Home Blog Page 2500

UVA Put “On Warning” by Accrediting Body; Calls for Dragas’ Ouster Grow

By
lowkell
-
0

Did you think that the mess surrounding the University of Virginia’s Board of Visitors, and particularly Rector Helen Dragas, was over? Well, think again.

The University of Virginia’s accrediting body has placed the elite public flagship “on warning” for allegedly violating two compliance standards when members of the school’s governing board covertly planned an ouster of President Teresa A. Sullivan, privately asking her to resign in early June and then unanimously reinstating her 18 days later.

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, which accredits schools in 11 Southern states, had accused the U-Va. Board of Visitors of compromising the university’s integrity, not having a formal policy for involving faculty in decision-making, and not following its governance requirements, which forbid a small number of members from controlling the board.

Commission trustees announced Tuesday that they found the university was not in compliance in two of the three cases – those concerning faculty involvement and following governance requirements.

The reaction to this move? So far, from what I can tell, there have been two: 1) the university itself put out a statement (see the “flip”) essentially saying this is no biggie, nothing much to see here, please go back to your holiday shopping; and 2) the reaction of everyone else. For instance, from the UVA Facebook page, there are currently 37 comments on the status update about this situation, of which around 30 are negative (mostly towards Helen Dragas), a few are neutral or inscrutable, and only 1 or 2 seem (possibly) supportive of Dragas. A few sample comments include:

*”Can’t we just get rid of Dragas instead of being put on double secret probation?”

*”Dragas is a disgrace!! Any balls in the [General Assembly]???”

*”This is disgusting. The fact that Dragas is still on the Board is an outrage and the students, alumni and faculty have a responsibility to pressure her to resign immediately”

*”Sadly, this sanction was well deserved. Thanks Helen.”

*”It is more clear than ever. The resignation of Rector Dragas is the only acceptable resolution to this ongoing debacle. Has she no respect for the institution she claims to love but continues to humiliate?”

*”et the Virginia General Assembly know how you feel:” http://www.change.org/petition…

Getting the picture? Need more? Then check out the comments on the Washington Post (where the top-rated comments all seem to be along the lines of “In addition to having no judgment or leadership skills, Helen Dragas apparently also has no shame. She needs to acknowledge the harm she is causing to the University and resign, now.”) or the Richmond Times Dispatch, etc. There’s also a strain of criticism, by the way, of Gov. McDonnell, for politicizing the board and for reappointing Dragas following last summer’s debacle. The question now is, will the General Assembly show some “balls” and take action or not? I’m not holding my breath, that’s for sure.

P.S. The president of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges is Belle Wheelan, who served as Virginia Secretary of Education under Gov. Mark Warner.

Dear Alumni, Parents and Friends of the University,

As you know, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) has been reviewing governance issues at the University since President Teresa A. Sullivan’s resignation and subsequent reinstatement this past summer. SACSCOC announced today that it has placed the University of Virginia “on warning” for one year and will send a visiting team to Grounds in early 2013.

This action does not imply any criticism of the University’s academic quality and programs, nor does it affect the institution’s ability to receive federal aid, including financial aid and sponsored research.

According to SACSCOC, “An institution may be placed on Warning or Probation for noncompliance with any of the Core Requirements or significant noncompliance with the Comprehensive Standards. Additionally, an institution may be placed on Warning for failure to make timely and significant progress toward correcting the deficiencies that led to the finding of noncompliance with any of the Principles of Accreditation. An institution may also be placed on Warning for failure to comply with Commission policies and procedures, including failure to provide requested information in a timely manner. The maximum total time during one monitoring period that an institution may be on Warning is two years.”

The SACSCOC Board of Trustees determined that the University was not in compliance with Core Requirement 2.2 regarding board governance and Comprehensive Standard 3.7.5 regarding Faculty Role in Governance of the organization’s Principles of Accreditation.

The University of Virginia acknowledges the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC). While the decision is disappointing, the University of Virginia pledges to work diligently to address the concerns cited by the commission. For the past several months and in the spirit of continuous improvement, the Board of Visitors and University leadership have been proactively working together to review governance practices and policies to ensure the highest level of transparency, accountability and responsiveness to all those it serves.

Last month, the Board adopted revisions to the Board of Visitors Manual to provide clarity on procedures for electing and removing presidents, set up comprehensive guidelines for evaluating a president’s performance, and provide more direct involvement by faculty in board deliberations.

The Board of Visitors and University leadership will continue to gather research and identify best practices from a variety of sources – including tapping outside experts and resources – so that the University may become a model for higher education governance in the commonwealth and nation.

These are extraordinary times for the University of Virginia and for all of higher education. I appreciate the many ways in which our community of learning has come together these past months and I thank you for your ongoing support as we address the many opportunities and challenges facing higher education.

