Archive for the ‘miscellaneous’ Category

Texas has sued the federal government forty-four times since President Obama began his campaign of executive overreach, and has often won in the courts.  The presidential election will offer an opportunity to reverse many of this administrations attempts at over regulation.  Britain, and other members of the European Union have no legal recourse or a direct election to fight back on similar over regulation and overreach by technocrats in the EU.  That was the primary reason Britain voted to leave the EU.

By happenstance I was in the United Kingdom for the run up to the election, and was following the campaign for personal investment reasons.  The chance to talk to people in London and Scotland left little doubt “Leave” would win.  Britain, like America, has a long history of valuing independence and individual freedom.  After all this is where the Magna Carta was signed, and where the only successful attack on the Tower of London fortress was carried out by the common people when military attacks all failed.

The same strains exist in the US and will play a major role in the coming election, including a desire for more control of our borders.  People here are just as tired of senseless rules coming out of Washington as the British were with senseless rules coming out of Brussels.  Look for the same vicious attacks on those who want better immigration controls here as argued by the “Remain” campaign.  You can also expect the same polling bias.  Late polls showed “Remain” leading 52% to 48%, but “Leave” won with 52%.  Betting pools and the trading futures market also badly missed the results.  I suspect some “Leave” supporters lied to pollsters in fear of expressing their real feelings on the matter.

Expect volatility in the stock markets for a time as this vote really was a hinge point in history and it will take a while for things to settle down.  In the long run the world economy will be stronger and we will see specific benefits in the US and the UK.  The UK has one of the fastest growing economies in Europe and is the second largest European economy.  Older voters who supported the referendum remembered the time before the EU and how their country was successful and sovereign.  It will be so again.

There is a lot of press on this issue. For the best analysis I’ve seen follow this Wall Street Journal link:  http://www.wsj.com/articles/brexit-a-very-british-revolution-1466800383

David T. Stevenson, Policy Director

Center for Economic Policy





Read Full Post »

photo credit to learnaboutancientrome.weebly.com.

Below is a guest post from Lawrence Reed, president of the Foundation for Economic Education. The Foundation for Economic Education, founded in 1946, is the leader in education, publishing, and the production of ideas related to the economic, ethical and legal principles of a free society. Republished with permission.

More than 2,000 years before America’s bailouts and entitlement programs, the ancient Romans experimented with similar schemes. The Roman government rescued failing institutions, canceled personal debts, and spent huge sums on welfare programs. The result wasn’t pretty.

Roman politicians picked winners and losers, generally favoring the politically well connected — a practice that’s central to the welfare state of modern times, too. As numerous writers have noted, these expensive rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul efforts were major factors in bankrupting Roman society. They inevitably led to even more destructive interventions. Rome wasn’t built in a day, as the old saying goes — and it took a while to tear it down as well. Eventually, when the republic faded into an imperial autocracy, the emperors attempted to control the entire economy.

Debt forgiveness in ancient Rome was a contentious issue that was enacted multiple times. One of the earliest Roman populist reformers, the tribune Licinius Stolo, passed a bill that was essentially a moratorium on debt around 367 BC, a time of economic uncertainty. The legislation enabled debtors to subtract the interest paid from the principal owed if the remainder was paid off within a three-year window. By 352 BC, the financial situation in Rome was still bleak, and the state treasury paid many defaulted private debts owed to the unfortunate lenders. It was assumed that the debtors would eventually repay the state, but if you think they did, then you probably think Greece is a good credit risk today.

In 357 BC, the maximum permissible interest rate on loans was roughly 8 percent. Ten years later, this was considered insufficient, so Roman administrators lowered the cap to 4 percent. By 342, the successive reductions apparently failed to mollify the debtors or satisfactorily ease economic tensions, so interest on loans was abolished altogether. To no one’s surprise, creditors began to refuse to loan money. The law banning interest became completely ignored in time.

