Markell in Review
Aug 17th, 2009 by David Anderson
The Budget was passed on time and balanced (even if part of it was on the already strained backs of taxpayers) and for the first time in a 30 years it was smaller than the previous budget. Real education reform was passed which will test students in real time, reward successful teachers, and cut extraneous regulations. The beginning of a renewable energy industry strategy was laid down. The Economic Development office was reordered to help Delaware businesses as well as attract new ones. The state finances are more transparent to the public and the state government is more open. He has made quality appointments in a state known for a touch of cronyism. For all of these achievements, I applaud Governor Jack Markell.
In spite of his achievements in the first session, I am not ready sign up for the fan club. The governor is undermining the long term economic viability of this state with an energy rationing scheme forcing a 15% future cut in energy sales. He is committed to an insane and unsupported idea of a man made global warming crisis.
Instead of undertaking a strategic reordering, the governor tried to make short term budget fixes and long term tax increases which was only blunted by the Republican minority in house. The governor’s agenda to expand gaming lacked economic sense. 3 new casinos would be unsustainable. He would trade short term boosts in revenue for a long run gutting of the goose. He is bent on one of the most radical left wing social agendas in America. He achieved a gay rights victory this session, but was not satisfied. He insisted on going where the legislature specifically rejected when he added “gender identity” to his executive order on civil rights. He undermined efforts in his own party to protect marriage with a constitutional amendment.
His budget instincts were short term cuts and long term tax increases. If we lose the 2/5′s plus one minority status for Republicans that is exactly what we shall have. Everything has not been openness and light. There have been a few issues still. Some obvious waste is still flowing unimpeded state government.
The Governor has been a mixed bag. It will be interesting to see next session were that mix ends up.
Instead ofPrior to making strategic reordering… fixed that for you.
You could be right. He promises one is coming. If it does, we will grade it at the time.
I must have missed the energy rationing scheme. What was that about?
Maybe a C or C minus.
We have a huge and ineffective government structure, way too many school districts, a structural deficit which will blow up next year, a Transportation Trust Fund of almost nothing, tax increases which run counter to logic and very little hope of economic growth.
All of the glitzy publications and speeches sound pretty surreal now, sort of All Hat and No Cattle.
A crisis is the best time show leadership.
Mike Protack
Good question, anon. Googling for “Markell” and “energy rationing” only leads to right wing web sites – nothing in the news or on the Governor’s web site.
Maybe it’s the mandatory reductions on the energy utilities’ consumption? Well, at least now the can put their deregulation windfalls to good use investing in efficiencies.
Senate Bill 106 which you can read on line.
If you want our take on it….
http://www.delawarepolitics.net/markell-seeks-to-ration-energy/
Ah, I see.
Seems like you’re missing the point – efficiency is hugely different than rationing.
The former means using newer technologies, energy sources and equipment.
The latter means capping consumers’ use.
I had to laugh when Alan Levin came to speak to the Sussex Republican County Committee. He was talking about how hard state workers work and how little they are paid. He insinuated that the legislature was the bad boy in reducing the state workers pay. Hey wait a minute here. Didn’t Levin’s boss, Governor Markell propose a whopping 8 percent cut in pay?
He insinuated that the legislature was the bad boy in reducing the state workers pay.
I thought that was the Republican talking point – that the legislature should have made deeper spending cuts to avoid cutting state worker pay. Am I recalling this incorrectly? Do I have to search the archives?