In Which We Find That John Sigler Doesn’t Know What He Is Talking About
But I guess that’s how you know he’s in the GOP, right?
In yesterday’s Delaware Voice (New Journal), Representative J.J. Johnson reminds GOP chair John Sigler that he should stick to refereeing the food fights in Sussex County and leave the business of governing to those who will care about its details.
Sigler apparently spent his time writing about “runaway tax and spending”, which isn’t borne out by looking at the numbers. But no member of the GOP ever went broke waving the Tax and Spend flag at the local bulls. And as impotent as they are right now, they still haven’t decided to commit themselves to some better numeracy. But here is the *data* as cited by Representative Johnson:
Since fiscal 2009, our budget has grown by $145.7 million, or 4.3 percent, over a three-year period. That is less than 1.5 percent per year, which is hardly runaway spending. Of that $145.7 million, $112.4 million is due to increases in Medicaid, Welfare and teacher unit counts.
More than 75 percent of our budget increase is due to things we are required to fund. A recent News Journal article noted that there are an additional 48,000 people receiving Medicaid and 63,000 more people receiving food stamps since fiscal 2009, and our teacher unit counts are tied to student enrollment. And those numbers will continue to increase.
Unless Mr. Sigler thinks we should cut seniors off the Medicaid rolls or increase classroom sizes, these cost increases are unavoidable. I would hope he agrees with me that we cannot afford to abandon those Delawareans who depend on this aid.
Sigler has called for clearly failed policies, like super-majorities to pass tax and budget bills, TABOR, and other stuff that localities that submitted to this kind of GOP experimentation are working hard to get rid of. Places like Arizona and Nevada have had their bond ratings downgraded by Moody’s in part because the supermajority gives the power of stopping any rationality on budgets and spending to a few people. Meaning that they are likely to become much like California, where they haven’t been able to do much to address their fatal budget issues because a few Republicans won’t be responsible. But here is Representative Johnson:
Mr. Sigler also calls for a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds “supermajority” on all tax and fee bills and our “money bills” — the budget, Bond Bill and Grant-in-Aid. First off, state law already requires a three-quarters majority for Grant-in-Aid and the Bond Bill and a three-fifths majority for all tax and fee bills. Mr. Sigler is blowing smoke and then yelling “fire.”
Hello.
Mr. Sigler needs to stick to his knitting and get the in-fighting stopped in his own party — so maybe they may be competitive again, you know? — and then get themselves wrapped up in the actual facts of how this state is governed, so maybe they’ll not just sound smarter but they may come up with some interesting solutions to real problems here in Delaware.
Excellent, informative, factual and honest article by Representative Johnson. Good job J.J.
John Kowalko
Great smack down. More like this please.
Mr. Sigler should pound sand up his ass — and, given his history, he should do it with a rifle.
Now, I realize that I’m conservative and really come from a different direction than most of you…but could someone please tell me just what exactly we are required to fund? And required by who? And why we are required to fund it? It sounds like the good Representative is making the case that the taxpayers of Delaware are being extorted somehow, and that he is ok with it. I’m just curious after all….
Medicaid. By the federal government. Because that’s how the Medicaid law works.
Teachers. By the state government. Because that’s how Delaware funds its schools.
We are required, by our society to provide for the commons, and by state law, to fund education. In that requirement is classroom size. “Teacher unit counts are tied to enrollment.” Meaning, when enrollment goes up, costs go up, including hiring teachers.
It is not extortion. Its budgeting. If we have schools with priorities regarding school size, we need to fund it by those priorities.
Try re-reading it without the conservative prism glasses. Put on your job creator glasses. You need to hire more teachers (labor) to educate (manufacturing product) the children (customers). And, no, you can’t outsource it to China yet.
OK..I get the teacher unit count funding, and really don’t have an issue with it at all…the problems with the education system are not at all tied to the fact that we have enrollment driving teacher hiring.
But regarding Medicaid…how can it be legal for the Feds to come in and dictate what programs a sovereign state must fund?
This is why the Constitution orginally provided that the US Senators were elected by the State Legislatures….the Senate was to be the voice for the States. I can’t help but think that if our Sentors were still elected in that manner, that laws such as the Medicaid law, would not have passed.
Oh, and SussexAnon….we are required by society to provide for the commons, but that is the job of society, not the government.
And the government is the instrument by which society provides for the commons.
We get it. You’d rather live in the 19th century. Good luck with that. The conservative era is ending, and “thinking” like yours is the reason why.
Why should the government, especially the federal government, be this instrument? It seems to me that private institutions are far more efficient thatn government ones in most areas…look at UPS vs USPS for example. So lets entrust the welfare of the commoners to a bloated, corrupt, inefficient government. Great idea!!
Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare…..there is a difference in provide and promote.
But back to the topic at hand….is Rep Johnson actually OK with the idea that the reason spending is going up is because of federally mandated programs. It might be time to tell DC to pack sand and we in Delaware will decide which programs to fund and to what level we want to fund them.