By 133 BC, the up-and-coming politician Tiberius Gracchus decided that Licinius’s measures were not enough. Tiberius passed a bill granting free tracts of state-owned farmland to the poor. Additionally, the government funded the erection of their new homes and the purchase of their faming tools. It’s been estimated that 75,000 families received free land because of this legislation. This was a government program that provided complimentary land, housing, and even a small business, all likely charged to the taxpayers or plundered from newly conquered nations. However, as soon as it was permissible, many settlers thanklessly sold their farms and returned to the city. Tiberius didn’t live to see these beneficiaries reject Roman generosity, because a group of senators murdered him in 133 BC, but his younger brother Gaius Gracchus took up his populist mantle and furthered his reforms.

Tiberius, incidentally, also passed Rome’s first subsidized food program, which provided discounted grain to many citizens. Initially, Romans dedicated to the ideal of self-reliance were shocked at the concept of mandated welfare, but before long, tens of thousands were receiving subsidized food, and not just the needy. Any Roman citizen who stood in the grain lines was entitled to assistance. One rich consul named Piso, who opposed the grain dole, was spotted waiting for the discounted food. He stated that if his wealth was going to be redistributed, then he intended on getting his share of grain.

By the third century AD, the food program had been amended multiple times. Discounted grain was replaced with entirely free grain, and at its peak, a third of Rome took advantage of the program. It became a hereditary privilege, passed down from parent to child. Other foodstuffs, including olive oil, pork, and salt, were regularly incorporated into the dole. The program ballooned until it was the second-largest expenditure in the imperial budget, behind the military.It failed to serve as a temporary safety net; like many government programs, it became perpetual assistance for a permanent constituency who felt entitled to its benefits.

In 88 BC, Rome was reeling from the Social War, a debilitating conflict with its former allies in the Italian peninsula. One victorious commander was a man named Sulla, who that year became consul (the top political position in the days of the republic) and later ruled as a dictator. To ease the economic catastrophe, Sulla canceled portions of citizens’ private debt, perhaps up to 10 percent,leaving lenders in a difficult position. He also revived and enforced a maximum interest rate on loans, likely similar to the law of 357 BC. The crisis continually worsened, and to address the situation in 86 BC, a measure was passed that reduced private debts by another 75 percent under the consulships of Cinna and Marius.

Less than two decades after Sulla, Catiline, the infamous populist radical and foe of Cicero, campaigned for the consulship on a platform of total debt forgiveness. Somehow, he was defeated, likely with bankers and Romans who actually repaid their debts opposing his candidacy. His life ended shortly thereafter in a failed coup attempt.

In 60 BC, the rising patrician Julius Caesar was elected consul, and he continued the policies of many of his populist predecessors with a few innovations of his own. Once again, Rome was in the midst of a crisis. In this period, private contractors called tax farmers collected taxes owed to the state. These tax collectors would bid on tax-farming contracts and were permitted to keep any surplus over the contract price as payment. In 59 BC, the tax-farmer industry was on the brink of collapse. Caesar forgave as much as one-third of their debt to the state. The bailout of the tax-farming market must have greatly affected Roman budgets and perhaps even taxpayers, but the catalyst for the relief measure was that Caesar and his crony Crassus had heavily invested in the struggling sector.

In 33 AD, half a century after the collapse of the republic, Emperor Tiberius faced a panic in the banking industry. He responded by providing a massive bailout of interest-free loans to bankers in an attempt to stabilize the market. Over 80 years later, Emperor Hadrian unilaterally forgave 225 million denarii in back taxes for many Romans, fostering resentment among others who had painstakingly paid their tax burdens in full.

Emperor Trajan conquered Dacia (modern Romania) early in the second century AD, flooding state coffers with booty. With this treasure trove, he funded a social program, the alimenta, which competed with private banking institutions by providing low-interest loans to landowners while the interest benefited underprivileged children. Trajan’s successors continued this programuntil the devaluation of the denarius, the Roman currency, rendered the alimenta defunct.

By 301 AD, while Emperor Diocletian was restructuring the government, the military, and the economy, he issued the famous Edict of Maximum Prices. Rome had become a totalitarian state that blamed many of its economic woes on supposed greedy profiteers. The edict defined the maximum prices and wages for goods and services. Failure to obey was punishable by death. Again, to no one’s surprise, many vendors refused to sell their goods at the set prices, and within a few years, Romans were ignoring the edict.

