Local Potpourri–BWW, the Budget, & Assorted issues of interest
Jun 23rd, 2008 by DavidAnderson
The General Assembly is near the end of its session which means a lot of issues will come in rapid fire over the week. There is no way I have time to write full posts on them so I will give them quick analysis and mentions in this format. Please feel free to expand upon the one that interests you in the comments. Your opinion is just as valuable as mine.
Delmarva Power and Light has reached an agreement with Bluewater Wind’s parent company. Typical of the Delaware way, it seems like a proposition where we lose some of the advantage we could have had. At least this victory, watered down as it maybe is still a boon for Delaware. It was going to happen, but by being first it will give us guaranteed rates and local jobs which could have been lost to NJ if we waited another year. Delaware needs to get beyond its lose, lose mentality and go to a win, win mentality. One part which should have happened regardless is spreading the cost over a larger base not just residential customers.
To all the people who kept fighting when it was said to be a dead issue–a fist bump goes out to you! Delaware online credited bloggers and citizen activists for keeping up the pressure which saved this deal. The voice of the people can still be heard.
“I think their efforts have been probably the most single-handedly instrumental in this thing coming to an agreement,” State Rep. John Kowalko said. “There’s a group of people that we wouldn’t have done it without.
“To win this debate, we had to keep the public aware of what was good about this proposal and what was necessary, and I can’t say enough for the activists and the bloggers.”
Other credit for bloggers came from wind power supporter Dave Burris, a former Sussex Republican Party chairman and blogger, who said ordinary people deserve a lot of the credit for the agreement.
$130,000,000 looks like the figure the General Assembly will seek in new revenue. I say sin taxes are great because I won’t pay them. To get serious, we could be facing significant tax increases. There are 17 revenue increasing bills with a significant following. It bares watching. The GA had put out that half of the $217,000,000 deficit would come from spending cuts and half from tax and fee increases. Revenue turned out to be $63,000,000 better, but the tax and fee increases didn’t go down. All of the great ideas for more efficient government seem left on the table.
2010 looks shaky for revenue so this could be a multi-year struggle. Nancy Wagner held a public hearing to get our input before she went into the final days, what a novel concept!
The disgusting people file has a new addition. 2 trailers of chicken were stolen from the Delaware Food Bank. Times are hard enough without the predators among us. If you know who did this or see cheap chicken mysteriously show up for sale out of the back of something, report it. There is a reward, payable in heaven.
$130 million in new taxes instead of making the right decisions and looking for ways to create a more efficient effective government. Oh wait, isn’t that a contradiction of terms?? It will be interesting to see who files to run after the final bell tolls on June 30th.
I’m sensing a revolt from within, but in all this bitching, I still have yet to see where the suggestions were to cut it all down into budget, just a bunch of bitching.
My friend, you must have taken the day off. I didn’t see a reply from you on this one, http://delawarepolitics.net/2008/03/27/lets-play-cut-that-budget/
I also had an April post on whatever happen to the Lead Report, and a May post on Tom Wagner’s letter to the Governor. I have been offering suggestions every month. They must not have been too memorable. (: Some of them did get a lot of attention though.
All I was asking was that they keep their promise to cut half in spending before implementing tax and fee increases. That isn’t too much to ask is it? Especially when in those three posts plus Dave Burris’ post were enough savings to cover most of the deficit once the found revenue was included.
I am going to plead ignorance as a newbie and apologize in advance if this has already been stated.
Through strategic sourcing, the state could save 10-20% just by bidding out key commodities and enforcing the use of the selected vendors by ALL agencies throughout the state. This includes school districts, municipalities and volunteer fire companies. The key to success isn’t just getting a low price, but getting feedback on how to do things more efficiently and manage demand. Things get real competitive fast when bidders understand that there is only going to be one provider of widgets for the next several years.
Too naive, perhaps, but with intestinal fortitude, it works in private industry every day.
It hasn’t worked in the past for the state. I will try to detail why when I am awake. Yet the thrust of your comment is correct that we can still better utilize state buying power by making it easier for counties and municipalities to tap state suppliers. Why not make it easy for districts which choose to use the same textbooks to bulk purchase them?
It would actually cost us more money to use one supplier and make everyone comply. For one thing the lowest bidder isn’t usually the least costly supplier available. Sometimes the bid process is political. Why wouldn’t a small school or town go to Sam’s and get what paper they need for a year than use the state supplier and be stuck with ten year’s supply with a minimum order. Then pay to store it. Then put up with loss during storage, and pay more per unit to boot.
You have to look at needs when you get services and products. That is what the private sector does.