Fear Mongering And Loathing…
Mar 25th, 2009 by MariaEvans
Fear Mongering And Loathing In Las Vegas Delaware
Once upon a time, I worked for a wise candidate who told me that when budget cuts are on the horizon, an administration will threaten teachers’ jobs or pay to scare and anger the masses. That way, when a teacher’s 8% pay cut ends up being a 4% pay cut, the masses are relieved, the teachers end up being grateful that it was only a 4% pay cut, and the administration looks like the compassionate hero.
Governor Jack Markell’s new budget proposal with an 8% across the board cut in state employee’s pay and a massive expansion of gambling in the state is a far cry from what we heard during the days of Candidate Jack Markell, a sure sign that at the end of this story, there will be a dearth of heroes…
Candidate Markell, had a plan. It was over 70 pages long and he called it his “Blueprint for a Better Delaware” Maybe you heard about it during his book tour around the state. This is how Markell’s campaign website describes the book:
Markell’s “Blueprint for a Better Delaware” is unique, in part because it outlines a comprehensive vision for the future, but it also highlights concrete proposals, timelines and costs for taking state government in a different direction than it has been on under the Minner-Carney Administration. Never before has a Delaware candidate for governor given voters so much information about his or her plans for running the state, and never have voters had such a tangible way of holding a candidate accountable once elected.
Probably the most “unique” thing I’ve noticed about Candidate Markell’s “Blueprint for a Better Delaware” is that it doesn’t mention across the board pay cuts for all state employees, and it completely fails to mention any expansion of casino gambling. In fact, the words “casino,” “gambling” and “sports betting” appear exactly no where in the Candidate’s book, yet they are a centerpiece of the Governor’s new budget.
And is something that has been described as “the largest single extension of gambling in the history of the nation” just politics as usual for Delaware, where special interests, lobbyists and campaign donors get their backroom negotiated payback while the average Delawarean is expected to live happily with the fallout? Or is all of this just simply fear mongering so when the Governor and his staff figure out their real plan for the state we’ll all be relieved and grateful?
Meanwhile, Markell’s rationalization for this historic expansion of gambling in Delaware seems to be that “you can’t be half-pregnant,” but do we really have to become Octomom instead?
The bottom line is that Governor Markell’s “Ruth Annesque” treatment of teachers and state employees, and his 13 new gambling venues in Delaware are not the “Blueprint” that Candidate Markell laid out for Delawareans. We have his book of campaign promises, we’ve seen his real “vision” for our children and the State of Delaware in his first budget, and now is the time to hold the Governor accountable.
And one more thing…a few weeks ago I called and left a message for Joe Rogalsky, the Governor’s Communications Director. I had a question: Was Governor Markell dancing in the conga line at the White House last month?
I never got a response from the Governor’s office. In light of his budget proposal, I’d like to know now more than ever if our Governor was whooping it up in a conga line at the White House while his administration was planning to eviscerate the paychecks of teachers and all other state employees…
Joe? Do you have an answer for me on that yet?
Maria -
I have to admit, I rarely agree with you. However, this post is one of the best I have read in a long time. You seem to be the only person who isn’t a Markell zombie. So many of these bloggers seem to operating in an alternate universe.
Markell is f’ing up all over the place. Let’s see him cut from the top. Like, what the hell do Brian Selander and Stephanie McClellan do on a daily basis? I bet they are making a boat load of money off the public dole but do close to nothing. Just a bunch of self-absorbed asshats who are about 1/3 as smart as they think they are.
Also, as it pertains to Obama’s inaug…
Am I the only person who thought it was absolutely STUPID to cancel Markell’s inaug? Those events are not paid for by state money. They use money from ticket sales, sponsors, etc. If Markell had the event, he would have had to rent a hotel, hire entertainment, catering, etc… funneling money into local, Delaware businesses. People DO have money still, against popular opinion. They would have bought tickets.
