Home Blog Page 2465

Roads v Medicaid v Education: McDonnell’s Black Whale and the 2 Other Moby Dicks

1

( – promoted by lowkell)

by Paul Goldman

“Call me Goldy.” The Tale of McDonnell’s Black Whale – the Captain Ahab like obsession with pursuing more and more ways to spend more and more money on transportation in the mistaken belief it will leave you with some great legacy – would have been fascinating to any political Herman Melville. The Governor’s idea, metaphorically, is to use all that whale oil in the black asphalt paving that will be required (hence the Black Whale, not that I was making some Django Unchained thing).

But the real story of the upcoming 2013 General Assembly Session is not one but three issues triangulating Virginia governance right now, at the heart of the real meat of the upcoming Governor’s race as well: Transportation, Medicaid and Education.

To be sure, the optics of the 2013 GA Session and the Governor’s race could very well be dominated by other issues as has often been the case over the years: abortion rights, gun rights, taxes, racial issues, religious issues, voting rights, what have been labeled by some political analysts as the “wedge issues.” They are all important, indeed gun rights may be the sleeper issue of 2013 right now for Virginia politics given what may or may not come out of the Biden Commission discussion of the matter in terms of White House legislative proposals. “Gun control” has not been a real issue in a VA Governor’s race since 1993. It could be this year. Big time.

BUT these “wedge issues”, while important both as a general matter in terms of state policies on significant concerns and as an issue of particular concern to a key voting bloc, ARE STILL SECONDARY TO THE BIG THREE in terms of fundamental shaping of state government:  Roads, Medicaid, Education. These are the three Moby Dicks bearing down on the Ship of State.

Governor McDonnell started out by making his first year about keeping the big money campaign promise: the near $1 Billion in road money he claimed could be reaped by privatizing the state’s ABC operations. It proved a complete fisherman’s tale.

Since then, the McDonnell Administration has been a non-stop Willie Wonka factory of chocolate covered transportation spending proposals, every form of toll and fee and borrowing and borrowing  known to Virginia governance. Except for an effort to sell the silverware dating back to the 1700’s over at the Governor’s Mansion, Mr. McDonnell has been going about fixing transportation – and I mean this respectfully – ass backwards.

McDonnell sees the issue as MORE MONEY.

BUT THIS IS A DERIVATIVE MATTER.

Right now in Virginia, the transportation issue is more basic: Namely, do we need to change from the 1920’s philosophy of funding transportation with USER fees?

In many respects, we already have: In 1986, Governor Baliles got the General Assembly to add a half-cent to the sales tax to exclusively fund transportation projects. This has changed the mix along with improved MPG’s among other things. Terry MAC and the electric car gurus, along with cars running on natural gas and hopefully more public transit, will further change the revenue generating mix.

But as a legacy matter, Baliles’ folks never pitched his vision as a new philosophy, only a new transportation levy using a sales tax, first in the nation.

Big mistake really. This is why he got no enduring credit from the public and has never run again for higher office.

Yet, to give him his due, he was, in effect, saying this: The user fee concept – gas taxes where seen as a user fee – is not going to be enough in the future to fund the state’s transportation grid.

I am not sure he was right then, or even now: But I do think he was being very perceptive as regards the fundamental issue on transportation in the coming years. There is a vision there. He never got his due. He should have.

Philosophically, the gas tax became the main source of road money in the 1920’s when Harry Byrd got the state, in a referendum, to reject higher debt for higher gas taxes so we could go on a pay as you go basis for the most part. Less debt, higher taxes.

It defied the politics of the age, or so the experts thought. But look around America at the time: Byrd had reason to know he could win the debate. Other states had gone the same route.

Now comes 2013.

THE REAL TRANSPORTATION issue right now is the following: Is the User Fee approach still the one we want, indeed is it still viable? Or was Baliles ahead of his time in that regard?

I don’t know: but it is the KEY TO NOT ONLY TRANSPORTATION. Why? Because the sales tax was created to FUND EDUCATION IN VIRGINIA, at least for the most part. Making the sales tax NOW also pay for transportation funding IN THE FUTURE fundamentally impacts education funding as well.

Already, we have a proposal to scrap the gas tax and go to fully funding transportation with the sales tax. That isn’t going to fly: but at least it does raise the basic philosophical issue.

THE FAILURE TO FIRST ENGAGE THE STATE IN THIS PHILOSPHICAL DEBATE IS GOVERNOR MCDONNELL’S BIG TRANSPORTATION MISTAKE.

McDonnell sees the transportation issue as trying to find more and more billions by whatever new borrowing, new toll, new general fund money redistribution, he can come up with. LIKE CAPTAIN AHAB, he is obsessed with with pursuing something out of King Lear.

Instead, what McDonnell should do, what will be of the most benefit and give him a real legacy, is to engage the state the way Harry Byrd did, but Baliles did not: Namely, how do we, as Virginians, want to solve our transportation problems?

This is key because It plays into the other two Moby Dicks headed at us: the problems in EDUCATION and the GROWING COST OF MEDICAID.

