On the Western Banks of the Shenandoah

UPDATE: The Smoking Ban has passed both the House and the Senate. The final tally in the House: 60-39. Since two Dems and two Indies voted against the bill, that means that the final tally for the “Liberty Caucus” of the House GOP is 35. Looks like they picked up three members from the first vote. 

UPDATE 2: Looks like I was wrong. From the comments bellow:

It looks to me as if actually 6 Democrats in the House voted against the conference report: Hall, Shuler, Nichols, Pollard, O. Ware, and Lewis. Along with the 2 Independents, this means that 31 Republicans in the House voted against the conference report.
Voting in favor of the conference report were 21 Republicans and 39 Democrats.

One Republican (Crockett-Stark) was absent today.

Thanks David. I’ll try to put up a more full bodied analysis of the vote later. 

Roughly a week after I first blogged about how the numbers on the smoking ban didn’t shake out to put Speaker Howell’s leadership in a favorable light, the Washington Post has picked up on the same rumblings:

House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith’s dissent provided a glimpse of what some Republicans describe as a long-simmering divide within their caucus. The tensions have worsened as Republicans have debated how to maintain their majority in a state that has been trending from red to blue.

Many delegates say they are frustrated that Howell negotiated a deal for a ban they oppose philosophically and handed a victory to Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who had made a smoking ban a priority for years.

“I’m disappointed in him,” Del. Thomas D. Gear (R-Hampton) said.

Some are privately questioning Howell’s leadership but said they might wait until after November, when all 100 House seats are up for election, before deciding whether to start searching for a new speaker.

Howell shows the typical squeamishness of someone worried about his own election prospects while foolishly abandoning principle to find a winning issue for his “team:”

“I don’t worry about it one bit, not one bit,” Howell said in an interview. “I’ve had this job for seven years, and I’ve been through some pretty difficult times.”

Howell said that if delegates want to vote for a new speaker next year, they should feel free to do so. But he defends his decision to deal with Kaine and the Democratic-controlled Senate, saying that it was right for the state and that two-thirds of his leadership team agreed.

That’s all very well and good, to do the “right thing,” but here’s the problem. Number one, the numbers don’t hold up. If you look at the House GOP leadership as the Committee chairs, the people who owe their power to the Speaker, plus the leadership team, only 9 of them sided with the Speaker, versus 8 who bolted. Number two, your caucus feels betrayed on a fundamental issue underlying the core principles of the party: property and individual rights. And this isn’t the first time, either:

Some conservative Republican activists from around the state say they have harbored concerns about Howell since 2004, when he did not stop then-Gov. Mark R. Warner’s $1.4 billion tax increase. Three years later, he supported a controversial transportation package that some opposed because it led to another tax increase. And they blame him and other elected officials for contributing to a rise in state spending.

Even more laughable is this quote from the speaker:

“Anytime you have a diverse group, people are going to question your leadership,” Howell said. “You’re going to have different opinions.”

It’s ok for Delegates to deviate on issues from time to time as long as the make their reasoning clear to the people who elected them and realize that the activists who granted them their label reserve the right to revoke it during any nominating period. However, when you fundamentally backtrack on an issue such as this, you’re ruining the point of the label. Why award that when, in the middle of the game, when we have the opposition up against the wall, when we’ve made significant changes on transparency, you LITERALLY HAND YOUR OPPONENT THE BALL? This WILL be the Governor’s legacy issue, and Democrats WILL campaign on this. 

Mr. Speaker, thanks for the changes on transparency. You’ve made our government better with that. But with this deal with the opposition for short term political gain, you have put our party’s label and the trust of our loyal activists in serious jeopardy.

In many local debates, be they within a party or faction or in the greater body politics, people who are more oriented towards conservative viewpoints find themselves attracted to arguments based on tradition rather than steeped in modern conservative views of fiscal restraint or simple pragmatism. 

This has played out in a number of ways in recent years in Shenandoah County. The most obvious one is the historic courthouse. Whether or not to keep General District and Juvenile and Domestic Relation Court in the historic courthouse or move it to new digs was heavily debated. This is one of those extreme gray areas, as cost estimates from both sides pointed to their option being the most cost effective.

A less high profile issue is the matter of the Cedar Creek precinct. A few years back there was discussion of doing away with the precinct, which is home to about 150 voters, generally less than one hundred of which vote in most general elections. In just terms of registered voters, the precinct has 700 fewer voters than the next smallest precinct, Columbia Furnace. I understand that the area is rather secluded and away from the greater whole of society–however, I also know that the roads have come a long way from the days of old and that November snowstorms are increasingly rare. At the time, I called on meeting the voters up there halfway and creating a Saumsville precinct that took all of the voters from Cedar Creek and a good chunk from Mount Olive, the polling place of which is just a few miles up the road. In this way it would be closer than the proposed Rt 11 corrdior precincts yet more cost effective for registrars. However, voters back that way wanted nothing to do with that and, citing the unique nature of their community, prevailed in keeping the precinct intact. 

