MOVING DAY

TODAY IS MOVING DAY!!!!

TODAY IS MOVING DAY!!!!

TODAY IS MOVING DAY!!!!

FSP is CLOSED.

DELAWAREPOLITICS.NET IS OPEN!!!

Same contributors. Same ascerbic wit. Same intellectual banter. Different address.

First State Politics can now be found at http://WWW.DELAWAREPOLITICS.NET.

How Much Do Land-Use Regulations Cost?

Often times opponents of land-use restrictions cite the effect those restrictions have on housing affordability as a reason to oppose new regulations. The cost is too high, they say. I’ve always heard the argument, but I’ve never seen a price tag put on it. Until today:

Backed by studies showing that middle-class Seattle residents can no longer afford the city’s middle-class homes, consensus is growing that prices are too darned high. But why are they so high?

An intriguing new analysis by a University of Washington economics professor argues that home prices have, perhaps inadvertently, been driven up $200,000 by good intentions.

Between 1989 and 2006, the median inflation-adjusted price of a Seattle house rose from $221,000 to $447,800. Fully $200,000 of that increase was the result of land-use regulations, says Theo Eicher — twice the financial impact that regulation has had on other major U.S. cities.

“In a nationwide study, it can be shown that Seattle is one of the most regulated cities and a city whose housing prices are profoundly influenced by regulations,” he says.

A key regulation is the state’s Growth Management Act, enacted in 1990 in response to widespread public concern that sprawl could destroy the area’s unique character. To preserve it, the act promoted restrictions on where housing can be built. The result is artificial density that has driven up home prices by limiting supply, Eicher says.

While I’m no fan of unbridled growth, it does stand to reason that attempts to restrict growth do end up driving up the cost of housing. Something to think about.

Stay the Course?

In Iraq, much of the reasoning for the “surge” of troops, led by Gen. David Petraeus, was to create an environment for political progress. The surge has been a success militarily, but until now the political progress was maddeningly slow. That has changed a bit:

Iraq’s parliamentary leaders on Wednesday pushed through three far-reaching measures that had been delayed for weeks by bitter political maneuvering that became so acrimonious that some lawmakers threatened to try to dissolve the legislative body. More than any previous legislation, the new initiatives have the potential to spur reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites and set the country on the road to a more representative government, starting with new provincial elections. (link)

This development is encouraging and should provide us with the impetus to continue. Whether or not we should have gone into Iraq, we’re there. With positive developments like this, it does not seem out of the question to stay and finish the job, no matter how much we want to see our troops out of harm’s way.

Berkeley Backs Down

I don’t know how many of you have been following the controversy out in Berkeley, California, where the City Council wanted to boot the Marine recruiting station from town and then some Republicans in Congress decided to try and strip all of Berkeley’s funding. Today, it all came to a head, and Berkeley backed down.

From the SF Chronicle:

After a day of enraged confrontation outside Berkeley City Hall between anti-war and pro-military demonstrators, the City Council backed down early Wednesday from its controversial decision to tell the U.S. Marines they are “unwelcome intruders” for operating a downtown recruiting center.Council members conceded that they had erred in passing a resolution Jan. 29 that condemned the Marines - rather than the war in Iraq - and some council members added that they felt they owed U.S. troops an apology as well the many Berkeley residents who were ashamed and offended by their position.”To err is human but to really screw up it takes the Berkeley City Council,” said council member Gordon Wozniak. “We failed our city. We embarrassed our city.”

Well, you did and you almost did.

More Big News

We’ve reached a point here where our traffic is exceeding our needs, so we’re going to call the moving vans in and head over to our new home at DelawarePolitics.net. I’ll keep both sites up for a week or so just to be sure, but I encourage you to go over and check out our new home!

UPDATE: It appears that some versions of IE are reading the new site wrong. Firefox, Safari and Netscape check out, though.

Video Rocks

Many people have visited our YouTube site at YouTube.com/reddelaware and have asked what kind of camera I use to create such snazzy video. The answer is the Canon HV20. It is a hi-def camcorder that I use with Apple’s iMovie to publish to YouTube.