Sincerely,

John D. Simon

Executive Vice President and Provost

BV Interview: Democratic Virginia Attorney General Candidate Mark Herring

By
lowkell
-
4

This morning I had the chance to speak with State Senator Mark Herring (D-33rd, Fairfax/Loudoun), who is running for Attorney General of Virginia. Overall, my impression of Sen. Herring is that he’s a great guy with a lot of integrity and sincerity, running for AG for all the right reasons, and with a view of the AG’s office that’s a refreshingly stark contrast with Ken Cuccinelli’s lack of professionalism and politicization of the office since he took office. I’d also note that Sen. Herring has proven he’s able to win elections in a “purple,” “swing” area of Virginia.

As you read this interview, I think you’ll agree that the contrast between Sen. Herring and Ken Cuccinelli (and also Cuccinelli proteges Mark Obenshain and Rob Bell, the Republican candidates for AG in 2013) couldn’t be clearer, not just on the issues, but also in terms of Herring’s view that the AG’s office is there to enforce the rule of law and to stand up for mainstream values (and ALL Virginians), not to pursue a political or ideological agenda and to twist the law in order to fit that agenda, as Cuccinelli has done time and again. Finally, my strong impression is that Sen. Herring sees the Office of Attorney General as an important position in and of itself, not just (or mostly) as a stepping stone to higher office as others (e.g., Ken Cuccinelli) have viewed it.

1. Please tell us a bit about yourself and why you decided to run for Virginia Attorney General in 2013.

I grew up in Loudoun County, went to college at UVA and Richmond Law [graduated in 1990], and I wanted to come back to my hometown to practice law…and raise my family in the same hometown where I grew up. My wife and I have been married for 23 years…after about 7 or 8 years of practice I was able to take a little more time away from my practice to put into community service, ran for the County Board of Supervisors in 1999, and to everyone’s shock and surprise I won. [My wife] Laura and I have two children. My daughter is a second year at UVA, and being a UVA grad myself…of course we followed the 17 days of drama this summer with great interest. Our son Tim is a junior at Loudoun County High School, he’s tall (6′ 4″), and basketball is one of the central focuses in his life, and unlike his father he’s quite good. Last year as a sophomore he was a starting forward on the varsity squad. As a parent, it’s been great to see his passion and his hard work get rewarded…

I ran for the Board in 1999 and won. In 2006, I ran in the special [election]. If you remember back in 2005, Bob McDonnell had just won the Attorney General’s race, and he asked Bill Mims, who was my predecessor, to be his chief deputy Attorney General. That created the vacancy in the 33rd, and we won every precinct…Fairfax Democrats really came out, really all over Northern Virginia; we had people volunteering from Winchester and Frederick Counties to knock on doors…[I was] reelected in 2007 and 2011.

I started looking at the AG’s office a lot closer very soon after Ken Cuccinelli took office. The first thing he did, probably before he took office, was his attempt to redesign the state seal, that was like a precursor of things to come I guess. But the first major decision that came out of his office was the incorrect and harmful opinion that our boards of visitors cannot include sexual orientation as a part of their non-discrimination policy.

Soon after that, Cuccinelli filed a civil investigate demand against the climate change researcher at UVA, Michael Mann, and that’s really when I began to look closely at what he was doing…I pulled up the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act on [my laptop] and read it, and I didn’t see how any reasonable lawyer could think that the statute was intented to cover something like that. Not only was it, in my view, outside a reasonable interpretation of what the statute was designed to address, which was to cover contractors who submit false invoices to the state to get paid for work or services they didn’t do…but it was downright unAmerican to think that the powers of the state government could be applied to prosecute somebody for the ideas they had the conclusions they were drawing from their scientific research.  

That’s when I began to see it wasn’t just an isolated action here and there, where you disagree with what somebody in office does, but a pattern of abusing the powers of the office. Obviously, we have stark policy differences, but I also felt as a lawyer and professionally, that Cuccinelli was crossing the line. As a lawyer one of my first obligations is to give my client objective legal advice, and that means you take out your own personal interests and any other prejudices or hopes and set those aside and give your client objective legal advice…then the client makes a decision on what action to take, and you advocate on their behalf as forcefully as you can within the bounds of law and ethics. What I saw was not only were the actions he was taking obviously starkly different in terms of policy choices, but that he was deliberately doing things that seemed contrary to what I thought the law was because he wanted to get to a policy position that was outside the mainstream. As a lawyer, as a legislator, as a citizen, I felt compelled to step forward.

2. Why did you decide to run this cycle?

I began to look closely at running for Attorney General myself over the last year or two, but the ones I saw lining up on the Republican side [other than John Frey, who was “probably a moderate Republican,” but probably had “close to no chance to win the nomination”] – Rob Bell and Mark Obenshain…having served with them, I know what their records are, and they have the records to back up their view that Ken Cuccinelli has done a great job and is a role model to follow. I began to see that we needed to have an Attorney General who understood what the office was about differently, and someone who had the willingness to apply the law evenly and fairly instead of saying it was something other than it was because it helped their personal ambition or ideology.

