On September 12th, the Delaware Democrat Leaders from the Senate, and the House, responded to a report from the Delaware Business Roundtable, which was critical of how Delaware government has handled the challenges of meeting the demands of the people. Pro Tempore, Sen. Patricia Blevins (D 7th), along with Speaker of the House, Rep. Pete Schwartzkopf (D 14th) issued a joint statement which can be found at Delaware Online.
It seems that the Democrat Leadership has a problem with the Roundtable’s suggestion that there is room for real spending cuts in order to help meet the challenge facing lawmakers in the coming fiscal year, to balance the budget. (I am sorry, but I have to laugh every time I write that.)
The Roundtable suggested that there were ways to make meaningful cuts in state spending, in order to bring Delaware more into line with surrounding states.
The key areas suggested in the report were education, corrections and healthcare. Of course these are historically Democrat third rails when talking of cuts. Touch them and die.
Concerning Education the report pointed out, ” Education: From 2008 through 2014, while other states were cutting K-12 per-pupil funding by 4 percent, Delaware was increasing funding by 12 percent. Slowing the growth of spending over time would bring costs in line with the average of neighboring states.”
Concerning Corrections; “expenditures for corrections are significantly higher than the national average and that over the last two decades expenditures in this area have taken a growing share of Delaware’s operating budget. Delaware spends substantially more on a per-prisoner basis than the national average, and for this reason, the study suggests policymakers conduct a more detailed analysis of corrections expenditures to identify opportunities to reduce costs without jeopardizing public safety.”
Public Welfare/Social Programs: The study suggests there may be opportunities to improve on Delaware’s federal shares in the Medicaid program and recommends a thorough analysis be conducted.”
And finally the report suggested that; “Delaware consider reducing the size of its state and local government workforce over time, either through hiring freezes and attrition or by targeting specific programs for reduction or elimination. Delaware also could reduce spending by changing premium cost sharing ratios for healthcare coverage for state employees and retirees.”
Is it any surprise that Democrat Leadership would have a problem with such suggestions? After all, we are looking at Democrat strongholds in these areas, when it comes election time. We see a large number of organized labor in these areas and also a historically Democrat voting block in others.
So what was the Democrat Leadership’s response to these suggestions? Sen. Blevins and Rep. Schwartzkopf seem to think, it’s not a spending problem Delaware has, it’s a revenue problem. And just for the uninformed, when a Democrat uses the word “revenue”, what they really mean is tax.
Of course Mr. Schwartzkopf and Ms. Blevins have broken out the well-worn playbook as always. They attempt to play the class warfare card. Of course it is the fault of the so-called rich for not paying more, in this case it is business that the Democrats want to raise taxes on, oh, I am so sorry, I meant, it is the rich they want to raise revenue from. I am sure that will make a big difference to the business owners who have to fill the growing gap between what we as a state takes in, and what our legislators spend in our name.
In regards to the report’s suggested cuts, the Democrat Leadership replies, “they suggest we make those cuts in a vacuum; that we shouldn’t even consider asking the incredibly successful companies who have long enjoyed Delaware’s corporate hospitality to do a little bit more.”
So does this mean that Mr. Schwartzkopf and Ms. Blevins believe that you can raise taxes on these businesses in a vacuum? Only the intellectually dishonest, or the completely clueless can think that if you raise taxes, I did it again, if you attempt to raise revenue from businesses, that it won’t be passed onto consumers. Not to mention, that anything you tax, you get less of.
So the position of the Democrats on how to fill the gaps in the budget is to keep spending at an accelerated rate, keep the special interest groups happy, and raise taxes, oh I don’t care, it’s raising taxes, on the very thing that could actually help raise Delaware, business.
Unlike the Democrats, who think that if you simply take more money out of a business to pay for services for those who don’t, or won’t work, the real answer is to create more businesses to hire more people, and cut the entitlement programs that act as an incentive to not work, in many cases.
How come we are not talking about cutting all discretionary funding? Let towns fix their own sidewalks, and let the private dog clubs fund their own dog parks.
Why are we supplying needles to junkies? Why are we running marijuana stores?