Let’s understand the politics. The business community’s first priority is transportation. McDonnell knows this, he wants their backing when he runs again. Medicaid is a huge issue for Democrats: it goes to the heart of the party’s philosophy, it is important to the President indeed key to Obamacare in many respects. However, the Medicaid issue has been made hugely more complicated by part of Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert’s opinion upholding Obamacare. He changed the game big time when he said Uncle Sam couldn’t punish states that rejected the President’s new Medicaid proposals.

Last, but actually first to the future of the state and nation is Education. Contrary to what our politicians have been saying, we are in serious need of a real reformer as Governor. Our school facilities are far worse off than our roads: and unless they get upgraded, our kids can not compete with the Chinese and others, it is that simple. This is something Bush and Obama, Reagan and Clinton all agreed with. ALL.

But we have flunked badly there, the average school building in Virginia and America almost old enough to qualify as an historic structure under state and federal law!! You can not get a 21st century education in a school building built in the 1960’s.

Then comes all the focus in years past on testing and more testing and more testing and more …testing: it ain’t working. The whole SOL regime needs reforming. Then comes the huge increase in administrative costs, often hidden by clever accounting tricks. Take Richmond for instance. Watch the coming battle over the school budget in my city.

It is a metaphor for what is driving down the middle class and blocking the poor from getting out of poverty.

But while fixing the education situation is not just about money – in some respects it doesn’t require any new money at all – in the long run, the state is going to have to figure out ways to provide greater resources to localities in this area and perhaps directly to students as I see it.

THERE THEY ARE: The Big Three drivers of spending at the state level not counting all the mandatory and other stuff paid for out of general or special funds. Roads, Medicaid and Education have a lot of discretion over time. They are competing right now for the same dollar.  

With all due respect to Governor McDonnell – who has worked with Warner and Kaine and Cantor in trying to fix the school facility issue with a novel legislative proposal at the federal level – he is being penny wise and pound foolish with his Captain Ahab obsession.

RATHER, HE NEEDS TO LEAD A PUBLIC DISCUSSION SO THE PEOPLE CAN WEIGH ON THE MATTER.

Harry Byrd did it: and the people defied the experts by choosing higher user fees tied to transportation usage.

Baliles did not trust the people: he ran against raising taxes, and then reversed himself overnight as opposed to going to the people. If he had, he might be in the U.S. Senate today.

Baliles had vision, but not enough faith in the public.

MY PROPOSAL: Roads, Medicaid and Education are huge policy questions for state politicians to decide, not federal judges or even Medicaid.

Yes, the federal government plays a big role here, we have a federal gas tax, Medicaid is a federal/state partnership, and Education too has federal money component. But by and large, these are issues for the state to decide, for Virginia as a society to decide.

My own preference, given the state of our politics today, is to do what proved successful for several generations: use a statewide referendum to give the public a chance to gridlock on transportation. We have not done this for nearly a century.

But you say: The public may say NO to even the smallest fix. Sure, that is possible. By law, any referendum is advisory and moreover, how would be any worse off with a referendum, regardless of the results?

To me, it is all upside. Governor McDonnell could leave the debate to Cuccinelli and McAuliffe. Or McDonnell can help the next Governor out by taking the leadership role today.

In my view, USER FEES must play a role in any fundamental solution. Scraping them makes no sense. But at the same time, the equation did change in 1986. So we need to harmonize the situation in such a way that works for education and Medicaid as well.

Unless Governor McDonnell sees this, he will just be playing Captain Ahab for the rest of his tenure in office.  

Virginia News Headlines: Sunday Morning

6

Here are a few Virginia (and national) news headlines, political and otherwise, for Sunday, January 6.

*White House considers broad gun-control plan (Here’s an idea: require anyone owning a gun to carry liability insurance. That would be fascinating…)

*Split emerges among Republicans over strategy toward upcoming debt ceiling

*Conservatives gone wild (“… it is the opposite of ‘conservative’ to embrace chaos instead of order. It is the opposite of ‘conservative’ to embrace crisis rather than accept unpleasant realities.”)

*Conservatives Open New Congress With Unconstitutional Bill To End Birthright Citizenship (Speaking of “the opposite of ‘conservatism'”)

*12 most despicable things Fox News did in 2012 (“From producing its own anti-Obama video to spinning furiously on unemployment, the network had a banner year”)

*Terry McAuliffe looks to revamp image in political comeback

*Virginians shoulder billions each year in secret tax breaks (Completely f***ed up system, in which “the top 1 percent of state households – those making more than $529,000 a year – pay 5 percent of their income in state and local taxes, according to a recent analysis by the Washington-based Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. The poorest one-fifth – those making less than $19,000 – pay nearly 9 percent.”)

*More independent Bolling returns to role as tiebreaker in Virginia Senate (It will be interesting to see if he’s really more independent.)