What got me thinking we needed a major change was not just because I didn’t think the right person was there, but that so much good can be done with the office if the right person were in it.

3. What do you believe the Virginia Attorney General’s main role should be? Which issues, and which interests, should the office focus its time and energy on?

The Office of Attorney General is all about protecting the public interest. That’s why I think it’s so important it is an elected office, because the person who holds it is the one who is able to decide what is in the public interest and what legal resources are going to be directed to what the Attorney General thinks is in the public interest. That’s why it’s important that we have an elected Attorney General, because that person needs to be accountable to the people.

The Office of Attorney General can do so much with the resources it has – over 400 people in the office, probably over half of whom are lawyers – and those resources can be deployed in a lot of different ways, according to what the Attorney General thinks is in the public interest. Instead of hauling off, fighting things like the health care law and blocking environmental protection and persecuting a researcher, those are very costly, they take up a lot of lawyers’ time and resources in the office that ought to be directed in other ways to help other ways to help other people, to help everybody. There are veterans entitled to benefits, why not use the office to help them get the benefits they’re legally entitled to. Why not use the office to protect seniors from financial fraud and abuse…make sure we have a fair marketplace for both businesses and consumers, there are a lot of things the office of Attorney General can do. But because of Ken Cuccinelli’s personal ambition and his ideology, he’s been abusing those powers and resources to pursue those objectives instead of doing what he should be doing, which is helping all the people in these other ways. So, what got me interested in the first place was how Cuccinelli I thought was abusing the powers of the office, but ultimately what made me decide to run was knowing that the right person in the office can do a lot of good for all Virginians. And I think I’m the right person, I’ve got the right kind of experience and know how to do it.

…[Ken Cuccinelli’s] politicization has undermined the credibility of the [AG’s] office, so now when the AG takes legal action or issues an opinion, people don’t really know if that’s based on what the law really is, or if it’s helpful to his effort to become governor or to appeal to the far right on the ideological spectrum. (I asked if he thought the AG’s office had lost credibility at this point.) Absolutely, absolutely. Virginians need to know, if the AG’s going to go after something, it’s based on what the law actually is, not some political objective. And that’s what I hear from the business community as well, what’s important for them is an even application of the law…the concern of [the business people I know] is if there’s an AG who really doesn’t care whether the action that the AG’s office takes is based on the law or not, then they don’t know if they’re going to be wrongly singled out because it helps the AG’s political objectives; that’s a big concern of theirs.

4. How is your experience as a lawyer, county supervisor and state Senator important to both governing and running for office?

I think it’s important, particularly for the office of Attorney General, because…the AG is the chief law officer of the state, sort of the general counsel for the state, and in that general counsel role, you need to have a breadth of experience and exposure to different areas of the law, because there are so many of them, from consumer protection to utility regulation to transparency in government, and a wide variety of legal issues that are going to come up, so having a general practice, having a wide range of experience is really helpful. The combination of over 20 years of a general practice like mine, plus the public policy experience in both state and local government I think is very helpful preparation for being Attorney General. You’ve got to have a solid grounding in both law and public policy; the office of AG occupies the central intersection between law and public policy.

5. If we get the “Obama coalition” – young people, suburbanites, federal employees, Latinos, Asian Americans, African Americans, etc. – out to vote next year, we know that we will win this election. How do you plan to motivate that coalition in an odd-numbered, “off year” election?

The Democrats generally are going to need to make sure they communicate with the voters and talk about the issues that motivated them to come out and vote in this last election…a lot of the same issues, and the stark contrast [with Republicans] exist at the state level as well. If we can talk to the voter groups on those same issues and let them know that the same issues are important again, then I think we’ve got a good opportunity to get them to vote in the upcoming election as well.

For me, I also need to talk a little bit more about what the office of Attorney General is about, so they understand that those issues are relevant to an AG’s race. And if you look at what Ken Cuccinelli’s done and compare that to Obama, that contrast is very clear. Cuccinelli fought against health care, the president fought for it. Cuccinelli been denying climate change, the President realizes we need to do more in alternative energy. We can think of a whole lot of them – women’s rights, LGBT issues (Obama came out in support of marriage equality, while Cuccinelli has used every opportunity to bash the community). [We should be able to] link the Republican AG candidate to Cuccinelli, because they are falling in line and truly believe the same thing. We should be able to get people interested in the state election. War on women…Cuccinelli would not sign onto a letter that other states AGs urging Congress to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act…Maybe it’s time that the state have a conversation about what we’re doing to be like in the future; which vision of Virginia’s future do we want to have?

