Listening to the choir

This was yet another blog idea which landed in my mailbox; as always it took root in my fertile mind and began the questioning process. I haven’t talked a whole lot about Delaware lately, but this item was chosen especially for my friends there:

Governor-elect Jack Markell will host a public town hall meeting, Tuesday, December 16, to solicit ideas from Delawareans as to how his administration can make state government as effective and efficient as possible. Due to the national economic downturn, Delaware is facing significant revenue shortfalls over the next two fiscal years, and Gov.-elect Markell is looking for innovative, out-of-the-box ideas to cut spending. 

The meeting will be held from 5 to 6:30 p.m. in the DART/DTC auditorium on 119 Lower Beech St., which is in the Wilmington Riverfront area.

Please feel free to share this invitation with persons who you think would be interested in attending.

All right Jack, consider your request done. Now I have a question on the philosophy of this townhall meeting that your incoming administration should consider.

First of all, this announcement of yours brought to mind something that you said when you first announced to be Governor of the First State. I’ve been on Jack’s e-mail list since his Treasurer run in 2006, and it didn’t take me long to comb my archives to find this nugget from June 19, 2008:

I didn’t want to play favorites. I care about every inch of this state, and I will be governor for every single Delawarean. It only makes sense that my campaign will kick-off in every single town. We have great momentum. Up and down the state, my fellow Democrats are telling me they are ready for new ideas, and a new direction. I’m ready to bring new leadership to Dover, and bring bold Democratic solutions to the problems we are facing in cities and towns all over Delaware.

Yet when it’s time to begin to consider what you’re doing to combat Delaware’s budget shortfall, you schedule this town hall meeting in an area where you drew most of your support, at a time hard-working Delaware residents would find inconvenient at best. Perhaps this will make a good backdrop for the on-the-scene news report during the 6:00 evening local news (with film at 11, as the old television saying goes) but to me it would be more like preaching to the choir. Maybe budget cuts aren’t the “bold Democratic solutions” you were thinking about when you signed up to run for the gig, but it’s the hand you’ve been dealt by your Democrat predecessor. Certainly states aren’t alone in having to make hard choices – ask the half-million plus Americans who went to sign up for unemployment benefits a week ago.

Nor is this the example I would expect from a campaigner who made outstanding efforts to reach out to everyone in the state by scheduling 57 campaign events in 57 hours and through his Tour de Delaware. I may disagree with the ideas Jack has, but can’t fault the hard work involved in getting them out on a personal basis (especially as a guy who’s rediscovered the joy of getting the bike out when the weather’s nice over the last summer as my physical shape improved.)

In order to be a governor for everyone in Delaware, I would hope that your budget-cutting meeting isn’t just a one-time deal and that you seek to spend more time listening to your opposition and considering good counter-arguments as they apply to what they have to propose. Had I decided to locate my abode just a few miles north of where I live now I would be one of those you govern over, and you do directly affect many good friends of mine who live just across the Mason-Dixon Line in Sussex County. I’m sure a good deal of the residents at the southern end of the state already have the “red-headed stepchild” complex of being the forgotten part of Delaware.

Here in Maryland Governor O’Malley preaches a “One Maryland” concept but only seems to govern in the interest of those who live within a few miles of the I-95 corridor between Baltimore and Washington. Governor-elect Markell, if you truly want to be a different kind of Democrat it behooves you to meet face-to-face with voters all over your state as you did while campaigning, not just give the time to those who gave you the votes to be elected.

Crossposted on That’s Elbert With An E.

Not pleased is an understatement.

But that’s the way the ball bounces I suppose. I’ll be interested to see how the precincts break out.

Of course, when McCain only wins 52.5% of the vote in a county that Bush and Ehrlich both carried with 60-plus percent that’s not a good sign.

And 56 percent for Kratovil? All I have to say is be careful what you wish for. Needless to say, plan on me keeping a REALLY sharp eye on how he votes, assuming he hangs on to his overall margin. You all got your precious Eastern Shore representation, but like the actual geography of Frank’s home location yards from the Bay Bridge, I suspect you’ll find his moderatism and independence are of the same ilk – just enough to say they are there, but not enough to really be meaningful. In fact, I think neither will be found by the end of the first half of the 111th Congress.

Then again, none of that may matter now since there’s going to be some fingers on the scale, so to speak, now that Question 1 has passed. It doesn’t surprise me that it did, but still it’s disappointing.

I almost feel more sorry for my friends in Delaware though because they’ve REALLY screwed the pooch in that state. To go from a 22-19 GOP majority in their House to a 26-15 Democrat one and to elect a Governor who reminds me of Martin O’Malley – I guess that is some good news for Maryland since Delaware will definitely lose a lot of its attractiveness.

Anyway, I suppose I have to rethink my educational approach a little bit because obviously the class didn’t learn its lessons as well as I thought they did. (I also have a few choice words for a number of my blogging cohorts, but that comes under separate cover.)

I didn’t get many pictures from the day, either. Definitely I was disappointed with the weather and for obvious reasons there wasn’t much to celebrate. But I’ll carry on nonetheless later today and probably spend most of the remainder of the week cleaning up the tangled wreckage of Election 2008 before moving on to other subjects I’ve neglected over the last few weeks.

Folks, I’ll be the first to admit that I’m a mixture of disappointed and angered over how this turned out. The votes were against us, but neither my cause nor my determination has been defeated. I just have to work twice as hard, that’s all, because in the end I still know I’m right.

Tough questions for the left (for once)

I have fellow blogger Bob McCarty to thank for this, and it’s definitely something to share with my friends across the line in Delaware who get to see this guy on the ballot twice.

On Thursday, anchorwoman Barbara West of WFTV-TV in Orlando cornered Vice-Presidential nominee and Senator Joe Biden with some great questions regarding ACORN, “spread the wealth”, and Biden’s recent comments about a crisis to test Barack Obama should he be elected. The interview is about 5 minutes long and you can tell that it was all Biden could do to not storm off the set.

Needless to say, this was probably not the best career move for Barbara West, who actually looks like the “bubble-headed bleach blond” for which TV news is famous – those who run the network news outlets certainly won’t take kindly to someone disrespecting their chosen One’s chosen one. Nor would it surprise me if there weren’t a death threat or three in her e-mail from ardent Obama supporters. But you must admit West did her homework and wasn’t content to lob softball questions at a guy who could be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

I tip my hat to Barbara for doing what the drive-by media should be doing for everyone, not just Republicans.

Yes, I crossposted this to That’s Elbert With An E for my Delaware friends.

Does Delaware know Jack?

Not according to a radio ad that I’ve heard on occasion here in Salisbury. Being close by Delaware and with Salisbury being the main media market for the southern end of the state, we do get a lot of spillover from the First State campaigns. (I’m not aware of a companion TV ad; then again I don’t watch the local news channels when many political commercials are aired.) In this case, GOP candidate for Governor Bill Lee questions whether Jack Markell’s business experience that he touts is all that valuable since he ran the ship at what would become the ill-fated Nextel – key among the accusations is that Markell used inside knowledge to dump nearly $2 million in stock. (The site likes to call him “Wall Street Jack”, and given the tanking of the market at-large that might be an effective tactic.)

Obviously the site is a smear site, but it does call into question the costs Delaware taxpayers will shoulder if Markell is elected. (Some of this I went over about a month ago when Delaware held its primary election.) In essence, Markell had two selling points – his terms as State Treasurer and his business experience. It was enough to get him through the primary against the favored candidate of the Democrat establishment (Lieutenant Governor John Carney) but in part this was because Carney didn’t make an issue of Markell’s time in the private sector during the 1990’s.

Still, Bill Lee has an uphill battle in Delaware because, like Maryland, state politics is dictated by a small geographical area with a large population (in their case, New Castle County which is mostly Wilmington and its suburbs.) And while Lee has solidly conservative credentials on the issues, he’s running in a state where Democrats have the advantage in both numbers and money.

(Once in awhile we on the Eastern Shore think out loud about what politics would be like in a greater Delaware that includes our part of Maryland. Maybe we’d be the red state of the region because Wilmington would finally be outvoted.)

