These are serious times, and they call for serious people, and Andria Viola Bennett is not to be called upon. HB240, the bill that would have created a new tax bracket on the wealthy so that the rich could finally pay their fair share of the shared sacrifice demanded of all of us during this budget crisis, failed the House by a vote of 24-17. Andria Viola Bennett joined with her new Republican caucus in voting down the measure that would have raised new revenues so the state could avoid painful education and nonprofit funding cuts. Any revenue bill requires a 3/5th vote, or 25 votes to pass. Mrs. Bennett’s vote, had she stayed true to Democratic principles, would have been the 25th.
Her betrayal of working families so that the wealthy could be protected has thrown the budget process into chaos, causing the General Assembly to adjourn without a budget passed for the first time in history. A temporary and continuing budget resolution will be passed, with a new budget deadline 72 hours from whenever it is passed. So on Sunday and Monday, we get to do this again. Maybe by that time Andria and her Republican colleagues will realize that new revenues are necessary.
And if not, then the painful budget that guts education and all funding for nonprofits should be named after her.
We need legislators with a backbone. I don’t mean the ideological ones who won’t listen to anything beyond what they think they already know, but ones who are willing to make a stand on what’s right. We also need to stop with the Delaware Way and start primarying these people!
I agree there should be more primary contests for Dems in the state but there should be some fairness rules set up first. The RD’s and the State Party should not endorse any candidate until the primary is over and no financial or data access should be provide to only one canidate. Everything should be all or noting till the Primary is over.
Pingback: Andria Bennett Scotches Budget Deal : Delaware Liberal
This can be viewed as an opportunity. Bennett says that she doesn’t like the cap on mortgage interest deduction, so eliminate that but add another upper bracket. The Dems have already taken some steps aways from Carney’s idiotic 50/50 spit on Rev vs spending, so take another step away. It SHOULD have been thier starting position, but backing into it works for me.
Then Andria Bennett better introduce that Amendment to HB240 as she moves to reconsider it (since she voted no, she can do that). If she does that, her excuse for voting no will be genuine. As it stands now, it is just a convenient excuse.
It appears Ms. Bennett listened to all of her constituents, not just the ones that voted for her. Others in Dover would do well to likewise listen, unless they want to turn Delaware “red” in the next election.
What a joke. Bill never would have passed the Senate. But go you purity warriors! Has worked so well for you on a national level.
From the NJ article:
Someone needs to preserve this statement. Because apparently we were mistaken about who voted for her. Bennett’s problem here is that her constituents are also looking for a fair number of government services. Here’s hoping that the school districts in her district hand out cards on the first day of school telling parents to just call her because they don’t have enough teachers or resources for their students.
As much as our fellow Republicans want this budget crisis to be about spending, it is not. Spending has been cut across the board for 10 budgets in a row now. The problem is that our revenue streams that we have relied on are no longer producing required funds to even keep up with inflation. Hence the constant structural deficit every year. Our top rate in the early 1990’s was 19.9%. But with a boom in corporate fees, franchise tax revenue, unclaimed property revenue and casino revenue, Governors Carper and Minner had room to cut income taxes across the board, so that now our top rate is 6.6%. There is widespread consensus in Dover that we cut taxes once too much. So we must raise rates or create new tax brackets above the top level of 60k now, or else the budget will have to be cut to the bone with severe education cuts and no nonprofit spending.
And what about the stupid deals that were given out, with no clauses. Look at Fisker, there should have been clauses in there if they reached certain goals, but no let’s hand over the cash.
Bloom Energy the same crap, let’s just give them a boat load of money and not have any clauses, if they don’t reach their goal. This is a pure TAX, for what. AND this is a Dem’s deal from Markell!
“As much as our fellow Republicans want this budget crisis to be about spending, it is not.”
Kinda hard to make that case when your Democratic Governor and Acting Gov Pete, made this about 50% spending, thereby conceding the GOP their most important point prior to negotiations.
Indeed. Which is why he should and has shut up since his budget speech while Pete and McBride tackled raising revenue.
“As much as our fellow Republicans want this budget crisis to be about spending, it is not.”
Even the Republicans have conceded that this is not about spending — as their walk out on the vote to restore some GIA funds in return for a means to pay for them demonstrates. So does the fact that they are insisting on a mechanism that earns working people the right to be paid less. They’ll spend on their priorities, all right. Those priorities are not in making sure that kids and families are educated and supported.