Read more…

Frequent readers of my blog know that budget transparency at all levels of government is a pet issue of mine. The issue has also been gaining steam in conservative circles at all levels of government. Norm over at TQ notes that Senator Cuccinelli’s bill to put the state budget online has passed the first hoop in the House. However, nervous bueracrats are doing everything they can to stop the bill:

It now heads over the the House Appropriations committee because, for whatever reason, the Department of Planning and Budget insists that there is a fiscal impact.

This comes as news both to the folks from General Services and to the state’s Auditor, Walter Kucharski, who told the committee that there is no fiscal impact from the bill and that the Department of Planning and Budget never asked him if for his input on their estimate.

I’ll never cease to be amazed by the sense of entitlement that public officials and bureaucrats have once they have “the people’s” money. Regardless, the always know what’s best for the greater good. 

Meanwhile, Crystal Clear Conservative notes that the issue is gaining alot of traction in Fairfax, particularly after Pat Herrity’s extremely tight campaign for Chairman where he used transparency as a key issue:

Transparency is a hot ticket issue, especially in large, suburban counties like Fairfax, where it seems like every year comes with a new property tax increase. This is the first step towards fiscal accountability. If a taxpayer searches the database and notices that the company is spending $X with this contractor, then they are able to question this at an open county hearing with their Supervisor. In this budget crisis, we need fiscally sound principles more now than ever.

Amen sister. If elected officials are truly doing the people’s work and are basing their decisions on principles, not relationships, then they should have nothing to hide. After numerous controversies about the style of governance in Shenandoah County over the last few years, will any Board of Supervisors candidates take up the call for budget transparency.

If you’re out there, I’d like to hear from you.

The Roanoke Valley Republicans held an excellent debate featuring all three candidates for Attorney General on Tuesday night. Over 300 people came out for the debate, which was well covered in both the mainstream media and the blogosphere. 

For in-depth analysis of the debate, check out Bob Holsworth’s write up. If you’re more interested in the blow by blow, Sandi Bird live-blogged the event here and here. 

Since I wasn’t at the debate I’ll spare you my analysis, but I definitely have some thoughts on this race I shall share later in the day.

The House has rejected the Senate’s amendments to the budget, meaning that the budget HB1600 is now in conference. The Senate based a large chunk of its bill on the incoming stimulus money. The amendments passed fairly easily. However, there were four votes against it (arguably the last four true conservatives in the Senate). One of them, our own Senator Mark Obenshain, wasn’t going to take this laying down. From the Virginian Pilot:

“I cannot stand here and join the Hallelujah chorus,” said Sen. Mark Obenshain, R-Harrisonburg, one of the four dissenting votes on the budget.

“We have one-time stimulus money that has been dropped in our laps by the federal government,” Obenshain said, predicting that the economic recession will outlast the effects of the stimulus money. “We’ll feel better for a couple of months, but we’re not going to feel better in June, July and August.”

Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling has similar feelings:

Given the significant infusion of funds provided by the federal stimulus package, I think the Senate did a good job crafting amendments to restore many of the budget cuts that had been made in the Executive Budget.  However, I fear that this is a short term solution to a long term problem.  By relying on one time federal funds to balance the budget we are not addressing the fundamental structural problem in the budget.  Simply put, we are spending more money than we are taking in and we cannot continue to do that.  Unless we see significant economic growth over the next 18 months, we will once again face massive budget shortfalls when the federal stimulus dollars expire.

I’m glad that someone else can keep their head out of the clouds for just a moment to realize what is fundamentally wrong with balancing the state books with the stimulus. Number one, we didn’t win the galactic lottery–this is money that will come from the pocketbooks of hardworking taxpayers is these Senator’s districts, as well as their children, and likely their grandchildren.

Two, although Obama and other Democrats may have talked about fiscal responsibility and streamlining during the campaign, it was never actually about decreasing government. No–rather it was about making government intrusion into your life more efficient and finding dollars to spend on other social and economic band-aids. By throwing this money to the states, Obama is encouraging already voracious state legislators to continue their spending unabated rather than to fundamentally examine what is wrong with “business as usual” in Richmond. 