*Anti-death-penalty group rallies near Cuccinelli

*Roads, schools among top items on assembly list

*Next stop in Va. uranium debate: Statehouse

*Ruling not expected to hurt bay cleanup plans (Still, the ruling was totally wrong, as were Kookinelli and the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors…)

*Schapiro: Nothing like an old-fashioned fight with trial lawyers

*Wait for study on transportation

*Whale sightings spike in waters off Virginia Beach coast

*26 Va. localities get failing grade on budget access

*NHL, union reach tentative agreement to end lockout

*Misery of attending a Redskins game

“Investigate the Gun at FreedomWorks”

0

Such is the print version title of my letter to the editor published in The Washington Post this morning.  Published prominently on the top page of the “Free for All” section, it appears online as Breaking the Law at FreedomWorks:

The Post’s article about Dick Armey’s armed coup at FreedomWorks (“Big donor steps in as tea party reels,” front page, Dec. 26) provided a new angle on the term “office politics.”

After reading about how Armey walked into the group’s D.C. offices with “an aide holstering a handgun at his waist,” I expected to see a discussion of how this was (or was not) a criminal action. This expectation went unfulfilled.

The Armey coup certainly suggests the possibility of a direct violation of D.C. law, which prohibits the public carrying of weapons. Simply put, one can have a licensed weapon in the home but very few (such as police or the FBI) have the right to carry a weapon.

Beyond a firearms violation, what about assault? Here’s one common-law definition: “an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.” Illegally displaying a firearm while you force people out of their offices certainly would seem to fit the bill.

Less than two weeks after the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., the absence of discussion of the legal implications of carrying a weapon into the workplace is strikingly bizarre.

As one can’t cover every subject in a LTE, there are many additional angles and issues to the “Armey Coup” (some raised after the fold) but there is one that should be a serious item for this community:  

Why is the ‘progressive community’, including members of Congress, not pushing hard for investigation of and, if warranted, legal action about the Armey Coup in downtown Washington?  

The Armey Coup

1.  involves (and potentially puts at risk) one of the main players in fostering the Tea-Hadist threat to American Democracy (and democracy);

2. provides a potential path for learning more about and shining light on ‘hidden’ (whether billionaire, Corporate, or otherwise) fiscal support for Tea-Hadists;

3. involves a(t least one) significant Republican operative who might be liable for criminal charges; and

4. is highly relevant to helping foster a more sensible national discussion about guns and the appropriate role(s) for weapons in society.

With this in mind, why the ‘crickets’?

For example, here at Blue Virgina, my search found nothing meaningful …  Over at ThinkProgress, nada …

Over at the Big Orange, front-pager Laura Clawson discussed the armed Armey Coup with Money trumps guns in FreedomWorks coup attempt, which sparked a robust discussion (150 comments).  Laura focused on the role of money in the Armey Coup and did not raise the issue of whether anyone (and if so who) should face criminal charges related to it.

This appeared, however, in the comments.  From the thread started by my comment questioning whether this was a legal violation, KS Lavida suggested something quite serious,

When people commit a crime together, they are all guilty.  The gunman could perhaps be viewed the same way as a hit man — while a hit man who kills someone is guilty of murder, so is the person who hires him, who is really viewed as the more serious criminal.  Armey and his wife were both part of the armed assault and thus both appear to have been perpetrating a felony.

 

In other words, was this a criminal conspiracy?  And, if so, how far did this extend? Hmmm … seems like something meriting (calls for) an investigation, no?

Miggles added

Yep. Right now the Washington Post has an article covering the issue of David Greggory showing an empty ammunition magazine on camera.  Yet, there isn’t yet a probe into this armed goon flaunting a gun in a DC office, obviously for the purpose of intimidating and spooking other people there.  I guess it’s not really surprising since for the teabaggers, guns are always part of the answer.  But we DC residents aren’t in favor of this sort of shit going down here.

I would imagine that this caused FreedomWorks to violate the lease for the office space that they are renting.  I can’t imagine a single property owner in DC wanting to let random people off the street enter their buildings armed.  Furthermore, other tenants leasing space on the same property can’t be happy with such a potential security situation occurring in their vicinity.

While Laura’s front-page post generated discussion, the community discussions didn’t spark the same level of attention or engagement.  From those diaries, CC questioned

Would Dick Armey have ordered his armed guards to kill the two men if they had not left the building?  What the f’ck — who in their right mind even thinks to take armed guards to work to clear out the people you don’t like?

Hmmm … this is a legitimate scenario to consider in considering the implications of the armed Armey Coup.  

Are threats — implicit or direct — with armed weapons a legitimate part of American office politics?

In any event, cc’s diary along with other discussions of the armed Armey Coup have not had great prominence here nor, it seems, elsewhere.

Consider, however, how much have you heard about the armed Armey Coup in the ten days since the Post article?  Is this a prominent item of discussion, whether Congressional podiums, editorial page discussions, by Rachel Maddow, or here at Daily Kos? Imagine a different scenario for a moment.  What if such an “armed coup” had involved (large) black men at, for example, CREDO’s political action group?  What if George Soros had been involved in paying off the armed coup leader?  Not hard to imagine the RWSM screaming for investigations and we likely would have already had hearings in the House of Representatives.  Yet, we are hearing little more than crickets (in the dead of winter).

Yes, there are other things going on.  There was the Fiscal Cliff molehill, there are battles engaged over the Debt Ceiling, there is the terrifying reality of the Catastrophic Climate Chaos Cliff, … Yet, legal issues surrounding the armed Armey coup at FreedomWorks are centrally related to these and to so many other critical issues.  