(I noted that Tim Kaine talked about “divisive social issues” very well in his campaign, as not just some narrow or small issues, but as economic issues for the future prosperity, competitiveness, attractiveness of Virginia. Mark Herring clearly agrees with that view.) It is true, on all of those issues. You could tie going after the climate change researcher; if we’re trying to attract technology companies and cutting-edge research to Virginia’s universities, well how does that square when the AG is hauling off, using the full power of the state government to persecute a research. Same thing with LGBT issues. Business people, regardless of how they feel about marriage equality, recognize that if they’re not more open and friendly they’re going to lose a lot of very talented employees. So it is an economic issue, also where we’re going to be heading as a state. [Cuccinelli’s assault on climate scientist Michael Mann] sends the wrong message about Virginians to other parts of the country and makes people we’re a backward state and hostile to science, which is not the case.

6. Any thoughts on your potential Republican opponent, either Mark Obenshain or Rob Bell?

Their voting records are very similar, and their philosophies are identical, so in terms of how I would view the campaign, I don’t think it would change depending, regardless of which one gets the nomination…Rob Bell said [at a Tea Party rally after the Supreme Court upheld the healthcare law] “we can’t trust the courts to protect your rights anymore.” That is a striking statement [for a] member of the Virginian State Bar and someone who wants to be Attorney General…Both [potential Republican nominees] view Cuccinelli as a role model, they think he’s done a great job, and with Cuccinelli at the top of the ticket, they’re going to continue to defend his policies…and not only that, they truly believe in him…They not only voted for but advocated for the pure version of the ultrasound bill; their records on just about every single issue are just like Cuccinelli’s…

Virginia News Headlines: Tuesday Morning

By
lowkell
-
3

Here are a few Virginia (and national) news headlines, political and otherwise, for Tuesday, December 11.

*Boehner faces ouster threats within GOP

*Republicans must wise up (“The biggest problem the Republican Party faces is not uninspiring candidates or unsound tactics. It is unpopular ideas.”)

*Ryan, Cantor Work to Protect Boehner Plan From Tea Party

*Spotlight not pointed at Cantor

*Grover Norquist goes after plan to raise Virginia gas tax (The response to Grover Norquist on this, and everything else, should be a raised middle finger.)

*McDonnell staff to make Norquist pilgrimage (This is both pathetic and telling. Nice scoop by Julian Walker, who also has a couple more scoops in this morning’s news clips. Seriously, this guy singlehandedly is kicking the Kaplan Post’s pathetic be-hinds.)

*McDonnell mum on future, favors executive authority (The irony is that McDonnell hasn’t really gotten anything done as governor, even with a Republican House of Delegates and roughly even control of the State Senate. #FAIL)

*GOP campaign staffer perpetuated Obama ‘gay sex’ story (Why am I not surprised that a Republican political operative would do something like this?)

*Small group of protesters in Lynchburg urge Goodlatte to help avoid ‘fiscal cliff’

*Editorial: Let this bill burn out (“A state delegate wants to make it illegal to smoke while driving with children.”)

*Keep moving on Beach arena

*Airports authority must clean up its act on nepotism (I agree, but it’s funny the Post is so worked up about this relatively penny-ante stuff, when I don’t recall them railing against the multi-billion-dollar no-bid boondoggle to Bechtel. Of course, the latter’s a major, powerful corporation, while the former are just people.)

*Rep. Bob Goodlatte says more corn goes to making ethanol than feeding livestock

*Arlington County rejects all-electric cabs (For the life of me, I can’t think of a good reason why Arlington County rejected this. I mean, I can think of a few really bad ones, but not a good one…)

*Fairfax schools propose expansion of gifted programs

*Redskins hopeful Robert Griffin III will be able to play Sunday in Cleveland

Danville Chapter of Virginia Organizing Occupy Rep. Hurt’s Office

By
VirginiaOrganizing
-
0

( – promoted by lowkell)

Virginia Organizing members organized a protest at U.S. Representative Robert Hurt’s Danville Office on Tuesday and remained in his office for about two hours to ensure the message was received. Forty participants called on Representative Hurt to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent and to protect social safety net programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

“I believe it’s important we tell Representative Hurt that there are people living in his district that are coming to the age of retirement, and we are worried that we won’t receive the benefits we’ve all worked so hard for,” said Virginia Organizing leader Johnny Mayo. “The wealthiest two percent are not going to be harmed by losing the Bush tax cuts, but the rest of us could be hurt if they decide to cut programs that we all rely on. Do the wealthy really expect us to lose benefits to pay for their tax cuts? It’s ridiculous,” said Mayo.

Virginia Organizing has mobilized across the state to call on Congress to end the average $160,000 tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. Virginia Organizing is a state affiliate of Americans for Tax Fairness, a national group focusing on a fair tax system that works for all people, not just the wealthy.

Ben Wright of Virginia Organizing’s Danville Chapter was most excited about getting the message to the people of Danville. “Representative Hurt won’t meet with Virginia Organizing or hold public meetings to talk to the people about our needs, but he supports keeping the Bush tax cuts even for millionaires and billionaires,” said Wright. “What the federal government does affects our state budget and that affects our local budgets. Three schools are closing because of budget cuts and the last thing we need here in Danville is more tax breaks for the wealthy while we try to figure out how to pay for programs that benefit everyone.”  

