Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling bows out of race for governor, leaving Cuccinelli as the GOP crown prince

I didn’t think I’d say I’d be sad to see Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling drop out of the race to become Virginia’s next governor, but 2012 has been a year of many twists and turns.

On Wednesday, Gov. Bob McDonnell’s side-kick in the executive mansion announced he would no longer be seeking the GOP nomination to become Virginia’s next governor. Instead, that award will fall into the lap of Virginia’s Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli.

In his e-mail announcement that he would no longer be seeking the governorship in Virginia, Bolling stated that a switch “in the nomination method pulled off by Cuccinelli supporters last summer – from a statewide primary to an “exclusive” party convention”[1] – had created too many barriers. Bolling didn’t mention whether he would seek reelection as lieutenant governor in 2013.

On the same day as Bolling’s announcement, Cuccinelli issued a statement that “praised” Bolling for his service to the public. Cuccinelli stated, “Throughout the race, I have kept to the promise that Bill and I are allies in governance, even if temporary competitors in politics.”[2] It’s easy to be so gracious in victory.

Now that the dust has settled, somewhat un-climatically, Cuccinelli will square off against the former head of the national Democratic Party, Terry McAuliffe, a successful businessman[3] and political administrator.

It is possible that former U.S. House member Tom Perriello will throw in his hat for Virginia’s governorship, but so far Perriello has publicly indicated no interest.[4]

Many political insiders feel that Bolling gave the Republican Party the best chance of remaining in the executive mansion come 2013. Cuccinelli has a loyal base of supporters, but the common belief is that his base of supporters won’t be enough to catapult him to victory against the Democratic nominee due to his less-than-moderate views.

However, as Mitt Romney demonstrated during the 2012 presidential election, political images can be reshaped to fit the purpose of the candidate if given enough time. While President Obama’s campaign team did a great job of framing Romney as an out-of-touch top executive born into a world of privilege, he almost managed to overturn this image in the waning days and weeks of the campaign.

Anything is possible in politics, as in life. Luckily for political junkies, it seems like this year’s race for governor is going to be as exciting as the personalities running.

---

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/bill-bolling-to-drop-out-of-va-governor-race/2012/11/28/4b57a908-3916-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_blog.html

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/bill-bolling-to-drop-out-of-va-governor-race/2012/11/28/4b57a908-3916-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_blog.html

[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/21/AR2010052104043.html

[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/bill-bolling-to-drop-out-of-va-governor-race/2012/11/28/4b57a908-3916-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_blog.html

Richmond City Council approves Washington Redskins package deal in accelerated procedure

After some last-minute wheeling-and-dealing, the Richmond City Council approved Mayor Dwight C. Jones’ “economic development package” that will construct a new training camp facility for the Washington Redskins and allow two substantial hospital expansions, all to the tune of $9 million . In addition, the package will also include financial help for Richmond schools.


In typical Richmond City Council fashion, a list of “enhancements” were compiled into the approved resolution on Monday and passed the same night in an accelerated procedure. Obviously the council was anxious to finish this piece of legislative business in a hurry.

Among other pieces of legislation that helped the Redskins deal get approved, the package includes $6.3 million worth of commitments to Richmond school facilities over the next decade.

Jones commented, “We worked feverishly to get it done. It was a complicated deal where each piece of the puzzle was very important.” Is it cynical to suspect that Jones wanted something big politically to put his name on?

Thus, under some of the favorable negotiated portions of the package for Richmond school facilities, the council voted unanimously to approve it. As part of the package, the Bon Secours Richmond Health System will make an annual payment of $33,000 for the Westhampton property and set aside $100,000 a year for Richmond school projects over the next decade.

The package also commits Richmond to maintain current levels of capital-budget funding for schools in addition to allocating tax revenue and lease payments from the Redskins deal to the Richmond school system.

It’s difficult to argue with the merits of this package, unless of course you’re a Richmond city resident living near the new Redskins training facility. The traffic will be even worse when the camp is open to the Redskins!

That said, Richmond city schools in particular can use all of the additional funding it can get.

This time around, there isn’t much to criticize the council or the mayor about. Three cheers for the city of Richmond, a rare political home run was just hit!

http://www.timesdispatch.com/sports/professional/football/redskins/redskins-deal-passes-after-last-minute-negotiations/article_f7f39b5d-40f7-5bad-96b6-43805b42f04b.html

http://www.timesdispatch.com/sports/professional/football/redskins/redskins-deal-passes-after-last-minute-negotiations/article_f7f39b5d-40f7-5bad-96b6-43805b42f04b.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/school-budget-task-force-questioned-on-commitment

New Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) study highlights unsound road-building process

In a report released on Monday, the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) confirmed what Virginians have long known: Virginia’s process for building roads doesn’t make much sense. However, the report highlights some of the glaring reasons why Virginia’s road-building process is so backwards.[1]

According to SELC’s report, more independent oversight and increased transparency is needed to ensure the increasingly public-private partnerships to fund major road projects serve the interests of the commonwealth and its inhabitants.