FreedomWorks is one of the institutions that fosters and enables Tea-Hadist revanchism and helps to undermine our society’s (not just our political system’s) ability to address real challenges and adopt viable policies to address them. By not demanding serious investigation of (and, as appropriate, legal action about) the armed Armey Coup, we are leaving unexploited a very real (and quite legitimate) tool to weaken the part of the ‘conservative’ movement’s anti-democratic machine.

With a note of personal history

While an undergraduate decades ago, I experienced an incident with some relevance to this.  Late on a Saturday night, someone pounded on the door of the house that I lived in.  Arriving at the door, this roughly 35 year-old stated he wanted to come into the party. Simply put, there wasn’t such a party and this 35-year old could not foster any connection to any of the 20 people who lived there. Thus, I refused to let him in. He then pulled back on his shirt to show a large bulge while stating “I’m an officer of the law and have a gun, you will let me in.”  I told him that (a) this was a private residence and (b) I was letting him in against my will.  He went downstairs to were several people were drinking from a keg. I went upstairs and called the police.  And, the cops took it seriously with detectives and uniformed officers there in under 10 minutes.  On going downstairs, the ‘intruder’ actually tried to draw the weapon when the police officers demanded his ID.  As one of the detectives then put it to me, “this idiot, he started to draw his .44 Magnum.  We could have killed him. It was unloaded.” This ‘guy’ turned out to be a game warden from another state and was illegally carrying a concealed weapon in my university’s state. While charged with a number of crimes (including assault with a deadly weapon and criminal trespass), he ended up pleading guilty to lesser charges.

Crazy, Extreme, and/or Stupid Virginia Teapublican Legislation for 2013 (so far)

1

The following list of crazy, extreme, and/or stupid proposed 2013 Virginia legislation, pretty much all of which is by Teapublicans, is not intended to be complete. Also, in coming days, I’m sure we’ll see many more pieces of bad legislation submitted. If you see anything interesting, please post it in the comments section here, or start your own diary. Thanks.

P.S. I haven’t added any commentary, because I think the craziness and stupidity of these bills stand for themselves.

Del. “Sideshow” Bob Marshall (R-13)

School boards; employee firearms training. (“Requires every school board in the Commonwealth to designate at least one qualified person for every school in the district who, upon application with the school board, may carry a concealed handgun on school property.”)

Health insurance; contraception coverage. (“Provides that no individual or group accident and sickness insurance policy, individual or group accident or sickness subscription contract, or health care plan for health care services shall provide coverage for contraception methods, sterilization procedures, abortifacient drugs or devices unless the subscriber or enrollee in the policy, contract, or plan requests such coverage.”)

Income tax. (“Deconforms Virginia income tax laws from two provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that otherwise would increase the state income tax.”)

Study; joint subcommittee to study alternative medium of commerce or currency; report. (“Establishes a joint subcommittee to study whether the Commonwealth should adopt an alternate medium of commerce or currency to serve as an alternative to the currency distributed by the Federal Reserve System in the event of a major breakdown of the Federal Reserve System.”)

Del. Richard Bell (R-20) and Sen. Richard Black (R-13)

Constitutional amendment (first resolution); right to work. (“Provides that any agreement or combination between any employer and any labor union or labor organization whereby persons not members of such union or organization are denied the right to work for the employer…”)

Del. Mark Cole (R-88) and Sen. Richard Black (R-13)

Elections; polling place procedures; voter identification requirements. (“Removes several items from the list of acceptable identification documents that a voter must present when voting at the polls on election day: a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, or paycheck that shows the name and address of the voter.”)

Del. James LeMunyon (R-67)

United States Constitution; amendment. (“Makes application to the United States Congress to call an amendment convention for the purpose of proposing a constitutional amendment that requires a balanced federal budget.”)

Del. Rick Morris (R-64)

Application of foreign law in Virginia courts; domestic relations. (“Provides that if a court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative or enforcement authority bases its decision in a domestic relations matter on foreign law, and such decision violates a person’s rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and Constitution of Virginia, then such decision will be void as violative of the public policy of the Commonwealth.”)

Sen. Charles Carrico (R-40)

Substance abuse screening and assessment of public assistance applicants and recipients. (“Requires local departments of social services to screen each Virginia Initiative for Employment Not Welfare (VIEW) program participant to determine whether probable cause exists to believe the participant is engaged in the use of illegal substances.”)

Electoral College. (“Provides that the Commonwealth’s electoral votes shall be allocated by congressional district.”)

Constitutional amendment (first resolution); freedom of speech. (“Expands the freedom of speech provisions of the Constitution of Virginia to permit prayer and the recognition of religious beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including public school property.”) {Also, add Sen. William Stanley (R-20) on this one}

Sen. Thomas Garrett (R-22)

Nonpublic school students; participation in interscholastic programs. (“Prohibits public schools from joining an organization governing interscholastic programs that does not deem eligible for participation a student who (i) is receiving home instruction…”)

Funding for certain abortions. (“Repeals the section authorizing the Board of Health to fund abortions for women who meet the financial eligibility criteria of the State Plan for Medical Assistance in cases in which a physician certifies that he believes that the fetus would be born with a gross and totally incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency.”)

