Skip to main content

On the witness stand, Governor Markell tells the truth

From one of his latest columns:
Hundreds of times, I’ve asked Delaware business leaders and entrepreneurs what our state can do for them.
Yep, he asked Fisker Automotive, Bloom Energy, and all three Racinos.

He asked JP Morgan Chase, Amazon, Ashland, Atlantis Industries, Capital One, Citi, and Kraft Foods.

And, despite what he says in his column, they didn't tell him that they needed better entry level employees, and that they wanted him to invest heavily in public education.

Nah, they told him they wanted money--tens of millions of dollars of state taxpayer money--or else, like Astrazeneca--they would simply leave this little "First State" behind.

And Governor Markell paid them off with tens of millions of what the News Journal finally acknowledges are our dollars:
However, this is a good time to remember the money does not belong to either the Legislature or the governor. It belongs to the taxpayers.
And just what do the editors of the News Journal demand that the Governor and the legislature do?
This unanticipated revenue should be invested in projects that will pay a return on the investment, rather than on projects that make a handful of constituents happy. 
Funny, that was not the line that the News Journal took over all of the Governor's hand-outs to his largest and most well-heeled corporate constituents.

That was not the line the editorial board took when lay-offs loomed for Delaware teachers or the Gateway Center drug rehab center prepared to close its doors forever because the state suddenly couldn't afford it.

No, then, the WNJ pretty much gave the same answer that covers the question of what Governor Markell's budget really looks and smells like.

Jack. Shit.

Comments

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