't culpable for these inane decisions, they're asking why.

You could save a lot A LOT A LOT of money and still get things done if you just help me get to Dover to change this particular conversation.

Feel free to donate at right--or settle back this November and vote the same people back in to do the same stupid stuff next time.

Comments

Anonymous said…
If that seventy five million was spent on hiring inner city adults, at $15.00 an hour to walk the riverways and pick up trash, how many jobs would that give?
Unknown said…
I am interested in this topic and would like to find out some more information as my friend need information on this topic. Do you have any other articles about this?
Cheap Ink Cartridges
Anonymous said…
Bloom Energy is ridiculous! THERE IS NO CAP PEOPLE! They can raise this at will. Steve you hit the nail on the head. I was at a recent meeting and in the 22nd district and one of our elected official said; "I voted yes for Bloom Energy, if I read what was in it, I would not have voted for it." This is what we elected?? There is no way, we were told, to STOP this BLOOM ENERGY TAX!!
Henry said…
This is a very awesome piece of knowledge. It raised many questions in my mind that I haven't given a think of. Now it's time to avail chauffeur service birmingham for more information.

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...