Three, and in my view most importantly, this fundamentally breaks down the federalist system in America. By making states far more beholden to the federal government and planting in citizens mind’s the idea that Uncle Sam can save, well, just about anything, Obama has paved the way for a centralized government in which states become little more than administrative areas. How are they doing this? Well, by stripping governors of the ability to say yes or no to federal intervention and rather putting in the hands of the budget writers. From Michelle Malkin:

SEC. 1607. (a) CERTIFICATION BY GOVERNOR — Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, for funds provided to any State or agency thereof, the Governor of the State shall certify that: 1) the State request and use funds provided by this Act , and; 2) funds be used to create jobs and promote economic growth.

(b) ACCEPTANCE BY STATE LEGISLATURE — If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State.

Adam Sharp, one of the best young minds on the other side of the aisle in the Shenandoah Valley (and a worthy foe), tweeted earlier today about a great tool on VPAP. For the uninitiated, VPAP is wonkesse for the Virginia Public Access Project, a non-profit non-partisan group dedicated to gathering and making public as much information about the General Assembly and state elections as possible. All of this information is available through other resources–however, VPAP makes it incredibly easy to look at all the available information about a Delegate’s electoral history, finances, and lobbyist ties in a single glance. 

So what new tool am I addicted to? Why, a handy floor map for both the House and the Senate that visually highlights a number of facts about various legislators. These include gender, party, age, length of service, region, birth state, and margin of victory. Some notes:

• Women have made better in-roads in the Senate (20%) versus the House (16%)
• The House is significantly younger (53% under 55) than the Senate (42.5%)
• 69% of the House was elected after George Allen left Richmond; 47.5% of the Senate was elected in the intervening years 
• The 540 Area Code is the fourth most represented in the Senate and tied for third in the House; remember, though, that its the geographically largest
• The House has more native Virginians (54%) than the Senate (52%); for all you nativists out there, the “come heres” are in check…..for now. 
• Only 11% of the House had a close (less than 10%) election last time, 20% of the Senate has close ones. 
• On the flip side of the coin, 42.5% of the Senate went uncontested, versus 56% in the House. 

A plethora of interesting information is to be had. One minor quibble–the region breakdown is not by pure geographical region but by area code. Honestly, I don’t consider Fredericksburg part of the Valley by any stretch of the imagination. However, the regions are a matter of debate as it is, and not all parts of a region are created equal (note Adam and I’s debate in a recent thread on ethnic varieties in caucasian voters). 

Outside of that one geeky (and admittedly, regionally envious) quibble, an awesome tool and a great addition to VPAP’s veritable cornucopia of useful political info.

CQ Politics has a must read piece about how conservatism and the Republican Party is reexamining not just how it communicates with voters but also what it stands for:

Most troubling, said Smith, is that congressional Republicans, once known for their ability to generate compelling policy ideas, are now struggling to articulate conservative views. Even in areas where Bush held firm to conservative principles, such as environmental regulation, Smith said, liberals have successfully framed the issues in their favor: “Many conservatives believe the popular wisdom about how to address such issues is wrong, but they haven’t found a good way of articulating an alternative.”

I think that is dead on. We’re still struggling to find our voice on many of these issues, and on other issues we have completely squander our competitive advantage (particularly fiscal policy). As a result, we find ourselves slipping back into old ways.

Some prominent conservatives are pressing on in campaign mode, echoing the culture-war style appeals from the McCain campaign, even though such tactics proved largely ineffective in the general election. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio, in opposing the House’s stimulus legislation, argued it “could open billions of taxpayer dollars to left-wing groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now” — the group, known as ACORN, does political organizing of poor people and was the focus of last fall’s GOP ire about potential voter-registration fraud. Both the American Conservative Union and FreedomWorks have since echoed Boehner’s line of attack. Similarly, the popular conservative newsletter GOPUSA, last week revived McCain’s campaign one-liner that Obama’s main motivation was to “spread the wealth around.”

All of that is true and very good for motivating our base, but do we ever stop to think about how this is being perceived by the whole of America? Yes, it is an outrage that Acorn is receiving federal money, but why? Is it because they are “liberal,” or is it because they are a political group taking our hard earned tax dollars to advocate for something that we don’t believe in, or is it because of the fact that they have employees that are curently under indictment? More importantly, at a time when the economy continues to slide at a breakneck place, does the great middle of America even care? Wouldn’t it be more compelling to make the case of why this just isn’t sound economics? That case is being made, but its being muddied by hundreds of dissonant voices on the right. 

This is not to say I have the answers. What I can say, though, is that we have much, much more of this sort of debate to look forward to.

Colleen Campbell at the Ethics and Public Policy Center has a fascinating article up about the uproar over WNBA Star Candace Parker’s decision to start a family at the age of 22:

But Parker’s pregnancy was not greeted with the same approval and tolerance that many of today’s child-bearing sexagenarians and single mothers by choice enjoy when they form their families. Instead, Parker was blasted by fans and pundits for becoming a mother at age 22. Critics bemoaned her selfishness in putting maternal ambitions ahead of her team’s 2009 season prospects. Others lamented her foolishness for starting a family when she should be living a strings-free existence oriented around her glamorous career.