Unlike some Republicans higher up the ticket, though, it’s good to know that Bill Lee and his Delaware cohorts are bringing up relevant character issues in the race. While I call it a “smear” website, there is legitimacy in questioning the selling point of your opponent. (Here on the Shore, Andy Harris similarly questions the “independence” of his Democrat opponent knowing that nearly $2 million has come from Democrats inside the Beltway. This is a similar tactic.)

So, my friends in Delaware, I haven’t forgotten you. I’m hoping that the more middle-of-the-road types won’t fall for Jack Markell’s pie-in-the-sky promises and decide to elect someone with a more conservative approach given these times we’re in.

Crossposted on That’s Elbert With An E, to reach more of my Delaware friends.

The cap and trade redistribution begins

Last Thursday Maryland utilities were among those bidding to pay for the privilege of creating and/or supplying electricity and natural gas. The first Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative auction netted a total of $38,575,783 to be divided by the six states offering these allowances. Man, you talk about suckers.

On the other hand, perhaps I’m being too hard on the utilities and other bidders because the sole reason this auction occurred is because these respective state legislators were seduced by the twin thoughts of appearing to address the phantom problem of manmade global warming while adding a few dollars to their state treasuries – without overtly raising taxes. (Never mind that these utilities need to get that money back somehow – unfortunately for them they have far fewer methods to raise the revenue to maintain their own profitability.)

So where will this $38 million go to? I’m sure a piece of Maryland’s ill-gotten gains will go to replenish a program which was stiffed in the state budget, the grant program for solar and geothermal energy. Most of the rest will disappear into the maw of Maryland’s Strategic Energy Investment Fund as detailed (look around page 7) in Maryland law. (As it stands, we might get a quarter back on our electric bill. Woohoo!)

Of course, much of our booty is targeted toward low- and moderate-income homeowners. Certainly they could use the help but I’ve never seen the idea of redistribution from a private corporation through a governmental entity (who naturally gets their cut) to a targeted group as one which provides either efficiency or incentive for betterment of the lower class. But it sure provides votes to the elected officials who love nothing better than spreading the largesse around.

This is the first of what should be a quarterly series of RGGI auctions, the next one will occur in December. In an era where financial providers got in huge trouble from buying and selling a somewhat tangible asset like real estate, it’s mind-boggling to sell allowances to be allowed to create something that we humans naturally exhale. But that’s the way of the world these days, and another item which needs to be addressed in order to reestablish government in its proper role.

Delaware Democrats buck party line

The unofficial results are in and the anti-incumbent mood that prevailed on Maryland’s Eastern Shore spread across the line to Delaware voters, at least for the Governor’s race. Jack Markell won over John Carney by 2.4% and moves on to face Bill Lee, who swamped opponent Mike Protack on the GOP side.

I call it an anti-incumbent mood because Carney was endorsed by the state Democratic Party, but failed to capitalize on the endorsement enough to carry the day. It appears Carney was strongest in traditional highly Democrat strongholds, but he also did well in rural Sussex County too – all four districts which border Maryland on their south went for John Carney (Districts 38 through 41). But Markell was too strong in the center of the state and managed to squeak out the win.

While it’s not an Obama-Clinton type of battle where most on each side are partisan enough to hold a grudge, I think this shows why it shouldn’t be up to the party to endorse a candidate before the primary. Obviously the high-ranking Democrats in Delaware who run the party apparatus are going to have some egg on their face because they backed the loser as determined by the rank-and-file who actually cast the votes. Certainly they’ll mend fences enough to get behind Markell but what the Delaware Democrat machine now has to figure out is why their favored candidate lost with the full force and weight of their camp behind him – unless, of course, they only put in a half-hearted effort.

Because Markell has had the more difficult primary, he now has the advantage as far as name recognition and staking out positions on the issues. As I noted in my look at the First State governor’s contest, Bill Lee needs to flesh out his ideas in a much more comprehensive fashion if he’s going to have a chance to convince voters that Markell’s fairly far-left agenda, cloaked in the business experience and time as state Treasurer he continually touts, will take Delaware farther in the wrong direction and that Lee’s more moderate to conservative way is better. There’s just eight weeks to overcome Markell’s advantages, so Bill Lee better get to work early tomorrow.

Reminder to my friends up north

If you’re reading this from the First State, well, finish the article and then head to the polls because it’s your primary election day!

Obviously there are a lot of local races going on, but the statewide attention has been on the race for Governor on the Democrat side as State Treasurer Jack Markell and current Lieutenant Governor John Carney slug it out in an election filled with charges and counter-charges. A recent salvo from Markell’s campaign accused Carney of “Republican-style attacks”:

…more special interest money is being dumped into the race, with the National Rifle Association helping to prop up Carney’s failing campaign by using the usual untrue Republican-style attacks. The NRA is spreading the lie that Jack will take away law-abiding citizens’ gun rights.

Nothing could be further from the truth. To quote Jack’s plan from weeks ago: “Markell’s plan focuses on keeping guns away from criminals by making it harder for criminals to get weapons and getting criminals off the street.” The fact is that Delaware has seen significant increases in murders and gun violence this year. We all have a right to safety and to live in our neighborhoods without fear of being caught in the crossfire of illegal guns. (All emphasis in original.)

I guess it’s armed guards at every Delaware household if Markell is elected, since otherwise the only way to make it harder for the criminals to get weapons is to take away your right to purchase your own. (Perhaps the NRA has a point, or is my pointing this out a Republican attack? And I don’t even live in Delaware, I just bowl there and have a few good friends in the First State.) By the way, I wonder why the NRA isn’t helping out Republican candidate Bill Lee?

Anyway, as a refresher I discuss the Governor’s race here, and cover the federal races for Congressman and Senator as well. In all of these, the Democrats have all the choices as only one Republican stood for election (Mike Protack is still on the GOP ballot for Governor but also advanced to the November ballot on the Independent Party of Delaware ticket.) For the statewide downticket races, I link the candidate websites in the left-hand column.

Once Delaware’s results are known, I’ll go ahead and remove the losers from my link list and add the races of interest for a number of political action committees I’m following. It’ll be a good opportunity to see how much impact they have come November in swaying various races.

And because I posted this at an earlier time than normal, you may have not seen last night’s news item on a Democrat smear website. Who’s really buying influence?

The First State races: Governor

The third and final part of my look at Delaware’s upcoming election focuses on their highest state office, that of Governor. With current Governor Ruth Ann Minner forced out by term limits, the office is opened up for the first time since 2000.

Four people are on the ballot to succeed Minner, according to the Delaware Department of Elections. However, it’s my understanding that Mike Protack, shown by the DDE on the GOP ballot, is also going to be on the November ballot under the auspices of the Independent Party of Delaware – not without controversy, though. Bill Lee is the second candidate on the Republican site, while State Treasurer Jack Markell and current Lieutenant Governor John Carney make up the Democrat field.

Unlike the last two installments, which dealt with federal offices and were shaped to conform with my personal pet issues, in this edition I’m going to look at issues the candidates themselves emphasize in common, with at least three of them having positions on the issue which I can study and evaluate. Moreover, with the exception of Lee, I can simply link to the appropriate webpage. (Protack has a particular webpage to address issues but it’s more convenient in his case not to blockquote and just paraphrase his main points.)  It leaves less for me to clip in and more opportunity for my two cents. There are six common issues which meet the criteria, and it’s also worth noting that the four seem to prioritize their sites according to the importance they deem the issue to the voting public – so I’ll place their ranking with the sextet of common issues.

  • Education – except for Markell, all the others had this first. Markell listed it seventh.
  • Jobs – Markell had the issue ranked first, Lee and Carney second, and Protack ranked it third.
  • Health Care – Protack made this issue second-highest, Lee and Markell third, and Carney placed it fourth.
  • Energy – Markell placed this second, Carney third, and Protack sixth. Lee did not go into the issue.
  • Government Reform – Lee made this his fourth priority and Protack his third, while Markell placed a similar category of Fiscal Responsibility tenth. Carney did not address the issue, which sort of makes sense because the others are speaking of the current team in charge.
  • Public Safety/Crime – Markell laid this in his sixth spot, while Lee and Carney made this seventh.

These are the six issues I’ll compare and contrast the positions on today. Instead of a numerical system, I’ll simply point out who I think has the advantage in each party when I summarize at the end.