New Poll: Virginia Voters Do NOT Want Cuts to Medicare, Medicaid; Prefer Higher Taxes on the Rich

By
lowkell
-
0

undefined

The following poll numbers (also see the “flip” for more) come from Public Policy Polling, for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC).  A few interesting findings that jumped out at me are: 1) Bob McDonnell within 4 points of Mark Warner for U.S. Senate in 2014; 2) any support by Sen. Warner for cutting Medicare and/or Medicaid, including raising the retirement age, would make 33% of voters “less likely” to vote for him (vs. 22% who say “more likely”); and 3) Virginia voters believe President Obama's mandate in this election is far more to focus on jobs (46%) than on the debt (22%). Let's hope our leaders are listening…

New Poll Results:

QUESTION: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Democrat Mark Warner is handling his job as US Senator?


Approve ………………………………………………….54%

Disapprove……………………………………………… 36%

Not sure …………………………………………………. 11%

QUESTION: If the election for Senate were held today, and the choices were Democrat Mark Warner and Republican Bob McDonnell, who would you vote for? 


Mark Warner …………………………………………… 50%

Bob McDonnell ……………………………………….. 46%

Undecided………………………………………………. 4%

QUESTION: If Senator Mark Warner supported any cuts to Medicare and Medicaid benefits, including raising the retirement age or reducing cost of living adjustments, would that make you more or less likely to vote for him, or would it make no difference to your vote? (419 voters, MOE +/-4.8%)

More likely………………………………………………. 22%
Less likely ………………………………………………. 33%
Wouldn't make a difference……………………….. 39%
Not sure…………………………………………………. 7%

Virginia poll: All questions were asked of 877 registered VA voters, Nov. 30 – Dec. 2 2012. MOE +/-3.3%, unless otherwise noted. 

Poll Results from Friday:

QUESTION: In order to reduce the national debt, would you support or oppose raising tax rates on those with incomes over $250,000 a year?

Virginia                Support 63%         Oppose 31%          Not sure 6%

Illinois                  Support 67%          Oppose 27%         Not sure 6%   

New Hampshire    Support 66%         Oppose 29%        Not sure 5%

AVERAGE            Support 65.3%     Oppose 29%         Not sure 5.6%

 

QUESTION: Which do you think more accurately reflects President Obama’s mandate in this election: reducing the debt or investing in job creation?

Virginia*                Debt 22%    Jobs 46%        Not sure 32%

Illinois*                  Debt 23%     Jobs 52%         Not sure 25%

New Hampshire*    Debt 22%    Jobs 49%        Not sure 29%

AVERAGE           Debt 22.3%    Jobs 49%        Not sure 28.6%

 

Virginia poll: All questions were asked of 877 registered VA voters, Nov. 30 – Dec. 2 2012. MOE +/-3.3%, unless otherwise noted. 
Illinois poll: All questions were asked of 800 registered IL voters, Nov. 30 – Dec. 2 2012.  MOE +/-3.5%, unless otherwise noted. 
New Hampshire poll: All questions were asked of 1,018 registered NH voters, Nov 14-15 2012. MOE +/-3.1, unless otherwise noted.

Kaplan/Washington Post Throws in Towel on Virginia Politics Blog

By
lowkell
-
1

Recently, I wrote about the precipitous, almost nauseating decline in the Kaplan/Washington Post’s coverage of Virginia politics. As I pointed out at the time, there’s been a drop of about 70% since February 2012 in the number of Virginia politics articles the Post’s been publishing every month. As for the quality, it’s harder to measure, but I’ve seen a lot of mistakes recently. For instance, there was one article about Jim Moran where they used a photo of Brian Moran, apparently not having a clue that there’s a difference. There was also an article this weekend on the DPVA Central Committee meeting, in which it completely mangled why Terry McAuliffe wasn’t there on Saturday. According to the original Post article (corrected many hours later), T-Mac was in Philly to watch his son play in the Army-Navy football game. In reality, T-Mac’s son plays rugby, not football. Whatever, details details.

Bottom line: the Post’s Virginia Politics blog has been in steep decline with the departures of Rosalind Helderman and other strong reporters from their staff. So their latest move? Instead of putting resources into improving their coverage of Virginia politics, they’ve apparently opted for shuffling the deck around – that is, by killing the Virginia Politics blog altogether! Perhaps they’re hoping that nobody will notice the difference, or that repackaging will help cover for a bare cupboard. Or perhaps, as Ben Tribbett posits, perhaps “This WaPo move is to capture political readers behind its paywall slated for next year. No more free news on Virginia from WaPo.” Hmmmm.