Enormous entitlement programs also became the norm in old Rome. At its height, the largest state expenditure was an army of 300,000–600,000 legionaries. The soldiers realized their role and necessity in Roman politics, and consequently their demands increased. They required exorbitant retirement packages in the form of free tracts of farmland or large bonuses of gold equal to more than a decade’s worth of their salary. They also expected enormous and periodic bonuses in order to prevent uprisings.

The Roman experience teaches important lessons. As the 20th-century economist Howard Kershner put it, “When a self-governing people confer upon their government the power to take from some and give to others, the process will not stop until the last bone of the last taxpayer is picked bare.” Putting one’s livelihood in the hands of vote-buying politicians compromises not just one’s personal independence, but the financial integrity of society as well. The welfare state, once begun, is difficult to reverse and never ends well.

Rome fell to invaders in 476 AD, but who the real barbarians were is an open question. The Roman people who supported the welfare state and the politicians who administered it so weakened society that the Western Roman Empire fell like a ripe plum that year. Maybe the real barbarians were those Romans who had effectively committed a slow-motion financial suicide.

read the original post at the FEE website here

Read Full Post »

The Caesar Rodney Institute is a research and educational think tank, founded in 2008.  CRI’s mission is to formulate and promote public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government and individual freedom – all for the purpose of providing public policy solutions that benefit the people of Delaware.  CRI focuses exclusively on public policy issues in Delaware.

CRI’s staff pursues its mission by undertaking accurate and timely research and publishing these findings to its primary audiences: the Delaware General Assembly, the executive branch, Delaware’s media, the state’s broad policy community and the public at large.  CRI’s products include publications, articles, videos, conferences and policy briefings.

Governed by an independent Board of Directors, The Caesar Rodney Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.  CRI relies on the generous support from individuals, foundations, and corporations.  CRI does not accept funds from any government entity or agency.


CRI is a poised for significant growth. As such, the new President’s first priority will be to focus on financial growth.  As the growth occurs, the President’s focus will broaden to encompass the strategic and operational development of the organization.

The President will work closely with the Board of Directors to establish goals for financial and organization expansion.

Key Responsibilities for the president include:


The President will lead the fundraising efforts of CRI and initially will devote the majority of his/her time to the organizations fundraising efforts. To accomplish this the President will:

  • Personally cultivate and develop major donors
  • Maintain a steady flow of foundation grant requests
  • Assure that foundation grant expenditures focus on the promised proposal deliverables
  • Oversee the direct mail solicitation program
  • Maintain a smooth system for thanking, communicating with and tracking all of the current donors and funding prospects
  • Organize and oversee the annual dinner
  • Schedule at least 8 fundraising events in zip codes with high concentrations of CRI donors
  • Work closely with the Board to identify opportunities to expand the range of fundraising efforts undertaken


The President serves at the consent of the Board, and is responsible for all aspects of CRI management. As such, the President will:

  • Assure that the expenditure of resources and staff efforts are confined to the objectives set by the Board
  • Insure that revenues exceed expenditures
  • Provide monthly reports to the Board including metrics on financial conditions, fundraising, communications, and progress on major projects
  • Maintain a 2 month or more projected schedule for all CRI activities on the CRI Google calendar
  • Provide six month evaluations of CRI staff

Coalition Building/Communication

  • Reach out to other Think Tanks and maintain strong relationships with current program executives and officers; seek opportunities to share programs and information
  • Maintain a high level of interaction and communication with the Board of Directors and the Advisory Board
  • Help insure that CRI’s communications remain “on message”
  • Participate in calls with the executive Committee on a regular basis

Growth/Long-term Planning

  • Build and lead a senior management team; ensure that each member of the team has a clear set of annual objectives and is formally measured against them
    • Develop written objectives with each staff member
    • Meet regularly, individually, with each staff member to review performance against objectives
  • Oversee the creation of an updated strategic plan and an annual operating plan
  • Ensure that CRI’s communications and research are of the highest quality in appearance, content and persuasiveness
  • Build and manage the annual operating budget
  • Ensure that there is a succession plan in place for each member of senior management


