Home Blog Page 2463

Public Safety and Personal Responsibility

3

The debate about gun control has raised the usual themes, centering around the Second Amendment and the sacred right of a free citizenry to bear arms versus the outraged sentiments of victims of gun violence and their loved ones— a debate  with such limited parameters that it could take place nowhere  else in the world but in the  United States of America. Every time we have another mass carnage, Second Amendment buffs immediately claim the answer is to arm everyone, so the “deranged” shooter could be stopped in his tracks by a well-armed good guy… thus turning a settled, civilized society into a Wild West shoot out. “Guns are the answer to more guns.” If this sounds counter-intuitive, that’s because it is.

What’s missing from the debate are two other bedrock myths beloved by conservatives: personal responsibility, and the profit motive— two equally sacred themes running through American political discourse. Consider how the conservatives demand that people take “personal responsibility” for their retirement, think about the “makers” and “takers” and how the right wing dismisses the poor as slackers. Also, consider how they believe that everything society needs can be provided by private enterprise for a profit—- if there is no profit to be had, then society must not need it. We use taxes and tax loopholes to encourage behavior we think beneficial for society as a whole. So, why not apply these principles to the gun debate?

Let us require every gun to be registered, and every gun owner to be licensed. The owner is thereafter one hundred percent liable for whatever that gun does. Therefore, if that gun is stolen or given away, and used by someone else, the original owner is liable for what the gun does in these other hands. If the gun kills a dozen people, then the owner of the weapon can be sued; he is as guilty as the actual shooter. He should have kept his gun safely locked up. Liability would force gun owners to show respect for their weapons; they would not only have to be very, very careful about security, they would probably want to buy insurance to protect them from such law suits. A whole new cottage industry providing private profit would spring into being, and you can be  sure the insurance companies would require certain security measures from the gun owner whom they are insuring…. Personal responsibility on steroids.

The day of the minuteman militia (the gun over the mantel, ready to hand when Indians or redcoats attacked) is passed. We no longer live scattered across a thinly populated frontier, but crowded together in densely populated cities.  New lifestyles require new mores. My father was from South Carolina Low Country, I grew up with a man who hunted regularly, and kept his guns in a locked cabinet (the key on his person), the ammunition locked away elsewhere. One of my earliest memories is watching my father clean his guns, lovingly and with respect. He was also an infantry officer, and guns were his profession. He accepted personal responsibility for his weapons. It is time today’s gun owners acknowledged their personal responsibility.  

Virginia News Headlines: Wednesday Morning

0

Here are a few Virginia news headlines, political and otherwise, for Wednesday, January 9. The image, by the way, is from the cover of the upcoming Richmond Style Weekly. Should be an interesting article.

*2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says (Yes, this is an emergency, and we are acting as if it’s not. Total #FAIL by humanity.)

*New study forecasts mass extinction in 100 years due to Climate Change (And we are doing WHAT exactly to stop this? Cutting the gas tax? Obviously, that’s the EXACT OPPOSITE of what we should be doing. Duh.)

*The Market and Mother Nature (“How could a carbon tax not be on the table today?”)

*Interior vows ‘high-level’ Arctic-drilling review after Shell’s mishaps (Shell clearly can’t handle it; shut it down!)

*Nate Silver: Between pundits and partisans, ‘a lot of very delusional people’ in politics

*Since 2011, Three-Quarters Of Deficit Reduction Has Been Via Spending Cuts (That crazy “socialist” Obama again – yeah right, more like a moderate Republican of the Eisenhower/Ford/Rockefeller variety…)

*Gov. proposes getting rid of gas tax, raising sales tax

*McDonnell Throws Virginia Transportation Policy into Reverse (“Bacon’s bottom line: There is no way to sugar-coat this: McDonnell’s transportation-funding package would be an unmitigated disaster. As it is, the governor has partially rolled back Kaine-era initiatives to coordinate transportation and land use planning, a prerequisite for creating a rational transportation system. Now, he proposes to obliterate the principle that those who use and benefit from the transportation system are the ones who should pay for it.”)

*Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s bold and paltry transportation plan (“…it is inadequate and unbalanced, reflecting the grip that anti-tax ideologues continue to exert over Mr. McDonnell and Republican Party stalwarts in Richmond.”)

*McDonnell’s Transportation Plan (” Removing revenue from that fund to put into transportation is cutting money from schools and putting it into roads.  Unacceptable, and if this stays in the final version of the bill, it would be a solid reason to vote “No” even with other good things included.”)

*Grover Norquist lobbies against Bob McDonnell’s Virginia roads plan

*Editorial: 2013’s opportunities and perils (“Legislators should make transportation, education, health care and retaining a moratorium on uranium mining their priorities this year.”)

*Schapiro: Cuccinelli faces his own party politics

*Poll: Unpopular Cuccinelli Trails McAuliffe In Virginia Guv Race (I don’t understand how anyone in their right mind can approve of this climate science denying, homophobic, corporate tool.)

*Editorial: Wanted: voice of reason (“Lt. Gov. Bolling can help legislative collegues pay more attention to priorities”)

*Va. lawmaker proposes uranium tax

*Fairfax approves tax increase on Tysons businesses, residents

*Roanoke area state senator supports U.Va. rector

*Gun control group targets Roanoke with TV ad

*Va. Beach mayor says arena project dead for now

*End of the road for gas tax? (“Local legislators see merit in plan”)

*Redskins invested in Robert Griffin III, then everyone put his future in jeopardy

*Robert Griffin III faces surgery for torn knee ligament, possible lengthy rehabilitation (Fire. Mike. Shanahan. Now.)

*Adam LaRoche returns to Nats (Good news from a serious sports franchise, unlike the pathetic Snyder/Allen/Shanahan debacle in Landover.)

McDonnell Transportation Plan Fundamentally Flawed by Doing Away with Key User Fee

17

(UPDATE: Wow, Jim Bacon demolishes this monstrosity, writing “There is no way to sugar-coat this: McDonnell’s transportation-funding package would be an unmitigated disaster.” Yep. – promoted by lowkell)

Gov. Bob McDonnell just announced his transportation plan, which would do away with the gas tax while raising the sales tax. It may be fundamentally flawed, but give McD his due: he has proposed a bold idea, making Virginia the first state to do away with gas taxes – a user fee – and replacing it with general taxation, such as a Sales Tax.

Except for one problem: loading up the sales tax for transportation was never the intention! To the contrary, the sales tax was intended as the key funding source for EDUCATION, not for transportation.

As I wrote yesterday, the big issue in this session is: transportation vs education vs Medicaid, with McD now saying Medicaid might be more doable than he first thought. It is starting to emerge as predicted.

Question: Can the sales tax serve two masters, transportation and education? The answer is NO.

The user fee concept of a gas tax must not be totally abandoned or education loses in the long run.  

As I wrote last week, we needed a debate in the state this year on whether the most important user fee in the state – the state gas tax which was created to make sure users of the highways paid for this usage directly – still has a central role to play in funding transportation in the 21st century.    

The gas tax stood as a great innovation in the early part of the 20th century and led to Virginia having one of the best maintained road systems in the country.  But starting in 1986, with the passage of the Baliles 1/2-cent gas tax dedicated to transportation, the gas tax has become less important over time as a source of transportation funding.

BUT it still contributes in the vicinity of $850 million a year.

Governor McD now proposes to go the “whole hog” and eliminate the gas tax, replacing it with a general tax, about another 0.8% on the sales and use tax, bringing it to around 6% in round numbers.

Give him credit for a bold idea, being the first state to eliminate the gas tax is a potentially big national seller for an image.

But he is now putting both transportation and education ON THE SAME REVENUE SOURCE: The sales tax. Do we really want to do this? I think we need a real discussion in this state, as I have been saying for months now.

Can the sales tax serve two masters, transportation and education? I don’t think so. user fees such as a gax tax must play a role in transportation funding.

THE GOVERNOR MAKES A FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED MISTAKE DOING AWAY WITH THE USER FEE CONCEPT OF A GAS TAX.

