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.


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.
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!

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

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 — they are i