Thursday, May 26, 2011

A Good Day for Conservatives in Delaware

I awoke this morning, as I do every morning, casting an eye toward my email notifications and The Blaze and flipping on the TV to Fox News (let's face it, Fox is the most credible although now and again I do enjoy checking out Robin Meade over on HLN) to see the latest headlines.  I confess, I have long since stopped paying daily attention to the local "newspaper" The News Journal (unflattering nicknames omitted) and rely on those who can still stomach its almost constant barrage of liberalism to inform me of its contents.  I had errands to run this morning and so I was out of the house for a more extended period than normal.  My buddy Lee calls me just about every morning to discuss issues of the day or events from the previous day/evening and so his call this morning as I was shuttling the kids around to daycare, school and Doctors appointments was not unusual.  Lee is often excitable so I was not surprised to hear the tone in his voice but the words were surprising: "Did you see the Journal today!?"  I confessed, as I often do, that I had NOT seen it but I was curious about what was in it.  He informed me that NRG Bluewater Wind had suspended a plan to take the next step in creating an offshore wind farm off the Delaware coast and that Delaware Insurance Commissioner Karen Weldin Stewart had submitted a waiver to exempt Delaware from the Obamacare plan.  Once I returned home from my errands I did a little digging and even more good news came in, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie decided to pull New Jersey from the 10 state RGGI Cap and Trade plan which States from Delaware to Maine have found themselves mired in.  Of course, Founders Values had met last night on the RGGI topic and specifically on its repeal from Delaware law, so it was especially exciting to see that New Jersey had taken that step.  My research into what actually took place left me, well, even more excited and enthused because each of these stories affirmed conservative positions that the left has consistently tried to portray as radical and crazy.  I'll break down my findings on each story below.

Delaware Insurance Commissioner Requests Obamacare Waiver
My initial reaction was that this had to be wrong.  Delaware, my state and the home of Vice President Joe Biden, whose son Beau, in his capacity as AG has refused to participate in the multi-state lawsuit against Obamacare (that's not the only thing he has refused either) was going to request a waiver to opt-out of Obamacare!?  WELL....not exactly.  What Insurance Commissioner Karen Weldin Stewart wants is a waiver to suspend a new rule (read: regulation...see: Cass Sunstein) that mandates that insurance companies use at least 80% of premium payments for health care payouts and not for administrative costs (salaries, advertising, profit) otherwise they must refund that money to the customers.  At first blush, as someone who pays for health care through insurance premiums, this sounds like a fair idea.  That is until I look at it from the perspective a business owner.  Why is the government now coming into MY business and telling me that my business model isn't working?  Who are they to do that?  Assuming that I am not actually defrauding my customers, that is that the plan they pay for, the agreement we have on how much coverage and on what is covered is adhered to, who is the government to come in and say "No, you can't do that, you have to spend MORE on payouts."?  I discussed this with my wife and she took my initial position, that there needs to be SOME regulation to ensure that a company doesn't, for instance, fall into a position where they cannot afford to pay your claim and you are left to cover it yourself.  "But hold it", I said, "there are already laws that prevent these companies from doing these things.  The contract itself holds the insurance company liable for whatever level of coverage the parties agree upon."  So this argument holds no water....but I wondered, why would the government do this?  Is it purely for control over the private health care providers?  The answer is no, well, kinda.

