Here we go again. Gov. Bob McDonnell wants to walk in the footsteps of George Allen and shrink the big, bad, state government. When Allen tried that, it was simply a smokescreen for his radical conservative agenda. He was more interested in  vouchers for private schools and privatizing mental health and child support services than in ending unnecessary state spending.

Conservatives in the GOP always throw around this budget figure: “State spending over the past decade has grown 73 percent in the past 10 years.” NOT TRUE.

The figure bandied about by those who begrudge any state revenue going to anyone except themselves includes directed funds, such as money that gives tuition help to state colleges. According to the latest JLARC report, the actual increase in state spending for the General Fund  in the last 10 years is 46 percent.

If one is honest and corrects that figure for inflation and state population growth (10 percent), the state budget has grown only 8 percent over 10 years, or less than 1 percent per year. That is hardly profligate state spending.

However, here we go again…

Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw (D-Fairfax) told the Washington Post, “I’ve heard it all before. If it makes sense, we’ll do it. If it doesn’t make sense, we won’t.”

One “plan” of McDonnell’s is a sub-committee of his new Commission on Government Reform and Restructuring that will look into selling off the state ABC stores. The people on the sub-committee represent liquor retailers, wholesalers and distributors.

Well, isn’t that coincidental? The very people who would benefit the most from the General Fund losing $100 million per year in revenue by the sell-off of state liquor stores will make the recommendation to the governor about whether to sell the stores or not….

The Washington Post has looked back at some of the recommendations made by the group George Allen set up when he was governor from 1994-1998. Back then, they wanted to eliminate 16,000 state jobs. Allen actually eliminated about 10,000 jobs. At least it was fairly easy for the state employees who found themselves out of a job to find a new one since the Clinton economic boom was in full force.

This time, the people who lose state jobs will simply join the ranks of those unemployed during the “Wall Street Greed Great Recession.” Besides, it will be mighty hard for McDonnell to find other jobs to slash after the adoption of a budget that will result in anywhere from 25,000 to 35,000 fewer state and local jobs.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that periodic looks at how tax money is spent isn’t laudable. It actually would make good business sense for such a review to be done regularly, as long as it is done by some group that doesn’t come to their mission with a preconceived viewpoint driven by ideology. (Actually, we already have JLARC that does a fine job analyzing the budget.)

That is my main objection to McDonnell’s commission. Like the earlier one set up by George Allen, it will approach its job with biases firmly in place: no new taxes and lower tax rates for those already in place, with most cuts occurring in services to the poorest and the weakest members of our society.

That’s not how effective businesses seek greater efficiency. That’s simply a recipe for making Virginia a meaner, crueler place.

Ex-Gov. Doug Wilder, who has always been a budget hawk himself, has suggested a couple of ways to cut the state budget. He suggests McDonnell engage in video conferencing when possible instead of traveling and that the state budget cycle be changed to an annual one.

I might add to that list a look at whether Virginia should remain the only state in the U.S. that retains independent cities, which means that cities duplicate the governance of counties. The practical result is separate police departments, fire departments, court systems, etc. There should be savings possible if that situation is somehow modified.

I will give McDonnell credit for one thing, if he actually means it. He says that any savings identified by his commission will be put back into the General Fund to mitigate some of the draconian cuts to state services in the upcoming biennial budget.

Thanks to Tom Whipple for the Tuesday “Clips.”