But no, it was a better “symbolic” move to cancel it… and that’s all Markell is… symbolic. He’s very good with the sheen but there’s not much underneath it.
One term and hit the road, Jack.
I agree, Maria, you’ve put forward a well written piece.
But there is one major part left out: If Markell’s proposed budget resolution is bad, what is good? What should we do?
I have not seen one soul come forward with the answer to that question, not even you Maria!
PS: Just as Obama has come in inheriting Bush’s mismanagement and neglect, Markell inherits Minner’s mismanagement and neglect. Both leaders are forced to lead us through bad times with much belt-tightening and self-sacrifice, which probably will not make either leader very popular in the short term. With all due respect, both leaders face historic challenges, for which there are no easy solutions, while the critics lean back in their computer chairs and snipe away, offering no better solutions themselves.
Let us see what the US and DE legislators come up with on the respective budgets proposals they have been given their respective executive branches.
Perry,
Markell should start by looking at the program cuts that are needed. There are a lot of cronies still on the payroll, and a lot of funded programs that are unnecessary. These will not fill the entire shortfall, but doing this is exactly what Jack Markell PROMISED to do, and has not.
What these cuts would do is make government more efficient and responsive. It would also make all those State Employees a little more comfortable with the big hit and the “shared” sacrifice proposed by Markell.
Please be aware that the rank and file State Employees (the ones Markell repeatedly promised to reach down too throughout his campaign that he is now ignoring) do know where the waste is in Government. They also know that they are taking a hit that could be less extreme if these cuts were made as promised.
Also, what about the openness and transparency promised by Markell? Why hasn’t the administration shared or published all that information they collected on the web transition site and/or at all those listening meetings?
Until Markell’s Administration changes course and shares the information and makes some of the cuts in wasteful programs that public employees know exist, don’t expect much support for Markell from large block of State Employees that he must depend upon to succeed. The secrecy breeds distrust, even if there is nothing useful in the information – sharing it and demonstrating that to the public is needed to make the current proposal credible.
Markell had great promise, but seems to be in a bad downward spiral.
I hope he can recover, but it will be tough.
Markell should start by looking at the program cuts that are needed.
Good thing Markell is smarter than to let his opponents bog him down in a political fight at this time. I am pleased that Markell is not attempting to rebalance state priorities and reengineer agencies in this timeframe – it would be sure to be rushed and botched. There will be time after the budget is passed.
…a lot of funded programs that are unnecessary.
Like what?
…a lot of funded programs that are unnecessary.
Like what?
#1 State owned golf courses.
#2 State owned buildings/acreage for no use (Beuna Vista, The Arsenal)
#3 DelawareHelpLine
#4 Homeland Security (Should be tied with State Police)
#5 State Libraries (let the counties run them all)
Are the details of state spending hidden from the legislators? I would hope not. That said, I am for total transparency, so people like Maria can weigh in on the spending issues.
Let us see what our legislators do with Markell’s proposed budget which is but a starting point in the process. Right now they seem consumed with a constitutional amendment bill to save marriages. Woohoo!
While at first glance the eight items given above merit being carefully examined for cuts and savings, we have about a $600 million shortfall, implying that some pretty drastic steps must be taken to bring us to balance.
Interesting, noman.
Given how much more vast the playing field is at the top it is interesting you don’t also say :
“I am pleased that Obama is not attempting to rebalance national priorities and reengineer agencies in this timeframe – it would be sure to be rushed and botched.”
Oh, that’s right you’re a partisan who will defend whatever your people do, even if it makes you intellectually dishonest and inconsistent.
I’ll ignore your ad hominem, and repeat what I said previously: Obama’s economy will crash if he doesn’t spend immediately. Markell’s economy will crash if he doesn’t cut immediately.
Both are pouring water onto their respective fires, and you guys are harassing them like punks shooting at the firemen during a riot.