The government DOES want control of the private health insurance market but that is only because the market won't go quietly.  Think about what this regulation would do to health care providers:
  1. It would force smaller, less expensive insurance companies out of business because they would no longer be able to afford to advertise and compete with larger insurance companies with bigger customer bases.
  2. It would contract company staffing levels to a point where it would actually become completely unmanageable and inefficient.  There is something to be said for a lean staff, but forcing these kinds of reductions in administrative costs, while INCREASING regulatory responsibilities thanks to even MORE government regulations being tacked on thanks to the Obamacare bill, would result in a bottleneck and major delays, resulting in Dr.'s not being paid, patients being denied and a shutdown of many companies and potentially the industry as a whole.
  3. It would result in premiums skyrocketing to cover the costs of advertising, increased regulations AND increased payouts to Dr.'s or returns to customers.  It would also make the business of health insurance an unprofitable industry and discourage new companies.
So, what does all this mean?  Why is government getting involved?  Well, remember that the left did not see Obamacare as an end result, it was just a stepping stone to a single payer system.  See John Conyers in his own words (COURTESY BREITBART.TV...he gets cranky when you don't put up a neon sign that material belongs to him...):
So, if you take people at their own words, you have to wonder, is this what their regulations are intended to do?  Drive companies out of business, drive premiums up and create outrage amongst the people, drive the industry into the doldrums?  If so, this is the way to do it, and if not, why would they do something so oppressive to the industry?  Likewise, while Karen Weldin Stewart is at least asking for relief for Delaware insurance companies, it begs the question, isn't it about time Delaware opened up and allowed more competition in the market and stopped playing games with just a handful of companies?  More competition would only decrease prices and increase coverage.  So what say you Karen?  How about a little more competition and a little less begging for table scraps?
Chris Christie Pulls Out of RGGI
Gov. Christie, who has captured much of the conservative spirit by taking on Big Education (read: New Jersey Education Association) and who has caught the ire of conservatives for his support of climate change and Cap and Trade, has recaptured some of that conservative spirit by not only changing his mind on climate change, but for acting on it and pulling New Jersey out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).  RGGI is a regional cap and trade scheme developed to allegedly reduce CO2 emissions and combat climate change by charging CO2 emitters for their output.  Delaware is also engaged in the plan, despite best efforts by Republican legislators and individuals from across the political spectrum to end Delaware's involvement in the program.  Mr. John Nichols, a regular citizen who got involved in the RGGI repeal debate after he investigated what it would entail for him to install solar panels on his own roof.  What he found on his journey was that, simply put, without direct subsidies from the government, solar energy (and wind) is not sustainable.  In fact, he found the more he looked, that solar energy is nothing more than affluent people, who can afford a $30,000 plus solar system, taking direct subsidies from the poor and middle class to install it.  He found it to be morally wrong as does anyone who truly understands the process.  To force the poor and middle class to pay for the luxuries of the upper class is reprehensible.  Nichols sought out climatologists and government leaders for answers to his questions and has built a detailed history of the "green energy" movement and the effects on Delaware and "climate change".  Using their own words, Nichols shows the convoluted and confusing structure that is in place and squeezing the life out of the American energy market.  Now, Gov. Christie has caught on to what Nichols has been saying, that RGGI is doing nothing to affect climate change and is wasting hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars.  Gov. Christie said "This program is not effective in reducing greenhouse gases and is unlikely to be in the future.  The whole system is not working as it was intended to work. It’s a failure."
NRG Bluewater Wind Delays Wind Farm
This one made me chuckle a bit.  NRG Bluewater's wind farm off the Delaware coast has been a problem since the day it was proposed.  Bluewater has taken every government dollar it could since it started negotiating with Delmarva and the state.  Their practice of crony capitalism to influence the state and gain favor among the legislators has earned them millions of dollars in subsidies and concessions from the state and Delmarva.  Legislators pressured Delmarva Power to purchase more and more power from Bluewater and even when Bluewaters parent company went belly up in the economic crisis and the project was purchased by NRG, legislators demanded more and more.  Even still, NRG Bluewater relied on portions of the $26 BILLION (Big Oil gets $21 Billion) in direct payment subsidies to complete their project or even to see through the next phase.  I feel the need to explain the way subsidies work here because I know there has been a lot of distortions out there.

Everyone RAILS against BIG OIL for their massive taxpayer funded subsidies right?  Big Oil's "subsidies" aren't subsidies at all, they are tax credits and deductions that are offered too ALL businesses, not just "Big Oil".  For instance, "Big Oil" receives a deduction for the depreciation of assets, the more oil they suck out of the ground, the less oil there is, the less value is left in the ground.  "Big Oil" is allowed to deduct that depreciation of value in the land which is considered an asset.  It's no different than the equipment depreciation allowance for any other business from the local pizzeria to a construction company and so on.  Big Oil doesn't get any direct subsidies (payouts) from the government.  Despite all the noise and screaming from the left, they simply are allowed to write off the same depreciation, losses and assets as other small, medium and large businesses.  The "lost revenues" from "Big Oil" are simply less money squeezed out of companies by a bloated government.