The gas tax may not be as powerful a tool as before in fairly apportioning the burden of maintaining and building roads. But it must have a place. Otherwise, THE BIG LOSER WILL BE EDUCATION IN THE LONG RUN. And that’s not acceptable.

Explained: Obama to Help McDonnell on Medicaid to Help Terry

1

by Paul Goldman

I heard Congressman Bobby Scott talk about the big Obamacare issue facing Virginia in the 2013 gubernatorial election: The proposed Medicare Expansion. As usual, Scott knows his stuff and explained like a 20-year veteran would, right to the point, easy to understand. He was speaking at a fundraiser for Joe Morrissey who was later joined by T-Man McAuliffe. Terry played a lot better than his Notre Dame Irish last night.

My takeaway from what they said even though they didn’t discuss it: There is deal coming in a few months, with the Obama Administration agreeing to Governor McDonnell’s conditions, or at least enough of them, to cover McD’s retreat from being AGAINST THE EXPANSION OF MEDICAID over to OKAY, LETS DO IT AND SEE HOW IT WORKS.

Let me explain. But first, it never made sense to me for the White House to run from the term “Obamacare”, which I used right from the start in discussing the issue. If Lyndon Johnson could have called it Johnsoncare not Medicare, he would have done it ASAP. Your name on something that important….for ever…and it is a bad thing? Like Social Security, it will tweaked here and there, Social Security covered less than half of American workers when first adopted. Medicare, in effect, is universal health care for seniors. Even Ronald Reagan, a staunch opponent when first enacted, became a big supporter. Obamacare will stand the test of time although again, it needs some fine tuning.

In a more logical universe, the President winning re-election, along with a Supreme Court decision finding Obamacare to be constitution, would end the debate over whether there will be Obamacare, and start the discussion on how best to make it work….in states like Virginia.

But like everything in DC these days, whenever you think they have said all they can say about an issue, think again: there is more and more still again.

So in 2013, the debate over Obamacare comes to Virginia disguised as a debate over Medicaid, which serves those Americans without the money to afford access to quality care on a regular, sustained, preventive basis. It was enacted along with Medicare in the Johnson scheme of things. But whereas Medicare is mostly funded by payroll taxes, Medicaid is mostly funded by general fund dollars given to the states by Uncle Sam. It is a state/federal partnership. Like any partnership, it has its ups and downs.

As part of Obamacare, the federal government is offering a huge incentive to get the state’s to expand Medicaid coverage. Here in VA, the feds want state government to cover at least 250000 more people by the latest state government estimates, down from about 400000 originally predicted by the McDonnell Administration. But it is likely to fall somewhere in between.

As discussed the other day in this space, in his decision upholding Obamacare, Chief Justice Roberts threw the feds and the state’s a Medicaid curve ball. Prior to the decision, Uncle Sam basically could coerce states to expand Medicaid, regardless of what the feds offered in new funding, by threatening to withhold the old funding. As a practical matter, a state had no choice but to agree.

Roberts rejected such a federal power of coercion, He said Uncle Sugar had to put away the Medicaid cattle prod.

In the next few months, the Republicans in charge of state government are going to have to decide whether or not to agree to expand Medicaid per the Obamacare vision. Governor McDonnell is the newspaper again today saying he doesn’t want to do it on the grounds it requires the state to accept a huge potential financial burden in the future. But he also left himself a way to reverse his position. Like an Olympic diver, who win the contest with your reverse dives: and so I say the reverse position is the one McDonnell is working on to impress the judges, in this case both the Obama Administration and the voters.

On one hand, McDonnell has a valid fiscal point: the Medicaid expansion has the potential of being very costly to the state. But how costly and when will you know for sure?

What we do know is this. For the next  few years, Uncle Sam has promised to cover 100% of the costs to expand Medicaid. 100%. Assume you believe Washington – it is the law right now – there is no short term risk to Virginia. Then for the next few years after that, Uncle Same will pick up 90% of the costs.

After that: McDonnell is right, no one at the General Assembly today knows for certain.