Education:

Carney: John divides his education platform into Early Childhood Education, K-12, and Higher Education.

Regarding the ECE proposal, let’s say right up front that I don’t see a real reason to extend formal schooling any earlier in life. Unfortunately, too many parents think of school as a babysitting service which raises their kids from 8 to 3 each weekday and gives them a break to work their job. Carney vows to make this a “priority” and wants to form yet another committee to deal with the issue and (of course) throw more money at the problem. I do applaud the nod to private and non-profit providers at the end, in fact there’s already many that teach children the basics without a single change in the system in place. It’s simply up to the parents who need that service to find them.

Now let’s move up to the “normal” schooling which occurs in K-12. Carney goes through a laundry list of suggestions that seem to have been written by the Delaware State Education Association teachers’ union. For example, what would the criteria for a “master teacher” be, simple seniority? Obviously there would be a revised pay scale for master teachers and methinks it’s not one which saves local school districts money, nor would giving new teachers health benefits immediately. Carney also troubles me by wanting to see the Delaware Department of Education take a more active role in areas parents should control, while on the other hand paying lip service to wanting more parental involvement through enhanced communication. And why do the two Democrats in the race hate the achievement test so much?

Carney seems to think when addressing higher education that there’s not enough communication and opportunity for students, since much of his plan speaks to those concerns. But when he asks the state to create a continuous funding mechanism for Delaware Tech, it’s code for either a funding mandate which has to come from someplace else or a tax for Delaware residents and businesses to pay.

Lee:

Delaware’s school children need a Governor who has the political independence to say that we will pour no more money into a broken education system until we’ve fixed it, until teachers and administrators are held accountable, not just our children. Then we’ll spend what it takes to attract and retain our nation’s best teachers because quality teachers are the key to quality education. Then we’ll give them the authority and tools they need to do their job. One thing that we can do immediately is increase the percentage of our education dollars spent in the classroom, which means more resources for our students and teachers and a forced reduction in administrative costs. We will also protect and preserve a parent’s right to choose their child’s school. That right is under heavy attack from the special interests who thrive in our broken, status-quo, bureaucracy-driven education system. School choice and charter schools are a necessity for parents and children who have been failed by our current system and must be protected.

While it’s obviously more vague and less verbose than the others’ plans, I agree with several key points. Teachers and administrators should be held more accountable because they’re being paid with your money, whether through school taxes or private school tuition. Furthermore, that money should go as closely to the child who’s being educated as possible, not used to hire yet another paper-pusher. And I’m a huge fan of school choice, which is a great way to address the shortcomings of teachers’ unions. The only scary part is talking about spending “what it takes” because I’m doubtful the money is there as things stand now to do so.

Markell: Like Carney, Jack subdivides his educational program but in different order, beginning with higher education, then addressing high-school age children with the concept of workforce education before turning to early childhood. Markell also points out his ideas to attract teachers and deal with special education in this paper and, finally, discusses accountability. In total, it’s about 20 pages of reading so Markell has done his homework.

Much of what Jack advocates has been tried in other states with some success, and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But what works in one state may not do so well in Delaware, and it’s worthy of mention that Delaware’s per-pupil spending ranks 8th in the nation but results lag that spending level. Markell believes he can bring more bang for the buck with his plans and also wishes to reduce the amount of control at the state level, which is admirable. Jack is firmly in favor of bringing the worlds of business and education together.

In theory, aligning the interests of business and the learning institutions which train their future employees makes sense. But education shouldn’t be completely about training for the working world; my contention is that true education isn’t complete without a dose of teaching critical thinking. That’s the missing piece of the Markell plan insofar as education is concerned. I do applaud one of Markell’s higher education ideas, though, and that’s the introduction of what he terms early and middle college. Ohio adopted this some years ago and it became possible for some sharp students to bypass two or three semesters of college by taking the courses as part of their high school work.

Protack: Mike places his educational ideas in the form of questions (in this case under “Education” here), and this political game of Jeopardy brings up some good things to ponder. (One thing I’d like him to ponder is a separate web address for each category.) In essence, Protack would prefer a revised testing system, increased accountability of tax dollars through streamlining bureaucracy, more local control, and my favorite, year-round school. (If adults work throughout the year, kids should too.)

The education of Delaware’s students will likely be impacted the most if Protack or Markell are elected. To me, Lee’s ideas are a slightly more efficient status quo while Carney is far down in the tank of the teachers’ unions with much of his educational platform. But because he wants to protect charter schools, Lee probably has the best ideas with Markell and Protack both a close second. (A weakness of all four is a failure to address or embrace homeschooling.)

Jobs:

Carney: John subdivides his economic plan into five areas: business climate, business-labor relations, science and technology jobs, workforce development, and women/minority businesses. (Would John not be a good Democrat if he didn’t subdivide the universe of business owners as he has?)

Overall, the largest criticism I have comes from the Business-Labor Council Carney wants to create. Another group of connected individuals who meet on the state dime to discuss how to create more union jobs. (With unionized workers being a small percentage of the workforce, how is it that they co-chair this group?) It’s more of the same concept of the state giving assistance to small businesses in everything except loosening the regulations under which they labor. Also telling is that Carney would “hold the top personal income tax rate among the lowest in the nation with no sales tax and continuing to cut personal and business taxes as revenues allow.” (Emphasis mine.) But any increase in spending obviously requires more revenue and eliminates any possible tax cutting. It instills deniability into the campaign – Carney can say that he meant to cut taxes but conditions didn’t allow that to happen.

Lee:

Every Delawarean deserves the opportunity to have a good, high-paying, stable job. Under the current administration, those opportunities have evaporated due to a lack of real effort. Economic development under Ruth Ann Minner and John Carney has been an unmitigated failure, and the people of this state have suffered long enough. To restart our economy, it will take investment in the right areas; a driven, focused effort and a full overhaul of our state government. Our focus must first be on small businesses, our leading employers, and particularly those struggling to survive in today’s economy. I look forward to rolling out a detailed plan to do those things in the fall campaign.

If I lived in Delaware, I’d look forward to it as well. Hopefully it will speak to the concept of getting government out of the way as much as possible and maintaining Delaware’s reputation as a pretty business-friendly state. I like the focus on small business though because that’s where many of the employment opportunities lie, and anything that can make entrepreneurs feel more comfortable about their chances would be helpful.

Markell: Jack devotes 21 pages to the subject, so comprehensive would be an apt description for his plan. And when he vowed last fall to bring 25,000 new jobs to Delaware I took notice because a few of those jobs would spill over the border to those of us living in the Salisbury area. I thought mine was a detailed enough criticism that I could simply reuse it and life could go on. (My effort at recycling.)

Protack: Under the category “Jobs & Growth“, Mike pushes the idea of a plan to a coalition of business and labor leaders and a “balanced growth” philosophy with local planning and the state handling infrastructure. I think where I have an issue with Mike is on the job growth plan, as in why he didn’t already have this done, or at least vet ideas he already has with leaders in the business community? It reminds me of one of those blue-ribbon panels which Congress uses to close military bases – the unpopular decisions are blamed on someone else. The other idea sounds good in theory, but it would be helpful to have an example where this is already practiced.

All politicians worth their salt will say anything that they think the public wants to hear about creating jobs. It’s unfortunate that Bill Lee hasn’t completed his plan for creating jobs because it would be a good compare and contrast to Jack Markell’s relatively moderate ideas on the subject. Can Lee deliver on the potential he’s established?  On the other hand, John Carney appears beholden to the special interests that got him the Democratic endorsement and it shows in his economic wish list. Lastly, Mike Protack seems to be out of his league on this issue.

Health care:

Carney: John is an advocate of so-called universal health care, which would mean in his vision that First State residents and businesses would shoulder the load to pay for primary and preventive care. While he says the state will subsidize this care based on the income of the recipient of said care, what he really means is that wealth will be redistributed from those who have it to those who don’t.

Not only that, John discusses health disparities among blacks and Hispanics, and continues to pander with a call to diversify the health care workforce. And how would he pay for all this? Since everyone will be required to have health insurance, employers who choose not to offer it would be slapped with a payroll tax, smokers will pay through increased tobacco taxes, and freestanding surgical centers who are deemed to not provide enough charity care would have an assessment levied on their businesses. Oh, and Delaware will try to get more money out of the federal government while attempting to raise the income cap for eligibility for Medicaid and SCHIP.