  • 5+ years of work experience
  • A proven track record of fundraising at a comparable nonprofit organization and building lasting relationships with donors
  • A good public presence; persuasive communication skills, both written and oral
  • Familiarity with new communications technologies and an understanding of how they can be utilized effectively
  • Demonstrated strong message discipline
  • A desire for external communications, including extensive public speaking
  • Understanding of and experience in marketing messages and products
  • Demonstrated ability to interact with and influence state policymakers; experience shepherding policy solutions through the legislative process
  • Ability to accurately assess the political and policy landscape
  • Strongly preferred that the individual has proven policy expertise in at least one of the following policy areas:  education, health care, fiscal and tax policy, or energy
  • Capable of effective networking with peers
  • Ability to travel, both in-state and nationally
  • Philosophical alignment with CRI; commitment to the furtherance of individual liberty, personal/economic freedoms, and improving performance, accountability, and efficiency in Delaware government

To Apply

Qualified candidates should submit the following:

  • Résumé
  • Cover letter detailing your sincere interest in this position/mission of the organization and your salary requirements


Samuel Friedman


All applications MUST be received by 5pm Tuesday, June 30 to be considered.

Read Full Post »

Seven years ago the Caesar Rodney Institute was officially incorporated in Delaware as a 501c(3) with the goal of speaking out against government excesses, whether in terms of control or taxation. We celebrated our seventh annual dinner at the Wilmington Country Club,and each year the number of attendees grows exponentially. All of our photos are available on our Facebook page,but below are some shots of the crowd with different camera angles.

We hope the eight annual dinner continues to grow. We thank all of our dinner attendees and all of our donors who support CRI, whether it’s by sending in money, reading our policy papers, or taking the time to educate a friend or neighbor about the policy issues which are impacting our state. You’re helping to bring back some common sense to Dover, and for that we are sincerely grateful.

Read Full Post »

Are you interested in learning more about our sixteenth president? The public is invited to a free presentation of “Young Mister Lincoln,” a fictionalized movie biography of our 16th President, which will be screened at the Dover Public Library on Wednesday, April 8th at 5:30. Larry Koch will host the program. Larry is a Lincoln expert, who will give you the most incredible stories about Abe, down to the types of jokes he thought were funny and when he thought they were appropriate. Don’t miss this event!

July was a typically warm month in New Salem Illinois in 1831. If you were people-watching on your porch you would not have found the tall, gawky, flat-footed farm boy particularly unique. Abraham Lincoln was 22 year old, and owned little more than the ill-fitting homemade buckskin clothes on his back. His pants barely reached his shins, and when he stretched or bent over his long underwear peeked out from the bottom of his raggedy trousers. Such outlandish, rustic attire was hardly worth a second glance in a western frontier community.

According to Lincoln “I was a friendless, uneducated, penniless boy… a piece of floating driftwood.” Needless to say, no matter how bizarre Lincoln might have appeared to a perhaps more discerning observer, the quotation that “you can’t tell a book by its cover” was never more apt. Within a few years Lincoln was a prominent and noteworthy young politician. In the future, of course, he would be elected president, confront the most deadly challenge to the Republic since its’ founding, built the greatest army in the world, defeat the formidable forces of disunion and end slavery in America. Interestingly, even on that first day in New Salem, Abraham Lincoln, perhaps inadvertently, advanced personal liberty and helped legitimize an increasingly trend-setting pattern in American society.

Social mobility in pre-bellum America was severely limited by tradition and circumstance. People in general followed in the occupations of their family and ancestors. The overwhelming occupation of Americans at that time was made up of subsistence farmers, and in the great majority of cases their children similarly followed in their parents’ footsteps. People generally lived and died within ten miles from where they were born. Special circumstances and survival issues (apprenticeship opportunities or loss of land fertility, for example) of course were exceptions to these accepted patterns, which otherwise continued for  generations.

Lincoln rejected the expected option to be a farmer, like his father, for startlingly different reasons. He would often say his father taught him farm work, but not how to like it. He enjoyed poetry, theater, and reading history, and simply did not find fulfillment in the hard physical, demanding work of the agrarian lifestyle. His desire to do something else was based on personal preference and ambition rather than any particular disaster or specific marketable skills.