And since the Democrats have been in control for quite some time, why are we in this position to start with? After all, if they have all the answers, then why haven’t they seen this coming? Could it be because they have for sometime been focused on social issues rather than fiscal issues? After all, how much revenue did the transgender bathroom bill raise? How about the bill to force private business owners to open their bathrooms to those who have a “I gotta poop pass” issued by the state, how much revenue did that raise? Has passing all of the homosexual legislation raised a dollar of revenue? Have any of these created jobs?
No! What these bills did create, were loyal Democrat voters within special interest voting groups, and nothing else. But when a group, whose focus is on creating a positive environment for business, which would create jobs, and in so doing, create more revenue as well put forth a plan, the Democrats accuse them of self-interest. Well duh!
And these two Democrats, Sen. Blevins and Rep. Schwartzkopf, are the two people in the Legislature who set the agenda, so if Delaware is failing at anything, these are the two people to look at first.
Which brings us to the second part of the post, “What’s Wrong In The 14TH?”
I recently had a number of emails forwarded to me concerning some issues in the Democrat 14th Representative District Committee. These emails and some of the issues they bring up, may explain Mr. Schwartzkopf’s stand on revenue issues in this statement. It seems as though the more progressive faction within that District are none too happy with Mr. Schwartzkopf’s handling of the state’s 2016 budget battle in the House.
It is also telling that the above response published at Delaware Online on Sept 12th, came right after the email exchange.
The dust-up centers around the so-called Democrat Six who voted no on the 2016 budget, counter to Speaker Schwartzkopf’s lead. Speaker Schwartzkopf was challenged on this issue at a meeting of the Eastern Sussex Democratic Club, by former senatorial candidate Claire Snyder-Hall. Ms. Snyder-Hall asked for clarification on quotes from Mr. Schwartzkopf made in an article at Delmarvanow. http://www.delmarvanow.com/story/news/local/delaware/2015/09/04/del-house-speaker-blasts-democrats-budget/71701854/
It seems that Mr. Schwartzkopf was critical of the six Democrats for daring to vote no on the Budget he approved of, while the six had criticized Speaker Schwartzkopf for not bringing certain bills to the floor for a vote, including a bill that would have raised taxes on corporations.
I have received several email threads from the same conversation. I have organized them as best I can in the order they were sent, and also have attempted to remove duplications. While there is nothing earth shattering in these emails, they do demonstrate that there are some cracks in what some have thought to be an unbeatable foe. The fact that Speaker Schwartzkopf has lost the confidence of six members of his caucus could mean that he may face a challenge for the Speaker of the House position, and because it is obvious that he has also lost the confidence of members of his Democrat District Committee, he could also be facing a democrat primary.
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 4:33 PM
Subject: Agenda – RD Committee Meeting September 9
Dick:Attached is an article which is very troubling to me. A member and past Chairman of our Democratic Committee, Claire Snyder Hall, is attacking Pete Schwartzkopf every chance she gets and her comments, including at the meeting of the Eastern Sussex Democrats meeting recently held, in my view, are not consistent with my views as well as many members of the 14th RD Democratic Committee. I am not sure whether she is doing this as a paid lobbyist for Common Cause, but she should acknowledge that these views are not the views of the 14th RD Democratic Committee of which she is a member, without a vote within the committee. Pete is the only Democrat elected member of the Delaware Legislature from Sussex County and is the Speaker of the House of Representatives. This clearly planned attack embarrasses Pete, the 14th RD committee and affects the view of many citizens of the county of our committee.
Dennis
I do not see where Claire implied in any way that she was acting for the 14th RD. I also do not think we give up our rights to free speech when we become Committee persons. As to your comment that this was a “clearly planned attack” does not fit the facts as I know them. It is my understanding from three sources that Claire asked Pete questions about balancing next years budget and that Pete did not answer the question. Claire followed up with a please give me an answer and still did not get one. This is not an acceptable way for a politician to act.
I feel like I am back with Nixon as president and Dan Rather asked a question in a press conference and Nixon did not answer it and Rather called him on it. All heck broke out in the press with many people for Rather as being a good reporter and others saying he was disrespectful to the President. I was on the side of those saying he was doing his job.
