-1
archive,date,paged,paged-2,date-paged-2,stockholm-core-1.0.8,ctct-stockholm,select-child-theme-ver-1.1,select-theme-ver-5.1.5,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,menu-animation-underline,header_top_hide_on_mobile,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.0.2,vc_responsive

Wesley College to receive $3 million in state funding

From Delaware State News

DOVER — A state panel this week approved a request for $3 million from Wesley College, with conditions.

The funding is expected to help the college continue operations until it can come to an accord on a merger with another higher education institution, which could be announced in the coming weeks.

In November, the private school submitted a request for $3.2 million from the state’s Higher Education Economic Development Investment Fund. The group, which consists of the director of the Office of Management and Budget, the secretary of state, the co-chairs of the General Assembly’s Joint Legislative Committee on Capital Improvement and the controller general, previously awarded $2 million to the college in 2019.

Wesley also was given permission in the spring to move $1.375 million earmarked for it the prior year to renovate the former Dover library.

College officials were informed in the summer they would not receive any more funding without first submitting a long-term strategic plan to the state, which they have not done as yet.

Read more:

https://delawarestatenews.net/schools/wesley-college-to-receive-3-million-in-state-funding/

Why pro-business is not anti-worker

Supporting the economy isn’t a partisan issue—so why has it become one?

In Delaware, “pro-business” is frequently tied to “anti-worker,” but the opposite is true.

Who employs these workers that we want to support? Businesses!

By hurting these employers, workers and their families suffer lower incomes, less hours, and even layoffs.

Think of it this way: if the government passed a restrictive regulation on public housing, there would be an uproar about its impact on the recipients of that program and their access to housing. The move would be seen as one that hurts the people, or an “attack” on lower-income families.

The same is true with a restrictive regulation on business. In this instance, the providers are the companies, stores, and small businesses, while the good are the jobs they supply. Legislation that is anti-business is blatantly anti-worker and anti-jobs, and should be seen as a move that hurts the people as well.

It’s odd that a policy position that offers more jobs, better job security, higher pay, and higher government revenues divides Democrats and Republicans from the local level up through the Presidency. These benefits support groups that fall on both sides, including low-income families, middle-class families, communities, minority groups, children, schools, churches, and more.

In a better informed government, lawmakers would work across the aisle to support legislation that actually promotes job growth, supports businesses, and strengthens the economy, in an effort to work for the people, instead of duping them.

If our elected officials could agree on better fiscal policy, both sides would have the capability to help their respective communities, and the public would finally win in this political game, not to mention that more money would naturally go into the budget to support programs for education, health care, infrastructure, housing, and more.

So why is it so divisive? The answer is the same thing that causes most strife in governance: politics.

What is truly best for the people can make for bad headlines in the short-term and impact re-election or donor support.

“New Policy Erases Student Loan Debt for Millions Nationwide” is a far better headline for student loan forgiveness than what the headline for the true, long-term outcome would be: “Erasing Students Loans Cripples Economy as Trillions of Dollars go Unpaid.”

The next time you hear a lawmaker denounce a pro-business policy for being anti-worker or for putting business over the people, consider how a business can support its workers when their operations take a hit, and why both sides can’t align on this issue.

Prosperity Partnership’s project pipeline got a lot busier in 2019

From Delaware Business Times

One of the Delaware Prosperity Partnership’s core functions is to assist companies looking to relocate to Delaware or expand within Delaware, providing a range of support services from identifying potential sites, to providing detailed labor and business cost data, to connecting with key state agencies and local partners, to explaining and coordinating incentive options, and more.

DPP calls these engagements with prospective companies “projects,” and collects and analyzes data to better understand and communicate the types of projects that DPP works on, job creation potential, and more. These projects are all at different stages, from initial conversations to pending final decisions by the company. Projects that ultimately choose to locate or expand in Delaware are referred to as “located projects,” and are moved off this active pipeline, as are projects where DPP has lost contact with the company or the company chose a location outside of Delaware, all of which are referred to as “closed projects.”

DPP’s project pipeline grew considerably in 2019. In January 2019, DPP was working 49 active projects. These projects represented the potential for at least 3,302 new jobs, 922 retained jobs, and $186 million in capital investment. By December 2019, DPP was working 63 active projects, with the potential for at least 5,069 new jobs, 515 retained jobs, and $747 million in capital investment.

https://delawarebusinesstimes.com/news/delaware-prosperity-partnership-busy-2019/