General Assembly Pre-Game Show: Tues., April 4, 2017

The vast suckitude of Gov. Carney’s budget proposal becomes more obvious every day. Slash direct education spending to the schools? Shared sacrifice? There is nothing ‘Democratic’ about this budget.  It also sucks in terms of strategy, if Carney was even to think in such terms.  Propose a bunch of weak shit, offer up the Coastal Zone to environmental degradation, and then what? Face pressure from Rethugs to raise even less revenue?  He already gave away the store.  What’s left to give?

If you’re gonna give away the store, how about raising top rates as the stick while holding out the ‘tweaking’ of the Coastal Zone Act as a carrot? You want the one, you have to agree to the other. I guarantee that this thought didn’t even cross Carney’s mind.

The reason why the Chamber loves Carney’s proposal is b/c it virtually mirrors their own (and the Business Roundtable’s, which, in essence, is them) recommendations, released in a ‘report’, (aka propaganda) they put together for just this opportunity back in 2015. Chamber award-recipient Carney gave it to them almost verbatim. 

Which leaves it up to the Democratic legislative caucuses to either back the Chamber or to back the majority of their constituents.  There are some bills that would address this.  HB 109 (Kowalko)  creates two new brackets, one for those making over $125K annually, and another starting at $250K.  Now, why Kowalko felt the need to introduce four virtually identical bills (106, 107, 108, 109) doing virtually the exact same thing is a question I don’t even want to think about.  I swear, sometimes I wish that anybody but Kowalko (there are nine other sponsors on the bill) would take the lead sponsorship. (Deep cleansing breaths.)  That is, if we want to get something passed to use in negotiating a budget deal.  HB 101 (Kowalko) increases State tax levied and imposed on both domestic and foreign limited liability companies.  HB 102 (Kowalko)  increases the maximum annual corporation franchise tax in the amount of $60,000, from $180,000 to $240,000.

In an even less-than-perfect world, these proposals would provide the framework for a legitimate  budget negotiation.  While we wouldn’t get everything we want, we would likely end up with more revenue, a fairer tax system, and fewer cuts to vital services.  I think that should be our goal for this session.

Today’s Senate Agenda  features Sen. Hansen’s first legislative proposal. SB 41 (Hansen) ‘requires (insurance) carriers to provide coverage for medically necessary inpatient treatment of alcohol and drug dependencies and prohibits carriers from imposing precertification, prior authorization, pre-admission screening, or referral requirements for the diagnosis and treatment, including in-patient treatment, of drug and alcohol dependencies’.  The bill requires a Fiscal Note which, so far, is incomplete.

I think that everybody likes HB 31 (Matthews),  which ‘authorizes the use of “prize-linked” savings accounts in the State of Delaware. These accounts have been used in a number of countries and several U.S. states to promote savings, especially among persons with low-income and first-time savers.’  Bill passed the House unanimously, look for a similar result in the Senate.

SB 42 (Bushweller) ‘permits individuals to add their resident minor child and foster child to their existing motor vehicle insurance policies as additional drivers.’  I didn’t know that this wasn’t already the law.  Bipartisan sponsorship, likely to pass.

Today’s House Agenda is highlighted by HB 100 (Keeley), which appears to be a companion bill to SB 41.  HB 100:

…seeks to ensure that persons with private and public insurance coverage have the ability to insist that they receive the substance abuse coverage to which they are entitled by law and by their insurance plans. It does so by (1) allowing the Department of Justice to provide legal assistance where appropriate to persons seeking benefits from the state’s Medicaid program, traditional health plans, or from employer-funded health benefit plans (which are exempt from state regulation), (2) requiring the state’s Medicaid program and private insurance carriers to provide notice to persons who are denied substance abuse treatment of the possibility of legal assistance in challenging those claim denials, and (3) permitting the Department of Justice to use funds in its Consumer Protection Fund to offset the cost of providing medical and legal expertise to DOJ and the Department of Insurance for the purpose of assisting persons with controlled substance addictions who are seeking treatment.

This bill came from the AG’s office, so it appears to be workable.

Today’s  other major bill would change the date of Delaware’s statewide primary elections from September to April.  I know that even some good government types think this is a ‘no-brainer’, but I have concerns.  Specifically, I think this provides more incumbency protection, not less.

Any challenger to an incumbent would be forced to do the bulk of their campaigning during the time when it gets dark before 6 pm.  Any decision by an elected official to retire after the April primary would ensure that the Party would select the nominee, not the voters.

The only reason for the April date is so that the statewide primary coincides with the presidential primary; however, the General Assembly has moved the date for the presidential primary around several times in trying to be more relevant to the nominating process.  A simple statutory change can move the presidential, meaning we’d still have to have separate elections.  The reason why legislators want it in April is b/c it would be over before the heavy lifting that takes place before May or June. Meaning, any controversial votes will likely not find their way into the primaries. See how many votes this bill would get if the primary took place, say, the first week of June.

For these reasons, I think this is incumbency protection legislation masquerading as good government legislation. There is, after all, a reason why both Schwartzkopf and Longhurst are on the bill as co-sponsors.

What do you think?

Back tomorrow with an extensive committee meeting preview.