1. VA. GOVERNOR TO NAME TEAM TO RESHAPE, SHRINK OPERATIONS

2. MCDONNELL ROLLS OUT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE

4. CUCCINELLI: VA. WON’T RELEASE SOERING WITHOUT COURT ORDER

5. HUGO, O’BANNON TO COMPETE FOR HOUSE GOP CAUCUS CHAIRMAN

7. PHILADELPHIA MAN ACCUSED OF THREATENING TO KILL CANTOR

11. OBAMA TO SIGN STUDENT LOAN LEGISLATION IN VIRGINIA

12. ALLEN SEARCHES FOR A FUNDRAISER, DEFENDS CUCCINELLI; STAYS MUM ON SENATE RACE

13. MCDONNELL INAUGURAL FUND GIVES $25,000 TO CHARTER SCHOOL

15. VA. TO EXPAND BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICE FOR STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES

24. KILLING JOBS TO SAVE THEM?

28. NASA PLANS $1.5 MILLION CLEANUP ON EASTERN SHORE

33. D.C., MARYLAND STRUGGLE TO BOOST SHARES OF METRO FUNDING

“[Cuccinelli] is a very good lawyer, I think he’s doing a good job as Attorney General.”

“It’s not unusual for an Attorney General to file suit.”

In other words, Bob McDonnell and Ken Kookinelli are BFF – best friends forever.  Sweet, ain’t it?

“We’re working together very well.”

“The Attorney General’s a strong conservative, as am I.”

“…people that would say things to the contrary about there being some strife between our offices simply isn’t true.”

“…if you agree with people most of the time, then you’ve got a good relationship, and that’s what we have with the Attorney General’s office.”

UPDATE: Also, see George Allen’s letter about his “friend” Ken Cuccinelli. I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised to see a guy who voted 96% with George W. Bush now embracing the most extreme wing of his party and the craziest views thereof. Sadly, it’s not surprising that any of this is coming from “Felix Macacawitz.” Still, it’s going to be fun letting everyone know how little Allen’s changed if he decides to take on Jim Webb for Senate in 2012.

This should go without saying, but I strongly condemn threats of violence, let alone actual violence, against Eric Cantor, Tom Perriello, Tom Perriello’s brother, or anyone else.  It simply has no legitimate place in American politics and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Period.

In this case, it appears the guy threatening Eric Cantor and his family is a madman who also has threatened many other political figures, including Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. In other cases, like with Tom Perriello and his brother, the threats were made by right-wing activists and bloggers (ostensibly) angered by the passage of health care reform legislation.  And, I’d note, the threats against Tom and his family came after 1 1/2 years of vicious invective, dehumanization, and demagoguery by leading Republicans – including the GOP’s 2008 presidential and vice presidential nominees, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, etc. – against Democrats, against Barack Obama, etc. Do Republicans and right-wingers really believe that using the kind of language and imagery they’ve been using will have no impact at all?  If not, they clearly haven’t studied the history of the 20th century.  

Speaking of the type of language that should never be used in our Democracy, I was very troubled to read this. I’ve known Bearing Drift’s Jim Hoeft for several years now, and although  he’s a staunch conservative and we disagree on most issues, I’ve never thought of him as advocating or condoning political violence in the least bit. Which is why I was surprised to see him using phrases like “before we start taking any sort of violent action against anyone else” and “let’s let the judicial process play itself out before we do anything violent.” Excuse me? “Before?”  How about “never?”

I emailed Jim Hoeft to ask him if he wanted to clarify his remarks, as I found them highly troubling. We went back and forth a few times, but in the end Hoeft agreed that violence or threats thereof are “unacceptable,” although Hoeft added the phrase “in our current political climate.” I’m not sure if we differ here nor not, but just to be clear, the correct answer is: in our Democracy, violence or threats of violence are never acceptable, in the current political climate or any other climate. Sure, if some day our Democracy is overthrown by a tyranny, that could be a different story. But that’s totally hypothetical, pretty much science fiction, so why even talk about it?  Not only do I see no need to do so, I also see the potential danger to more…uh, “excitable” individuals in discussing such things as even within the realm of possibility.

By the way, I strongly approve of the comments by conservative activist and blogger Brian W. Schoeneman, who writes, “The angry rhetoric needs to stop, as does the idea or belief that a violent overthrow of our government is even a possible course of action in response to these issues.”  Schoeneman adds, “it would be helpful if Republican elected officials would stop letting our activists get away with that kind of talk.”  I couldn’t agree more, but I’m not holding my breath on this one.