If this was about spending, they would have proposed a balanced budget to get there. They didn’t. They want Dems to do the tough work so they can complain about spending.
I would like to note that this compromise tax bill which does not include a 2nd new tax bracket like it should is still hitting the middle class with a increase. Why did they raise taxes on those making 60K a year up to the first bracket? The 2nd bracket would also allow more of the cuts that effect the poor, education, and the environment to be restored.
I am a Democrat, but I don’t support limiting deductions. Why not simply raise IT rates across the board and create the new brackets, but continue to allow important deductions for homeowners and charitable giving? Punishing those who give back to the community doesn’t make sense to this voter.
Itemized deductions are taken by about 40% of Delaware taxpayers. The standard deductions proposed cover about half of the remaining who do take deductions. The rest left paying taxes are those at upper incomes who can maximize their itemization to pay fewer taxes. About a dozen states or so do not allow itemized deductions including PA and MA. You’d be very hard pressed to make the case that their real estate markets or charitable giving rates are somehow diminished by this. If you are making a choice to donate to a charity only because you get the deduction, you are in that bracket that this is meant to capture more revenues from. In the main, however, most people give because this is something they believe in. Which is the point of charity.
Jane Public itemizes deductions and contributes to numerous charitable organizations. She gets a modest tax advantage for supporting causes she believes in. In this way the state is incentivizing and valuing those contributions to her community. Why isn’t that a good idea? To de-incentivize charitable contributions is in my mind pretty mean-spirited, which is something we often accuse the GOP of being. If we want to target upper tax brackets, let’s do it in a straightforward way across the board, not punish those who do chose to make larger contributions.
Explain to me then, how this model works pretty robustly in other states, but would suddenly disincentivize charitable giving here. People don’t give because of the tax incentives, except at the very high levels perhaps.
Maybe because Pennsylvania has a flat tax rate of 3.07%?
Income tax, that is. Close to the lowest in the nation, which is why Pennsylvania’s budget is a mess.
PA has a 6% sales tax.
Do you want Delaware to impose a sales tax?
Oh yes they do. The fact that donations can be deducted means, basically, that I get back $1 for every $4 I give. I give as much as I can afford, so eliminating deductions will reduce my charitable donations by about 25%.
People who embrace big government don’t want private organizations, groups, or individuals to fund charities that help the people. These big government folks want and need the disadvantaged dependent on government. That way, these dependent people will vote to keep their representatives in power. So, as cassandram did, they insinuate that all that people who donate to charity care about is the tax deduction kickback and it would make more sense to just steal more of their money through taxation, then the government will sort it all out. Some would say that’s a twisted ideology. In reality, it’s a very deliberate plan of the left that has been going on for a long time.
The attraction of the right’s desire for charitable giving to replace the government is that they can choose who is worthy of their charity. It goes back to a disdain for “those people” who are undeserving.
“Embraces big government” is a phrase used by dickheads. So is “steal more of their money through taxation.” Do you pay a toll every time you leave your driveway, asshole? Then shut the fuck up.
You should interview Andtia first–Why was she part of the budget 6 in the last session and vote this way this session?
The people here defending Andrea Bennett for voting for her district have been played. Bennett voted in favor of the PIT proposal when restoring the cuts to grants in aid were also included in the same bill. She was quoted saying that she voted for that bill because it was directly tied to funding those grants in aid and she could explain that to her constituents. The real story was that she knew she could vote in favor of that bill and it still wouldn’t pass because they needed about 6 republicans to vote for it to get the super, super majority required. Republicans had all walked out of the chamber before the roll was called on that bill so she knew the bill would not pass. The next night, the same bill minus the grants in aid section was debated and Bennett decided this was a bridge too far and voted no. Bennett claimed to care about securing the grants in aid funding, as well as the cuts to education. However, tonight she voted against all new revenue while also voting in favor of the budget bill and grants in aid. So for those too slow to follow along, she voted for services and programs but against supplying them with the funding needed to do their work. Unfunded mandates and voting to look good on the easy votes but dodging the hard ones is exactly how Republicans play the game. So if Bennett isn’t a republican, she should stop voting and acting like one.