Sen. Stephen Martin (R-11)

Elimination of the corporate income tax. (“Eliminates the corporate income tax for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, by setting the rate of the tax at zero percent.”)

Sen. Jeffrey McWaters (R-8)

Assignment of general fund balance; Transportation Trust Fund. (“Increases from 67 percent to 75 percent the portion of the general fund surplus remaining at the end of each fiscal year that is deposited into the Transportation Trust Fund.”)

Sen. Bryce Reeves (R-17)

Rights of parents. (“Provides that parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children and such right shall not be infringed by the government unless the governmental interest as applied to the parents is of the highest order and not otherwise served.”)

Fairfax Supervisors Back Cuccinelli’s War on EPA

5

A central act in AG Ken Cuccinelli’s schtick is blaming the EPA for everything bad in the world: high electricity prices, climate change conspiracies, the heartbreak of psoriasis — you name it.  It’s who he is.  

But why would the Democratic-controlled Fairfax County Board of Supervisors aid and abet him in this act — at a time when he is running to become the #1 Tea Party Governor in America?  

You better ask them.  The Board and Cuccinelli just won a lawsuit against EPA on the issue of protecting aquatic life in a local creek.

Not surprisingly, Cuccinelli characterized the case by employing his favorite rhetorical technique — LYING:

“EPA was literally treating water itself – the very substance the Clean Water Act was created to protect – as a pollutant.”

Really?  Well, here’s my challenge to Kookinelli and his supporters: please read through the hundreds of pages of EPA’s regulatory decision on this matter — and show me where they declare water to be a pollutant.  

They don’t — this case is about the regulation of stormwater runoff, a matter which EPA has regulated for years through the Clean Water Act, which Virginia itself regulates through the Virginia Stormwater Management Act, which indeed has been controlled going back as far as ancient Crete.  The problem is that in urban environments, full of concrete and asphalt, stormwater no longer naturally percolates through the greenery and soil, but is channeled at high levels and velocity into streams — picking up all manner of pollutants as it goes (oil, pesticides, fertilizer, plastic, etc.).  It also effectively gouges out stream banks through erosion (as shown in the photo above), causing sediment to build up and threatening aquatic life in the process.

In this case, Accotink Creek had been found environmentally deficient since 1996.  EPA’s proposed solution was for Fairfax County to reduce its stormwater runoff, thereby limiting further sediment flow into the stream.  As EPA and the judge stated clearly, stormwater here was to be regulated as a “surrogate” for the sediment, not as the “pollutant” itself.  Judge O’Grady’s decision, found on Cuccinelli’s own website, states clearly: “Both parties agree that sediment is a pollutant and stormwater is not.”

EPA has regulated stormwater runoff through another part of the Clean Water Act for years; the only question here is whether they could regulate stormwater in this instance, using a different part of the statute.  

The only argument of the plaintiffs for which I might have any sympathy is the question of “unfunded mandates” — it is true that Congress creates, and Federal agencies enforce, requirements without any money provided to help local governments achieve them.  That said, Fairfax County is the third-wealthiest county in America, not likely to go bankrupt any time soon. And if you want more Federal support for local environmental progress, don’t empower Tea Party government-hating types like Ken Cuccinelli.

In addition, EPA in its regulatory decision encouraged solutions that involved not just greater stormwater permitting, but creative solutions — “best management practices” or BMPs in bureaucratese — that would give us a literally greener county:

This comprehensive implementation approach could include BMPs that directly restore/improve aquatic habitat (such as streambank restoration and reconnection of the floodplain to the stream), as well as BMPs that directly address the existing hydrologic alteration (such as green roofs, pervious pavements, rain gardens, and other low impact development/green infrastructure techniques).

A Fairfax County full of more parks, green roofs, restored streambanks and living streams — sounds like a nightmare!

It is very unfortunate that Fairfax County Supervisor Sharon Bulova and her minions have chosen to give Ken Cuccinelli yet another chance to grandstand and prevaricate — and actually win a case for a change (admittedly one presided over by a George W. Bush appointee).  I would strongly encourage these Board members to separate themselves from Cuccinelli’s thoroughly dishonest and misleading rhetoric about the case.  

Kudos in the meantime to Supervisor John Foust, who chose not to be Cuccinelli’s handmaiden in this case.  And thanks to two of Northern Virginia’s finest legislators for taking a more foresighted position:

“Attacking the regulatory action as illegal or inappropriate, to me, is kind of overkill,” says Virginia State Del. Scott Surovell (D-Mount Vernon).

[…]

Regardless of whether or not the EPA has the authority to set that kind of rule, some are uncomfortable with the politics. Del. Kaye Kory (D-Falls Church) is among them. She believes Fairfax County’s lawsuit against the EPA sends the wrong message and undercuts the local government’s reputation as an environmental leader.

“Simply the headline that the county is suing the EPA and they are partnering with Cuccinelli is very damaging to that reputation,” says Kory.