In their report, SELC further noted that through the 1995 Public-Private Transportation Act, decision-making authority for road projects has increasingly come under the umbrella of Virginia’s governor. The act does not require authorization from the Virginia legislature to approve a road project. Just as concerning, the act is being increasingly used to bankroll road projects as the commonwealth runs dry on money for new construction.

Jim Regimbal, the study’s author, recommends the General Assembly take back some of the authority by requiring legislative approval of state subsidies on each road project and whenever tolls are proposed.[2]

According to Del. Jimmie Massie, however, “The practical effect of that [greater inclusion of the Virginia legislature in the road-building process] would be to kill the program.”[3]

Regimbal’s recommendation may also be a problem because it seems that many of Virginia’s legislators are all too willing to shift responsibility, and the potential for political liability, to the governor’s office. Especially considering the non-tax political platforms of many Republicans in the General Assembly and the governorship of fellow Republican, Bob McDonnell, the incentive for Republican legislators in particular to “pass the buck” to the governor on road projects seems considerable enough. On the one hand, you’re raising state revenues while avoiding the stigma of increasing taxes.

But as Virginia has tightened its belt financially, big spending projects with little transparency are being scrutinized more and more. As Regimbal stated in the SELC report, “How was the decision arrived at concerning the allocation of state funds between the tunnel projects and the new Route 460?”[4] It’s a good question and it’s one that Virginians will want answered sooner rather than later, accompanied by a real solution that weds transparency with doing what’s right for the public.

---

[1] http://hamptonroads.com/2012/11/roadbuilding-process-flawed-study-contends-0

[2] http://hamptonroads.com/2012/11/roadbuilding-process-flawed-study-contends-0

[3] http://hamptonroads.com/2012/11/roadbuilding-process-flawed-study-contends-0

[4] http://hamptonroads.com/2012/11/roadbuilding-process-flawed-study-contends-0

Wind turbines ‘sprouting’ up at Virginia public schools: a new, renewable, era is nearing

The liberal conspiracy to build wind turbines across the commonwealth has spread to none other than some of Virginia’s public schools. Oh, the horror!

The Daily News Record[1] recently reported that one wind turbine was set up at Central High School in Woodstock and at Thomas Harrison Middle School in Harrisonburg.

According to Shenandoah County Public Schools finance director, Jeremy Raley, the turbine installed at Central High is meant to educate students about wind energy, not necessarily provide power for the entire school.[2]

The irony of some opposition to renewable forms of energy like wind power is based on both historical ignorance and a contradiction in many of their own beliefs.

In terms of historical ignorance, many individuals who oppose wind turbines do so on free market grounds[3]. That is, these individuals argue that the government should not be assisting nascent industries, like the wind turbine industry, get its feet on the ground.

But it’s no secret that petroleum[4], coal, and natural gas have all been subsidized by our government to ensure their success. Some of these dirty forms of energy are still subsidized by our government (and our taxpayer dollars).

So why should wind and solar power not be given the same advantages, especially since these forms of energy are not facilitators of extreme weather events like Hurricane Sandy?

Bound up closely to the “free market” argument is the energy independence one for many proponents of the former. Many of the same individuals who oppose government subsidies for renewable forms of energy, like wind and solar power, are proponents of energy independence.

However, what better way for America to become energy independent indefinitely than by building up our country’s renewable energy sector[5]? Fossil fuels are nonrenewable forms of energy for a reason.

It needs to be stated honestly that wind power in particular will be more costly for Virginians at the outset. Thus, government subsidies will be necessary to keep the price of wind energy in line with, or at least completive to, cheaper forms of energy like natural gas.

But for a country to continue to thrive, it must continuously look into the future to see what roads need to be paved in the present for success. One of those ‘roads’ is renewable energy.

---

[1] http://bit.ly/XOJogt

[2] http://www.nbc12.com/story/20175974/wind-turbines-popping-up-at-some-va-schools

[3] http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/question-day-229/topics/should-happen-us-government-subsidies

[4] http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

[5] http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/renewables.aspx

Times Dispatch erroneously suggests that gun purchases reduce violent crimes in VA

According to a recent analysis of gun sale records in Virginia along with state crime data, gun-related violent crime in Virginia has decreased over the past six years as firearm sales have increased significantly.[1]

According to the Richmond Times Dispatch, the number of firearms bought in Virginia shot up 73 percent from 2006 to 2011. Gun sales per 100,000 Virginians increased 63 percent when Virginia population increases are factored in.[2]

In its jubilation to pooh-pooh “a long standing popular narrative that more guns cause more violent crime,” the Times Dispatch makes it seem as though there is a direct and negative correlation between gun sales and violent crime. And at least one academic has only added to this idea.