Click on the link and get your own, and you can be a video blogger, too…

The Bush Budget Is A Failure

A must read today from Robert Samuelson at the Washington Post:

The only way Bush could balance the budget would be by not following Bush’s policies. The most telling figures in his budget involve his proposal to eliminate or dramatically reduce 151 programs, for a savings of $18 billion. That’s six-tenths of 1 percent of federal spending. What’s telling, though, is that Congress will probably reject even many of these proposals.

Based on campaign policies, none of the major presidential candidates would do much better. Sen. John McCain, the Republican front-runner, and Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are alike in not addressing the central budget issue: baby boomers’ retirement costs. Already, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are 44 percent of federal spending. In 2007, these programs cost $1.2 trillion, more than double all defense spending.decoration: underline”>Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are alike in not addressing the central budget issue: baby boomers’ retirement costs. Already, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are 44 percent of federal spending. In 2007, these programs cost $1.2 trillion, more than double all defense spending.

It’s time we grew up and addressed the entitlement crisis. To fix it, we will have to adjust the income side and the payout side of the equation. We missed an opportunity in 2005 when the President proposed Social Security reform. Instead of proposing their own solution, the Democrats demagogued the President’s plan, and the result was no reform whatsoever. At the rate we’re proceeding today, entitlements will swallow the budget whole in my lifetime.

If that’s not a crisis, I don’t know what is.

Windows Breaking Everywhere

On Monday, President Bush signed the so-called “stimulus package,” which will return hundreds of dollars to taxpayers with the idea that those taxpayers will spend that money and therefore stimulate the economy. However, as John Stossel points out today, there are a few things colossally wrong with this approach. 1. That money is already in the economy.

Interesting theory, but it’s hardly new, and it’s been demolished many times before by free-market economists. One problem, which George Mason University economist Russell Roberts observed, is that the money that will allegedly be “injected” into the economy is already in the economy. So how can it be a stimulus?”The politicians are always going to inject some amount of money into the hands of consumers and into the economy, like a doctor giving a lifesaving blood transfusion,” Roberts says. “But where does the economic injection come from? It has to come from inside the system. It’s not an outside stimulus like the chest paddles or the transfusion. It means taking money from someone or somewhere inside the system and giving it to someone else.”

2. We’re borrowing the money to stimulate the economy.

The federal government is in the red. Bush’s new budget has a $400 billion deficit. There’s no lockbox with $100 billion in it. So to give everyone a tax rebate, the government will have to borrow more money. But that only moves the cash from one part of the economy to another. As Roberts says, “It’s like taking a bucket of water from the deep end of a pool and dumping it into the shallow end.”Unless the government cuts spending, which the theory says would neutralize the stimulus, the only other way to get the money will be to raise taxes or to have the Fed create money — inflation — which would raise the price of everything.

3. This is a perfect example of the “broken windows” theory.

Economists call this the “broken window fallacy.” In the 19th century, French economist Frederic Bastiat illustrated it with the story of a boy who breaks a shop window. At first the townspeople lament the loss, but then someone points out that the shopkeeper will have to spend money to replace the window. What the window maker earns, he will soon spend elsewhere. As that money circulates through town, new prosperity will bloom.The fallacy, of course, is that if the window had not been broken, the shopkeeper would have “replaced his worn-out shoes … or added another book to his library.” The town gains nothing from the broken window.

This logic is lost on the stimulus promoters. I’m surprised they don’t suggest that we prevent recessions by breaking lots of windows.

I also have serious reservations about the government raising the mortgage caps to $700,000. Credit problems in the housing market are what got us into this mess in the first place, and making it easier and cheaper for people to buy a more expensive house seems to be a move that ignores that.All in all, the “stimulus” is a temporary fix when a permanent solution like eliminating taxes on savings and investment for those making less than $200K and lowering the corporate tax rate to 25% would be much more productive in the long run.