Lee:

Delawareans do not want the state government making their healthcare decisions. They want to make those decisions themselves with the counsel of their doctor. A move to greater state control of health care is a disaster in waiting. The principles that should drive our effort to improve healthcare in Delaware are personal ownership, choice and competition. Combining those principles will drive costs down, options up and more people onto the rolls of the insured.

And Bill has hit the nail right on the head in a very succinct manner. Rolling back regulations and mandates on what needs to be covered would encourage more companies to enter the market and prices to decrease.

Markell: Again, Jack has a comprehensive plan and in turn I’ve already written a piece on it. Admittedly, my criticism of Markell in this case is Maryland-centric because we had a Special Session underway at the time but I think it’s relevant enough for Delaware voters to understand even without knowing Maryland’s inside baseball.

Protack: Without saying the actual term, the leading questions that Mike has come up with in his Health Care category lead me to think he’d also like a plan similar to Carney’s and Markell’s. He also talks about tort reform, though, and that would almost need to be a requirement if the state becomes a primary insurer – otherwise you’re talking about some seriously deep pockets to be picked.

Obviously Bill Lee stands out here as the bastion of sanity in a field who will otherwise doom Delaware to the tax-draining morass of government-sponsored healthcare.

This is the last of the issues all four candidates delved into. The final three issues are not addressed by one of the four who seek the state’s top job, at least not on their campaign site. We’ll begin with energy.

Energy:

Carney: John lumps the energy issue in with his ideas for the environment. Naturally, he’s all in favor of developing alternative, renewable energy sources such as wind power, solar energy, and non-food biofuels but doesn’t bring up the fact that these energy sources are several years away at best and will probably come at a pricing premium to Delaware users when compared to conventional sources, unless heavily subsidized. Carney also favors getting into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which was our bad idea here in Maryland.

Bill Lee doesn’t address energy so we’ll move on.

Markell: Jack has both an energy page and an energy conservation plan. Let me begin by saying that anyone who believes An Inconvenient Truth should not be taken seriously as a policy leader. And Jack misses the point that in order for economic growth to occur, energy usage needs to increase in the long-term. We cannot conserve our way to long-term prosperity but Jack seems to believe it can be done. As a good leftist, he also prefers to use the tax code and regulations to be carrots and sticks with those items he advocates, rather than let the market evolve to public demand. (Much of what both Carney and Markell are looking for is already law here in Maryland, so I’ve critiqued many aspects of their plans previously.)

Protack: In his energy questions, Mike is the shadow of the two men above, with many of the same thoughts going into those things he asks. He also spells out his energy policy as part of a June blog post. On the other hand, his last blog post on August 4th showed him signing a pledge in favor of oil drilling, so bonus points there! Needless to say, Delaware doesn’t have a lot of oil so he’s pretty safe signing that.

So it appears that Delaware taxpayers and energy consumers may as well be ready to pay more to use less, unless Bill Lee has the guts to keep his veto pen handy as I’m sure the Delaware General Assembly is ready to introduce all of this legislatively regardless of who wins.

Government Reform:

John Carney chose not to address the issue, so I’ll begin with Bill Lee.

Lee:

Our state government is broken, and the guilty are those entrenched, status-quo Dover politicians who focus only on the next election and not on the long-term. As a result, our budget has exploded beyond anyone’s definition of acceptable, yet we still can not afford to build schools or roads. It is shameful and the people of Delaware deserve better. My first act as your next Governor will be an Executive Order to put all state spending online effective upon the launch of the state’s new accounting software in 2009. People deserve to see where their tax dollars are being spent. Next, we will order outside performance audits of our state government, starting with the Departments of Transportation, Education, Natural Resources and Health & Human Services. It’s time to rid ourselves of the bloat and waste. My administration will bring the change that others only talk about.

That’s a good beginning, but this is something that will have to be chased down on an ongoing basis and those entrenched politicians aren’t going to go away quietly. Prepare to use a veto pen and for a lot of heat from the Democrats and the press (but I repeat myself.)

Markell: While Jack has been state Treasurer for two years, his philosophy is to spend smarter but not necessarily less. Certainly across-the-board budget cuts in difficult financial times aren’t the perfect answer but no department or agency ever believes they are wasting taxpayer money. In truth, the auditing Jack desires is similar to what Bill Lee advocates, but remember Jack has been in a position to at least suggest these items for two years – yet the General Assembly isn’t listening to him nor is the Minner Administration he’s a part of. More importantly, the people aren’t engaged in calling for these audits and if you accept the argument that the majority of people in Delaware elected Democrats to represent them, obviously they’re pleased with the way things are despite the fact Delaware lurches from budget crisis to budget crisis on an annual basis. Or they’re not being shown leadership.

Protack: Under “Government Reform” is where Protack shines most. He adds ideas to the debate which no one else is suggesting, extending reform to not just financial issues but to voter referendum, term limits, reapportionment, and hiring an Inspector General as other states have.

By far Protack is the winner in this segment, with Bill Lee coming in a distant second. This goes hand-in-hand with party affiliation because Republicans tend to be more fiscally conservative. Unfortunately, more and more Delaware voters join the rest of their national cohorts in voting themselves goodies from the Treasury and thinking someone else will pay for it. The lesson we need to learn is that all of us pay for those so-called “freebies” from government.

Public Safety:

Carney: With the exception of placing cameras in public areas to monitor crime (the Big Brother aspect offends my libertarian side) John has a reasonable approach to the subject. It reminds me a little bit of Rudy Giuliani’s approach in New York City by focusing on nuisance crimes like prostitution, loitering, and vandalism while also pushing for more community-oriented policing.

Lee: This is actually his longest issue address:

As with other areas of government, Public Safety in Delaware is in crisis. From daily shootings in Wilmington and rising crime rates statewide; to a correction system where officers continue to work without a contract in understaffed and overworked conditions; to prison health care failing to meet federal, court-imposed mandates; to state reduction in funds provided to the counties for paramedics; to a failing highway system which impedes first responders, mismanagement and indifference are undermining the safety of our citizens. Our courts and volunteer firefighters continue to excel, but the rest of our public safety system is in a state of turmoil created by a lack of leadership and commitment.

In Wilmington, we must find a way to dramatically increase the number of police to retake areas of the city largely abandoned, especially at night. Whether by designating independent revenue sources dedicated to the city or by multi-jurisdictional intervention, we must make out largest city safe for all its citizens.

Crime, generally, is on the rise, and police and other first responders must be strengthened and increased in number. This means renewed recruitment, training and retention efforts.

Corrections still remains a critical problem and no progress in staffing, pay or work conditions have occurred since this was a major issue four years ago. The Federal Courts are monitoring inmate health care, but our experiences with the Delaware Psychiatric Center are proof that the State should get out of the institutional health care business. This administration can’t even seem to oversee independent health care providers. Again, there is a lack of leadership, competence and commitment.

I continue to believe, as does at least one of the Democratic contenders, that performance audits will allow us to make state government more efficient and produce substantive revenues to attack the problems caused by a lack of leadership. We must establish priorities for applying part of those savings to public safety needs.

Of course no one (except criminals) is for more crime, unfortunately Bill states the obvious without getting too specific on what he’d do about it. Where would the money for new police come from? It’s an issue he’s going to have to address further assuming he survives the September 9th primary.

Markell: Jack has a fairly comprehensive approach as well, but the biggest problem I have with it is where he would like to enact a program similar to that tried in the 1990’s as a federal program under the Clinton Administration. That program provided federal grants to communities to hire officers with the goal of 100,000 new officers on the streets. Of course, when the federal money was cut those communities were stuck with paying for the officers and many could not. Similarly, Markell’s four-year program would expire just when a new term began, leaving him or his successor the choice of whether to continue a program which costs the state a lot of money or look like bad guys by pulling cops off the streets. It’s another program designed to be perpetual.

Protack: Mike didn’t address the public safety issue on his site but did bring it up in a video for his blog which came out in favor of cameras in public places.