Big Wind however, receives DIRECT SUBSIDIES, meaning that the government takes dollars from the Treasury and gives them to the wind power company.  Big Wind gets $26 Billion (that's $5 Billion more than Big Oil's tax breaks) in direct payment subsidies from the federal government.  And this is for an industry that Steven Chu, White House Energy Secretary has described as "mature".  The facts bear that out as well, wind energy has been around for more than 30 years and it's nearly reached it peak zenith.  In fact, with all the money poured into "alternative energy", America gets around 10% of its power from "renewables".  For $26 Billion, we get around 2%-3% of our power needs and while Oil provides very little POWER (if you take out vehicle power)...natural gas, often found along with oil, provides more than 20% of our power
So given all of these facts, I was actually delighted to see that NRG cited the reduction of government subsidies as the reason that it had to delay progress on the Bluewater offshore wind project because it shows that wind power, for all it's sustainability in terms of ecology, has exactly ZERO sustainability economically.  It REQUIRES massive investment from the taxpayers to provide energy that is 2 and 3 times as expensive as energy from domestic sources such as coal and natural gas.  Add to this the fact that even Chris Christie, once a believer in Cap and Trade, has abandoned support for the RGGI debacle and has admitted that it simply does NOTHING to affect climate change and you see the proof that Cap and Trade is nothing more than a great big scam.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

So you wanna know what the Israel business means to US huh?

Ok, well it starts with a biblical history:

In Exodus 13:17, "And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt." Instead, the Lord led the Israelites through the Red Sea (this is where Moses commands the waters to part..etc.)…God then leads the Israelites to Mt Sinai which is in the center of the Sinai Peninsula. It is here that the Jews are given the tablets containing the 10 Commandments and are taught God’s laws, and his rules for their worship of him (there was much more than just the tablets…Exodus is the book that explains this)…in Chapter 23 of Exodus, the following occurs:

God's Angel Will Prepare the Way
"I am sending an angel ahead of you. He will guard you along the way. He will bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him. Listen to what he says. Do not refuse to obey him. He will not forgive you if you turn against him. My very Name is in him. Listen carefully to what he says. Do everything I say. Then I will be an enemy to your enemies. I will fight against those who fight against you.
"My angel will go ahead of you. He will bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites. I will wipe them out.

"Do not do what they do. Do not bow down to their gods or worship them. You must destroy the statues of their gods. You must break their sacred stones to pieces.

"I am the Lord your God. Worship me. Then I will bless your food and water. I will take away sickness from among you. In your land no woman will give birth to a dead baby. Every woman will be able to have children. I will give you a long life.

"I will send my terror ahead of you. I will throw every nation you meet into a panic. I will make all of your enemies turn their backs and run away. I will send hornets ahead of you. They will drive the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of your way.

"But I will not drive them out in just one year. If I did, the land would be deserted. There would be too many wild animals for you. I will drive them out ahead of you little by little. I will do it until your numbers have increased enough for you to take control of the land.

"I will make your borders secure from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. They will go from the desert to the Euphrates River.

"I will hand over to you the people who live in the land. You will drive them out to make room for you. Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods. Do not let them live in your land. If you do, they will cause you to sin against me. If you worship their gods, that will certainly be a trap for you."

So, the Lord ended up giving the Israelites (Jews) all the land from the Euphrates River (runs from the Mediterranean in the west (then South) to the Persian Gulf in Iraq (this would be the northern/western most boundary of the land known as “the Fertile Crescent” which God forbade his people from entering after Adam and Eve were tossed out for eating the forbidden fruit) and from the Red Sea to the Arabian Desert (present day Saudi Arabia)…At that time, the Philistines inhabited a very small sliver of land about 8 miles long x 8 miles wide along the Mediterranean Sea (due west of the Dead Sea) and beneath them were the Amalekites whose lands encompassed MOST of the Sinai Peninsula. David later conquers the Amalekites and the Philistines and fulfills God’s promise…

So I can hear you saying “Evan, you know what I meant…what does it mean to US.” Well look at what we now have here brewing in the Middle East. We know that Turkey, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Oman, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and now Egypt (and arguably ALL of the North African countries) are all anti-Israel which now leaves them absolutely alone. Saudi Arabia is a U.S. ally but they will not stand against ALL their Muslim neighbors, they will join them. Look at this map:

The Muslims have been corrupted by a version of Islam that perverts the Quran and they have become the Philistines and the Amalekites. They are uniting against Israel (and us)…and now OUR PRESIDENT is supporting the Islamic Extremists and NOT Israel…he is calling Israel the occupier. Yet the Bible (which Obama says he believes in) tells us different. Even the religion of Islam instructs its followers to believe the word of the Bible and the Torah, both of which contain the scripture above that shows God granting the "Promised Land" to the Jews. We have switched sides as a nation…these are bad times…Beck has been very right…

On the one hand, this is such a slap in the face to Christians and Jews around the world and in America that it is likely to not only wipe out the "bin Laden bounce" but to ensure Obama's 2012 defeat on foreign policy alone but on the other, if the current situation accelerates...we may not be around to see him lose.

