Skip to main content

The problem with hostage deals: they take the money and shoot the prisoners anyway

So the Bond Bill Committee has voted unanimously to spend $8 million in taxpayer dollars to bail out our casinos.

One must assume that their reasoning (if, indeed, reason was involved in the process at all) was to (A) avoid lay-offs in a bad economy, and/or (B) to secure the flow of tax revenue from the casinos for as long as possible.

Neither option plays well, however, as literally the first thing the casinos did was say that $8 million probably wouldn't be sufficient to avoid lay-offs:
However, Dover Downs CEO Ed Sutor indicated Monday that the $8 million, which will be spread out among the three casinos, may not be enough to hold back job cuts.
 If that's the case, then we're down to reason number two, which Wade Malcolm shot in the ass this morning:
And darker days could lie ahead for the state’s three casinos in 2014 and beyond as competition from other states intensifies, and some degree of layoffs could be inevitable in the near term – no matter what action legislators decide to take.
There's more to Wade's story, including the numbers, but you can get that yourself.

You can also read this story, which explains that lawmakers like Senator Robert Venables knew when they decided to donate $8 million in taxpayer dollars to keep private businesses afloat that it probably wouldn't work:
Sen. Robert Venables, who chairs the committee, said the $8 million is “better than nothing” for the casino industry, which has pleaded with lawmakers and the governor in recent weeks forhelp to reduce its tax burden.
There are two realities here.

1.  The General Assembly is just as willing to send $8 million down the tubes as corporate welfare on the off chance the gaming industry will recover as the Markell administration was to bet the farm on Fisker or Bloom Energy.  So now we know just why our legislators don't do any better at counter-balancing the Governor's bad decisions:  given the choice they do just as badly.

2.  That $8 million would not have prevented all teacher lay-offs across the state, but it sure would have been "better than nothing."  As it is, the Bond Bill Committee has just voted to spend money to prevent lay-offs that they already know won't prevent lay-offs.

Apparently neither math nor logic is necessary to make multi-million-dollar decisions with your tax money.

Comments

kavips said…
Or put differently, all members of government can not say no to their friends and close associates, but they can say no to arbitrary outside entities, of whom in a million years, they will never cross their path to be held accountable.

Sounds like me with my kids.
tom said…
@kavips, that is why libertarians believe in pushing all government functions down to the most local level at which they can be performed.

It is much easier to hold legislators & bureaucrats accountable if they are your neighbors than if they are some distant person in Dover or Washington that won't even answer your emails or calls.

Centralization is bad.

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