It was clear to us who are current and those who were past contributors to this blog that we couldn’t afford Jack’s book. At best it was pandering and at worst it would be fiscal disaster. Sometimes the best candidate doesn’t win. 2008 was an emotional election in Delaware not a rational one.
David, did you read Alan Levin’s LttE in today’s NJ? You ought to!
And by the way, Alan says the shortfall is $751 million. OMG!
Dave, under Markell I hope that changes. Otherwise, why do we even have a legislature?
Both are pouring water onto their respective fires, and you guys are harassing them like punks shooting at the firemen during a riot.
I’ll ignore your ad hominem and say the only difference is that the law requires Markell to be fiscally-responsible, at least to the extent of a balanced budget.
I am sure he would be going the Obama route were he not so restrained. Even so, Markell should be far more radical in his fiscal austerity than Obama is in his fiscal recklessness.
It is a bit ironic that the government-centric Democrats of the world get control of the whole shlameel just as the world is quickly realizing : It’s all too much!!
Sure Alan has a boss, but I thought he characterized Markell’s core approach quite well. Moreover, he claimed that cutting waste only yields $240 million. Let us see if our legislators can find more waste to cut, like some of the eight suggestions above, thus offsetting some of the draconian wage cuts. It is time for our legislators to step up to this challenge, wouldn’t you say?
Tyler, I don’t see the fiscal recklessness; rather, I see fiscal responsibility on Obama’s part.
His plan includes halving the deficit by the end of his first term — that’s responsible!
For now, tripling the deficit is required to stoke the economy, as many experts agree.
Also part of his current plan is to invest in areas that will create jobs and pay off down the line with savings.
Since we are the prime cause of the global recession, it seems to me that it is our obligation to fix it. Repeating the cause (laissez faire re market oversight, deregulation, and supply side tax cuts), as Repubs and Libertarians seem to still favor, does not make rational sense to me.
I understand your strong aversion to big spending and large deficits, as in Bush, but our deep recession changes the playing field, hopefully only temporarily, such that our response cannot be the usual partisan routine.
Point taken, Dave.
Do you think there is potential for significantly more cutting than the Markell cut of $240 million?
Incapable legislators? You are holding out little to no hope for DE’s survival. Should we let MD or PA take us over? Or should we all head to VA, NC or SC?
Or are we in for some serious tax increases, like in NCC (15%?), like in Lewes (25%)
Well, I asked for a list of what funded programs are unnecessary… here’s what I got so far:
#1 State owned golf courses.
#2 State owned buildings/acreage for no use (Beuna Vista, The Arsenal)
Political. You lose.
You just want to turn them over to developers so someone can make a fast buck paving it over. Nice try. Open space and architectural preservation has been almost non-existent in Delaware… but when we draw the line, we try to keep it drawn. I am pleased these items survived the first round of cuts…. if they get cut, it better be justified by something else really important.
#3 DelawareHelpLine
News to me… what’s the case against the HelpLine?
#4 Homeland Security (Should be tied with State Police)
Hmmm… I am pretty sure DSHS exists to capture Federal revenue… not sure cutting DSHS would be a net win. I have plenty of quibbles on civil liberties and cronyism grounds, but not on budget. Not too crazy about giving even more political or bureaucratic power to DSP.
#5 State Libraries (let the counties run them all)
Also new to me. Which libraries?
http://www2.lib.udel.edu/dla/name.htm
on 26 Mar 2009 at 9:50 am6Dave Burris
#6 Double-digit annual growth in Medicaid with no analysis of the program
Is Medicaid an unnecessary program?
#7 Prevailing Wage
Political. You lose.
#8 Huge Mid-Level Education Bureaucracy at DOE
Agreed… but this is an example of something that cannot be done in the next 60 days. The political fight would bring down the rest of the agenda.
Well, I asked for a list of what funded programs are unnecessary
Ummm, the one’s proposing continued spending on the “funded programs” should be listing why they are necessary, or better yet indispensable.