But we also know this too: If Virginia opts to join the Obamacare expansion, the federal government is going to pour many billions of dollars into the state for health care. On balance, the state should probably break even, give or take, under the operative scenarios, perhaps even getting a windfall due to cost savings during the term of the next Governor.

Moreover if the state doesn’t opt to expand, then you still have hundreds of thousands of people in need of care, they aren’t going away. This will cost the state in this period.

NET NET: As political matter, it is difficult for me to see, on a NET VOTES BASIS FOR GOVERNOR, why a candidate would oppose Medicaid Expansion that is not going to cost the state money, might even save it money, say in the next five years. .

MORE IMPORTANTLY, as I indicated before, it seems to me Governor McDonnell is already laying the bread crumbs for him to abandon his NO EXPANSION POSITION for the eventual decision to AGREE TO EXPAND MEDICAID.

McD is no slouch when it comes to slicing the bologna when he wants to. SO, I believe his gambit of saying he will accept the expansion provided Uncle Sam gives Virginia greater “flexibility” in implementing the expansion is rather clever. He is pointing for the judges to watch his reverse 2 and half tuck.

Virginia isn’t Alabama: we are not a red state. The politics of Virginia is not anti-Medicaid.

This is especially so when even the McDonnell Administration has to concede the Obamacare mandate expansion will NOT COST VIRGINIA money in the next Governor’s term.

What will happen in the year 2023? I don’t know for sure to be honest. But neither does anyone else, pro or con Medicaid. They might have a vaccine that cures everything, or the economy will boom and Medicaid rolls will be cut sharply.

For 2013, I don’t think 2023 is going to be the test.

Rather: the issue will revolve around the next few years, maybe the next Governor’s cycle of four years not much longer in any case.

In that period, the Obamacare expansion is not only fiscally responsible but it makes a lot of sense on a health care basis, offering a greater chance at preventive care which will save money by 2023, tons of it.

The current 2013 scorecard?

Right now, I believe K-Man is where McDonnell has been, namely against expansion.

Right now, I believe T-Man is where McDonnell is headed, namely for expansion with the flexibility*.

Right now, I believe the Obama Administration is going to be inclined, both as matter of good policy and good 2013 politics to help T-Man, and thus give Governor MCD what he wants.

They know Cuccinelli cannot afford to be on the other side of the issue from a Republican Governor and Democratic GUV nominee.

Thus, it is all upside for the Obama Administration to let McDonnell complete that reverse dive for a perfect 10, hit the water with no splash. THAT FORCES CUCCINELLI TO AGREE. So no matter who gets to be Governor, the President gets what he wants. And if Cuccinelli actually defies McDonnell, well that gives McAuliffe a better chance of winning.

Thus for the President: What’s not to like?

First uranium mining, now Medicaid: Good omens for McAuliffe, less so for Cuccinelli.

Transportation up next: Sooner or later, the K-man is going to have put some points on the board for his side.

PPP: McAuliffe 46%-Cuccinelli 41%; Cuccinelli Wildly Unpopular

2

Gotta love it (although Cuckoo’s unfavorability should be a LOT worse, actually):

PPP’s first Virginia poll of 2013 finds Terry McAuliffe leading Ken Cuccinelli 46-41. When Bill Bolling is thrown into the mix as an independent candidate he gets 15%, with McAuliffe’s lead expanding to 8 points at 40/32.

The story of the race at this point is really how unpopular Cuccinelli is. Only 29% of voters have a favorable opinion of him to 45% with a negative one. Even among Republicans there are significant doubts about him- only 48% see him favorably with a much higher than normal 23% of voters within his own party seeing him negatively.

PPP also notes, “Usually the party that won the Presidential election loses the next Gubernatorial election in Virginia…but at least at this early stage it looks like Cuccinelli’s unpopularity could be enough to overcome that strong historical trend.” Of course, as I wrote recently, that “trend” has basically no basis to it whatsoever, no more than the supposed “rule” that no president had ever been reelected with unemployment as high as it was (or no non-white had ever been elected president), blah blah blah.

