You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Censorship’ category.
More later. Too soon to comment. Here are the briefs…..
A bill was placed on the docket to change Delaware Law. It was supposed to slip through the last minute when no one was watching. That is Blevins SB 151 regarding the Treasury… Since it was a surprise, a lot of hoopla as been thrown in the fire by pundits reacting to the impact of first impressions. In their defense that was all they had to go on…
Due to time constraints this investigation will take a series of small steps, probably spread across Delaware’s official blog circuit, with help from Starkey of the News Journal…
But to back up the word coup in my title, I first want to show you how the original language was written then show you how it looked with the changes after SB 151. Of course this was stated as necessary to keep the state treasure in line, a ploy that El Som and Cassandra seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
First the original bill:
For those who follow along (you all are great) here is the passage number Title 29; 2716(a)(2)
===
(1) Require as a condition to any deposit of such funds in any state or national bank or savings and loan institution that such deposits be continuously and fully secured by direct general obligations of or obligations the payment of the principal and interest on which are unconditionally guaranteed by the United States of America or other suitable obligations as determined by the Board;
(2) Require that the selection of financial institutions to provide banking and investment services pursuant to this section be conducted on an open and competitive basis; and
(3) Require that temporary clearing accounts as well as major disbursement accounts be established in a bank or banks whose principal office is located within the State.
===
That was the original piece of legislation. Patty’s bill seeks to amend the section 2 of that piece, the embolden area. From SB 151…
===
(2) Require that the selection of financial institutions to provide banking and investment services pursuant to this section be conducted on an open and competitive basis as defined by the Board.; It shall be the responsibility of the Board to approve the selection of each of the said financial institutions by a majority vote of the members of the Board. The Board, by a majority vote of its members, shall be responsible for setting the policy as to the allocation between short and long term investments and the allocation of funds to the respective financial institutions selected through the open and competitive process; and
===
Notice a “lot” of new language. In the synopsis this was sold as a clarification of the responsibilities of the board and the trimming of the responsibilities of the Treasurer. Instead, in what is now typical Markell modus of operandi, this if more of a surreptitious law-change than a clarification.
Previously the directive was this should be done in on an open and competitive basis. The previous directive specifically states this further down: 2716 (e)(1)
===
The investment of money belonging to the State shall be made by the State Treasurer in accordance with policies established by the Board and subject to the terms, conditions and other matters, including the designation of permissible investments relating to the investment of the money belonging to the State,
===
It is obvious to all that the existing law separates the Treasurer specifically out from all other board members when it comes to the investment of the state’s finances.
And that was really all existing code says in regards to the investment portfolio of the state’s money.
But, the new law, the one proposed by Blevins titled SB 151, makes HUGE changes. Now the board must make that decision. The board which according to Title 29; 2716(c)(4):
===
The Board shall meet as often as shall be necessary to properly discharge its duties; provided, however, that the Board shall meet at least 2 times annually; and provided further, that the State Treasurer or the Chairperson of the Board shall be authorized to call special meetings of the Board.
===
and 2716 (c)(2)
===
a quorum of 5 members shall be necessary to hold a meeting of the Board.
===
and 2716 (d)(5)
===
The use of teleconferencing or videoconferencing is authorized for use in conducting meetings of the Cash Management Policy Board.
===
Even now under existing policy only 3 people out of nine, if they time their conference-call correctly, can decide the future investment strategy of this state. Patty Blevin’s law would now give those three people (whomever they might be) unprecedented power and remove the current oversight of the only elected official responsible to the public.
“Coup” is the proper term for it.
A 501 support group, sponsoring the the elimination of the electoral college, publicly derided Senator Katz for his not voting yes to remove the Electoral College. It was in Market Watch on Thursday, and the News Journal on Sunday.
The reason Senator Katz did not vote for pushing forward with the popular vote bill, is that he thinks it is wrong.
And I agree with him.
Everyone hates the electoral college at some point in their life, yet it has weathered over 700 Constitutional Amendments to get rid of it.
The NPV ( National Popular Vote) compact, is a method to get around this problem without changing the constitution….
Is this Constitutional? Will it muster court challenges? The Constitution gives states the method of determining how their electoral votes are cast. Bypassing that process without an amendment, should, be deemed unconstitutional…. After all you are changing years of Constitutional practice, without, even a legislative vote….
Furthermore, states not part of the Compact, would then be excluded from the electoral process. The decision on who would be president would be made only by those states who’d signed the compact.
The electoral college, was originally enacted, because not everyone trusted the country bumpkins with the powers of voting. Hell, you could buy a vote with moonshine… Enough moonshine, a crook gets into government… The electoral college prevented that. (There is nothing in the original Constitution that says Electoral delegates even have to vote the same way as did their state’s constituents.
And most importantly, the Electoral College protects the rights of states.
For example roughly 390,000 Delawareans voted in 2008, our last presidential election. Delaware has 3 electoral votes. As most of the readers here know, 390,000 is .001 of our nation’s population. In percent, Delaware voters make up .1% of the population. In a tight election, those 3 votes have some meaning. Mathematically, we have .5% influence in the electoral college. That is five times more clout, as the spinners would say…
Lastly, the electoral college provides clarity. We have had close elections before. In fact, the Bush/Gore race is one of recent memory, and probably the reason we are debating it now. The electoral college provides a clear line of who won. We have to have that. We all lived through a pretender in the White House for 8 years. But there was a system that we could follow, and say by the rules enacted, George Bush should be president….
Now imaging if we had an election that was only 10,000 votes off? How would you decide if the underdog challenged that figure, where those 10,000 votes were? There are votes misplaced in every election, even in Delaware. Mistakes get made (Paradee/Thornberg come to mind)… How can you go through an entire country’s voting system, and make sure every vote is legitimate?
At least with the electoral college, you have decisiveness.
Katz is right for not allowing this compact to go forward. It is ill thought, and has never been tested.
The electoral college is the rule by which we’ve always played.. If you’re going to change the rules, why not change football, why not change baseball, why not change hockey? Let’s just change the rules when our team doesn’t win…
Exactly.. Losers always hate the electoral college, especially if they won the popular vote. Winners never see a problem with it…
It is, what it is… Katz should be commended. Tom D’Amore, Co-Chairman of Support Popular Vote should be ridiculed and humiliated, and perhaps tried for treason.
kavips 