On the issue of crime, all four don’t like it and are looking to spend more money fighting it. The two Democrats do cite other factors which lead to crime that need to be addressed but those generally require money to go into effect as well, and thus far haven’t been all that successful since crime rates are on the increase. At its root, most crime stems from a desire to acquire, whether it’s stealing property one covets or gaining the final revenge on a victim by taking their life from them. The state can only do so much to address this because it’s supposed to be parents or the guardians of our children who teach right from wrong. I could go a lot further into this, but to turn a quip on its head the Ten Commandments seem to have become the Ten Suggestions.

So who is deserving of your vote? Both Bill Lee and Mike Protack have points in their favor and both apparently will be on the Delaware ballot in November. I’d press Bill to expand his issue responses a little more since both Democrats have comprehensively outlined their methods of solving Delaware’s problems they see. Of the four candidates, Lee is likely the more conservative – not in the vein of a Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal but maybe closer to a Bob Ehrlich.

On the Democrat side, it seems to me that you face a choice between more of the same in the establishment candidate John Carney or at least some change in Jack Markell. Markell has some moderate qualities about him but the health care issue should scare the living daylights out of potential November voters. States which have gone that route run into serious financial issues with the approach sooner or later and with Delaware already lurching from crisis to crisis another budget-buster is hardly appropriate. It remains to be seen what happens with this heavyweight fight between two Democrat contenders and if it will sap the strength of the winner enough to provide a GOP upset in November.

So, after nearly 4500 words on this race alone and close to 10,000 for the weekend I believe I have contributed a lot of fodder to the discussion on the elections in Delaware – ones I have no say in aside from these posts. I encourage your feedback because mine is surely not the last or most authoritative word, it’s just some friendly advice from a man who lives close enough to Delaware to be affected and has already seen the canary in the coal mine bite the dust from living on this side of the Mason-Dixon Line.

Crossposted on That’s Elbert With An E for more Delaware friends to read.

The First State races: U.S. Congress

Today I shift focus to the Congressional race. There’s only a handful of states where the number of Congressmen is fewer than the number of Senators, but Delaware is one of them. This means all federal races are statewide.

Currently on the ballot are incumbent Republican Congressman Michael Castle and three Democrats who are seeking to oust him: Karen Hartley-Nagle, Mike Miller, and Jerry Northington. The issues I’ll discuss will be in the same order and point scale as yesterday’s post, beginning with eminent domain and property rights. Unlike yesterday I’m predominantly going to go by the campaign websites since all four are available to me (I’ll add the link to Miller’s after I complete this post.)  And with the exception of Miller, fortunately I’m able to simply link to the issue positions instead of the long quotes I needed to use in the Biden/O’Donnell race. So let’s get cracking, shall we?

Eminent domain/property rights (5 points):

Castle: Mike doesn’t mention the issue on his site; however, there were two Congressional votes where the question of eminent domain came up and Rep. Castle voted against the interests of private property holders in both. I’m deducting three points.

Hartley-Nagle: Karen doesn’t bring the subject up on her site. No points.

Miller: Again, the issue doesn’t come into play there. No points.

Northington: Apparently none of the candidates find this as important as I do, but bear in mind Delaware received a failing grade on the eminent domain issue from the Castle Coalition (no connection to the Congressman, it’s a subgroup of the Institute for Justice.) No points for Jerry.

Second Amendment (7 points):

Castle: As part of the “Keeping Communities Safe” portion of his site, Mike talks about his work on a couple gun-related issues. Unfortunately, that work is on the wrong side and the two key pro-Second Amendment groups (National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America) have regularly given him failing grades. Deduct all 7 points.

Hartley-Nagle: Karen doesn’t discuss the Second Amendment on her site, so no points.

Miller: The same goes for his site. In fact, his site is very limited as far as issue stances go with the exception of some broad-brush philosophies.

Northington: Conversely to his two Democrat opponents, Jerry has a section devoted to firearms issues. Northington skirts the line between being a gun-grabber and a pragmatist, noting that individuals should be allowed to have firearms for personal use but not be able to have so-called “assault weapons”. (The trick is what is defined as an assault weapon?) Of the four candidates, his position is the best of a bad – or nonexistent – lot so I’ll grant him two points.

Election reform/campaign finance (9 points):

Castle: The Congressman addresses this issue here; needless to say I’m not in favor of that stance. As a check, I also went to the VoteSmart site and saw he did vote for the Shays/Meehan reform (which was the House version of the more well-known McCain/Feingold), but saving him to some extent is his voting for voter ID at the polls. So I’ll deduct only six points. (Do you notice he’s going in the wrong direction here?)

Hartley-Nagle: Karen discusses the subject briefly here as part of a screed about the Republican “culture of corruption”. (And your top-ticket candidate is pure as the wind-driven snow?) I suspect “meaningful campaign finance reform” in her vision is even more restrictions on free speech so I’m deducting three points. 

Miller: With Mike I struck out. No points.

Northington: Even between his site and his blog, I wasn’t able to come up with anything. So no points.

Trade and job creation (11 points):

Castle: He doesn’t go into this on his campaign site, but on balance Mike has shown himself in his voting to be a free trader and usually that’s a good thing – however, he lost a good number of those jobs by supporting the federal minimum wage increase. So I’ll give him two points on the issue.

Hartley-Nagle: Karen talks about economic prosperity and jobs but contradicts herself in that same few paragraphs by wishing to create more jobs but “fighting for better wages and job security.” If you make it harder on business owners to hire someone without the skills to justify the higher wage and make it more difficult to replace a worker who doesn’t pan out, is that really business-friendly? I’m deducting six points.

Miller: Mike advocates a “livable minimum wage” of $9 per hour for any American willing to work. I guess he won’t mind paying $5 for a Whopper if that happens. That’s worth a full 11 point deduction right there.

Northington: Aside from taking the obligitory pot shots at President Bush about statistics cherrypicked by the DNC in a blog post, Jerry doesn’t go into the issue much. The blog post is worth taking off three points by itself.

Education (13 points):

Castle: Unfortunately, Mike’s ideas and record for “improving” education generally fall into the category of increasing federal involvement – completely opposite my goal of ending it. A full deduct of 13 points.

Hartley-Nagle: Similarly to Castle, her philosophy that education is underfunded at the federal level rubs me the wrong way. On a short-term basis, making tuition tax-deductible isn’t a bad thought but eventually that would have to go away under my view of taxation. I’ll deduct 11 points.

Miller: He notes that he’ll “work to ensure every child has access to a Quality Education.” But how? Will you get the federal government out of education? I don’t see that happening, and again his lack of specifics bugs me to no end. Full deduct, 13 points.

Northington: Actually, some of his solutions aren’t bad for attempting on a local level. If you changed one bullet point somewhat to read:

Local communities are for the most part best able to control the education of their children. The parents and lawmakers within the community need the freedom to determine just how and where their children will be educated.

Then you would have a real winner. Aside from wanting more federal dollars to pay for education and wanting formal schooling to start earlier in life, Jerry seems to have a better understanding of the concept of locality than his two Democrat counterparts. I’ll give him two points, which is huge when you figure all of the others lost ground.

Military/veterans affairs (13 points):

Castle: Voting-wise, he’s been pretty friendly to veterans but he’s also gotten worked up about the allegations of detainee abuse at Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay. When the other side treats their prisoners as well as we do ours (particularly in the area of beheadings), maybe I’ll listen. I’ll call this a wash, no points either way.

Hartley-Nagle: It might be a hollow promise, but Karen does vow to “ensure our military facilities are fully funded and maintained. Taking care of our military families strengthens our community, making for a better Delaware and a better America.” Of course, what the extent of “taking care” of military families means is left unanswered. But I’ll give her three points.

Miller: Mike has nothing to say on the subject. No points.

Northington: As the only veteran among the group, Jerry certainly is attuned to the issue. He makes some very good points; however, my caution is that the solution isn’t just in throwing more money at the issue. There are efficiencies which need to be considered as well, and some of the problems Northington cites with the VA have existed far longer than the last two Presidential terms. He’ll pick up eight points on this one.

Energy independence (17 points):

Castle: About the only nod to the environmentalists and “alternative” energy crowd that Mike doesn’t make is not wanting to place a windfall profits tax on oil companies. He also has a soft spot for nuclear power, which is good – otherwise, he’s all in favor of regulation and subsidies. I’ll deduct 10 more points. Come on Mike, I thought you were a Republican.