Other than that, my only other comment here is this: RUN BILL BOLLING RUN! 🙂

Australia, U.S. Burning Up Due to Global Warming; VA Has Climate Science Denier Running for Gov?!?

0

So, a couple of items: 1) NOAA reports that “2012 was warmest and second most extreme year on record for the contiguous U.S.” (other than record warmth, we had the bizarre derecho, drought, Superstorm Sandy, etc.; 2) Australia is burning as a “searing heat wave has smashed records, exceeding 115 degrees Fahrenheit in some areas,” prompting “Australian officials decided to add new colors to their weather maps in case the mercury crept still higher.”

Here in the United States, of course we’re responding to this planetary emergency – one that is already accelerating mass species extinctions and other ecological mayhem, oceanic acidification, and numerous other environmental catastrophes (including to our own species, by the way) – with the urgency it deserves, just as if we’d been attacked at Pearl Harbor or on 9/11 or…oh, what am I talking about?!?  In reality, we’re not doing jack@#$@ about the situation, except making it worse of course, by continuing to increase our output of fossil fuels, by failing to put a price on carbon dioxide emissions, by not passing a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill when we had a chance, etc, etc. In sum, as a species, we are now being confronted with our greatest challenge ever, and so far we are failing miserably, and almost absolutely, to deal with it.

Case in point: here in Virginia, where we not only have an all-around lunatic (homophobe, xenophobe, birther, conspiracy theorist, etc.) running for governor (as a Republican, of course!), but someone who incredibly denies climate science and even persecutes climate scientists! Is this just a really lame joke or are we living in an insane asylum?  Are we collectively suicidal? Seriously, there are actually real people out there who support Ken Kookinelli to be governor of Virginia?!?

Look, I’m all for people having whatever opinions they’d like to have on whatever topic. However, as the saying goes, you’re entitled to your opinion, but NOT to your own facts. And the facts are clear: anthropogenic (originating from human activity) greenhouse gas emissions have tipped the balance of the earth’s atmosphere into extremely dangerous territory. Not 100 years from now. Not 20 years from now. Right now. As in, today. Which means we need to take urgent action not 100 years or 20 years from now, but today. Actually, we needed to start years ago, but that just means there’s even more urgency now.

So, why on earth are we still “debating” climate science, as if science is a topic for “debate,” as opposed to debating how we’re going to DEAL with it, which is what we should be debating? On the latter point, note that it was conservative think tanks that came up with the idea of “cap and trade,” and also keep in mind that the concept of putting a price on externalities (e.g., case of market failure) is also totally consistent with conservative thought. Finally, the concept of “creation care” is not exactly a radical notion.

So why are the Ken Kookinellis of the world so isane on this issue?  It’s pretty obvious: on top of being extremists in general (probably yearning for the Rapture and all that), they’re also beholden to a large extent on entrenched fossil fuel interests that feel threatened by a clean energy transition, and of course by a shift away from carbon-based fuels. Clearly, though, there’s no reason that any Virginian should actually vote for tools and wackos like this. Right?!?

P.S. If I haven’t been clear enough, let me put it this way: anyone who denies science should be automatically disqualified for holding public office in this country, or from being listened to on ANY issue. End of story.

McClellan, Stamos Blast Cuccinelli on Refusal to Support Violence Against Women Act

3

From the Democratic Party of Virginia; yet more evidence, as if any’s needed, that Ken Cuccinelli is as extreme as they come. No, he’s not bipartisan (I love how he claims to be while disparagingly referring to the “Democrat” Party), nor is he in any way a reasonable, sane human being. I mean, c’mon, if you can’t support the Violence Against Women Act, then what else is there to say about you?

McClellan, Stamos: Cuccinelli Should Explain Refusal to Support Violence Against Women Act

Richmond, VA – Today on a conference call with Virginia media Delegate Jennifer McClellan and Arlington County Commonwealth’s Attorney Theo Stamos condemned the failure of the U.S. House of Representatives to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act and asked Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to explain why he refused to join 47 other state Attorneys General in asking congress to pass the law.