Whatever the “reasoning” here, the bottom line is that the Post has forgotten to be local. Or, perhaps it hasn’t so much forgotten as realized that it simply doesn’t have the resources, dedication, or ability to adequately cover Virginia politics as a crucial election year approaches. No matter how you slice it, that’s a major #FAIL for the Post. The question is whether it’s an opportunity for the Patch, independent political bloggers, and other news outlets like the Virginian Pilot (Julian Walker), Roanoke Times (Michael Sluss), the Washington Times (Dave Sherfinski), and the Richmond Times Dispatch (Jeff Schapiro, Jim Nolan, Olympia Meola, Andrew Cain) to expand?

P.S. No wonder why the Post’s Virginia politics coverage is so bad; they think that spending their time covering utter irrelevance/triviality like this is the best use of their limited resources. That, and plagiarizing independent Virginia political blogs. So lame.

Video: President Obama Says “Right to Work” Laws Really Mean “Right To Work For Less Money”

By
lowkell
-
14

As you know, Virginia is a so-called “right-to-work” state, or as Leslie Byrne calls it the “right-to-be-poor.” For whatever reason, and it’s difficult for me to comprehend why, there are Democrats who actually support these godawful laws, which among other things “restrict freedom of association by prohibiting workers and employers from agreeing to contracts that include fair share fees, and so create a free rider problem…[and also] lead to lower wages and worse safety and health conditions for workers.”

How bad are these laws? A 2011 study by the Economic Policy Institute found that: 1) “Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states”; 2) “The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states” and 3) “The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states.”

In sum, President Obama is absolutely correct that so-called “right-to-work” laws really mean the “right to make less money” for employees. Of course, the corporations make out quite nicely, which is why they spend so much money lobbying and pushing for states to enact these laws. That should tell you all you need to know.

P.S. For more information on the negative impact of these Orwellian “right-to-work” laws, see What “Right to Work” Would Mean for Michigan (e.g., “while promoting free association and individual liberty sound noble, the use of such concepts to advance RTW legislation belie a less lofty motive: to undermine the economic and political power of wage-earners”)

Virginia News Headlines: Monday Morning

By
lowkell
-
4

Here are a few Virginia (and national) news headlines, political and otherwise, for Monday, December 10.

*Obama, Boehner meet one-on-one, discuss ‘cliff’

*Lawrence O’Donnell Confronts Gingrich: Asks Him To Apologize For Predicting Clinton Tax Increases Would Lead To Downturn

*Top Senate Democrat Rejects Raising Medicare Eligibility Age

*Conservative Pundits: Accepting Same-Sex Marriage Is Common Sense (It’s also inherently conservative, in the sense of keeping the government out of people’s private lives unless there’s an overriding reason it needs to be involved. Hey Ken Cuccinelli, I believe that’s known as a “first principle!” LOL)

*Battleground Poll: Most back path to citizenship (Make that a whopping 62%-35% in favor, with 77%-19% support for the DREAM Act. Not even close.)

*Repairing America’s elections (This is badly needed.)

*Editorial: Gov. McDonnell offers budget hope (“Whether to protect localities and absorb federal cuts is not up to him alone, though.”)

*Alexandria Del. Herring elected Va. Dem leader

*In run for governor, Cuccinelli will have to reunite Republicans

*Board Members ‘Dismayed’ at Garvey’s Allegations

*Report: SEAL Team 6 member killed in rescue of doctor

*Sunday Q&A with Cale Jaffe

*Christina Nuckols: Road woes pose danger to public schools

*Growth study says more mass transit needed

*For RGIII, glory, pain and anxious waiting

*Griffin goes down, Redskins step up (“Washington survives the loss of its rookie QB and pulls off a last-minute comeback, then beats Baltimore in overtime, 31-28.”)

State Sen. Bill Carrico isn’t a Big Fan of City Voters

By
Eric Steigleder
-
5

( – promoted by lowkell)

If at first you don’t succeed, propose legislation that disenfranchises Virginia voters to achieve your own petty political ends.

Not exactly a catchy mantra.

But that hasn’t stopped Republican state Sen. Bill Carrico from trying. While we probably won’t see this verbose phrase appearing on bumper stickers around the Commonwealth anytime soon, Carrico is hard at working trying to codify this equivalent of a temper-tantrum into law.

In anticipation of the 2013 General Assembly session (which kicks off on Jan. 9) Carrico has introduced legislation that would completely change how presidential elections are conducted in Virginia.

The bill, SB723, would demolish the winner-take-all approach that we currently practice, and replace it with a system that apportions votes according to congressional districts. Currently, only Maine and Nebraska have adopted this model.  

The other 48 states employ an archaic and wholly outdated method of apportioning votes: population and numbers.