Hartley-Nagle: Karen sounds a lot like Mike Castle on this issue. She does speak to the high-tech jobs she thinks going green will create, but how many jobs will that wind farm create? Now compare it to an oil refinery. The same 10 point deduction applies.

Miller: Once again, Mike has little to say about this.

Northington: Jerry is way, way, way out there on the anti-oil, global warming believer fringe. He stops short of advocating the execution of oil company executives but has otherwise really fallen for the environmentalists on this issue. This blog post is another example of what I mean. The full 17 point deduction applies.

Social Security/Medicare (19 points):

Castle: The Congressman continually votes for making each of these entitlement programs larger, and not for the reform needed to begin an eventual sunset for both programs. I’m going to deduct yet another five points.

Hartley-Nagle: It’s sort of related, but Karen believes that we don’t do enough for health care in this country. She also promises there to “fix” the Medicare prescription drug plan that I didn’t figure was broken in the first place. Again, a five-point deduction.

Miller: Mike promises to ensure that a quality health care system, Medicare prescription drug benefits, and Social Security are protected for all our seniors. He forgets to add the phrase “no matter the cost” because doing so will someday bankrupt our nation. A full 19 point deduction applies here.

Northington: Yep, the left wing is extended fully here. I have one question, though – if patients are expected to pay within their means for their health care needs, isn’t that Marxism? (From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”) This is a 19 point deduction to be sure. By the way, just so you all know, health care is NOT a right.

Taxation (21 points):

Castle: One area Castle seems to do well in is taxation based on his voting record and backing of Alternative Minimum Tax relief. It’s nowhere near as much as I’d like, but solid nonetheless so I’ll give him 12 of the 21 points.

Hartley-Nagle: I don’t believe that talking about “tax giveaways to the rich” is going to lead to anything more than higher taxes on all of us. Get over your class envy, Karen. Deduct 15 points while you’re at it.

Miller: Not surprisingly, Miller doesn’t discuss this on his site. No points.

Northington: Jerry doesn’t have taxation as an issue but disdains the old notion that “a rising tide lifts all boats” in a recent blog post. Just like Hartley-Nagle, I see a big dose of class envy here so I’ll deduct that same 15 points.

Role of government (23 points):

In truth, I’m not seeing a whole lot to distinguish between or give me hope that any of these four candidates are in any way insisting on cutting the size and scope of the federal government which they seek election to. Mike Castle brings up budget reform, Karen Hartley-Nagle speaks about fiscal irresponsibility, and Jerry Northington questions the government’s direction. But none question whether it is the proper role of government to be in a number of areas.

This may be the most frustrating exercise of this type that I’ve ever undertaken. However, I started this show so I’m going to finish it. By the way, I’m not going to give or take away points for this category.

Border security/immigration (25 points):

Castle: He doesn’t discuss the issue much, but this (at the bottom) was a pretty good idea. With a couple exceptions, his voting record is solid, including being for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. I’ll give him 18 points here.

Hartley-Nagle: For a Democrat she talks pretty tough, but she brings up the “a” word in wanting to “provide all immigrants a path to full, legal citizenship”. To me, illegals have to leave and get in the back of the line – otherwise it’s unfair to those who did things the right way. I’ll give her 7 points because she’s not dovish.

Miller: Never mind.

Northington: Jerry doesn’t address the issue on his site, but did blog about answering this questionnaire from a group interested in the issue back in April. Those answers cost him all 25 points on my card, too.

The Long War (27 points):

Castle: Mike falls someplace between a hawk and dove on this issue. Unlike my current Congressman he does continue to vote to support the troops but like Wayne Gilchrest he thinks diplomacy can be a solution. Beware that hand behind their back, it may hold the knife you’ll be stabbed with. I’ll give him 12 points on this part.

Hartley-Nagle: Similarly to Castle, Karen is a firm believer in diplomacy but doesn’t say she’ll not defund the troops already in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor does she talk about victory as an end to the war. I’ll give her half of what I gave the Congressman, six points.

Miller: This is an important issue that Mike doesn’t bother to address. Why do you have a website again?

Northington: I wasn’t surprised to find that he thought full withdrawal as quickly as possible was the ideal. He also attempts to place the cost of the war in terms of various other government services, but fails to take into account the cost of lives and treasure that another 9/11 or suitcase nuke would have on our country had we done nothing. (Yes, I know you can’t prove a negative but his argument is just as specious.) He’ll lose the full 27 points because I believe in victory there – victory defined as the point when the threat to our interests both at home and abroad by al-Qaeda and similar radical Islamic fundementalist groups is minimized or eliminated through military means. Diplomacy is not possible with these sorts of groups.

I have finally reached the conclusion of this frustrating but hopefully enlightening to readers exercise. Here’s how the point totals worked out.

Michael Castle: a net zero points. He was positive on four issues and negative on six but they weighed equally.

Karen Hartley-Nagle: a score of -34. She had positive scores on three but negative numbers on six. That’s actually pretty good for a Democrat.

Mike Miller: He only scored in three of 12 categories and all were negative, for a total of -43.

Jerry Northington: I respect his writing and his service, but he’s by far the most leftist among the four candidates with a score of -94. Three positive categories were far outdone by the six negatives he had, including my two biggest issues.

To be brutally frank, I sort of feel sorry for Delaware voters that these are the only choices they have. I’d have a very hard time getting behind Mike Castle but unfortunately no one chooses to run against him on the GOP side. We had a similar Congressman here but finally found someone with the drive and issue positions to oust him from the right, and even the Democrat in our race could probably be to the right of Mike Castle on some issues.

Tomorrow I’m going to look at your race for Governor in a more brief fashion. Not all of my pet issues apply to a state race so I’m instead going to compare and contrast in areas where the candidates themselves have common ground.

Crossposted at That’s Elbert With An E, to reach more Delaware voters.

The First State races: U.S. Senate

In honor of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s selection as the nominee for Vice President, I’m going to lead off this three-post look at Delaware’s three major election races with the ladies first: the U.S. Senate tilt between incumbent Senator (and Democrat Vice-Presidntial pick) Joe Biden and Republican hopeful Christine O’Donnell. In truth, this is sort of a courtesy to those interested in the race because neither Biden or O’Donnell have any opposition in the upcoming September 9th primary, nor are any minor party candidates currently on the ballot for November.

Additionally, with his elevation to a national stage the JoeBiden.com website has been absorbed into the website for Barack Obama, which to me means Joe’s treating the Delaware race as the red-headed stepchild in comparison to the run for VP. Fortunately, having ran for President Biden has already established positions on a number of issues I care about and Delaware voters should too. It’ll be a little bit of a recycling job on his side because I’ve already written about Biden’s positions.

Because this is a race of national scope, most of the pet issues that I used for the Presidential race are applicable to this one. Longtime readers also may recall that I did a point system to compare candidates, but for those who are newer or who forgot, here is a refresher course:

  • Eminent domain and property rights (5 points)
  • Second Amendment (7 points)
  • Election reform and campaign finance (9 points)
  • Trade and job creation (11 points)
  • Education (13 points)
  • Military/veterans affairs (15 points)
  • Energy independence (17 points)
  • Social Security/Medicare (19 points)
  • Taxation (21 points)
  • Role of Government (23 points)
  • Border security and immigration (25 points)
  • The Long War (27 points)

I believe I can get all twelve parts into one fairly long post. These will be arranged by topic as listed above. Where I don’t have a statement already for Senator Biden, I attempt to look into his voting record through the VoteSmart.org website.

Property rights:

Biden: There was no relevant votes I could find regarding the issues of eminent domain and private property rights. No points given or taken away.

O’Donnell: Christine O’Donnell doesn’t address this issue on her website, so no points.

Second Amendment:

Biden: In seven votes cited by VoteSmart.org Senator Biden voted against gun owners on six. Gun Owners of America gave Biden an “F” in 2007. Because of that, I’ll deduct all 7 points in this category.

Unfortunately, Christine O’Donnell doesn’t address this issue on her site. No points.