Tom
In a message dated 9/10/2015 12:27:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Mitch Crane writes:
Tom:Maybe Pete chose not to answer that question with press present. Some plans are not for public discussion.Mitch Crane
Lewes, DE 19958
Peter,Although Tom was not there, he accurately describes the exchange.One of my questions was why the Progressive Income Tax and Corporate Franchise Tax bills — that were reportedly both voted out of committee with a bi-partisan vote — did not come to the floor for a vote. In my opinion, not having the votes is not a reason to not take a vote. Let people go on the record.Obviously, Pete can choose to not answer any question he doesn’t want to answer, but you can’t blame people for wanting an answer either.Finally, Pete is the one who introduced the subject of his 6 colleagues who chose not to vote for the budget. Hence the subject was fair game. I was trying to make sense of two different versions of events.Best wishes,ClaireClaire Snyder-HallSept. 10, 2015Subject: Re: Agenda – RD Committee Meeting September 9Its incredible that two people can be in the same room and hear different things. It is no use convincing someone who had her mind made up on an issue, that they heard the same thing I did.Peter
Thanks Peter!Glad somebody has a backbone!What a bunch of weak people!How disgusting!No wonder Dems don’t win here!L
Dennis,I strongly object to your mischaracterization of my intentions and dragging my job into it. How dare you!I have a lifelong commitment to advancing progressive issues and encouraging civic engagement. Pete is a public official who spoke at a public forum about the public’s business and as a citizen in this district and a constituent of his, I have every right to ask a question, which is what I did. Indeed it is my constitutionally protected right. Several people asked questions, but the press chose to focus on me because I’m a public figure.I have no idea why you would say I am attacking Pete every chance I get. Like when? I did NOT ATTACK Pete at the Eastern Sussex meeting. I asked him a question. I wanted his response to what his 6 colleagues are saying.I certainly hope you are not including my letter to the editor about death penalty repeal as an attack on Pete. I wrote that with good intentions and believe me had NO IDEA what reaction it would cause. Having an elected official go around Leg Hall and tell everyone he sees how furious he is about a constituent’s letter to the editor is so far outside the box of anything I could ever imaging happening, that I am still shocked by it.My only purpose was to pressure Pete to support repeal. I did nothing wrong. I simply exercised my constitutional right to request that the person representing me vote they way I want. It’s normal practice to write such letters. The letter was very respectful. Frankly, I am the one who has been attacked.What else you are referring to, I can’t imagine.My intention is NOT to embarrass Pete, and my activism as a citizen in my private life has NOTHING to do with Common Cause.Best wishes,ClaireClaire Snyder-Hall
From: Don Peterson <donpetersonde@gmail.com>
Date: September 10, 2015 at 10:04:45 AM EDTSubject: Re: Agenda – RD Committee Meeting September 9
I’m very surprised by this email Dennis. I guess I wasn’t aware that being a member of the RD 14 Committee required that we be muzzled on our rights as private citizens to speak out when we personally disagree with positions that Pete takes. (I myself have done it many times and publicly over the death penalty.) Nor was I aware that it was our job to make sure that Pete always feels warm and fuzzy. Perhaps I should have been better informed before I accepted membership to the committee.No where in either the attachment or the article in the News Journal reference RD 14 and Claire certainly did not represent herself at the meeting as speaking for RD 14, so it is difficult for me to understand how RD 14 gets embarrassed. Pete’s a politician. Challenging politicians should make them stronger, weaker. Perhaps he needs to work on thickening his skin. In my opinion, the citizens of Sussex County have the right to hear ALL sides of any story, gather their facts and make up their own minds.I believe I can both disagree strongly and publicly with Pete on issues and still support him as the Democrat running for office in the general election. But what if there were a Democrat who challenged him in the primary. Am I required as a member of the 14th to support Pete over any challenger?Don
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:05:48 -0400
From: Mikki Snyder-Hall
Date: Thu, September 10, 2015 10:08 am
How is asking a question attacking an elected Democrat?
– Mikki
Date: September 10, 2015 at 10:13:17 AM EDT
Subject: RE: Agenda – RD Committee Meeting September 9
Dennis,As you should know from following national politics, there is a split opening in the Democratic party right now between the center-left (Clinton) and the progressives (Sanders). That same divide is developing within our state . Democrats are going to be on both sides. That is just how it is.Best wishes,ClaireClaire Snyder-Hall
Oh my.
Claire and Ayotte are quite a pair. Think we could get them together for a night of crazy, I mean a debate? It would be well attended, their egos satisfied, and the proceeds could go to the Sussex Democratic and Sussex Republican Committees, to promote real discourse.