The Lincoln who arrived in New Salem had no money, no contacts, and no idea initially about what he wanted to do. A nineteenth century observer would hardly find that Lincoln had left the world he knew to simply survive, and the Town of New Salem, population 100, hardly offered any special opportunities. It was enough, however, for Lincoln. The 22 year old and future president did have ambition, a pleasant personality, a willingness to learn and work hard, and eventually rose in New Salem society to become a surveyor, a postmaster, a storekeeper and eventually a lawyer and party leader.

Today it is not unusual to find people who choose an occupation and lifestyle based in large measure on what they enjoy doing, not what was the traditional occupation of their family, class or region. In fact it is the basic American promise that here one can exceed one’s parents’ station through commitment, hard work and learning. Generations have been assured that they can grow up to be anyone they want to be, even the president of the United States, as long as they apply themselves. The man who more than anyone else established that national ideal was the farm boy who moved to the town of New Salem in July of 1831.

Interested in this pivotal American story? The public is invited to a free presentation of “Young Mister Lincoln,” a fictionalized movie biography of our 16th President, which will be screened at the Dover Public Library on Wednesday, April 8th at 5:30. The director is the legendary John Ford, and, in perhaps his best performance, Henry Fonda stars as Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln defends in court two brothers accused of murder. As a movie prequel to the great events that would follow, you will gain insight into the life events that shaped a future president. A brochure will be shared with the audience that will identify historical accuracies and errors, movie goofs, and other information about “Young Mr. Lincoln.” I will be hosting this program, and I look forward to seeing you, and telling you about other Dover Library offerings celebrating the 150th anniversary of the end of the American Civil War.

Larry Koch, EdD

Read Full Post »

In response to Senator Karen Peterson’s (D-Stanton) letter to the editor in The News Journal on February 12, 2015:
We want to set the record straight. First, We will address Senator Peterson’s first point that our information on legislative salaries is incorrect. The difference is the Senator wants to compare the average legislative salary in 2007 and 2013 separately. This biases the data downward due to the high turnover in the Senate and the even higher turnover in the House. What we did was to view data from all years 2007-2013. The reason the data is different because of the turnover between legislators who left office, whether by election or some other cause. When we give the average pay we mean total pay, including expense stipends and leadership/committee position bonuses. We are not exclusively talking about base pay, which the Senator clearly is.

All of our data comes from the Delaware Office of Management and Budget (OMB) which we received by FOIA request. Using publicly available data Dr. Stapleford viewed legislative salaries from 2007-2013,. but divided legislators into two categories: Those who were members of the General Assembly for the duration of time 2007-2013, and those who were legislators in 2013 but not 2007.

All data below is for the following individuals who were in the State Senate in 2007 and are currently still in the State Senate (other pay is the $7,334 legislators are allowed for expenses, which we have included as part of their pay). Regular pay has factored in leadership bonuses.

Regular Overtime Other Total
Blevins,Patricia M $51,826 $0 $7,334 $59,160
Bonini,Colin R. J. $46,184 $0 $7,334 $53,518
Cloutier,Catherine Ann $51,958 $0 $7,334 $59,292
Ennis,Bruce C $46,487 $0 $7,334 $53,821
Hall-Long,Bethany $42,332 $0 $7,334 $49,666

All data below is from 2013:

Blevins,Patricia M $63,934 $0 $7,334 $71,268
Bonini,Colin R. J. $47,893 $0 $7,334 $55,227
Bushweller,Brian J $55,474 $0 $7,334 $62,809
Cloutier,Catherine Ann $53,667 $0 $7,334 $61,001
Ennis,Bruce C $53,667 $0 $7,334 $61,001
Hall-Long,Bethany $47,893 $0 $7,334 $55,227
Henry,Margaret R $49,841 $0 $9,328 $59,169
Hocker SR,Gerald $47,656 $0 $7,334 $54,990
Lavelle,Gregory F $51,835 $0 $7,334 $59,169
Lawson,David G $53,312 $0 $7,334 $60,646
Lopez,Ernesto Braulio $47,656 $0 $7,334 $54,990
McBride,David B $56,417 $0 $7,334 $63,751
McDowell,Harris B $55,500 $0 $7,334 $62,834
Peterson,Karen E $53,667 $0 $7,334 $61,001
Pettyjohn,Brian Guy $47,656 $0 $7,334 $54,990
Poore,Nicole $48,337 $0 $7,334 $55,671
Simpson,Franklin Gary $56,417 $0 $7,334 $63,751
Sokola,David P $49,701 $0 $7,334 $57,035
Townsend,Bryan Jeffrey Schurgard $47,656 $0 $7,334 $54,990
Venables Sr,Robert L $48,619 $0 $7,334 $55,953