We’ll wait for your list of explanations.
I’m not the one who claimed there were unnecessary funded programs, so the burden is not on me to explain.
Honestly, I don’t think there are many programs that could be entirely eliminated, at least not enough to make a serious dent in the shortfall.
You and Dave are correct in that the real money is in reform of existing programs, like ed admin and Medicaid. Like I said, that is not something to do on a crash basis. It will be a political fight, one that I look forward to.
So far, my expectation is that after the budget is passed, Markell will continue to show leadership by beginning exactly those reforms, while tamping down the idealogues on both sides. It’s bad enough he has to deal with Adams and the Minnerites, let alone carping from the right.
And Dave is also correct that transparency is lacking and is the key to an informed debate; I have said the same thing myself.
The CBO report simply informs us that policy will have to change at some point in the next several years. And change and competence is exactly what Obama has promised. I don’t expect Obama to stand still if the best case scenario fails to materialize.
By the way, here are all the CBO reports:
cbo.gov/publications/bysubject.cfm?cat=0
And CBO has a blog…
cboblog.cbo.gov
I don’t expect Obama to stand still if the best case scenario fails to materialize.
Yeah, but the money will be long gone.
#1 State owned golf courses.
#2 State owned buildings/acreage for no use (Beuna Vista, The Arsenal)
noman – they are owned by the state and run by private corps, the only one saying anything about turning them over to developers is you. why is that?
the only one saying anything about turning them over to developers is you.
So you’d be OK to kick out the private corps and run them as state parks?
If the small minority of residents who use them pay a higher service fee. Too much of state and county expenses are on ‘nice to haves’ and dont give me the crap with fire, police, etc. that is a lame argument. But why does the state own golf courses and restaurant buildings while those are being operated by private individuals instead of selling those? and if garrisons lake is sold for development what do i care? same with delcastle, porky oliver, etc?
But why does the state own golf courses and restaurant buildings while those are being operated by private individuals instead of selling those? and if garrisons lake is sold for development what do i care? same with delcastle, porky oliver, etc?
Because the public has decided that it is willing to pay to keep open land out of development. Yes we have.
And after the initial purchase, letting a private company operate a low-impact business on the land is the cheapest way to maintain it.
“Because the public has decided that it is willing to pay to keep open land out of development. Yes we have. ”
when? the garissons lake was decided by the legis and gov without a statewide referndum?
Dave I agree, however when the deals are done during session and a very small constituency is listened to, to get re-elected, the full state loses. And i did remember 2 years later, actually about 18 months, a small minority of opposition voters are no match for the delaware blind lever pullers.
What about the building downtown, noman? $13 million.
What can we do with that building to help the budget – sell it at a loss? Rent it out?
I don’t know too much about the building, so I can’t really comment… except to say that I’d rather see it in state use than as a teardown.
And, I don’t think BoFA could have gotten the same price on the market, so I suppose some hanky-panky was going on – not necessarily on the decision to purchase, but on the price.
It looks like a really nice building, the kind they don’t make anymore. If you have ever lived in a city, you will understand why it is valuable. I think Delawareans will eventually be glad we own that building as well as the golf course site.
Dave, the difference between the CBO projection of deficits in the out years is that the Obama people predict a growth in GDP of 2.6%, whereas the CBO predicts 2.2%. Who is correct? We won’t know until 2013!
On the comparison of the average Bush deficit to the Obama deficit in 2013, did you take into account that the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were off budget for Bush, and are on Budget for Obama? That makes a significant difference, raising the average Bush deficits by about 20%, to over $600 billion per year. Bush’s deficit, including his off-budget war expenses, was over $1 trillion for F/Y 2008!
Obama’s claim is that in F/Y 2013, he will be running a deficit of $533 billion, which if correct, will be below Bush’s average deficit over his term if you put his off-budget expenditures on-budget where they belong.