Though it is unfortunate that someone chose to forward the 14th RD minutes and a heated email chain to an opposition blog, what people should learn is we have passionate arguments over issues and policies. We do not, however, resort to sexism, racism, or homophobia.
Nice deflection Mitch. Why do your people hate small business and the working class?
Mitch, not sure if you asked the Sussex GOP if they wouldn’t also consider this an opposition blog. We are interested in the conversation. Let’s have one. Why are the Democrats against business and private ownership?
Heh. Love the “I got to poop” pass”.
So very true.
Interesting article….I am intrigued.
Just following the emails thread gives strong clues about the source publishing the minutes. That’s useful information for the future regarding wether certain parties are likely to respect confidences.
As far as the roundtable’s recommendations, it is pretty general (as is most such recommendations), which means it is not actionable. For example, they recommendation cutting education because other states only spend 4% per pupil and Delaware spends 12%. Ok, cut what? What is currently being done, that education should no longer do? Of the 50 states which ones are most like Delaware that they are a legitimate basis for comparison? What are the specific impacts of the current budget that causes one to arrive at the conclusion that the Democrats have a “WAR ON SMALL BUSINESS.” And honestly Frank, isn’t the “War On ________” meme outlived its usefulness? After all as I have said before in several forums, if everything is outrageous, then nothing is outrageous.
“Why are the Democrats against business and private ownership?”
If that were true, the Wall St. CEO’s that engineered the housing bubble and ensuing Great Recession would be sitting in jail.
Why is Frank a Charlie McCarthy dummy for the Business Roundtable ?
Frank ass: “Why are the Democrats against business and private ownership?”
That is like asking ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?”. You cannot answer a question where the assumption in the premise is wrong.
Democrats are not and have never been against business or private ownership- let alone the working class as Creeper asks. Creepers question is a joke. Republicans believe that business should be left alone no matter what happens. Democrats believe it is the obligation of government to protect the citizens by regulating business. The valid questions are whether or not regulations are too much or enough. Frank, I am happy to debate these subjects with you on the radio. I thought I had that going when I had the first debate with the Sussex Republican chairman, but I understand the other Party is afraid to have additional debates.
Dave, the Roundtable’s recommendations are not as telling as the Democratic response, that cuts are never the answer, only more taxes.
Mitch, to start with, attempting to hurt my feeling by being critical of the Sussex GOP is funny. I believe I pointed out there failure to send the Chairman for that debate.
As for the topic here. It is not about regulating businesses to protect citizens, unless you are making the point that higher taxes on businesses somehow protects citizens.
The Democrat Six votes no on the budget because it did not raise the corporate tax among other things.
And in my opinion, when the Democrat Leadership pushes legislation to take away a private business owner’s right of determining who uses their private restrooms, then they are attacking that owner’s rights. And when the Democrats think they can continue to fund their social engineering policies on the backs of business owners, then yes , I see that as an attack on businesses.
Frank, I am well aware of your position vis-a-vis the Sussex Republican Committee. I was not being critical of you in any way. (I just re-read my post– I mean to type “Frank asked”. I do not wage in personal attack. Writing “ass” was not even Freudian on my part. Sorry).
Mitch, it’s all good. Ass would have been one of the nicer things I have been called.
Frank, when did Delaware Right become an “opposition blog?” Didn’t know you were now part of the Sussex GOP operation. 😉
Right?
” unless you are making the point that higher taxes on businesses somehow protects citizens.”
Well since you brought it up, the philosophical point would not be “higher” or “lower.” It would be the premise (or question) Do taxes on business protect citizens? The answer depends on your perspective. Professional licenses are a form of taxation (at least according to a conservative viewpoint). Do professional licenses protect citizens? Here are the professions that Delaware regulates through various means including licenses (again a form of taxation).
