Representative Hocker said something quite astounding as reported by Tommywonk.
“This is the most anti- business legislation I have ever seen.”
The legislation in question was to tax at 100%, all profit claimed by any corporation registered in Delaware, that had in fact been solely incorporated for the creation of profit. This legislation in effect, would essentially require every business or corporation registered in Delaware, to operate as a non profit organization. Passage of this bill would 1) allow the state to reap enough income to fulfill its commitments, or 2) in order to keep from giving our government any excess money, prices would be dropped by the corporations themselves, giving consumers an incentive to spend wildly……
S c r a t c h……….
No,….. it…. wasn’t …….But that is an example of what most of us would assume was about to play, if we heard the statement coming from a committee chairperson that this was the”most anti business piece of legislation they had ever seen”. Instead, that piece of hyperbole was vented against HCR 50, a bill to keep Delawareans from paying Delmarva’s expenses for its efforts to stifle new competition attempting to move in on its territory and lower our prices……..
And that:…Ladies and Gentlemen of Delaware, was the most anti-business piece of legislation Representative Hocker has ever seen……
MR. HOCKER: ARE YOU REALLY THAT OUT OF TOUCH?
Never mind answering that, you’re a legislator: but today, Mother’s Day, is your lucky today….Why? For I just happen to hear of your plight, and with all of Delaware as my witness, would be most happy to educate and enlighten you.
First of all, let us review the function of government. I see by the length of your service in our General Assembly that perhaps you may have forgotten just what its primary purpose is. That is quite understandable. Everyone in your capacity seems to forget, and you should not feel the slightest embarrassment..
Government is vested by the people (jurors) with limited powers to referee (not judge) dispute resolutions between individuals.
Step 2: In order to finance its existence, government is directed to regulate the creation and activities of corporations that do business within its borders.
(courtesy of DrD)
According to the most basic outlying principals the following assumptions are most likely true.
Corporations answer to and provide revenue for the government.
Government answers to and protects the interests of the people.
People answer to the golden rule, and are responsible for the well being of their local communities.
(courtesy of DrD)
Of course, since you have been a legislator for some time, you may have forgotten that our Constitution begins with “We, the People” and not “We, the Corporation”. From the beginning of our country’s founding, the assumption has been made that people unite to from a government, and that government has authority over corporations and its owners.
So as Pat Gearity is fond of mentioning, and you no doubt are fond of forgetting, Delmarva Power is a regulated utility. In other words the people through representatives of their government, control the actions of that corporation, simply because there is no one else its consumers can turn to for the same services should that company become abusive…..Therefore if the people of this state do not want to pay for Delmarva’s cost of advertising, under the Constitution, they have every right to act through their government, and not do so…….
Under Representative Hocker’s assertion, the citizens of Delaware SHOULD be happy to pay for ALL of Delmarva’s costs required for driving away competition, and keeping our costs astronomical.
Currently Delaware is in the top three states paying the most for imported electricity coming in from another state. Putting in an offshore wind farm that is already costed out as less than what we currently pay today, and will be the same low price, or possibly even lower twenty five years from now, means that we import less of that expensive out-of-state electricity than we do today……
Mr. Hocker: We know you meant well. We know you are probably not used to having what you say inside legislative hall, spread by media unknown to you, outside the Legislator’s walls, but to keep our state from looking stupid on the national stage…..could you bite your tongue a little?
“The most anti-business piece of legislation you have ever seen.”
Indeed.
14 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 12, 2008 at 4:17 am
Alan Coffey
Uh, K. Dr. D apparently forgot to actually read the Constitution. It secures the rights of “the people”, strong and weak alike, to essentially be left alone – By government, and by others.
This country was started by people who thought you and I have the right to do as we damn well please, so long as we do not interfere with the rights of others to do the same. If we violate the rules, we have the right to suffer the consequences.
Now that is worth getting back to. It is not the interests of the people that are being watched over by government, but the RIGHTS of the people. People are free to watch out for their own interests.
Delmarva is, of course, a monopoly public utility. And we should keep in mind that it is different from the garden variety corporation that answers to its’ shareholders. This is the distinction that Mr. Hocker seems to have forgotten.
May 12, 2008 at 5:54 am
liberalgeek
Alan – Yes and No. Our forefathers certainly wanted to be left alone. But the foundation that they built upon was one of a coalition between the people to address large issues that cannot be addressed as an individual. Roads and defense are examples. That is the nature of the social contract.
BWW is an issue that falls well within the purview of this social contract.
May 12, 2008 at 6:40 am
Alan Coffey
LG:
Yes, there are legitimate functions of government (and I am thinking of the federal, not the state gov. in most of what I write), of course. And BWW falls within the power of government to regulate because of the nature of the utility contract. THAT makes it political.
The writings that K refers to above are out of whack when referring to general corps. Utilities are another matter.
That said, I do wonder about the wisdom of having politicians make decisions of this type. Imagine if W were in charge of utility regulation and you will see what I mean. And Delmarva does not seem very responsive to the will of the customers….
May 12, 2008 at 1:36 pm
kavips
Alan back to your first comment. You jumped to the Constitution. We are going more basic. Why was government formed as man began to farm and socialize and stop gathering food in packs…..