UPDATE: Jim Hoeft comments further at Bearing Drift.

So – do I advocate violence if health care is upheld as the law of the land by the judiciary?

No. No. Hell, no.

My point is that violence is never appropriate in our current Republic to make political points.

[…]

The public has no appetite for violence. It is unacceptable and worthy of condemnation. It shouldn’t even be considered as a course of action given our political climate.

Virginia Tech Adjunct Professor and former Virginia Lieutenant Governor candidate Mike Signer takes on “demagogues,” brick-throwing “Tea Party” activists, and “melodramatic opportunists like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.”  Signer’s key points:

1. “Ad hominem attacks can backfire…ad hominem attacks against opportunists like Beck and Palin can often backfire, making them both more popular and even more sympathetic.”

2. “Help educate people about our constitutional traditions…the chattering class must translate its concern about stability into forceful, thoughtful, sustained attempts to educate the citizenry about the systemic dangers of demagogues.”

3. “Extreme opportunists usually self-destruct…Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, even the nativist Lou Dobbs (rumored last year to be looking at a presidential run) may look longingly at actual national power. But they will most likely collapse if they actually seek it and refuse to let go their demagogic ways.”

4. “Side with the people and show them results…[Democrats] should focus on direct job creation people can see, rather than economic theories they have to believe.”

I particularly agree with Signer’s last point, that Democrats need to ramp up efforts aimed at helping “Main Street,” perhaps along the lines of a modern-day “Civilian Conservation Corps,” “Works Progress Administration” and “National Youth Administration.”  Let Republicans fight for rich people and Wall Street, while Democrats fight for working people and the middle class. That’s not just the right thing to do economically and morally, it’s also the smart move politically. Can we say “no brainer?”

As we know, Ken Cuccinelli continues to waste Virginia taxpayer’s money, as well as the time of the Attorney General’s office, pursuing his wild goose chase against health care reform. What makes this even more of a waste is that, as this morning’s New York Times points out, there’s almost no chance of Cooch’s lawsuit succeeding. To the contrary, the Times writes, the attempt is “sure to be ineffective.” Why not? Two reasons.

First, as I pointed out the other day, the “mandate” to purchase health insurance isn’t much of a “mandate,” if it’s a “mandate” at all. Instead, as the Times notes, “[t]he penalties for not buying insurance have been structured as a tax, to be collected by the Internal Revenue Service.”  There are also huge subisidies in this legislation to help people get health insurance. Combined, it’s not so much a “mandate” as a combination of incentives (subsidies) and disincentives (taxes); nothing new, certainly nothing unconstitutional. Combined with the fact that “most policies are sold and claims paid through interstate commerce,” this makes the new law “bullet-proof,” or at least “a long shot that the Supreme Court would invalidate the mandate, if the cases ever reach that level.”

Second, regarding the “states sovereignty” argument, the bottom line is that “[n]o state is required to set up an exchange...[n]or is any state required to participate in Medicaid, a joint federal-state program in which Washington pays half or more of the costs.”  

If no state – including Virginia – is required to participate in  setting up health insurance exchanges, then how can it be an infringement on “state sovereignty” (to the extent there is such a thing)?  Short answer: it can’t. To the contrary, all Ken Cuccinelli is accomplishing here is to waste our taxpayer money and to distract his office from its main job — cracking down on crime! So much for “tough on crime” Republicans, I guess.  In the end, it’s 99% certain that Cooch’s lawsuit will end in failure. In the meantime, however, as the New York Times concludes, he and his fellow right-wing warriors are “doing a disservice to their constituents.” Not that this will stop him, of course…

UPDATE 9:25 am: David Frum tweets, “Repeal is literally impossible. GOP cannot over-ride Obama veto even if they win evry single Senate seat in 2010…Promising repeal stokes rage in GOP base but promises results that cannot be delivered.”  In other words, this is politically dangerous for the GOP, but go for it guys! 🙂