Here is Richmond Sunlight’s description of this wrong-headed bundle of legalese:

“…The Commonwealth’s electoral votes shall be allocated by congressional district. Receipt by a slate of presidential electors of the highest number of votes in a congressional district constitutes the election of the congressional district elector of that slate. Receipt by a slate of electors of the highest number of votes in a majority of congressional districts constitutes the election of the two at-large electors of that slate. In the event no slate receives the highest number of votes in a majority of districts, receipt by a slate of the highest number of votes statewide shall constitute election of the two at-large electors of that slate.”

Did you get all of that? Need a Tylenol? A moment to lie down? If you’re still with me after that, then please consider the practical ramifications of Carrico’s theoretical model:

Had this method been in place during the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney would have won nine electoral votes to Obama’s four.

That’s right. Although the President won a clear majority in Virginia, Carrico’s plan would have allowed Romney to ignore popular will and saunter off with an overwhelming victory in the Old Dominion.

And if that isn’t a clear-cut case of voter disenfranchisement, I don’t know what is.

Of course, Carrico has been quick to point out that his bill is in no way an attempt to sabotage the political process. On the contrary, the Republican senator argues that his bill is a courageous defense of rural voting rights. But even a sixth grader in civics class will tell you that when you introduce a law that allows the guy who received the most votes to lose, you’re probably doing something wrong.

Luckily, Carrico’s attempt to enshrine sore loserdom into Virginia election law, even as he seeks to pass it off as a means of rural social mobility, is a painfully obvious one. You see, political overreaching tends to illuminate one’s ulterior motives. And Carrico’s bill is so extreme, so fueled by defeat, that his ulterior motives are on display for all to see. As the old saying goes, “sunlight is the best disinfectant,” and it seems Carrico forgot to close the window.

But then again, are we surprised? He may claim to embody the Jeffersonian paradigm of the disinterested citizen-politician, but this is the same man who introduced costly legislation to test unemployment recipients for drugs, sought to increase concealed-carry rights on school grounds, and perhaps most egregious of all, asserted that bullets produced in Virginia are not subject to federal law.

And now we are to believe that Carrico purged himself of his extreme partisan considerations for the sole purpose of drafting this bill?

Even as an idealist, I have my doubts.

We can all agree that empowering an electorate and increasing involvement is always a positive step. The problem is, the senator’s bill doesn’t do any of that. Subverting the will of the majority in order to appeal to a small base of supporters isn’t increasing equality, it’s strengthening disparity. And that’s anathema to the ideals Carrico claims to support.

Bearing Drift Over a Cliff

By
KathyinBlacksburg
-
2

There’s a new meme floating around that Republicans freed the slaves shortly before the Civil War ended, so therefore modern Republicans deserve the credit. A recent blog post by JR Hoeft’s Bearing Drift shows just how pathetic is the attempt to recast today’s GOP as the savior of Americans, including minorities. Hoeft conflates union membership with slavery and goes full throttle into a minefield of insult piled upon BS. As wingers are wont to do, he leads off quoting responsibility, free markets and individual liberty. But as his column unfolds, you learn he does not have individual liberty in mind at all, only the right to work for less, the inability to work for a union (even if one wishes to) and  economic serfdom for the 99% in the guise of right to work. It is, after all, only the employers’ rights Hoeft really cares about. There are so many layers of fabrication in his post, it will take a few paragraphs to unpack the falsehoods. But first I must address the most glaring issue in his column.

The first problem with JR Hoeft’s faux argument is that he creates an absurd and odious false equivalence between union states and slavery. This is as self-serving, pathetic, and outrageous a blog post as I have seen in a while. You have to be a really sick puppy to pretend that being in a union is anything even close to being enslaved. Or that receiving higher wages for your work is a bad thing. Leave it to Hoeft to suggest just those things, though. But what does entitled winger Hoeft know about slavery? Indeed what do any “Caucasians” know of it? What do most Americans living to day know about it? Most of all, do not insult by pretending that working for a higher wage compares to slavery.

Another absurdity is Hoeft’s implication that modern Republicanism will save the day for workers and those whose ancestors were once slaves. But today’s GOP is the antithesis of a party working for real civil liberties for all. Even as I write this, the GOP is working to disenfranchise more minority voters, while falsely pretending now to be “on their side.” For the past ten years, every hanging chad, every voter wrongfully dumped off the voting rolls, every person sent a phony message about either the date of the election or a pretend change to the voter’s polling place was nothing more than endemic GOP racism. What individual liberty is he talking about exactly?

And if that is not bad enough, GOP celebrities fall all over themselves with their racist attacks on President Obama, and more recently Susan Rice. A brain-dead Republican leader and former presidential candidate declared Dr. Rice, with a degree from Oxford, “not that bright.”  Republicans have rammed through laws reversing Civil Rights laws, such as the Teapublican reversal of North Carolina’s antidiscrimination law.  But you know, modern Republicans are the essence of an egalitarian society (gi-normous snark). It is hard to know where to start with Hoeft’s insufferable load of bull.

