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 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