Obama’s claim is that in F/Y 2013, he will be running a deficit of $533 billion, which if correct, will be below Bush’s average deficit over his term if you put his off-budget expenditures on-budget where they belong.
That’s a difficult claim to swallow, for several reasons – not the least of which is it exceeds his term of office. It also requires me to believe that an economic team that is unable to control current expenses (i.e. out-of-control “stimulus” spending) has a handle on future expenses already.
Brud, two comments and a question:
I believe the fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30, therefore, F/Y 2012 would run from July 2012 to June 2013, covering the last six months of Obama’s first term.
The “out-of-control” rescue spending seems to have prevented a total meltdown of our financial system and a possible global great depression. Moreover, the “out-of-control” recovery spending seems to be having a positive effect in terms of the stock market and home sales. Lagging, of course, is employment, as unemployment continues to spiral downward, a deep worry.
What would you have preferred, Brud, another massive tax cut favoring the wealthy, tied in with massive spending cuts, as your cohorts in the House have recently put forward?
Perry,
I think you are off by one year (I THINK…). Aren’t we in FY2009 right now and 2010 starts in July? That’s what all the budget wrangling for FY2010 is all about.
I don’t know, I could be wrong, but I think that is how it was explained to me a long time ago.
2) This lefty “tax cuts for the rich” garbage. The tax cuts disproportionately favored taxpayers. The more you paid in, the more you saved.
Denial.
3) What got us where we are wasn’t conservative ideology.
More denial.
The rich were caught with their hands in our freakin’ cookie jar. The tax cuts clearly favored the rich, that is not in dispute. Do we need to go over the numbers again?
The tax cuts did not produce extra revenue. Oh, the revenue line went up for a little while, but now it turns out the revenue was based on fraudulent securities, and debt. So the tax cuts for the rich were a Mega Fail.
Noman is correct, again. Lowering capital gains tax, dividends tax, and the top tax bracket are all aimed at wealthier people, which you cannot credibly deny. It’s called a supply side tax policy, which failed under Reagan and has now failed again under Bush-43. Therefore, “the more you paid is the more you saved” does not tell the whole story. But the above facts do.
Smitty, I think you are correct, which means that F/Y 2013 would begin in July 2012, while Obama is still in office, so my point responding to Brud still stands.
Dave, call them talking points if you wish, that will not change the argument, which is why I put them forward, and repeat them when you repeat yours.
I do agree with your point about risk, and would add that lack of government regulation and oversight furter enabled these risk takers.
An additional idea: Eliminate state offices in Wilmington that duplicate space in Dover. I’m not talking about customer service offices (Division of Revenue, etc.) but rather the secondary or tertiary offices for Markell, Denn, Weldin Stewart, etc.
Taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for two offices when one office is just an hour away. Yeah, being able to scoot into Wilmington may be convenient. But that’s what home offices and laptops are for.
Does anyone think that if a governor were elected from Gumboro that the state would pay for an office in Millsboro? Not a chance.
It’s a LIE to say that Markel or Obama “inherited” this ecconomy or this government. Both fought for their current jobs, running multi year campaigns and spending millions to be in charge.
Markel had eight years as Treasurer with nothing to do but run for Governor and make plans to better run the state.
Anoni, your argument is a non-sequitur. Look it up!
Obama and Markell certainly did inherit the economy as we now find it, in shambles, both national and state.
No matter what either of them does now, there is going to be pain, and there is going to be criticism. That’s OK, provided each of them makes some right choices, regardless of the criticism and revisionism from people the likes of you!
Speaking of criticism, there are two really excellent pieces in today’s NG, one an op-ed by a school teacher (Red Clay) named Philip Kaplan, the other a LttE by Charles Doble.
In Kaplan’s op-ed, he runs the numbers to demonstrate how the Markell deficit reduction plan hits the state employees making an average $40k much harder than other sectors, including those in the $140k bracket, and the headquartered corporate entities who have enjoyed the benefits of the low costs of doing business in DE and a very friendly court system. I hope Markell and the State Legislature take his arguments into consideration.