According to Thomas R. Baker of Virginia Commonwealth University, “…a very simple and intuitive demonstration of the numbers seems to point away from the premise that more guns leads to more crime, at least in Virginia.”[3]

But as in so many social phenomena, there are oftentimes more to the equation than the variables being used. Andrew Goddard, president of the Virginia Center for Public Safety, commented, “I’m not surprised that it would appear that more guns is going along with less crime, because there’s been a downward trend in violent crime anyway.”[4]

My point is not to entirely reject the idea that gun sales and violent crime follow along a negative trajectory. Rather, my point is to caution anyone from taking one belief (that greater firearm sales lead to greater violent crimes) and turning it on its head for what might be an equally erroneous belief (i.e., that greater firearm sales lead to fewer violent crimes”).

When studying human interactions (i.e., the social world), there is rarely a time when one variable exclusively affects another variable. More often than not, when one variable changes, the change has been caused by a host of different factors.

So don’t go buying a gun thinking that your purchase will somehow reduce violent crimes in Virginia. While it makes for a good National Rifle Association advertisement, it doesn’t make for good reality.

---

[1] http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/central-virginia/gun-related-violent-crimes-drop-as-gun-sales-soar-in/article_54cca13a-35ee-11e2-83f0-0019bb30f31a.html

[2] http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/central-virginia/gun-related-violent-crimes-drop-as-gun-sales-soar-in/article_54cca13a-35ee-11e2-83f0-0019bb30f31a.html

[3] http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/central-virginia/gun-related-violent-crimes-drop-as-gun-sales-soar-in/article_54cca13a-35ee-11e2-83f0-0019bb30f31a.html

[4] http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/central-virginia/gun-related-violent-crimes-drop-as-gun-sales-soar-in/article_54cca13a-35ee-11e2-83f0-0019bb30f31a.html

Virginia SCC report makes shocking finding: electric bills have increased in the past 5 years

A new report by the Virginia Corporation Commission led to a shocking finding: electric bills in Virginia have increased since the commonwealth’s “experiment” with deregulating utility companies five years ago.[1]

Thus, government regulation of Virginia’s utilities (i.e., taxpayer subsidies and government protection of large power distributors) have allowed these companies to stifle competition, raise rates, and disregard calls for renewable forms of energy.

The State Corporation Commission has approved close to $1.3 billion of additional revenue for Dominion Virginia Power alone since 2007. According to one source, “The effect has been to boost the monthtly bill of a residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity a month by a total of $16.63 to $107.23, for an 18 percent increase since 2007.”[2] For Dominion, thanks should be given to Virginia’s taxpayers during this holiday season!
In defense of its corporate welfare policies, the commission noted that rates charged by Dominion Virginia Power are below the national average. The commission will have to excuse me if I am not totally satisfied by this response. The commission is essentially saying, “Don’t worry about the arbitrarily high utility rates, they’re still below the national average.”

But the real kicker is not Dominion’s outrageous profits at the expense of Virginians, it’s the profits that Dominion has made combined with their bold attempts to subvert, avoid, and ignore calls for greater amounts of renewable energy in Virginia.
In essence, Dominion Virginia Power is being subsidized by Virginians while it also chooses to ignore their requests for renewable energy as a greater proportion of Dominion’s energy portfolio.

Consequently, Dominion, and its customers, will be behind the curve when renewable energy finally takes off in America. Welcome to Virginia, a business friendly state, indeed.[3]
[1] http://www.newsleader.com/article/20121122/NEWS01/311220003/1002/rss?nclick_check=1
[2] http://www.newsleader.com/article/20121122/NEWS01/311220003/1002/rss?nclick_check=1
[3] http://www.cnbc.com/id/47818860/Texas_Is_America_s_Top_State_for_Business_2012

VA Attorney General receives “Turkey of the Year” award from ProgressVA

ProgressVA awarded its “Turkey of the Year” award to Virginia’s tea party crush, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.[1]

The “Turkey of the Year” award is given out to political figures in Virginia who pursue agendas inimical to Virginia’s middle and working classes, their rights and socioeconomic positions.

In 2011, Gov. Bob McDonnell received the Turkey of the Year award for “his extraordinary use of budget gimmicks and refusal to take a balanced approach to Virginia’s budget,” according to ProgressVA.[2]

Cuccinelli, on the other hand, was granted ProgressVA’s award “in recognition of his pursuit of an extreme ideological agenda at the expense of Virginia families.” Further, Cuccinelli’s use of his position as Virginia’s attorney general “to advance his own partisan views instead of putting Virginia first,” makes Cuccinelli the rightful recipient of the 2012 Turkey of the Year award.[3]

And while the award is intended to highlight the tremendously flawed policy positions that Cuccinelli has taken during his tenure as attorney general, the award’s effect on public opinion in Virginia is open to question.