That spending going up is less than the inflation rate for those three years. Representative Johnson is making the point that the State of Delaware accounted for its additional required spending without producing budgets that exceeded the rate of inflation. That’s pretty good stewardship, even if I might argue with them for how they got there.
Great! The spending went up less than the inflation rate for those three years….but the folks that work for the state took pay cuts, saw benefit costs rise and saw vacant positions go unfilled to make that occur. Not that that wasn’t what needed to be done, but if we can’t cut the benefits of those who are taking benfits but getting nothing in return, then why is it ok to take benefits from those who actually are providing a service to the state.
Part of the effort to cut some of the costs of government was wrapped up in eliminating positions, getting employees to share more costs and those pay cuts were restored (at least mostly). And this:
but if we can’t cut the benefits of those who are taking benfits but getting nothing in return
isn’t even worth dealing with.
I mean, here you are wasting a bunch of our time and yet here we are still engaging you. Right?
“It seems to me that private institutions are far more efficient thatn government ones in most areas…look at UPS vs USPS for example.”
That’s because you don’t know what you’re talking about. Let’s, indeed, look at the two. UPS can’t deliver for as low a rate, or to as many places, as USPS. USPS delivers mail for the lowest rate in the world despite a mandate to deliver to every location in the country. The bloated inefficient government you decry is actually quite efficient compared with the private sector, because it does not have to build in a profit. That’s why Medicare’s overhead is a small fraction of any private insurance company’s.
“is Rep Johnson actually OK with the idea that the reason spending is going up is because of federally mandated programs. It might be time to tell DC to pack sand and we in Delaware will decide which programs to fund and to what level we want to fund them.”
Ah, another brave conservative. Are you going to go Galt or join a militia? You’re just another brain-dead, talking-point-parroting loser without the critical thinking skills to survive intellectually without a cheat sheet.
Given the choice between telling the federal government to pack sand and telling you to pack sand, I’m gonna go with telling you.
And the USPS is bankrupt, or nearly bankrupt, but that’s ok…if you don’t like that example, how about something a little more local…the municipal power plants vs. privately owned cooperatives. You gonna tell me that the City of Lewes can provide electric service as reliable and cheaply if the Delaware Electric Co-op can…I doubt it. Oh,and the Co-op is a non profit, so it doesn’t have to be about making money, just getting government out of it.
I’m not saying its easy to tell Uncle Joe Biden et al to go pack sand….but if it needs to be done to reduce the tax burden of those in Delaware, then lets do it.
Yes, the pay cuts were restored, but the orginal cuts werent the bigger issue. It stems from the fact that since 2001, State employees have only had about 3.5% in increases. Then had 2.5% taken away…its the cumulative effect.
And really, I’m glad that you’re engaging me because frankly I want to understand these differences. We got to find some common ground or else were screwed
If you have evidence of the Co-op being cheaper and more reliable than Lewes BPW, I would like to see it.
If the citizens of Lewes wanted to go co-op then they should pressure Lewes to do it. Free market, free choices. Power delivery is not really a good example of free market vs. gov’t.
The common ground is that gov’t exists to provide certain services. Police, fire, courts, roads, schools, etc. The discussion should be about magnitude, not privatize everything. If there is a better privatized solution, then lets have a fact based discussion. Not all gov’t solutions are evil, and the same goes for privatized solutions.
I can drive from Sussex, DE to Orlando, FL and the only toll I have to pay is the privatly owned Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel. THAT is why this is a great country.
The USPS is a terrible example because of the pension liability that Congress laid on them. Explaining the whole thing to a teabag seems a waste of keystrokes though. Google it.
When I first heard Sigler describe his irresponsible and undemocratic proposals on the Rick Jensen show, I thought that the proposals were tantamount to a tacit admission that the DE GOP is probably doomed to play the role of a weak and ineffectual 2nd party in DE for a very long time. If you advocate for structural changes that will instantiate your agenda and which would require super-majorities to overturn, then you are effectively admitting that you don’t foresee a viable scenario in which your party will gain control of the legislature and can rule by a simple majority. Sigler’s proposals are a thinly disguised attempt of weakness trying to prevail in spite of its ineffectuality.
Regarding municipal electric utilities, let me mention that municipalities can use electric rates paid by entities that don’t pay property taxes (like other governments, churches, nonprofit organizations, etc.) to fund municipal operations, thereby keeping property tax rates lower than they would be otherwise. Since conservative folks like lower taxes, this seems like an idea everyone should love.
OK, then, I’ll engage you. But you ought to drop the silliness about our onerous tax burden. Despite what conservatives tell you, it’s lighter than it’s been at any point since the end of WWII.
Dana makes a great observation — if you can only get your policies advanced by structural change rather than convincing enough voters that you have better ideas, you’re conceding weakness.
The taxes here are lower than any of the states that surround us. We are the Florida of the mid atlantic. People fleeing NJ, PA, VA, MD, and now NY to retire here because our “oppressive” tax burden.
My property/school taxes are 20% of what my parents paid in suburban Philadelphia.
Dana, that is a good point. But another way to interrpret it is Sigler has something to complain about that will never happen. So he can forever run on the topic.