I’m Expanding the Franchise

I love blogging. Despite the fact that I get the absolute snot beaten out of me almost every day by someone, blogging is quite an experience. Here at FSP, we’ve grown into a multiple-blogger home that generates over 1,000 unique visitors daily (and a higher Alexa rank than any other DE poliblog). But I have interests far beyond Delaware politics.

Another of my loves is my home, the Delaware beaches. So, I’m expanding. I have created a new blog at CoastalSussex.com, where I will be presenting some politics along with posts on the area’s history, businesses, culture, natural places and unique people. I will also provide daily news and opinion, along with whatever interesting stuff I happen to come across in the course of my day. Soon, I’ll be adding on a host of other features.

 So, check out CoastalSussex.com, comment regularly and make it a daily (at least) stop on your internet travels. Also, please send me any story ideas or opinions you have about the new site.

I’ll continue to post and moderate here at the finest poliblog in the First State, too. It’ll be a blast. Thanks. 

Land Use Challenges Far and Wide

As many of you saw in the News-Journal today, the infamous Isaac’s Glen community will not be built. And the simple fact is that this is as much a correction in the housing market as any moratorium or temporary moratorium would be. The market does work. While Sussex County Council still needs to address the myriad of land-use challenges we face, particularly the environmental issues, the market will always correct itself. You can expect more of this to happen in the near future, as the market equalizes the supply-demand curve on its own.

The big problem remains, as it has for a while now, with the lack of infrastructure. This is a statewide problem, stemming more from an inefficient and wasteful state government than anything else. However, we need schools to be built, roads to be widened and sewer and water systems to be created. Most of all, we in Sussex are in need of a new bridge and the Indian river inlet, a project which is already tens of millions of dollars in the hole and back to square one.

In the face of failure on the state’s part, where do we get the money to build the projects we need? Some say we should charge developers, a cost that would be passed onto real estate buyers. But would that be consistent enough in a down real estate market? It is a complicated problem, and it may be the defining issue of the next generation of Delaware government.

From Three-Legged Stool to Pogo Stick?

This letter, written by former Sussex GOP Chair Bruce Rogers, was forwarded today on the Coastal Conservative Network, and should spark some discussion:

Perhaps the recent trend in the presidential nominating process indicates a change in the Republican Party.

A “moderate/conservative/liberal” candidate has taken the field by storm, sending more conservative candidates to the sidelines or relegating them to sniping from the outskirts. Why? To understand the changing face of the Republican Party, one must look back to the Reagan Revolution:

President Reagan cobbled together a coalition of three distinct parts: traditional Republicans who had long-dominated the Party, moderate Democrats and those who were then called the “Religious Right” (now “Evangelicals”). This trio of interest groups banded together to give President Reagan the mandate he needed to lead the country into unheralded political, economic and security successes. But President Reagan left office. The traditional Republicans remained – returning to the days of Nixon’s “silent majority”. The Reagan Democrats went back to their Party. The Religious Right stayed and took advantage of a vacuum when they saw: they moved into the leadership of the Republican Party in large numbers, wresting control of the Party machinery from those who were traditional Republicans of the Party of Lincoln. The three-legged stool became a pogo-stick.

Today, the leadership and structure of the Republican Party is dominated by those persons who identify with the Religious Right/Evangelical movement. These leaders have taken the Party on a hard right turn to social conservatism which is inconsistent with the very principles upon which the Republican Party was formed. As a result, todays’ Republican Party leadership has no message for the traditional Republican and a large segment of the voting public. The Party has become exclusive, doctrinal and narrow. No longer a “Big Tent”, everything is viewed through the lens of religious litmus tests. There is no message which appeals to soccer moms, NASCAR dads, immigrants and moderates. A Party founded on the liberties of the individual – a Party which freed the slaves, forced through the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, stood for women’s suffrage, advanced the civil rights movement, ended the Soviet-bloc domination – no longer exists, at least in positions of leadership.