As you can see if you look only at “regular”, or base, pay, Dr. Stapleford’s number is off the mark. But when you include other pay, these numbers increase. Title 29 Chapter 7 of the Delaware Code explains this further in detail.

The second charge by Senator Peterson is over the time legislators spend working. The work commitment for Delaware legislators of 6 months plus a few days comes directly from the Delaware code. (Not to mention that legislators not involved with the Joint Finance Committee are not required to work for this 5 week period) Legislators do attend meetings and events with constituents, lobbyists, and advocacy groups during the year but they are a) not mandated by law to do so and b) do not always do so for 40+ hours a week that most full-time salaried private sector workers are expected to work consistently.

We also want to point out according to the National Conference of State Legislators, Delaware ranks 12th in base salary for legislators. Each state has different session dates and while some states pay more and have fewer open dates than Delaware (Wisconsin, Illinois, Alaska, and Hawaii are also very generous with legislative pay), most states have part-time legislators who have similar responsibilities but get paid much less. We respect the Senator’s opinion on this but we do want to note that the majority of states do not have full-time legislators. Becoming an elected official ought to be a gesture of public service to one’s community, state, and country, not a full-time career path.

The third charge is over how legislative salaries are set. On this issue Senator Peterson is correct and CRI stands corrected on the original passage Dr. Stapleford published:

“To be clear, however, the legislators do not set their own salaries and stipends. This is done by the Delaware Compensation Commission of whom 5 out of 6 members are legislators and 1 member is from the private sector.”

From Title 29 of the Delaware Code, Section 3301:

“There is established a commission known as the “Delaware Compensation Commission,” hereinafter referred to as the “Commission,” consisting of 6 members, 2 of whom shall be appointed by the Governor, 1 by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and 1 by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The fifth member shall be the President of the Delaware Round Table. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget of the State shall serve as an ex officio and nonvoting member of the Commission. The appointees shall be persons not holding any public office nor employed substantially full-time with compensation by this State while serving on this Commission.”

The bottom line is that in 2013, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average wage in Kent County was $40,664 a year and in Sussex the average wage was $37,856, less than the average State Senator’s pay but without the allowance for up to six months of non-work time. Even factoring in New Castle County, the average wage in 2013 $53,820, which is still less than what all of our State Senators made that same year.

*Update: We are including State Representative data as well. We note the average pay for a Representative in 2013 was $55,801, or a little over $3,000 less than state senators. We’ll note that 14 state reps made than than the average wage but all cleared $50,000 once the constitutionally-mandated expense stipend is factored in.

