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

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 ...