The function of a political party is to win elections. Period. If you can’t win an election, you can’t govern. If you don’t have a seat at the table, you have no role in the shaping of policy and setting the course for the future. Republicans force their candidates to run to appeal to the far right in the Party. And once nominated, the candidate has to run away from the far right and try to appeal to the middle. But this years’ presidential nominating process may be different. A moderate/conservative/liberal seems poised to take the nomination. Or will he?

The Republican Party seems ready to take back their Party leadership from the minority who presently control the machinery; to return to the foundation which made the Party strong and an appeal to people of all walks of life. The small – but eminently powerful – minority which controls the helm of the Party may be losing its grip. If this is truly a season of change for the Republican Party, a moderate Republican who appeals to economic conservatives, social moderates and those who value individual freedom from government control may re-emerge. If not, then the three-legged Reagan stool may be vanquished to the fate of a pogo stick – bouncing up and down in the same place, unable to move forward or change course, unwilling to make room for others, nor to expand its appeal. Only time will tell.”

Nepotism in Delaware Government

I have written many times about nepotism in Delaware and the deleterious effect of elected officials and their families working for the state. I will not single out Nancy Wagner just because the News-Journal did. The problem goes way beyond Nancy Wagner, on both sides of the aisle in every branch of the state government.

The solution is simple: transparency, transparency, transparency. Make elected and appointed officials disclose any family members who work for the state and their hire dates.

Big Ideas

Those of you who have followed my writing for some time know that I often warn people of the coming financial disaster in our state government: the unsustainable number of government workers, the huge increases in payroll and Medicaid expenses, the budget growth that will easily double the revenue growth over the next 5 years. I have tried in various ways to address this through legislation and awareness, to no avail.

Therefore, if Dover is not willing to cut spending, they need to come up with a way to find new revenue, and a lot of it, in order to cover the budget gap and provide for our immense and growing infrastructure needs.

Though Dover is not exactly the land of big ideas right now, one outside-the-box idea they could explore is this: sell New Jersey their half of the Delaware River for $5 billion.

Okay, pick yourself up off the floor. We could write in environmental protections and agreements to manage ship traffic. The federal government has an interest in seeing the LNG plant built, since it would be a regional delivery plant, and therefore could front most of the cost, and we get $5 billion to create a 21st century infrastructure fund.

What do you think?

This is why

This is why it was important for Huckabee to do the right thing and call it a day.

…Calls for ‘Full Investigation’ into Washington State Results

It’s one thing to say you want to keep going, it’s another to get stupid. These are headlines we Republicans don’t want and don’t need.

That headline is the difference between Romney and Huckabee. The remaining challenger, with no real mathematical way to win, doesn’t realize he got to go to the ball and now it’s time to go home. He better look down and notice both slippers are still on his feet or he will ruin his future opportunities (including a potential run at the presidency again) because he’s letting his ego get in the way.

He chose to burn bridges with Gov Mitt Romney, so it’s disingenuous to say he’ll look to broker something at the convention.

Note to the Huckabee Campaign - Most of us are buying popcorn to sit and watch the Democrats rip themselves apart, we have no interest in watching a Republican trailer.

Every Conservative Should Read This

  ” Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people ? “  

   ” A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency , or to swell its numbers”.

   These two quotes are from a speech given by then Gov. Ronald Reagan (R-CA) to CPAC, in Washington D.C. on March 1 , 1975. It was titled ” Let Them Go Their Way”.

http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/Reagan/Reagan1975.asp

Hillary’s reminder to women - I’m a mom

The Clintons know what works (notice the spokesman won’t let up).

The race card didn’t work, but don’t be so sure the gender card won’t.

Women won’t like this 

Listen folks, the Ds are not going to heal after the convention, don’t let the Hannah Montana crowd over at DL fool you

Clintons know what earned media is all about: Free

An Aside

Delaware’s unofficial “photographer laureate,” Kevin Fleming, has a blog site dedicated to pictures from his next book, “Wild Delaware.” Check it out at WildDelaware.com. 

Is John McCain really that evil?