In Doble’s LttE, he argues the union side wrt prevailing wages, pointing out that union and non-union interests participate in the bidding process, and the non-unions often come in higher than unions. This piece shreds Dave’s verbalized points against prevailing wages, so Dave, you need to read this and come back with a defense of your anti-union pontifications, assuming that you have any left.
Dave, I find it revealing that you would characterize Kaplan’s analysis as “class warfare”.
Did you characterize the Bush tax cuts favoring the wealthy the same way. To me Bush’s approach really was class warfare.
I don’t think it is asking too much to “place a more equitable portion of the burden on those who can most afford it.”
As Kaplan points out with detailed number crunching, the Markell approach to sharing the burden is regressive. I don’t know why you or anyone should object to a progressive approach to sharing, his point being that DE has granted tax favors and a friendly court to attract corporations to HQ here, so now is the time for some pay back. when we need it.
For some reason, Dave, you carry around in your head that the $40k worker is not responsible for productivity on the job, it is the business execs and owners who are the productive folks. I don’t buy that for a second.
400,000 business are incorporated in DE, including 60% of the Fortune 500. They aren’t here for nothing. Why do you think it is wrong to expect these business to give something back when we need their help?
And then, on the union piece, you are simply going to go through life hating unions, ignoring the great contributions they have made over the years. To say, as you did, that a union member is not credible, because he happens to be a union member, is just plain incredible of you. Instead of attacking his argument, you impugn his credibility, for no valid reason whatsoever. Face it, Dave, you have a strong bias against labor unions, to the point where it has your thinking clouded on this issue!
“2. The state of Delaware has the 2nd-highest concentration of state employees per capita in the nation.”
The point here is that DE is one of the smallest and least populated states, therefore cannot practice economies of scale like the rest. I have been critical about this concerning the public school system here, as each little nook and cranny berg has to have local control. That costs us money and probably costs us in the quality of the education we present to our kids.
Obviously, the 20% budget gap has to be addressed. Markell made his proposal, a regressive one at that, as Kaplan has well demonstrated; now it is the General Assembly’s turn. I can’t help but think we can devise a progressive approach which will help our state through this mess without chasing away our wealthy corporations. Kaplan’s op-ed should be a starter for the General Assembly to move forward on cutting the 20% gap.
Finally, on prevailing wage, I think you are overlooking unintended consequences. Without it, we will have bidders coming in with low bids based on the labor of illegal immigrants who are willing to work for much less than the rest of our labor force. Is this what you wish?
Interesting, Dave.
But I would like to know what the explanations are for these discrepancies compared with other similar states. Are there some major unavoidable differences that require DE to have a higher per 100K more employees?
How much of an impact does our state betting businesses have on employment needs? How about our schools, are they more decentralized than the other states. Do we employ more because of our extensive/unique Chancery Court system? Does having a major port have something to do with it? How about the ferry?
I don’t know — I’m just throwing questions up in the air. My main question boils down to this: Exactly what jobs should be cut? And then, what happens to the people who are suddenly cut? Will normal attrition make a significant change?
“They just pay them twice as much because they’re required to by law.”
You can’t be serious! What does this say about the wages for those not working on state contracts.
And your comment about using prevailing wage to shut out the “other kind of brown” is, if true, just too pathetic for words!
Dave, I’ve done the research – thanks for calling my attention to the origin of prevailing wage.
I have to say that I support the concept. That said, I can also see how it can be abused, even inadvertently, having unintended consequences wrt minority employment and quality of work.
Another potential problem is the determination of prevailing wage.
However, without prevailing wage rules, we could have grossly underpaid workers, especially in hard times of high unemployment like we have now. It would do no good to have workers paid a pittance in order to save the state some money. On the other hand, it is better to have a lower paid job than none at all, provided that the pay remains significantly higher than unemployment benefits.