I can’t argue with that.

Virginia News Headlines: Saturday Morning

4

Here are a few Virginia (and national) news headlines, political and otherwise, for Saturday, January 5. Also, check out President Obama’s weekly address, in which he “talks about the bipartisan agreement that Congress reached this week which prevented a middle-class tax hike, congratulates the newly sworn-in members of Congress, and looks forward to working with the new Congress in the new year to continue to grow our economy and shrink our deficits in a balanced way.”

*Job creation steady in December, unemployment at 7.8%

*White House sees promise in revisiting elements of ‘grand bargain’ on taxes, spending

*The GOP’s stacked deck (“House majority doesn’t represent the voters’ will.”)

*Hagel likely to be nominated for Defense Secretary next week (I continue to find it amazing that President Obama can’t find a qualified Democrat for this job, even though there are plenty of them. Why?)

*Virginia Abortion, Contraception Bills Proposed In New Legislative Session

*PHOTOS: Virginian Tim Kaine Sworn In to U.S. Senate

*Jim Webb ‘Steps Out’ Of U.S. Senate

*Kaine Hopes New Senators Bring Bipartisanship To Congress

*McDonnell seeks elusive fix for Virginia roads

*Virginia faces possible recession

*What Virginians should know about Teach For America

*Tow truck complaints shifted to Va. AG’s office

*Va localities eligible for federal Sandy aid grows

*Sen. Mike Crapo pleads guilty to drunken driving

*Virginia Beach mayor sets Monday deadline on arena deal

*House District #29 (NLS’ series on all the Virginia House of Delegates districts continues. Great stuff!)

*PM Update: A chilly weekend; slight chance early Sunday light snow or rain

Unconstitutional and Unfair: The Silly VA Law that Could Sink Cuccinelli.

0

by Paul Goldman

On one level, it would be considered poetic justice: a “good government” law championed by what conservatives derogatorily call “do gooder liberals” might sink Ken Cuccinelli’s gubernatorial campaign before it gets started. With the first financial reporting of the 2013 gubernatorial campaign due by January 15, I got to thinking about Virginia Code Section 24.2-954. What does this statute do? It bans campaign fundraising by members of the General Assembly and statewide officials while the state legislature is in session.

Almost every legislator voted to enact the law in 1997. Then-Governor George Allen signed it.

Since then, the law has played no meaningful role in statewide elections. Many other states have similar statutes. A quick check found no objection to the law from those state and federal judges having occasion to consider its legality.

But there has been no definitive challenge to this fundraising ban. There should be. The law, as applied in 2013, is blatantly unfair to Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, along with Democratic Senators Ralph Northam and Mark Herring, both running in the June Democratic primary for LG and AG respectively. It violates the First Amendment rights of all three men. However, the practical dynamics of a statewide Democratic primary will effectively provide no permanent advantage to their opponents, both of whom hold no elective office and therefore are not disadvantaged by Section 24.2-954. The primary isn’t until June: the GA will have been out of session by then for several months. Moreover, any candidate in a low vote Democratic primary who expands a lot of money during the GA Session in order to take advantage of this unconstitutional situation – one candidate can raise money but the other can not – deserves to lose, it is bone-head waste of money.

This, however, is not necessarily the case in the race between Terry MAC and Kenny C. The only time the law might have come into play in a Governor’s race was 2001. Democrat Mark Warner didn’t hold any office; his possible opponents at the time where the sitting LG and AG. But Warner didn’t need to spend any big money; he had a 10% point lead and the Republicans gave us an easy path to victory. Besides, the two Republicans didn’t have major fund-raising potential this early in the 2001 cycle.

This is not true in 2013.

So let’s look at the situation.

As a matter of political strategy, logic says Terry MAC has been working to use the upcoming reporting period as a way to make a “statement” about his viability for governor. In political terms, one of the reasons he won the Democratic nomination without a fight is his demonstrated prowess as a campaign fundraiser. While the general public could care less about this money raising contest between candidates, the fund-raising number will help shape the press “spin” of the race and also perceptions among the power players.

So look for Terry MAC to try and report “blow out” totals. In that regard, all the pressure is on the T-man, not the K-man. The insiders know Cuccinelli can raise a boatload of money in the end.

All true in the long run perhaps: BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SHORT RUN?

In this past presidential election cycle, there is some evidence to confirm data from previous election years: namely, the political advantage gained by one candidate hugely outspending the other EARLY IN THE CONTEST to either build up his/her “favorables” as they are called in the polling business, or raising the “unfavorables” of his or her opponent.

In the political trade, the latter is known as “defining” your opponent. Among many experts in the political world, the Obama campaign is given very high marks for spending heavily on painting Romney with a negative brush. Conversely, the Mittster’s campaign is given very low marks for not responding to the Democrat’s attack.

My own view: The conventional wisdom is correct this time. Romney made a big mistake. Was it fatal? There is no way to know for sure. Moreover, given the 24/7 nature of a presidential campaign, where everything is sliced and diced in media big and small, the actual effects of this mistake on the final outcome is not a useful comparison with a statewide race for governor in 2013.

