General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Tues., Jan. 26, 2016

Filed in Delaware by on January 26, 2016

Undaunted by the prospect of blowing yet a greater hole in the budget for the next few years, the State Senate joined the House in passing legislation that would ‘remove disincentives’ for job creation for the corporate overlords.  The Senate passed the bill with only one ‘not voting’ (Townsend, who was a co-sponsor on the bill), and the bill goes to the Governor.  Keep this in mind in June when the Honorables (ongoing h/t to Ralph Moyed) shrug their collective shoulders and lament the ‘tough choices’ (read screw anybody but the corporate overlords) they had to make.  They, of course, didn’t have to make them. They made clear that bowing to their corporate overlords is business as usual.  A projected $50 mill shortfall to the budget over the first 2 1/2 years the legislation is in effect.  Just curious: Who, if anybody, will keep track of all those new jobs the corporate overlords will create now that the ‘disincentives’ have been removed?  Based on previous experience, my prediction is ‘Nobody’. A pure unvarnished giveaway.

Delaware’s ‘apology’ for its role in perpetuating slavery passed the Senate. Three no votes.  Hocker, Lawson, and Bonini.  None of whom have likely ever cracked a history book and read of Delaware’s role in perpetuating slavery.

Here is the Session Activity Report from last Thursday.

OK. Let’s now talk the Delaware Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, and our turncoat governor.  The Senate is scheduled to consider a serious minimum wage bill today.  Will the same business forces who united to give themselves a $50 million tax break stay together to fight against a reasonable increase in the minimum wage? Rhetorical question.  Of course they will.  Because it’s always been about transferring yet more wealth to themselves.  SB 39(Marshall) increases the minimum wage over the next 4 or 5 years to $10.25 an hour via a series of incremental increases. An amendment would provide for a $15.05 minimum wage by 2023.  To me, the choice for the legislators is obvious: Are you going to provide at least a measure of fairness to workers, or are you going to give them the finger while giving the Chamber and the Business Roundtable a $50 mill break over the next three years?  To me, that would be patently unfair and would mark any D who takes that approach as unfit to serve.  There really is no excuse for anyone who proclaims to be a D to oppose this.  If you agree, call your senators.  The Senate sponsors are Marshall, McBride, McDowell, Henry, Peterson and Townsend.  Where do the following stand?: Blevins, Sokola, Hall-Long, Poore, Bushweller, and Ennis. Oh, and don’t forget Cathy Cloutier and Ernie Lopez, who both at least try to appeal to working-class voters. Call ’em, ask ’em if they intend to support workers. Then let us know what they say.

Here is the rest of today’s Senate Agenda.

HS 1/HB 219(M. Smith) kicks off today’s House Agenda.  The bill ‘requires that health insurance offered in this state provide coverage for in vitro fertilization for persons who, along with their partner, are genetic carriers for spinal muscular atrophy’.  Clearly we’re talking a small universe here.  I just want to know why this should be mandated.  Should every special case necessitate legislation like this?  I’m not taking a position, just asking the question.

The Total Wines Welfare Bill is also scheduled. Expanded hours during holiday season.  The purported reason for this bill is ‘customer convenience’.  OK, if the General Assembly is now all about customer convenience when it comes to selling alcohol, there is no justifiable policy reason to prohibit liquor sales in grocery stores.  Except, of course, Total Wines lobbies against it.

I’ll be back with an extended look at committee meetings tomorrow.  Remember that this is the final legislative week before the six-week break for the Joint Finance Committee.  Be wary of shenanigans.

About the Author ()

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. stat says:

    Question? Middle class workers are receiving W2’s right now that are showing the amount of Federal Tax paid in 2015. Knowing a large portion of the money goes to help the poor or minimum wage workers creates a negative view of the Government and the poor. DL would say this is misplaced and should be focused towards Corporations who should be paying higher wages which is probably true. My question is if the minimum wage increase is passed as law will the beneciarys of the increase no longer need Government subsidies and in turn will reduce the middle class tax burden to fund such subsidies. If laws like this can be passed with a tag line that reduces taxes paid then wouldn’t that be a win for everybody and a easy bill to pass?

  2. cassandra_m says:

    Customer convenience for wine would mean that we could have wine shipped in from out-of-state wineries that we visit and like. Total Wine being open longer on Sundays gives people from PA an extended period to come here to break their own liquor laws. I don’t care about PA’s liquor laws, but it would be nice if the GA would do something that would really be useful.

  3. puck says:

    Knowing a large portion of the money goes to help the poor or minimum wage workers creates a negative view of the Government and the poor.

    Only among idiots.

  4. puck says:

    Convenience is buying a case of wine at a discount and having it on hand. I don’t mind buying that discounted case at a liquor store rather than a grocery. Waiting in line at a supermarket to buy a bottle of mass-market wine at a premium markup doesn’t sound very convenient to me. I’d rather see them end Delaware’s prohibition on mail-order wines.

  5. Once you’ve visited an out-of-state winery and purchased wine and had them ship it to you, it’s legal to purchase wine, say from their wine club.

    The state prohibits you from identifying a winery you like and ordering wine directly from them. Which, of course, is ridiculous.

  6. mediawatch says:

    El Som,
    Just curious, but if I had a case of wine shipped to me from out of state, how would the state know whether I had visited that winery once upon a time?
    I can’t imagine that they would check.
    In which case, why don’t we just order our wine from out of state, if we choose, and see whether the Chardonnay Cops come to our door?
    If a stupid law is not being policed, then there’s no need to legitimize our behavior with yet another law.

  7. In my case, it was b/c there was physical proof of an on-site purchase. We also had the wine shipped and also did the paperwork for that onsite.

    Whether anybody would really know is something I can’t answer. But if I’m buying a case of good wine, I don’t want to take that chance.

  8. cassandra_m says:

    My experience would indicate that this isn’t clear to wineries themselves. A number of the biggies in Napa and Sonoma won’t ship to Delaware, period, because they understand the restriction to be no shipments under any circumstances. Smaller wineries will ship but at your risk. Almost everyone will ship to my office in PA.

    Still — whether you are in a wine club or shipping a case home or ordering something you can’t get here, the law should let you get this wine and stop getting in the way.

  9. Dave says:

    I have family that owns a restaurant in DE. I get wines and spirits at their cost, which still is marked up by distributors, but much cheaper than the stores.

  10. Prop Joe says:

    I think what Dave is saying is for all DL readers to send their wine/spirits orders to him in a timely manner so he can make sure they get placed in the queue.

    I assume he will provide a Paypal account address shortly…

  11. mouse says:

    Remember drinking 79 cent bottles of Boones Farm out of a bag on Friday night?