Friday, May 13, 2011

Deconstructing the Delaware Liberal Myth

So I heard Rick Jensen talking about this blog post over at Delaware Liberal by "Cassandra_m".  Usually I don't even bother to present my fellow Delawareans over there with common sense facts because they often fail to listen to reason.  Governor Markell and I don't agree on much, including his own opinion that he is "pro-business".  Thus far Markell has shown himself to be almost anything but "pro-business".  When Delaware had the opportunity to push for an opt-out of Obamacare which threatens to destroy small-medium businesses and will demand more layoffs even from Fortune 500 companies, Markell supported it and refused to save Delaware businesses.  When the Obama Administration pushed Financial Regulatory reform through the Congress which has already shut down many jobs (potentially a thousand +) in the financial sector in Delaware, Markell supported it.  Markell has shown support for not only RGGI, the regional cap and trade system but also a national Cap and Trade system that would further punish (destroy) Delaware businesses and kill jobs.  So I decided to go ahead and post my critique of her blog posting here.  My comments are in bold.
Building Delaware's Future or How to Throw Taxpayer Money at BusinessesBy cassandra_m
Governor Markell has spent the past three days rolling out his plan to spend newly DEFAC-found revenues of $320M. Links to the Governor’s Press Releases on this are below, and worth looking at in their entirety:
Part I — Building Delaware’s Future Fund, Infrastructure:
Part II — Building Delaware’s Future, Tax Cuts
Part III — Building Delaware’s Future, Education
This is all being billed as a jobs plan, and some of it definitely supports the creation of employment — the Infrastructure proposals look like old school stimulus and takes into consideration that some newly built plant here will need expansion or adjustments to current infrastructure to operate.
Typically, the liberal spirit is to spend money in GOVERNMENT and to buy up as much land as possible so that future land use can be centrally planned.  In other words, if DuPont isn't playing ball with the government (say...on climate change) but Gore is playing ball, why not sell the government owned land to Gore instead of DuPont?  Don't think this could happen?  Well it already has.  Case in point: DelDOT land deals and Chris Tigani.
<back to Cassandra> The disappointing part of this is Part II, in which we find the Governor doing something I don’t think I thought I’d see — actually buying into the fairy tale that tax cuts create jobs. They don’t, of course, otherwise the 2000’s would have been way more robust than they were. And this plan actually extends the fairy tale — while it is certain that the financial industry is changing, there is no way to look at this industry and not see that the changes we see here in Delaware are structural ones. Jobs lost at Wilmington Trust and HSBC (and others, really) are due to serious restructurings that tax cuts won’t undo to any great extent.
Another glimpse into the liberal mindset here shows a complete and total unwillingness to put fact over ideology when they don't mix.  The reality is that going back to the 1920's, every time taxes have been cut, the economy has grown and revenues to the government have increased.  Every time.  Ok, ok, so THAT link was to a Heritage article and I know, YOU say they are biased.  Well, I guess that means that this link to the USA Today opinion piece by Bill Frist is out too?  Fine, I can understand that, but then how do you explain the jump in revenues in 2006 as reported by the New York Times?  The fact is that cutting taxes stimulates the economy as well as it does personal incomes.  It creates more wealth which can then be invested in new businesses or in expansion of current businesses.
<back to Cassandra> Tax cuts targeted at the Financial Industry are particularly galling — this industry has had the benefit of rivers of taxpayer funds in the form of TARP and multiple cheap lending facilities and now Delaware taxpayers are supposed to help support banks that are in trouble because of their own bad risk management. Again, without paying attention to the fact that there are quite a few of these jobs that won’t be coming back, no matter how healthy the economy gets.
Whoops!  Cassandra forgot to mention the REASON why these jobs "won't be coming back" to Delaware.  Part of it is because banks are under assault from all sides thanks to the financial meltdown.  Some of it is warranted and some of it is not so warranted.  A much larger part of it is Financial Regulatory Reform, also known as Reg Z.  Reg Z changed so much within the financial system (and the full impact to companies hasn't even been realized yet) that financial institutions now have some of their costs increased by 200% or more.  And while those who are committed to the causes of the left, namely bringing down the capitalist system in favor of a more redistributive model where your success only means we get to share more of YOUR wealth will not be convinced by a "biased source" it's telling to see what the company Accenture thinks of financial regulatory reform:
As we have seen, The Dodd-Frank Act has many interrelated implications for how all financial services firms will run their businesses, both short-term and long-term, and as a result, the financial services industry could look very different in five years time. The Act will increase costs, potentially hurt profits, produce new operational challenges and pose significant strategic questions about how firms will prop up their return on equity while absorbing the cost of more reporting to regulators, a more expensive cost of capital and the loss of some of their most profitable businesses. The most nimble and efficient banks, insurers and broker-dealers could pick up market share at the expense of their larger, less efficient competitors, which makes it crucial that firms make an efficient strategy for implementing reform part of the DNA of their businesses.
This is no insignificant point folks.  It's the very reason why banks are shedding jobs here in Delaware.  Key sponsors of the bill, Senator Tom Carper, Former Congressman Mike Castle and Vice President Joe Biden, all from Delaware.