Name base pay overtime other pay total pay
Barbieri,Michael $44,041 $0 $7,334 $51,375
Baumbach,Paul S $44,041 $0 $7,334 $51,375
Bennett,Andria L $47,834 $0 $7,334 $55,168
Bolden,Stephanie T $47,834 $0 $7,334 $55,168
Brady,Gerald L $48,549 $0 $7,334 $55,883
Carson Jr,William J $53,519 $0 $7,334 $60,853
Dukes,Timothy Dale $44,041 $0 $7,334 $51,375
Gray,Ronald E $44,041 $0 $7,334 $51,375
Heffernan,Debra J $53,519 $0 $7,334 $60,853
Hudson,Deborah $51,865 $0 $7,334 $59,199
Jaques JR,Earl G $44,041 $0 $7,334 $51,375
Johnson,James $53,667 $0 $7,334 $61,001
Johnson,Samuel Q $48,549 $0 $7,334 $55,883
Keeley,Helene M $47,904 $0 $7,334 $55,238
Kenton,Harvey R $53,519 $0 $7,334 $60,853
King,Ruth Briggs $44,189 $0 $7,334 $51,523
Kowalko JR,John A. $44,111 $0 $7,334 $51,445
Longhurst,Valerie J $56,417 $0 $7,334 $63,751
Miro,Joseph E $53,667 $0 $7,334 $61,001
Mitchell,John L $44,189 $0 $7,334 $51,523
Mulrooney,Michael P $47,893 $0 $7,334 $55,227
Osienski,Edward S $44,041 $0 $7,334 $51,375
Outten,William R $47,834 $0 $7,334 $55,168
Paradee III,William Charles $44,041 $0 $7,334 $51,375
Peterman,Harold J $47,834 $0 $7,334 $55,168
Potter,Charles $44,041 $0 $7,334 $51,375
Ramone,Michael J $47,893 $0 $7,334 $55,227
Schwartzkopf,Peter C $63,934 $0 $7,334 $71,268
Short,Bryon H $44,041 $0 $7,334 $51,375
Short,Daniel B $56,447 $0 $7,334 $63,781
Smith,Melanie George $55,472 $0 $7,334 $62,806
Smyk,Stephen T $44,041 $0 $7,334 $51,375
Spiegelman,Jeffrey N $44,041 $0 $7,334 $51,375
Viola,John J $51,865 $0 $7,334 $59,199
Williams,Kimberly A $44,041 $0 $7,334 $51,375
Wilson,David L $47,834 $0 $7,334 $55,168

Read Full Post »

Today is Giving Tuesday, a day created by the UN and 92nd Street Y nonprofit to encourage people to consider giving to a nonprofit/charitable organization instead of buying more stuff for the holidays.

As someone who currently works at a nonprofit, I can’t emphasize enough how critical donations are to keeping the organization running. I know stories abound about nonprofits where the CEO’s and top executives pull in six or seven figure salaries and very little that’s donated goes to the actual mission. That may be true for a small number of larger nonprofits or shady enterprises, but I can assure you the vast majority of us who work in nonprofits are not rolling in money.

So please find a charity (like the Caesar Rodney Institute, hint hint) and make a contribution today. You can also visit smile.amazon.com and choose a nonprofit you want Amazon to contribute to. For every dollar you spend on Amazon they will make a small contribution to your designated nonprofit. It won’t cost you any money and it’s an easy way to give.

So what are you waiting for? Support #GivingTuesday today!

Read Full Post »

Unless you’ve been off the planet or are living in a cave with Crocodile Dundee, you know today is Election Day 2014. Hopefully if you are reading this and you are an American citizen, you either a) voted already or b) are going to vote sometime today.

While we at CRI cannot tell you who to vote for, nor would it be in our interest to do so, we can encourage you to vote. The main reason CRI exists is to get people to make the different at the polling place. All of the white papers, articles, editorials, speaking engagements, radio appearances, newspaper quotes, and e-mail newsletters will make not one iota of difference if you don’t vote.

How will Delaware, or any of the other states, change public policy without your voice being heard? Politicians care more about today than any letter to the editor, blogpost, or tweet you could ever send out. Today is when change in our government becomes official. The only way to end the prevailing wage, repeal the ACA, provide Education Savings Accounts to all parents for their children (and grandchildren), pursue policies which reduce electric rates and make energy prices more affordable, eliminate the gross receipts tax, reduce personal income and corporate income taxes, and reduce the power of state agencies to make your life miserable through excessive regulation, is to vote.

We know it can be frustrating- you feel as though your vote is one of too many and it won’t matter. You feel as though no matter who you vote for things in government won’t really change. Maybe you even think elections are rigged (though we at CRI don’t believe this!) so you won’t bother showing up to the polls or casting an absentee ballot.

But if millions if people like you have that attitude, then only the most partisan voters or those with a lot to gain/lose directly will show up. They will reward politicians who cater specifically to the groups most likely to show up at the polls.

Therefore, if you haven’t yet voted, go out and vote this Election Day, and remember,


Read Full Post »