The better way to use the 2012 campaign experience is thus: If Obama had been running for governor, what would have been the effect of his being given the chance to spend all that money defining Romney without any pushback?

Answer: Possibly fatal for sure. There simply isn’t enough “free” press coverage and interest in a mere statewide campaign for governor. The TV ads and the like have a far greater potential to determine the winner if one side makes a bad strategy decision in that regard.

SO NOW COMES 2013 – and a huge opening for Terry MAC. At least on paper. For the next two months, Terry can raise millions: and Cuccinelli can raise squat. You can’t spend what you can’t raise, although I suppose there might be a way to go into debt if a bank would loan you the money: but is that a campaign contribution? It probably would be.

Meaning: Terry can raise and spend millions if he wants, while Cuccinelli can only defend with the money he has on hand once the GA session begins.

Until we see the campaign reports, we don’t know the level of the K-man’s campaign resources. BUT WE CAN SAFELY MAKE THIS ASSUMPTION: It will not be enough to even the playing field with Terry for the next two months. Not even close.

I have played the chess board from all sides: go negative, go positive, go half and half, go dark as they say, or go huge in one direction or another to try and set the parameters of the campaign. One can make a plausible argument for all of the above. But I will leave that to those being paid to make such decisions.

Instead, let’s focus on what we know for certain:

It isn’t fair, nor constitutional, for a state law to deprive any Virginian, whether you support them or not politically, of their basic First Amendment rights of core political speech, which in our system requires – as a practical matter – access to a lot of campaign cash. That’s reality. Basic constitutional rights in this area likewise include a legal commitment, where possible, to a level playing field.

As best I can tell, the lower courts have upheld the fundraising ban during legislative sessions on the mythology it is part of a legitimate state interest to remove the appearance of legislators being influenced on voting decisions by those giving them money. Thus banning lobbyists and others from giving them contributions during the Session makes these lawmakers more likely to do the right thing. So goes the theory.

I ask you: Have you ever heard such childish nonsense? Does anyone who has not had a lobotomy actually agree with such drivel, do they think we don’t have basically a pay for play system at the GA?

Section 24.2-954 is purely and simply “feel good” legislation. As a practical matter, it just changes the date of the fundraisers and the timing of campaign contributions. In terms of “fixing” the problem, it is a joke. It has had ZERO impact on whatever the law was intended to fix.

BUT HERE IN 2013, IT COULD HAVE A HUGE IMPACT ON THE GOVERNOR’S RACE.

By resigning, of course, the AG would free himself from the fundraising ban. As I have written, his decision to resign or not resign will be a key political test for him for other reasons. But a person should not have to resign from office in order to avoid the unlawful, unfair and unconstitutional consequences of a state law. That makes a mockery of our legal system.

What would I do if I were Mr. Cuccinelli?  This is not an easy call, leaving aside the resignation option. He could continue to raise money, but then he is violating the law and would have to challenge the statute after being so charged. That is lose-lose.

He could seek an injunction, but the barrier to success, namely showing you are very likely to prevail on the merits, is way high especially since if there is a VA case upholding the law.  

He could call on Terry to abide by the same prohibition; it would be a slam dunk winner if he could get Northam and Herring to join in the call. But how likely is this scenario? Worth a try but not likely given the practical politics involved.

He could ask the House of Delegates to pass emergency legislation lifting the ban on the statewide races immediately. That takes a super majority to enact. He would need substantial Democratic support. Would he get it? Probably not. But it might be worth some political points.

Moreover, if Democrats blocked it, this would set up the right climate for a Cuccinelli to file a case in federal court in Richmond should Terry start spending big on TV, especially if the T-man’s campaign ran “negative” ads against the K-man.

At that point, the case would come before the federal courts in the best posture for Cuccinelli, plus it would be front page news and a big story on the TV. Such optics might greatly undercut any advantage Terry’s campaign might think they could get: it might even backfire on Terry. People have a sense of fairness. The situation would not be fair. Everyone would know that instinctively.

ON THE OTHER HAND: If Terry ran only positive, feel good ads, the legal climate might not be all that favorable to Cuccinelli. He would still have the same constitutional claims, but the facts of the case would be far different. It might not seem unfair at all, just part of the process, he knows the rules: he will get his chance to run the same kinds of ads in a few weeks.

BOTTOM LINE: The fund-raising ban has the good intention of trying to make money – what Jesse Unruh famously called the  “mother’s milk of politics” – have less of an influence on key political decision making. Instead, it may do the the opposite big time here in VA in 2013.

In terms of political strategy, if Terry MAC believes he afford a big, early flight of TV, then the temptation to do it is going to be large. Who could blame him really?  At which point, assuming Ken Cuccinelli has not resigned, then the AG will almost surely have to fight back with a lawsuit, either by his campaign, or the GOP.

Normally, the VA AG defends state laws. But it would not be possible for Cuccinelli to defend a law that he was either directly or indirectly trying to have overturned.  So that would prove a little embarrassing. But the larger issue would be: what would the courts do? It would depend, in some measure, on how the case came before the judges, which federal judge even. Could those challenging the law get an injunction? The bar is high. But without an injunction, by the time the court might rule the law unconstitutional, the damage would be done.