By the standards of some, 22 might be a bit young to start a family. However, unlike  Nadya Suleman, who brought eight children into the world to add to her already large brood without the influence of a father and without any clear means for caring for them other than the fleeting media bonanza surrounding their initial appearance, Parker is happily married and has a stable career. Campbell points out that Parker is grounded in reality and her emotional desires and that her situation is not all that unusual:

For her part, Parker told the Los Angeles Times that she wanted her children to grow up witnessing the athletic career of their young mother rather than arriving after it ends. Although she believes she can return to basketball as a mother, Parker said, “The biggest thing for me is not a matter of if or when [I return] but of coming back with a good balance in my life.”

Parker’s view of motherhood as “a blessing” that will “make me a fuller, happier person” is not as unusual as the media hoopla over her pregnancy suggests. As The Wall Street Journal recently reported, the National Center for Health Statistics has released data showing that the mean age at which American women bear their first babies decreased for the first time since the collection of such data began in 1968. The decline in age among first-time mothers was slight – from 25.2 years in 2005 to 25.0 years in 2006, the latest year for which numbers are available – but the biggest uptick in first-time births was found among women in their early 20s.

It would seem, then, that with this decline in childbearing age that Parker would be held up as an example. Instead, she is the subject of scorn while the Suleman freakshow takes up most of the media’s attention. I am a supporter of individual rights, but it must also be accepted that people inevitably end up in relationships with other people and the world at-large. Society has moved too far afield in this regard, placing the individual’s self-fulfillment above all elese without any regard for others involved.

Gabriel Sherman of The New Republic goes inside the misunderstood, highly caffeinated, just get the scoop world of Politco.com, the news source that took the world by storm during Campaign 2008 with its gossipy but always tantalizing stories:

But Politico reporter Jonathan Martin wasn’t there to chat. Martin pressed Obama about the president’s decision to nominate William J. Lynn III, a former defense lobbyist, to deputy defense secretary and about Obama’s pledge to curtail the influence of lobbyists. The exchange turned tense. “See, this is what happens. I can’t end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I’m going to get grilled every time I come down here,” a visibly exasperated Obama said. Martin wouldn’t relent. “I just wanted to say hello and introduce myself to you guys–that’s all I was trying to do,” the president added. Within an hour, Martin and Politicowriter Carrie Budoff Brown reported the exchange on Politico‘s website: “OBAMA FLASHES IRRITATION IN PRESS ROOM,” the headline read.

It was–as world events go–a small story. But Politico writers and editors are masters of knowing what will make prime time. Within a few hours, both The Huffington Post and Drudge Report linked to the story, and, by that evening, the conservative blogosphere lit up with items detailing the exchange. The next morning, Rush Limbaugh used the exchange to mock the new president (“You’re not supposed to ask The Messiah questions unless he’s cleared it,” he sniffed). By the end of the day, the “affair” had made the rounds on CNN and Fox News.

Although an excellent exploration of the intersection of old and new media and the slow death of traditional print media, it also raises some important questions about just what news is and means to modern society. It seems that as we become a society of specialists, each with our own niche and area of expertise, our thirst becomes not for the why and how but for the what. What will become of the exhaustive investigative report, the veritable “think piece” considering who and what we are as a society.

Indeed, at more than 250 words, this post itself is considered long for the blog generation. Whatever happened to analysis? Is there still room to really dissect it all, or do we just want “the scoop”?

The Corner makes some interesting observations about the setting of yesterday’s historic bill signing for the stimulus spending spree:

Not this time. There was no Congressional procession to the White House. No press conference on the driveway. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Steny Hoyer did not get to stand beaming with pride as Obama signed into law billions upon billions of dollars of democratic spending. Nope. President Obama stood at a lecturn a thousand miles away from Pennsylvania Avenue, and sopped up the applause and credit alone.

The president may have been trying to de-politicize a most partisan bill, and infuse it with his goodwill and high approvals. But the absence of his Congressional allies at the signing of the biggest spending bill in American, make that world, history was notable. He may have said today that the bailout was for all Americans. But the optics of the event said something different: that the credit was his alone.

Obama, it seems, is willing to lead his party with gravity alone, not getting involved in congressional power battles or in a permanent power shift towards the progressive wing of the party. This has already been seen in the way that Organzing for America failed to organize big victories in Northern Virginia during recent special elections, in many parts of which Obama scored big victories last fall. 

The big question: if, and when, Obama will be forced to spending some of his political capital on someone other than himself.