Additionally, beneath the text and between the lines, Hoeft doesn’t want voters to know the sordid history of the Dixiecrats (rabid racists from the Democratic Party) being wooed by and joining the GOP, some as early as the late 1940s. The purpose of the merger was for the resident party racists to pull off The Southern Strategy. Nor does Hoeft tell his wrong-wing voters that most of the worst of the race-baiters bailed on the Democratic Party when it supported desegregation and the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s. Yes, the very same Voting Rights Act today’s Republican Party wants repealed. It is appalling, really, that JR Hoeft dares to present a similarly obnoxious, odious, revisionist spin on history. And it is all part of the orchestrated effort to pretend to be on the side of workers in general and African Americans in particular, which in at least the past 50 years the GOP has never been. No, Hoeft doesn’t want voters to know that either.

But guess who does know that? That’s right – minorities in America know better. Hoeft’s real audience is Teapublicans, who want to believe they are not racist so they won’t feel bad about themselves when their political party (and the corporate CEO union-hating/worker despising hogs they so dearly love) stick it to auto workers in Michigan yet again.

They simply hate that President Obama breathed new life into America’s own auto industry. And they do not want to shoulder the blame they deserve for agreeing with the offshoring of US jobs, which is the real reason for the extreme poverty in Michigan and elsewhere. The GOP offshored and then union-busted them into near oblivion, and then wants to blame unions!  The fact is that unions brought millions of people into the middle class. Today’s Republican (Patrician) Party doesn’t like that much.

Hoeft also falsely suggests that non-“Right-to-Work” states force union membership on people. If anything, today more workers would join unions were it not for the ALEC and Republican-driven union-busting efforts, which is really what Hoeft is advocating. Since unions’ inception, robber barons and their mouthpieces have tried to destroy them. Why let a worker earn a livable wage when they can make them take subsistence earnings?  And then Hoeft equates unions to slavery?

There is also the not-small problem of the facts getting in the way of Hoeft’s deception. Media Matters show how wingers are misusing data to make their claim. I love this particular refutation, because none other than the reprehensible Steven Moore is trying to get away with yet another evisceration of the facts. I can hardly wait till Hoeft falsely argues that Media Matters is “socialist.” What it is, in reality, is a fact checking organization founded by a former Republican sick of all his own party’s (now his former party’s) blatant disinformation.  

In a study at Hofstra, cited by Media Matters, Dr. Lonnie Stevans found that “There Is No Significant Difference In Capital Formation Or Employment Rates” Between States With Right-To-Work Laws And Those Without Them. (From a 2009 study by Dr. Lonnie Stevans at Hofstra University.

In this paper, the average differences in business conditions, employment, personal income, wages and salaries, and proprietors’ income across states that have enacted right-to-work laws versus those states that did not, are examined assuming that the legislation is endogenous and controlling for state real economic growth, region, and year. Although right-to-work states may be more attractive to business, this does not necessarily translate into enhanced economic verve in the right-to-work state if there is little “trickle-down” from business owners to the non-unionized workers. While the number of self-employed is higher and business bankruptcies lower on average in right-to-work states, there is no significant difference in capital formation or employment rates, ceteris paribus. In addition, per-capita personal income and wages are both lower, yet proprietors’ income is higher in right-to-work states. [Berkeley Electronic Press, accessed 5/19/11]

Even data reported during the Bush Administration finds workers made more in union jobs than non-union jobs.  And yet Hoeft lies with statistics. Interestingly, now since 2011, the National Compensation Survey has been scrapped. I cannot imagine why they would want to do that (snark)!

There is more evidence here, here, here, and here. As one of the charts in the last citation show, median union wages of $47,684 beat non-union median wages of $37,284, more than a $10,000 a year difference.

Union workers also have better benefits, including health insurance and pensions, than non-union workers. The bottom line is simply this: don’t trust J.R. Hoeft, or other ruinous-for-the-99-percent Republicans, as the arbiter of what is good for Michigan – or any other state’s – workers. With a Koch-friendly governor implanted in Michigan, the GOP hopes to wipe out ordinary workers and what’s left of good paying jobs there.  It wants to crush the remnants of the autoworkers’ union.  And Michigan will never fully recover if that happens.

One more thing: “best for business,” tends to mean good for employers, not workers. But Hoeft tries to snooker the reader on that one too. He even trots out a Bible verse to pretend to take the high ground!!! You have to read it to appreciate how phony and hypocritical Hoeft will go in his sophistry, sleight of hand, and manipulation.

To sum up, despite all the other disinformation in Hoeft’s brainless utterances, there is nothing as unforgivable as his false equivalence between union membership and slavery. Nothing that has ever occurred within in the US compares to slavery in its cruelty and disrespect for humanity. It is long past time to stop the false equivalence.  

1...2,4992,5002,501...3,299Page 2,500 of 3,299












EVEN MORE NEWS

POPULAR CATEGORY

©