ON THE OTHER, OTHER HAND: Pro-Cuccinelli SUPER-PACS might fill the void for the AG. MEANING: This “feel good” VA law would have the practical effect of INCREASING, NOT DECREASING, THE ROLE OF SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY!

The Obama campaign is just the latest to show that an early flight of negative ADS might be a game-changer.  But either way, this much is true: a “feel good” law that has no real practical effect and would, as applied, violate the First Amendment by any reasonable standard in the VA governor’s race should be struck down. You either have the courage of your convictions, or you don’t. I will take the First Amendment any day.

Democratic LG Candidates Weigh in on UVA Rector Helen Dragas

3

(UPDATE: I’m hearing that the Southern Association of Colleges & Schools (SACS), which recently put UVA on “warning,” is itself under investigation by the US Department of Education… – promoted by lowkell)

In this morning’s news roundup, I linked to the Virginia Pilot article on University of Virginia Rector Helen Dragas, and specifically her “tough road to confirmation in the General Assembly after spearheading a controversial effort last June to oust U.Va. President Teresa Sullivan.” I saw that Sen. Ralph Northam, who is running for the Democratic nomination for Virginia LG, was quoted in the story, sounding somewhat “sympathetic” (the article’s adjective) to Dragas. I wanted to check with Northam’s people, as well as with the other Democratic LG candidate, Aneesh Chopra, to find out more.

I first spoke with Aneesh Chopra’s campaign. Their position is basically that, knowing what he knows now, he would not support Dragas’ reappointment to the UVA Board of Visitors. Of course, they emphasized to me, that if Chopra was in a position to vote on this, he’d want to sit down with Dragas and hear her side of the story. He’d also want the entire process to be conducted with openness and transparency, both of which his campaign emphasized are very important to him.

As for Sen. Northam, his campaign told me that more than anything, he wants a fair, transparent process. They noted that a LACK of transparency was a big part of the reason the situation turned into the problem that it did. Thus, Sen. Northam believes there should be a full, fair public hearing on this issue before the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee. Northam also wants to speak with Dragas again (he’s spoken with her previously but has additional questions/concerns),  as well as to talk to UVA President Sullivan and to other members of the UVA Board of Visitors, so he can get the full story. Having said that, Sen. Northam clearly believes that Dragas made some “grave mistakes,” and he has “a lot of reservations” about her reappointment. He’s heard a tremendous amount from constituents on this issue, and people clearly feel VERY strongly about this subject. In the end, Sen. Northam will listen to his constituents, as well as to the facts, and then make a decision.

My position? I agree that Dragas should receive a fair, open hearing. I agree that all facts that should be heard. But having said all that, I find it difficult to imagine what facts could possibly emerge that would outweigh the damage – both actual and perceived – that’s already been inflicted due in large measure to Dragas’ ham-handed, arrogant, foolish, irresponsible behavior. Thus, barring some astounding revelations, I would strongly support Dragas’ reappointment to the UVA Board of Visitors being REJECTED by the General Assembly.  

Rep. Bob BADlatte (R-6th, VA) Votes Against Sandy Relief

1



Gotta love this sorry excuse for a congressman and extreme/extremist hypocrite (click on image to “embiggen” and you’ll see that Bob Goodlatte was one of just a handful of congresscritters voting no earlier today on Hurricane Sandy relief).

This is the same guy, by the way, who after Tropical Storm Lee in 2011, signed a letter to President Obama “supporting Gov. Bob McDonnell’s request for federal disaster aid for damage caused by Tropical Storm Lee Sept. 8 and 9 in Fairfax and Prince William counties.” But when it comes to people in other states who are hurting from a natural disaster, BADlatte’s attitude is for them to take a long walk off a short (or in this case, destroyed or damaged) pier. What a horrible – nasty, mean, hypocritical, you name it – human being.

P.S. Also see here for BADlatte complaining that FEMA denied Gov. McDonnell’s request for federal disaster assistance resulting from tornadoes in 2011.

Climate Change Gave Virginia Record Heat in 2012 – Will 2013 Be Worse?

1

Wind storm damage in Lynchburg, Virginia - June 2012Hottest year on record in DC, likely the hottest year on record in Richmond, the greatest U.S. drought since the Dust Bowl year of 1939 … and New Scientist warns that because global warming is melting Arctic sea ice, 2013 could see even more extreme weather:

Predictions that a major El Niño warming event – and the coming solar maximum – would help make next year the warmest on record now seem wide of the mark. All eyes will probably be on the Arctic instead. Some say the record loss of sea ice in summer 2012 was a one-off, others that it was the start of a runaway collapse. If the latter, summer sea ice could virtually disappear as early as 2016. What is certain is that the ice reforming now will be the thinnest on record, priming it for destruction next summer. […]

Research in 2012 implicated the fast-warming Arctic in a slowing of the jet stream. This is bringing extreme weather to mid-latitudes, including prolonged cold spells in Europe, Russia’s 2010 heatwave, and record droughts in the US in 2011 and 2012. Watch out for more weird weather in 2013.

Learn more about how global warming is fueling extreme weather.