– Accountancy
– Acupuncture
– Acupuncture Detoxification
– Adult Entertainment Establishments
– Aesthetician
– Architects
– Athletic Trainers
– Audiology
– Barbering
– Boxing
– Chemical Dependency Professionals
– Chiropractic
– Combative Sports
– Controlled Substances
– Cosmetology
– Deadly Weapons Dealers
– Dental
– Dietitians
– Electrician
– Funeral Services
– Gaming
– Genetic Counselor
– Geology
– Hearing Aid Dispensers
– Home Inspectors
– Homeowner Permits
– HVACR
– Land Surveyors
– Landscape Architect
– Magistrate Screening
– Manufactured Home Installation
– Marriage and Family Therapy
– Massage and Bodywork
– Medical Practice
– Mixed Martial Arts
– Nail Technician
– Nursing
– Nursing Home Administrators
– Nutritionist
– Occupational Therapy
– Optometry
– Paramedic
– Pharmacy
– Physical Therapy
– Physician
– Physician Assistant
– Pilots (River)
– Plumbers
– Podiatry
– Polysomnographer
– Professional Counselors of Mental Health
– Psychology
– Real Estate
– Real Estate Appraisers
– Respiratory Care
– Salons & Shops
– Social Workers
– Speech Pathology
– Tamper-Resistant Prescriptions
– Veterinary Medicine
I’m guessing that everyone could find something in this list that provides some benefit/protection for citizens.
Thus my answer would be yes, taxation protects citizens. Now if you want to nuance the discussion a bit, you could ask how much taxation is necessary to protect citizens? or you could ask about the proper role of government in promoting the general welfare of citizens by protecting them. But the general answer is yep. Taxation does (in part) protect citizens.
And by the way, I have no desire to pay more taxes, but certainly you can see that regardless of who repairs sidewalks, someone has to pay for it. I also do not disagree with you regarding the dog park (and I am a contributor to Lewes Unleashed), but wouldn’t the question also be applicable to baseball parks (which people who have no children pay for)? Or parks in general, soccer fields, bike trails, school taxes (I have no children in school), etc, etc. Where should we draw the line on the common good, or do we define the common the good as that which only affects 100% of the people and the rest are simply a narrow interest group? Those are excellent philosophical questions on the role of government but couch it in “War on _____” doesn’t come close to asking those questions as much as it is sloganeering.
Dave, I don’t often agree with you, totally. But that was a hell of a good comment.
Good food for thought.
A genetic counselor has to be licensed?
What we are talking about here is corporate tax, and we are not talking about protecting anyone who is not already protected. We are talking about raising a tax so that government can keep spending at an accelerated rate with no cuts or corrections.
To do so while trying to sell it as protecting anyone is disingenuous.
As for who pays for sidewalks? Well why should I pay for the sidewalks in Wilmington? Why should they pay for those in Bridgeville? We should pay the most tax to the government closest to out front door bell.
Dave, you have simply changed the word regulation to licenses, but they are the same thing. And again what we are talking about here is revenue. The state, currently being run by the Democrats, wants to keep spending, so they look for ways to pay for it. Raising taxes on business is neither a license or a regulation. It is taking money from that business and giving nothing in return that every other citizen recieves.
It is inconceivable for a Socialist-Democrat to even consider cutting the size and scope of government. New “programs” and regulations must always be implemented and new revenues raised to pay for them. When does it end? When government runs everything (see USSR) and the money runs out.
Meanwhile, the only thing the SOSSCGOP is interested in is keeping women out of leadership by talking about their periods on the radio. Nothing to see here. No economy in a death spiral, no huge budget gap talk, just a bunch of morons on the radio ranting about their wives’ periods.
No economy in a death spiral, no huge budget gap talk, just a bunch of morons on the radio ranting about their wives’ periods.
But the GOP dominates in Sussex. Better take your rant to SOSNCC, where the “reasonable” Republicans live- in a permanent minority.
Okay Rick one more time. Tell me one thing other than simply existing, that the Committee has done to elect Republicans? We have already demonstrated that they give no money, so enlighten us oh involved one. By the way Rick, what have you done to elect Republicans. And please if all you can do is come here and repeat Dooby Brooks rhetoric, save your breath.
Jobs are created when people have the money to buy things. The conservative party has done everything possible to allow outsourcing of jobs for slave child labor in Asia. People can buy more and depend less on welfare when there are living wage jobs. The conservative party has blocked every attempt for 8 years to raise min wage.
Republicans can only get elected by appealing to the racial and cultural resentments of uneducated folk. Every conservative forum from debates to talk radio to the GOP committees is dominated solely by issues of resentment and fear. There’s never any positive anything
The democrats are profoundly corrupt and incompetent, They have ran the state into the ground with hubris. One would think the state would be ripe for a takeover by the party out of power and that they would offer common sense solutions that people would vote for. But no, it’s all about tribal racial and religious resentments with an unhealthy does of gloom, doom and paranoia by the republicans. Who wants to vote for that?