Election reform and campaign finance:

Biden: I wrote this on July 20, 2007 based on a news report of a New Hampshire debate:

Biden argued that political campaigns should be financed publicly to remove special interests from the political process.

Regarding Biden’s position, I argued then that:

No, Joe Biden, we do not need public financing of campaigns. He loses half of the possible points only because he said very little on the subject otherwise. A big minus 4.5 to you.

O’Donnell: While she doesn’t address campaign finance or election reform directly, she’s pledged to only stand for election one more time should she be successful. With that in mind, I’ll grant her 2 points – one for each term she pledges to serve.

Trade and job creation:

Biden: As part of his original Presidential website, I reprinted this on July 24, 2007:

To protect jobs, compete in a global economy and strengthen families Joe Biden believes the next President must first address two things: energy security and health care. This is not our father’s economy – America now competes in a global economy.

The price of energy is set by the global marketplace. Developing our own sources of energy aren’t enough to protect us from high prices that cost businesses and families — we must invest in using energy more efficiently and become the leader in energy innovation.

By 2008, the average Fortune 500 company will spend as much on health care as it will make in profit. In other countries their competitors will not have to bear these costs.

Joe Biden believes America will continue to dominate the global economy by putting energy security and health care reform at the top of the agenda.

My take on his position was:

Joe Biden talks nicely, but what he says is code for additional regulations on energy that will discourage market forces from controlling its price and the easing of corporate health care costs by placing the government in charge of it rather than private industry. I have two future posts that will deal with those specific subjects, but as far as attitude goes and because Joe’s so vague on the subject he loses three points.

O’Donnell: While not directly on point, she does bring up the value of the dollar:

By strengthening the dollar, we lower the price of oil. This directly impacts the price at the pump. We don’t need gimmicks to stimulate the economy. We need solutions that address the root cause. Christine will advocate for monetary policy that strengthens the dollar and attacks the root cause of many of our economic concerns. (Emphasis in original.)

A smaller, less spendthrift government would help monetary policy immensely and, although a firmer dollar does hurt exports to a degree the difference can be overcome with better trade policy. Out of 11 points, I’ll give her four.

Education:

Biden: I quoted the Biden for President site on July 27, 2007:

Joe Biden believes that every American should have access to higher education. In order to compete in a global economy the American workforce has to protect its edge in education. A college degree is more valuable than ever – and more expensive.

As a parent, Joe Biden knows how tuition costs drain family savings. He would expand help for families by increasing the tax deduction for tuition payments. He would expand Pell grants to cover the average tuition at public colleges for low income families.

Joe Biden believes that high school students should be engaged in planning and saving for college earlier in their careers so that students in their senior year are not overwhelmed by the process of applying to college and figuring out how to pay for it. He would expand national service programs to high school students so that they can earn money for college by participating in public service while they are in high school.

Over the past two decades we have made incredible strides in updating our education system. Fifteen years ago it would have been hard to imagine students linked through a high-tech video and high-speed internet network to other students and teachers across the country or teachers interacting with parents via email. New technology holds promise for our education system that we’re only beginning to discover. But nothing is more essential than quality educators and engaged parents. Joe Biden believes that to fulfill the promise to leave no child behind we have to direct adequate resources to update schools, reduce class size and school size, reward quality educators, and improve teacher pay.

 And this is what I said about his position that day:

Joe Biden doesn’t disappoint in the pandering department. Throw more federal money at schools and give everyone a college education. That and the national service (is that like compulsory volunteering?) means I’ll dock him on points. He does consider merit pay in his prescription so I’ll only take off 12 of the 13 possible.

O’Donnell: Quoting her site:

Christine will work to ensure that our children do not suffer from funding crises and swings, by exploring Federal solutions to provide continuity.

Here I have to disagree for the solution to bettering education is not a Federal one, but placing as much control as possible at the local level. I’m actually going to take away all 13 points from her.

Military and veterans affairs:

Biden: Per VoteSmart.org, Joe Biden has a fairly mixed record that appears to be a little bit toward veteran-friendly as far as benefits go. I’ll work with him here and add two points back on to his score.

O’Donnell: No mention of this issue on her site.

Energy independence:

Biden: Again, quoting from his Presidential website on August 3, 2007:

Joe Biden believes that domestic energy policy is at the center of our foreign policy and economic policy. Most of the world’s oil is concentrated in nations that are either hostile to American interests or vulnerable to political upheaval and terrorism. Our oil dependence undercuts the advance of freedom and limits our options and influence around the world because oil rich countries pursuing policies we oppose can stand up to us and undermine the resolve of our allies. Profits from the sale of oil help fuel the fundamentalism we are fighting. High energy prices hurt business’ bottom line.

Joe Biden’s first priority is energy security. He believes we can strengthen security by reducing our oil consumption by increasing fuel efficiency, transitioning to farm-grown fuels like ethanol and biodiesel, and expanding the use of renewable energy. But we cannot stop there. Joe Biden would make a substantial national commitment by dramatically increasing investment in energy and climate change research and technology so that that United States becomes the world leader in developing and exporting alternative energy. 

My take:

Joe Biden also likes the job-killing (not to mention possibly driver-killing) raising of CAFE standards, along with adding to the ethanol craze and raising our taxes to “dramatically” increase our “investment” in climate change and energy technology. So he’ll pretty much cut the market out and not seek to use resources we can easily attain. I’m taking off all 17 points.

O’Donnell: Christine has several items pertaining to energy independence on her site:

  • High gasoline prices created by policies of the Democrats must be cured. America has not built another oil refinery to produce gasoline in the last 30 years. The lack of refinery capacity is a major factor in high gas prices. While protecting the environment God gave us is indeed a sacred trust, we have the skill to do both. We refuse to accept that America lacks the knowledge to produce energy while also keeping our environment clean. We can do it.
  • Christine has long supported using Delaware’s agricultural resources to supplement America’s gasoline supplies. This can raise the income of farmers as well as help all Delaware drivers.
  • Let’s also keep in mind that the biggest reason for rising food prices is the high cost of fuel for transporting food and grains. This must be addressed.
  • Democrats have blocked America from achieving energy independence, including vast oil supplies in the Gulf of Mexico. China is preparing to drill for oil 45 miles from Key West, Florida, as a team with Cuba. Environmentally, this drilling will happen either way. But U.S. firms will surely use higher technical quality and greater care for our own environment than China will. How careful will China’s oil drilling be about America’s shorelines? (All emphasis in original.)

There are 17 points available for the category of energy independence. On the whole I like the idea of building more refineries and she correctly points out in two of these points that energy and environmentalism CAN co-exist. However, I’m not sold on ethanol as a solution so it mars what would have been an outstanding response. She picks up 9 of 17 points because she’s not as specific as I’d like her to be either.

Social Security/Medicare:

Biden: On August 9, 2007 I quoted from Biden’s then-Presidential website:

Joe Biden believes that to protect jobs, compete in a global economy and strengthen families we have to have to address out-dated health care system. The next president will have to deal with two challenges: containing the growing costs of health care and providing access to the 47 million Americans who don’t have health insurance.

Joe Biden believes we need to take three steps to contain the cost of health care: modernize the system, simplify the system and reduce errors. He supports the transition to secure electronic records so that people can provide their doctors and nurses with vital medical information in real time. He believes there should be a uniform, efficient system to submit claims.

Joe Biden believes the path toward a 21st century health care system starts with the most vulnerable in our society. He would expand health insurance for children and relieve families and businesses of the burden of expensive catastrophic cases. He supports states that are pursuing innovative alternatives to make sure that everyone has access to health care and believes we should use data from these states to evaluate what works best in providing affordable access to health care for all.

 My reaction:

For the Democrats, I’ll give Joe Biden credit for…discussing the role of technology in the health care field. He sounds a lot like (Gov. Tommy) Thompson, but also wants to expand the federal role where insuring children is concerned. And since he doesn’t discuss Social Security, it’s practically a wash. I guess I’ll give Biden one point…partly because he doesn’t go as far as some of his more leftwing cohorts do.

O’Donnell: Aside from vowing to end the Clinton tax on Social Security income, which properly falls under the taxation category, she addresses neither issue; thus, no points.