Goldwater girl Ann Coulter is threatening to become a Hillary girl.  Rush Limbaugh is not sure he will vote for Senator McCain if he is the nominee.  Frank Knotts is calling for conservatives to not vote if McCain is the nominee.  Dr. James Dobson who is arguably now the most influential Pro-family conservative (after the deaths of James Kennedy and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson’s self marginalization),  says John McCain is unacceptable because he sticks conservatives in the eye every time he gets a chance.  This is only the beginning.

I have never supported John McCain.  I decided he was not a decent choice for President.  Yet, if he wins the nomination, I will fall in line and vote for him.  Why, have I gotten into the Kool Aid?  No, it is because I consider the Presidency too important to make my decision based upon my emotions.

When I look at the facts, I do not find Senator McCain that far out of the mainstream of GOP politics.  He is erratic policy-wise.  He has no battleplan or vision.  He handles each policy ad hoc with little regard to how it affects his other policies.  He does not understand that sometimes consistency pays so your policies don’t sabotage each other.  He does not have a good constitutional understanding.   His policies sometimes seem to governed by emotion as much as reason.  In other words, he is like most people.  I want our President to be better than most people, but at least one candidate on the other-side is worst than most people.  It is an easy choice if it is Hillary vs. John. 

The truth is I would vote for a yellar dog vs. Senator Clinton.  I believe her health care policies alone would do untold damage to our way of life.  Her mandatory participation would destroy some of the last vestiges of freedom.  I believe she is bought and paid for by the special interest lobby and would care very little for the common person.  She campaigns to stick it the eye to pro-life people.  She favors federal funding of abortionists and federal funding of embryonic stem cell research even though recent discoveries show it is outdated.  She would put ACLU attorney’s like her friend Justice Ginsburg on the High Court and all through out the federal bench.  Our culture suffered grievously from Jimmy Carter’s 200 ACLU attorneys.  With pending and likely retirements the next President could appoint 700 or more federal judges.

Senator John McCain will appoint sensible judges.  He will have a steady hand to guide us through the two wars.  He is generally pro-life.  He has retracted his pro-open borders immigration proposals.  He will build the fence; she won’t.  Senator McCain will fight to keep taxes down; the other-side trips all over themselves to brag about how they will raise them.  Senator McCain was a budget cutter before it was popular; the Democrats have trillions in new spending over the next decade.  Senator McCain is older and may not run for reelection; an Clinton-Obama ticket could be with us almost two decades.  Senator McCain has a life time 80% conservative voting record; the two democrats are around 5%.

Let me think, should I toss aside everything I worked for since 1983 to be mad at McCain or take 80% and fight for the other 20.  I am thinking.  Thinking.  How is my math?  80 is more than 5.  Ok.  I’ll take the 80% and keep coming back for the rest.

I think the best way he can unite the party is to get a Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin on the ticket.  Then bring out 6 potiential advisors which will represent the party’s diverse wings.   It is his job to unite the party.  If he can’t he might not get his “inevitable” nomination. 

With that said, my solution to avoid this is easy.  Send Huck money. 

That’s my word.  Now I will hide in my bunker (just kidding). 

Dr. James Dobson to Endorse Gov. Huckabee

Dr James Dobson , who is one of the most influential Christian Leaders, is reported to be endorsing Governor Mike Huckabee. Now that Governor Romney is out of the race, Dr Dobson has endorsed a candidate for the first time in a GOP primary.

Now that this is a two person race, it is shaping up as a contest between the establishment party and the people’s party. Louisiana will be pivotal in the race Saturday. Senator McCain is a solid favorite for winning the nomination as the establishment of the party now gravitates to him. Of course this election has been funny, people go out and vote without regard to the “wise men”.

Frank it is not over yet.

What We Need

 Republican Mayor of Hazleton Pa. , Lou Barletta, has annonced that he will run for congress. This is the mayor who stirred up a great deal of controversy with his towns tuff laws on illegal immagrants restricting landlords from renting to illegals.

  This is the kind of leaders we need in this country who are not afraid to do what is right .