Mouse, in my opinion, the reason companies outsource is because there are more regulations in the U.S. and wages are higher, both add to the cost of manufacturing and services. Raising minimum wage would only add to the fleeing companies. The only thing left would be fast food and Walmart. How will you employ everyone with those choices?
Create tax laws that disincentivize outsourcing instead of blocking such tax laws. The macroeconomic rules that allow outsourcing are created in congress for the corporate elite. You act as though we have no alternative but to lower wages and destroy health and safety regulations. Should the American worker have to compete with 40 cent an hour wages in Asia with no protection from the US government? Is that the conservative republican view? No wonder you guys have to distract people being economically screwed with fear and resentment issues..
And yet you people endlessly bitch about illegals taking jobs. But I guess that’s veiled resentment toward Hispanics you have to use to attract uneducated whites. Never hear a word from you people about going after the people who hire illegals. No wonder you people hate education. Anyone with a basic critical thinking course can see through the BS
Mouse, who the hell are “you people”? Show me anywhere in the last five years that I have written anything about illegals taking jobs. What you will find is this post written on Nov. 23, 2014 almost a year ago. http://www.delawareright.com/my-grandfathers-father/#more-1666
Read this before you start throwing around the “you people”.
As for creating laws to stop companies from outsourcing? All that would do is force them to make the final move and completely move their operations overseas. Then I guess your answer would be to create more laws to bar them from sending their goods to this nation. So what happens when you take away competition? Prices go up. But I guess you would make more laws to regulate prices.
I thought progressives were for free trade. Your version doesn’t sound very free to me.
“Raising minimum wage would only add to the fleeing companies.” – Frank
Republicans never invoke “the fleeing companies” scenario with respect to costs that benefit the rich, such as CEO compensation, dividend increases and share buybacks.
“As for creating laws to stop companies from outsourcing? All that would do is force them to make the final move and completely move their operations overseas.” – Frank
Without such laws…they are already doing that . Apple, for example, has out-sourced and off-shored their entire manufacturing operations to a Chinese toll-manufacturer, Foxconn.
Wow, Delacrat ? Do you really not know the difference between cost and profit sharing? The CEO compensation is the reason there is a company.
As for laws to make a company stay, how does that work exactly. Other than barring the company from selling in the states which only reduces competition and raises prices.
Actually Frank, the company is the the reason there is a CEO. CEOs are not born and don’t walk around looking for a company.
My point Dave is that companies exist so that those who own and or operate them can make money. If there was no compensation there would be no one who wanted to be a CEO.
Frank,
Do you really care if “profit sharing” is as a result of suppressed worker income? Of course not, you’re a Republican.
Delacrat, I as an employee have been the beneficiary of profit sharing . And in this case it has nothing to do with being a Republican it’s about being a capitalist.
“You people” = conservative republicans advocating for outsourced forced child labor and Americans having to compete with such. There’s an overlooked morality issue to this.. Now I realize that in conservative republican world that morality only refers to sexual issues but outsourcing American jobs for child labor in China is evil and immoral. Often these 10 figure CEO economic parasitic terrorists have children locked inside factories. This creates the seeds of uprising. The 1% may be able to fool some folk with with diversion of religious and cultural resentment, but not enough to keep the party from shrinking into a non entity. There are many ways to shame and create disincentives for outsourcing. The problem is that you people approve of immoral child labor and don’t give a damn about average Americans!!!.
Ah poor little Mouse, doomed to be the confused ranting progressive. First it was “you people” in reference to illegals coming into this country taking jobs. I shot that down and now it is “you people” in reference to sweat shops in China.
Mouse opposes the capitalist CEOs who outsource to China because of the children forced to do the work.
Mouse my darling, you do understand that even if companies send work to China, it is “you people” the progressive socialist who actually supply the forced labor. China is. Socialist paradise after all.
“I as an employee have been the beneficiary of profit sharing . And in this case it has nothing to do with being a Republican it’s about being a capitalist.” – Frank
Oh yeah, he’s a capitalist.
I am surprised Demartino hasn’t been hammering Pete’s inability to control his own party. Were it not for Markell cutting a deal the last budget crisis would have left those guys in Dover for a month. What will Petey do without Markell when they have get this year done?