Government was formed as a balance to protect the weak from the strong. Once mankind stopped wandering, and found themselves locked down to a farm, water source, or town, they could not pick up and move when danger threatened. They had no choice but to pool resources in order to protect yourselves from those who wanted what they had.
Our Constitution is based on that fundamental principal, (protect the weak against the strong), just as it is based on principals outlined in the Magna Carta, even though no mention of the Magna Carta occurs.
You make an erroneous assumption when you preclude the strong shall abide by the law. They won’t, unless there is some force bigger than them to make them abide by that law……
May 12, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Maria Evans
House Bill 6 outlined the “opt out” program for DP&L’s 59% increase, so rate payers could either take the price hike all at once, or in phases. Everyone remembers this part of HB6, and no one complained about it.
HB6 was also the legislation that outlined the process for a new, price stable, Delaware based utility. At the time, legislators justified this by a number of rationals, like having another in state utility was a national security issue.
HB6 specifically outlined what energy users would pay for the utility, specifically DP&L’s “SOS” customers. It also outlined a contract term for DP&L of no less than 10 years and no more than 25 years.
In the end, all House members but 4 voted for HB6.
For House members who voted for the legislation to suddenly have concern that their legislation is “anti-business” is, at the very least, disingenuous.
May 12, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Maria Evans
One more thing…when your legislator tells you that they “didn’t know” what the bill would do or that they didn’t realize the contract length would be so long or whatever…you should be thinking about whether or not they’re fit to be a member of the General ASSembly.
I say they are not.
May 12, 2008 at 8:51 pm
kavips
Brilliant, Maria: two times.
May 13, 2008 at 4:52 am
Alan Coffey
K;
How far back are we going here? The Code of Hammurabi is really a way to keep the peasantry (weak) safe so they could be exploited. They were needed to fight wars and tend the crops. Does this sound like a government insuring the welfare of the poor against powerful interests?
“The Code contemplates the whole population as falling into three classes: the amelu, the muskinu and the ardu.
The ardu was a slave, his master’s chattel, and formed a very numerous class. He could acquire property and even hold other slaves. His master clothed and fed him, and paid his doctor’s fees, but took all compensation paid for injury done to him. His master usually found him a slave-girl as wife (the children were then born slaves), often set him up in a house (with farm or business) and simply took an annual rent of him. Otherwise, he might marry a free woman (the children were then free), who might bring him a dower that his master could not touch, and at his death, one-half of his property passed to his master as his heir. He could acquire his freedom by purchase from his master, or might be freed and dedicated to a temple, or even adopted, when he became an amelu and not a muskinu. Slaves were recruited by purchase abroad, from captives taken in war, or by freemen degraded for debt or crime. A slave often ran away; if caught, the captor was bound to restore him to his master, and the Code fixes a reward of two shekels that the owner must pay the captor. It was about one-tenth of the average value. To detain or harbour, etc., a slave was punishable by death. So was an attempt to get him to leave the city. A slave bore an identification mark, removable only by a surgical operation, and that later consisted of his owner’s name tattooed or branded on the arm. On the great estates in Assyria and its subject provinces, there were many serfs, mostly of subject race, settled captives, or quondam slaves; tied to the soil they cultivated, and sold with the estate, yet capable of possessing land and property of their own. There is little trace of serfs in Babylonia, unless the muskinu be really a serf.”
Your Dr. D says we need to get back to his ideal situation and I simply ask when it existed at any time in the past? The earliest examples are not what he says and our constitution is not either. OK, I am going far afield here, but I LOVE our constitution and what it did. It secured the rights of the common man AGAINST the government. Beautiful.
May 13, 2008 at 5:41 am
kavips
You must be older than I. The Code of Hammurabi was before my time.
May 13, 2008 at 6:04 am
Alan Coffey
Just ask’n. And getting older.
May 13, 2008 at 6:26 am
kavips
I guess the proper answer would be that the group that formed the government, call them Hammurabists if you will, were formed to protect themselves from the strong. In their case, the strong were invading armies. Their government used the tools necessary. Slaves were not considered as people until after the Civil War and the enlightenment that followed…..
Earlier cultures valued slaves with about as much value as our Federal Government gives our tax money….In both cases the same standard applies: both were there for their use and amusement…….
It would be wrong to consider slaves as members of society, as it would to consider our tax dollars as such….
But if you account for the body that ruled, in some cases maybe just a narrow few within the confines of a king’s court…….I believe the same principal would abide, that to protect the weak against the strong……government was formed….
Another way to put it would be to say that governments were formed for self-protection…….
May 13, 2008 at 7:18 am
Alan Coffey
Perhaps “self protection” of the government, not the governed.
May 18, 2008 at 8:52 am
Savy Politico
AC….You are one deep dude
I enjoy reading this blog when I kavips and you debate. Thank both of you for your insightfull, well thoughout comments.
June 6, 2008 at 8:48 pm
DrD
What an honor to be quoted into such an excellent discussion!
I enjoyed the discourse.
I am the 10th generation direct decendent of Captain William Drumright, commander of a company of Virginia militia who fought at York Town with General Washington.
I love our constitution and am willing to fight to protect the Bill of rights, are you?
Please go to http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/default.htm when you are ready to help us do something about the Corporatist Coup that has stolen control over this great nation.
Freedom comes with responsibility. Do you have the courage to be responsible for your own life?
DrD