<back to Cassandra> Tax cuts targeted at the top rate make no sense at all. (Full disclosure, I would benefit from this tax cut.) We are still in an economy that is finding its sea legs. It will take quite a long time to get to 7% unemployment rate, much less 5%.
And why would we want to cut tax rates on the people who create the jobs we are going to need in order to lower the unemployment rate?  Even if you don't buy the logic that I listed above, with a number of different factual sources from across the political spectrum that shows tax cuts in the past have always increased revenues and lifted the economy, you still can surely see how the rich provide the jobs.  People like Cassandra always like to go after the people making more than $250,000 as some sort of evil rich people who just want to take everything they can get their hands on.  The reality is that these are the people that create the jobs that lift our unemployment rate.  They are the small business owners, the upper level managers and the executives who create jobs.  With that said, it is easy to fall into the trap of desiring what others have, believe me there are times when I would LOVE to be a DuPont heir but we all have to remember that in America, you reap what you sow.  Until recently, America has been a place where you can keep the fruits of your labor but now it is increasingly becoming a place where government takes more of what YOU earn and gives it to those who have not earned it.  It's especially helpful to the liberal cause when these words come from someone who is part of that upper class.  When Joe Biden says "skin in the game" and people like Cassandra who claim to be in the upper class call for more like them to pay more in taxes, it sounds great!  But watch it, because most of them have found loopholes in the tax system that allows THEIR skin to be just a little smaller than most people.  (Tim Geithner anyone?)
<back to Cassandra> And while Delaware seems to have some control over its previous revenue problem, it is not in control of the *real* problem of government budgets everywhere — health care. Deliberately letting go of revenue streams in the midst of all of this uncertainty with no idea what kind of risks will be present next year or the following year can only make sense if you expect that you can just cover any future shortfalls by asking state workers to finance the gaps. Again. Besides, one of the *principles* of using this money is supposed to be:
Limiting our dependence on less reliable sources of revenue, specifically abandoned property. The plan suggests the best way to accomplish this is to cap the amount of this revenue being used to fund the state’s operating budget, and to use any additional collections for one-time investments.
First of all, Delaware does not HAVE a revenue problem, it has a SPENDING problem.  In 2009, Delaware spent $27,362 per taxpayer and we have gone from spending $8.3 Billion in 2009 to spending more than $10.6 Billion now in 2011.  The other problem that I have here is this idea that taxes are "revenue" to be "adjusted" at the will of the elites.  Taxes are "revenue" only in that they are income to the government.  Taxes are a public trust that the people pay to the government in exchange for core services.  With that said, our "core services" haven't been looked at in many years.  I ask you, are two golf courses and two marinas "core services"?  *I* can live without a couple of golf courses and a couple of marinas, how about you?  So if you reduce spending on these "discretionary" items, you free up enough money to reduce the tax burden on businesses and individuals.  As for asking state workers to "finance the gaps", Cassandra is using liberal speak for "taking pay cuts", I say that the New York Times admits the wage/benefit gap between the public and private sector workers.  In addition, there is plenty of room for public employees to contribute a little more toward their pensions and health care.  With that said, if you eliminate redundant, wasteful and costly state programs, it will reduce any potential pay cuts or increased benefit contributions.  But let's live in the world where taxes are "revenue"...even under that idea, tax cuts INCREASE revenue.
Bush Tax Cuts:  President George W. Bush’s 2003 tax cuts generated a massive increase in federal tax revenue and were followed by 52 consecutive months of economic growth. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $780 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.  Total federal revenue from 2003 to 2007:
2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion
<back to Cassandra> Unless these tax cuts are just for one year, you’ve just financed this tax cut for years assuming you’ll have this revenue on a recurring basis. And tax cuts of this kind are NOT an investment.
Reducing business taxes provides balance sheet support — not real incentives to hire. Because the majority of businesses on the planet will hire people because they can keep a pair of hands busy, cover the costs of that pair of hands and still make some money.
