Skip to main content

Just wondering: What if Delaware just ignored the law and ran a deficit?

I know it's a strange question, a question I haven't actually seen seriously mooted about, because it's so politically incorrect that neither Governor Jack Markell nor any of our legislators are talking about it.

But what if we just borrowed the money and ran a deficit for a couple years, as the Keynesians assure us is the proper course on the national level?

Delaware supposedly has a great credit rating (thanks, one would presume, to the yeoman efforts of our former State Treasurer); I bet even today we could find investors willing to take a chance on America's Switzerland.

Of course, somebody would sue us immediately, but that's we have all those highly paid merit-exempt attorneys on retainer, right? They could keep this bottled up in court for years.

When we finally lost the case, what could the judge order? A repudiation of the State debt? An immediate draconian tax increase to pay off the State debt in a single year? Closing down Delaware's schools and forced busing into Maryland and Pennsylvania?

No, we'd probably just work out a State bankruptcy deal that gives 55% ownership of the State to its own employees' unions (Tommywonk calls this stakeholder capitalism) and then stiff our other creditors for thirty cents on the dollar.

After all, there's no reason that the Federal government should get to have all the fun breaking the rules of our financial system.

Just wondering....

Comments

Anonymous said…
You hit on something here Steve. The Delaware Constitution gives all powers for making law with the legislature. Why isnt someone writing a bill stating "we will not balance the budget in 2009, and 2010, and have a sunset provision in it. Hopely the economy will return and then go back to a balanced budget. In the meantime, the legislators have time to write new laws, enact new legislation that will solve or help balance the budget in the sunset year.
Brian Shields said…
I was avoiding the offhanded comment that they just pass a constitutional amendment repealing the balanced budget, but I don't want to even hint at it, so I have kept quiet.

Too late now
callit said…
That post was awesome. I like it.
kavips said…
Figures someone from a third party would find a solution the other two missed...

Wish I thought of it first.

lol.

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 ...