“If Ken Cuccinelli has proved anything, it’s that he’s not shy about injecting himself into federal issues,” said McClellan. “From lawsuits over health care, environmental protections and even academic freedom at the University of Virginia, our Attorney General has never hesitated to use taxpayer resources to pursue his own activist agenda.

“In light of that activism, Virginians deserve to know why he was one of only three Attorneys General in the country who refused urge congress to reauthorize this law that is so important to preventing domestic violence in Virginia.”

Stamos continued, “As the Commonwealth’s Attorney for Arlington County I have seen all too closely the devastating impact that domestic violence has on Virginia families and our community as a whole. That’s why a law like the Violence Against Women Act is so critical to preventing domestic violence and prosecuting the criminals who commit these horrible acts.

“I was disappointed to see Republicans in Congress fail to pass the reauthorization, and to see our own Attorney General refuse to support it while such critical support for domestic violence victims and prevention efforts hung in the balance.”

Cuccinelli was one of just three Attorneys General to refuse to sign his name to a letter asking the U.S. House to reauthorize the law that provides valuable domestic violence prevention services and support for victims. He has yet to explain what about the law he deemed unworthy of supporting to his fellow Republicans in congress.

Since its passage in 1994 the Violence Against Women Act has offered resources for state and local domestic violence prevention and victim support programs. The failure of its reauthorization last week puts critical support for law enforcement, prosecutors and community groups across Virginia at risk.

Virginia Senate Dems Denounce GOP Senator’s “Indefensible Anti-Choice Bill”

0

From the Virginia Senate Democratic caucus:

 

Senate Democrats Speak Out Against Sen. Garrett's Indefensible Anti-Choice Bill

RICHMOND, VA — Today, Senate Democrats issued the following statement on Senator Thomas Garrett's bill ending funding for abortions for poor women who are carrying a fetus with  totally incapacitating deformities, SB 826. With the legislative session just two days away, Senate Republicans appear poised to continue their war on women and their radical, overreaching agenda that is taking Virginia backwards.

SB 826 would end the subsidies for abortions for Medicaid-eligible women who are carrying a fetus which would be would be born with a “gross and totally incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency.”

Senator Barbara Favola (D-Arlington) said, “SB 826 will leave the poorest Virginia women without any options when their pregnancy goes terribly wrong. Senator Garrett would force the poorest women in the Commonwealth to carry to term a child with gross and incapacitating abnormalities. These decisions are personal and intimate decisions that should be made by a woman in consultation with her family and her doctor. Poor women should not have their rights trampled on by the Commonwealth It's clear that Republicans have not learned the lesson of 2012 and are continuing to pursue a divisive anti-women agenda.”

“As Virginians we have a responsibility to care for the least among us. Senator Garrett would force vulnerable women to bring  a child tragically incompatible with life into the world,” said Senator Donald McEachin (D-Henrico). “No woman plans to have an abortion, but every woman should have the option to make the best choice possible for herself and her family, especially in these tragic circumstances. SB 826 would cruelly take that choice away from the poorest women. These are families who already do not have the resources, let alone for a child with huge abnormalities.”

“In the coming Session, we will fight to ensure all women and families have the access to the safe and affordable health care options they need to make the necessary choices for their families. We will fight this punitive measure that just furthers the war on women,” Senator McEachin concluded. 

Virginia News Headlines: Tuesday Morning

6

Here are a few Virginia (and national) news headlines, political and otherwise, for Tuesday, January 8.

*Two nominations signal changes at CIA, Pentagon

*Exclusive: Hagel says critics distort his views on Israel, Iran

*Cantor opposes Hagel for Pentagon (Shocker.)

*Virginia GOP’s war on moderates (“Once again, Republicans are gearing up to tighten restrictions on voting, this time by offering bills that would narrow the forms of ID required to vote. Once again, they are submitting a variety of anti-abortion and anti-contraception legislation. Once again, they will propose laws seeking to stigmatize the least fortunate Virginians, who are disproportionately African American and Hispanic, by forcing them to undergo humiliating drug tests if they receive welfare subsidies. Once again, even after the massacre in Connecticut, they are primed to spike sensible gun-control initiatives while pushing measures to allow more guns around schools and college campuses.”)