Oh Cassandra, you miss the points so eloquently.  Tax cuts ARE an investment, especially tax cuts for businesses and those who create jobs.  Reducing taxes provides PROFITS (what she refers to as "balance sheet support") to businesses and those profits are used by business owners to reinvest in their businesses, to expand production and yes, to create jobs.  Likewise, tax cuts for the wealthy put more money back into the pockets of the people who invest in businesses (venture capital anyone?).  This is a concept that JFK espoused and that the Congress in the 1990's confirmed. 
<back to Cassandra> Nowhere that *I’ve* ever worked has justified hiring based on the tax cuts available. (And yes, I hire people.) Tax cuts cover some of the costs of that pair of hands and/or maybe some of the profits. This is why lots of businesses who get a great deal of support from local governments can get up and go after that support sunsets.
No one has ever suggested that companies hire people only because of tax cuts.  What we've said is that tax cuts stimulate growth and stimulate hiring which is absolutely true.  This is why business exploded from 2000 to 2007 despite the 9/11 terrorist attacks, two wars and Hurricane Katrina.  
<back to Cassandra> See this book and this book for the gory details.
And once you read those books by the committed leftist former "journalist" whose wife runs a philanthropic distribution group that handled more than $160 million in donations, please take a look at this book and this book.
<back to Cassandra> It is possible that we do not have all of the details here, but there has to be a smarter use of found money than these tax cuts. At least a smarter use that still acknowledges that we are economically no where near being out of the woods. And if someone from the Administration wants to tell you that these tax cuts will pay for themselves, demand to see their calculations. Because this will be the first time that this has ever been true.
Cassandra, it wouldn't be the first time it's ever been true, in fact, Michael T. Griffith can point to 5 major tax cuts that DID pay for themselves, the Bush, Clinton, Reagan, JFK and Mellon (Harding & Coolidge administrations) cuts.  They didn't just pay for themselves, they preceded times of great economic growth and increased revenues.
<back to Cassandra> The recent budget submitted by the Governor reduced some of the grant funds available to service providers in the state. Groups that are doing extraordinary work in their communities. Groups that may be laying people off or not help others to become employable due to the reduced funds. And yet this doesn’t count in the employment calculation.
My first question is, if the work is so great, why does it require government to fund it?  As someone who runs a non-profit organization that does NOT accept government funds (by choice) I can tell you that the world of community "service providers" is muddied by many who are swimming in taxpayer dollars and providing little return on investment.  I know what it takes to run an organization on nothing but donations and I think it's a testament to the longevity of groups like Founders Values, Delaware Family Policy Council and others who operate solely on the donations of like minded individuals.  In fact, some of those groups even have entirely volunteer staff and still need to produce high quality results in order to continue providing their services.  These organizations should compete like everyone else instead of reaching for handouts of taxpayer dollars.  The best will rise to the top and the worst will dissolve and contribute their good ideas to those effective organizations.
<back to Cassandra> What is truly unfortunate is to see this genuinely smart man reduced to pushing the horribly false narrative about taxes, and basically work at reinforcing the republican-pushed idea that you can have All of the Government You Can Eat for Free. And provide a revenue stream to businesses too! Don’t expect leadership on this to come from the Dem Caucus, either. Because if Governor Markell can succumb to this fairy tale, there’s no chance the Caucus will get a sudden attack of responsibility.
What is even more unfortunate is that Cassandra does such a poor job of attempting to explain "Republican-pushed" ideas and that she attributes Governor Markell's mad dash to spend the cash to Republicans.  As you can see from this week's proposal from the Republican caucus in Dover, the Governor's plans don't even come close to meeting Republican goals.  Instead of going on a spending spree like a 17yr old girl with daddy's credit card in the Mall of America, Republicans have proposed tax cuts to stimulate the economy, spur investment, ease the pain at the pump and to fix failures in government that cost taxpayers millions of dollars.  Republicans show their responsibility and leadership in their plan by proposing to fix the way that DelDOT operating funds are spent and to provide transparency and openness with respect to how the agency works. 

Republicans as a rule call for a LIMITED GOVERNMENT (not "All of the Government You Can Eat for Free") but I'm glad that Cassandra agrees that government isn't free.  Now all we need to do is remind her that you can't get to a balanced budget simply by eating the rich:
I'm also happy to see her admitting that the Democrats have their own problems with leadership.