Just because the tax burden as a percentage is smaller, doesn’t mean we arent paying too much. How much has spending gone up? The issue I have with government spending isn’t so much what the tax rate is, but rather what we are getting for our $$ and if the is a legitimate function of government as provided by the Constitution.
As far as the structural change Sigler wants, I agree its grandstanding more than anything else. Delaware already cannot budget more than 98% of expected revenue and the 3/5 majorities required to pass spending bills are satisfactory. Going to a 2/3 majority is only a 2 vote difference…from 25 to 27 votes needed to pass in the House, and 1 vote in the Senate from 12 to 13…hardly worth the effort if you ask me.
Yes, SussexAnon…not all government solutions are evil, you named the ones that we can agree on for sure. The problem, in my view, is that over the years, we have looked to government to provide the solutions for everything from teen pregancy to poverty to fuel costs. This experiment into a great society has failed and its time to retreat government’s role in social problems.
I believe the great society experiment is not a failure. What social programs are you proposing to eliminate? And when they are gone, what private entity will replace it? or do we just wish teen pregnancy and poverty away?
Not sure what you are referring to in fuel costs. We spend billions in defense to secure safe passage for oil companies to ship oil. And then the oil companies reap huge profits and pay little taxes here.
If the free market capitalist republicans put America first instead of the dollar, perhaps we could get back on track. If people were paid a living wage so we all could afford to buy our health insurance and invest in our own retirement we could discuss cutting back on safety net programs. Republicans in the 50’s and 60’s believed in jobs for America so we could all live well. The true rising tide lifts all boats. Even Reagan imposed a protectionist tarrif on japanese motorcycles so Harley Davidson could have a chance to get back on its feet.
Before you blame taxes and regulations, the tax burden was higher in the 50s and 60s. The wealth gap between CEOS and main street has grown into a canyon in recent decades. Tax cuts and bailouts made the rich richer and didnt create any jobs.
Giving tax breaks to companies who move jobs overseas should be considered a treasonous act. If you want to move your company overseas, go ahead, but the Gov’t shouldn’t help you. And, by the way, good luck getting goods back into this country, because we are going to put a tarrif on those goods to make you think twice about moving. That is what should be done, but is not.
Its not a simple solution SussexAnon…but if the tax code were simplifed, and regulations were eased, and unions had less influence…I believe that companies would invest more in thier workers, pay would rise and benefits would increase.
And I really dont care about the wealth gap….if government is only minimally involved in the market, then I have faith that the American worker will be as successful as he wants to be.
I do think that giving tax breaks to any company that exports American jobs is, as you say, treasonous. I’m all for free trade, within our borders, but tax anything that comes from another country. For over 100 years, this country funded the entire federal government on tariffs and excise taxes. I would love to see a return to that….
As far as what programs to eliminate, unfortunately the abuse of the welfare programs in this country is so rampant we really need to scrap everything. We have generational dependence on the governemnt to provide everything from housing to health care. Easily 2/3 of those recieving benefits are either receiving them unlawfully or in a greater amount than is lawful. In any event, I think the govenment doenst need to manage the programs. Let the taxpayer dollars go to entities such as the Salvation Army, The Red Cross, or Catholic Charites…and there are hundreds if not thousands of others across this country. Where there is a need, someone, somewhere will fill it…but it doesnt have to be run by the government
“…but if the tax code were simplifed, and regulations were eased, and unions had less influence…I believe that companies would invest more in thier workers, pay would rise and benefits would increase.”
hmmm… Except over the past 20 years the tax code has been simplified in favor of corporations, regulations have been eased and unions have had less influence, so your well thought out economic theory is pretty well shot in the ass.
Any other genius suggestions? …. bring back child labor? Newt beat you to that one.
Why, if unions had less influence, would employers take better care of employees or pay them better? Current trends show the opposite — pay is dropping, not rising, with the glut of people looking for work.
What you “believe” is something you can check for veracity. When you do, you find the world, despite the supposition of Austrian School economists, doesn’t work like that.
Just Curious clearly lives in right-wing cliche lala land. His bald and hilarious assertions about the extent of welfare abuse are utterly unempirical. And his.comments about unions is wrong on its face. Unions represent about 7% of the private workforce and ALL comparative analyses of western industrialized democracies with a higher percentage of unionized labor show that the workers in those nations enjoy a better better standard of living. I am constantly amazed at the degree that kooky conservatives are evidence adverse.
“I believe that companies would invest more in their(corrected) workers, pay would rise and benefits would increase. ”
Well, you believe in something that has been proven false pretty much constantly for the past 30 years.
I know, right. In all my years a blogging I don’t think I’ve ever read a wingnut comment that packed in so much glib anti-factual nonsense topped off with transparent racism posing as “welfare reform” speak.
You have to wonder how someone like that manages to function in the real world.
“…but if the tax code were simplifed, and regulations were eased, and unions had less influence…I believe that companies would invest more in thier workers, pay would rise and benefits would increase.”
Oh look! The Koch Brothers are posting on DL!
🙄