*McDonnell set to disclose highway funding reforms 1 day before Va. lawmakers convene

*The long and winding road to Virginia transportation funding

*McDonnell’s shortsighted call on Medicaid

*Ken Cuccinelli seeks campaign cash before assembly meets Wednesday

*Voter ID measures back before General Assembly

*E-mail: Foes of U.Va. rector take grievances airborne

*McDonnell names Romero new health commissioner

*Lottery winners named, but tax break winners … shhhhh

*Panel OKs regulatory plan for uranium mining

*Editorial: Virginians love guns and booze (“The commonwealth saw record sales of both last year.”)

*Editorial: McDonnell’s lesson plan

*McDonnell appoints new member of Va. Port Authority

*Sand replenishment will help Virginia Beach fight off surge (Of course, without action against global warming, all of these efforts ultimately will be futile…)

*New Va. study finds gaps in state shelter plans

*Editorial: Budget transparency( “Statewide study finds that some local government budgets are easier to find than others.”)

*Henriette ‘Etty’ Allen dies (“Henriette “Etty” Allen, the widow of a legendary Washington Redskins coach and the mother of the team’s current general manager, Bruce Allen, and former Sen. George Allen, has died at 90.”)

*Metro plans no fare hikes for next year

*Tysons Corner tax hike set for vote on Tuesday

*RGIII may have partial knee tears (I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, Mike Shanahan needs to be fired for gross negligence, coaching malpractice, and utter idiocy.)

UPDATE: Also see Giffords and Kelly: Fighting gun violence

Deeds, Toscano Introduce Redistricting Commission Bill

2

Not that this has a snowball’s chance in hell of passing the Teapublican-controlled Virginia House of Delegates (in fairness, I’m sure there are plenty of Democrats who oppose this as well), but still I’m glad to see it. We desperately need this across in Virginia, and across the country, along with campaign finance and other reforms. If not, our democracy’s in deep, deep trouble…

Ending Political Gridlock

Deeds and Toscano Introduce Redistricting Commission Bill

(Charlottesville, VA – January 4, 2013) – Virginia State Senator Creigh Deeds and House of Delegates Democratic Leader David Toscano are introducing a bill to reform the redistricting process. The bill will amend the Virginia Constitution to establish the Virginia Redistricting Commission, a bipartisan group that would create Congressional and State legislative districts which are contiguous, compact, and respect city and county boundaries – and specifically be drawn without favor to a political party or legislator.

“The main reason for political gridlock is legislative districts that have been gerrymandered to overwhelmingly favor an incumbent’s party, resulting in hyperpartisan legislators unable to work together for the common good” said Senator Deeds, who has been championing non-partisan redistricting since 2003. “This bill would result in much more competitive elections, and revive an endangered political species, the political moderate”.

Stated Delegate Toscano, a co-patron of the measure, “Redistricting has become a way by which those in power maintain their control – and both parties have done it. We are in a unique position right now. The next redistricting will occur after the 2020 census. Hopefully this will make it easier for incumbents to put aside narrow self-interest and make a change to help the Commonwealth’s interest.”

Senator Deeds noted how partisan redistricting has resulted in Charlottesville and Albemarle being part of a congressional district that runs from Danville to Fauquier County, a result of incumbent protectionism driving redistricting. “Instead of voters choosing their legislators, legislators are choosing their constituents. That must change.”

The Virginia Redistricting Commission would have 13 members, none of whom could be sitting legislators or employees of the US Congress or the Virginia General Assembly. Six would be appointed by Democrats, six by Republicans, with an independent member appointed jointly, to serve as Chairman.

The  Commission would redistrict according to specific criteria to create districts that are contiguous and compact, with an aim of avoiding the division of cities and counties into more than one district. Districts could not be drawn for the purpose of favoring a political party or incumbent legislator or member of Congress, and would not use election results or demographic information except as required by federal law.