Taxation:

Biden: In looking at his taxation voting record, Biden is reliably a vote for increasing taxes – he voted against the Bush tax cuts, which lowered each of the tax brackets from highs established during the Clinton years. It’s a deduction of 21 points for this category.

O’Donnell: She notes on her site that:

  • Christine pledges to oppose tax increases and new taxes, without exception.
  • Christine O’Donnell will fight to repeal the tax on social security retirement income imposed under Bill Clinton. She will fight to make all student loan interest tax deductible.
  • Christine opposes the Global Tax that will require America to pay taxes to the United Nations – something Biden adamantly supports. This undermines America’s national sovereignty and punishes economic prosperity.

In her “Deal With Delaware” she adds:

Raising taxes is not the solution to our economic problems caused by wasteful spending. This would be like raising your teenager’s allowance after he frivolously wasted his money.

I wish she’d embrace the FairTax; as it is this is a strong category for her so she’ll pick up 14 points.

Role of government:

Since I need some sort of convenient measuring stick for this area, I’m using the American Conservative Union rankings, which generally favor those who prefer a smaller, less intrusive government. On the ACU scale Joe Biden has a lifetime ranking of 13 and scored a big fat zero in 2007. Out of 23 points, it seems fair to deduct about 87% of that, thus he’ll lose 20 points.

Meanwhile, Christine O’Donnell seems to appreciate that government should be Constitutional and limited; unfortunately we have no record to guide ourselves on but on the other hand she does fit the Founders’ vision of a true citizen legislator. She’ll pick up 15 of a possible 23 points.

Border security/immigration:

Biden: While there are a number of votes on the subject that seemed favorable, Biden’s voting record seems to be more inclined toward amnesty than a get-tough approach. It almost seems like it depends on whether he wants to be bipartisan or not. I’ll call this category a wash.

O’Donnell: Christine has this to say on her website:

  • Christine O’Donnell will fight to secure our nation’s seaports and borders to defend our families from terrorism and from drugs.
  • Christine will demand that employers obey the law, just as the rest of us must obey the law, with meaningful penalties for hiring illegal aliens.
  • Christine will fight to make English America’s official language for all governmental purposes. We cannot be one people without speaking one language in common. (Emphasis in original.)

It would be better if she expanded her first point to indicate how she’d prefer to secure the borders, but her heart and position on these issues does seem to be in the right place. Out of 25 points, I’ll grant her 12.

The Long War:

Biden: On August 13, 2007 I wrote that except for a residual force, Joe Biden wanted the troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007. Needless to say he was wrong and lost all 27 points.

O’Donnell: Christine sums things up quite succinctly:

Most importantly, Christine has a strategy for bringing our troops home from Iraq: It’s called victory. Past mistakes should not deter our need to stabilize Iraq so we can get our troops home. We can succeed in the future, but we must accompany our efforts with the honor and respect we’ve earned as a people. We cannot leave on the enemy’s terms. We must leave on our terms. (Emphasis in original.)

You’re damn right. Yes, she gets all 27 points.

If you’ve taken any time to read my website at all before, you know I lie toward the conservative edge of the spectrum so preferring O’Donnell to Biden is not surprisingly a fait accompli. I was curious to see how she stacks up against the conservative candidate for federal office in these parts, Maryland State Senator Andy Harris. For the record, here are the totals.

Joe Biden ends up with a negative total of 108.5 points by losing ground in 8 of 12 categories.

Christine O’Donnell finishes with a total of 70 points. While it’s not the best score I’ve run across in doing this evaluation, she appears to have fairly good conservative credentials. Bear in mind that she’s also pro-life, which is not a category I score but that’s in line with my philosophy on the subject. Aside from the missteps in educational policy she did well, gaining points in 7 of 12 parts.

Since I have no vote in the matter, I can only encourage my friends across the border to end Joe Biden’s political career on November 4, by saying “no Joe and Nobama!”

Elbert was nice enough to crosspost this on his site. He’ll have two more opportunities.

So Obama picked Biden – what’s next?

The leak beat the mass texting, so thousands of Americans were waken overnight to find out Barack Obama selected Delaware Senator Joe Biden to be his Vice-Presidential running mate. While Biden seemed like the odds-on favorite, it was a pick that apparently makes an attempt to shore up what is commonly thought to be Obama’s most glaring weakness, a lack of experience dealing with foreign affairs. However, the choice of Biden means that neither of the two top Democrats will have executive experience or have spent much time in the private sector – both have primarily been politicians for much of their adult lives. Biden’s political career spans nearly four decades. (The only Democrat finalist who had recent executive experience was Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius.) Nor does the pick of Biden help Obama win a major number of electoral votes. There’s not many polls done in Delaware, but a February poll I found in Hedgehog Report had Obama up nine points, 50-41 – moreover, Democrats control the state’s highest offices. Thus, it was pretty apparent Obama shouldn’t have been too worried about those three Delaware electoral votes – although it is still a close election in the Electoral College too.

Closer to home, Biden’s potential election to the second-highest office in the land would enable the First State to finally garner a spot among those states who have had a chief executive in office. (This with the caveat that Biden is actually a Pennsylvania native but moved with his family to Delaware as a boy.) It also presents the intriguing situation of having Biden on the ballot twice in one election. In a quick reading of Delaware election law, I found no prohibition on Biden being on the ballot as both a candidate for United States Senator and Vice-President; however, there are interesting political implications if he’s elected to both offices. Here is Title 15, Chapter 73 of the Delaware Code, which covers a vacancy in the office of United States Senator.

If the Obama/Biden ticket wins nationally and Senator Biden is also retained, the timing of Biden’s resignation will hinge on whoever wins the race for Governor. The odds-on favorite would be whoever survives the Democrats’ primary between State Treasurer Jack Markell and Lieutenant Governor John Carney, but if presumptive GOP hopeful Bill Lee wins in November Biden would certainly tender his Senate resignation before outgoing Democratic Governor Ruth Ann Minner leaves office so a Democrat could be picked. If you run under the assumption of the Democrats retaining the Governorship, it’s possible that because the Senate term begins about two weeks before the Presidential one, Biden would have the chance to be sworn in as a Senator for another term before switching seats and taking over the spot Dick Cheney has held so well for the last eight years as President of the Senate.

This also could create an outstanding consolation prize for the loser of the Markell-Carney race. More than most states, Delaware seems to have politicians cycle between various offices and certainly Delaware’s Democrats would be mindful that the Biden replacement would be on the ballot once again in 2010 to finish the remainder of his term. (It would give Delaware voters five consecutive U.S. Senate elections since 2010 would have otherwise been the “off” year, as 2008 is here in Maryland.) If they select Markell to become a Senator then the Democrats would have to pick a state Treasurer to finish his term, and then a vacancy would occur in whatever office the new Treasurer hailed from, and so on. One thing Delaware Democrats have is a pretty deep bench of officeholders, mainly from Wilmington and New Castle County. Meanwhile, Carney is not running from cover so he’ll need a job come 2009 should he lose the primary fight.

There’s a tremendous amount of intrigue possible depending on the circumstances, but Delaware voters also have the chance to help end Joe Biden’s political career as well. They could help elect John McCain as President and shock the nation by voting Christine O’Donnell into the United States Senate. I was actually planning on looking at the three major Delaware races from the standpoint of my pet issues, but this breaking news took precedence so perhaps I’ll do the posts over Labor Day weekend. If a Delaware blogger can take interest in a Maryland race, I’ll make up for his lack of attention to his home state and provide my own insight.

Crossposted at That’s Elbert With An E.

The missing links

They aren’t really missing. I’ve done what I promised to do last weekend and consolidated my political links into one Election 2008 category on the left-hand side.

I realized that another advantage of this was fixing an problem which occurs on some computers with lesser resolution (like my PC). As it stands now my 640 pixel wide pictures I use crowd out the links on the right-hand side. This will no longer be an issue as I’ve moved all of the Maryland and Delaware races (plus others of interest, a list that will grow as time goes on) to the left column. This will also allow me to more easily manipulate the listings, particularly after the Delaware primary on September 9th.

As I bid to appeal to a larger audience, this effort will continue. I’m not content to be a big frog in a small pond anymore.

By the way, I’ll be upgrading my website to WordPress 2.6 later this evening. It shouldn’t be an issue, but in case I have one you’ll know why.