In a way, the attempt by ProgressVA to amuse and highlight the policy flaws of elected officials intersects one another in unfavorable ways. On the one hand, ProgressVA wants to raise awareness over Attorney General Cuccinelli’s “partisan views,” but this point can get lost in the lightheartedness of the “Turkey of the Year” award.

If Cuccinelli’s political positions are so bad, then a much more appropriate “award” should be given out, like the “Rights Violations Award,” or something similar. Such an award would make it clear for Virginians what the award is for and that while it might be worth a laugh or two, the ramifications are quite serious.

Turkey, how about demagogue? How about ideological hack? It makes a lot more sense than calling Cuccinelli a “turkey.”  

---

[1] http://hamptonroads.com/2012/11/cuccinelli-gets-gobbler-mock-award

[2] http://www.progressva.org/

[3] http://hamptonroads.com/2012/11/cuccinelli-gets-gobbler-mock-award

Thanksgiving “annual rite” with Indian tribes obscures Virginia’s past, the bad in particular

In a touching Thanksgiving Day “annual rite,” Gov. Bob McDonnell and first lady Maureen McDonnell accepted a buck presented by Chief Carl Custalow, leader of the Mattaponi Indian tribe, and a deer and Canadian goose from Chief Kevin Brown of the Pamunkey Indian tribe.[1]

This annual rite supposedly dates back to a 1677 treaty in which Virginia’s tribes present gifts to the governor of the commonwealth in place of paying taxes. In the 1677 treaty, Virginia’s Indian leaders acknowledged the rule of the King of England while the latter acknowledged the rights of Indian tribes.

During the ceremony, McDonnell announced that as soon as 2013, a new monument in tribute to Virginia’s Indians will be erected on Capitol grounds.

The problem with these pleasantries is that they obscure the brutality through which most of Virginia’s Indian tribes were subjugated from the beginning of the colonial period of the North American continent until quite recent times.[2] According to one source, “By 1722, there were no longer records of many of the tribes previously noted, although their people still lived together in one or more enclaves.”[3]

While it’s nice that the colonizer and the colonized wish to let bygones be bygones, Virginians in particular have a tendency of reducing past brutality to an unfortunate period that should only briefly detain our attention, as if those scars of the past do not resonate in our own times.

But Virginia’s past does still shape our present and our images of ourselves as Virginians, which is why we pick ‘positive’ episodes/interactions from the past.

While this generation did not commit the atrocities of some of our ancestors, we do Virginia’s Indian tribes the ultimate disservice by cherry-picking from the past only those episodes that are most congruous with who we want to view ourselves as: tolerant, peace-loving, multicultural, etc.

Virginians Indian tribes, like so many Indian tribes on the North America continent, were nearly exterminated by a thirst for more land, more wealth, and so forth. This is the true “annual rite” that should be remembered, these egregious ‘mistakes’ of Virginia’s past.

It may be cliché, but it is no less true for being so: those who forget their past are bound to repeat it. So while we remember what went right, we should also remember what went wrong so as to better ensure that it never happens again to any group of people for any reason.

---

[1] http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/latest-news/governor-accepts-game-from-va-indian-tribes-in-rite-that/article_9084572a-340b-11e2-8ef1-0019bb30f31a.html

[2] http://virginiaindians.pwnet.org/history/today.php

[3] http://virginiaindians.pwnet.org/history/1700s.php

Blue Virginia:: GOP Policy Platform: Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks

Blue Virginia:: GOP Policy Platform: Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks

Wrongfully convicted man released on conditional pardon by Gov. Bob McDonnell

After considerable pressure from Virginians of all political persuasions who were more concerned with justice than legal formalities, Johnathan Montgomery was released from prison recently after Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell issued a conditional pardon.[1]

In 2008, Montgomery, then 14, was convicted of molesting a 10-year-old girl. When Montgomery’s accuser recanted her story, Montgomery “became” an innocent man wrongfully accused of a crime he didn’t commit.

Knowing this, Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli still rejected Circuit Judge Randolph West’s order exonerating Montgomery and voiding the last two years of his sentence, claiming that such an order is void under the laws of the commonwealth.[2] Is it any wonder why lawyers are stereotyped in the manner that they are?

McDonnell, on the other hand, having only political capital to gain from releasing an innocent man from jail, released Montgomery in time to have Thanksgiving dinner with his father in North Carolina.

When a convicted individual is found to be innocent, legal formalities should go by the wayside and at the very least, a conditional pardon should be granted like the one issued by Gov. McDonnell.

It is a perverted form of reasoning to suppose that the legal system in America will crumble if timely procedures are not followed in order to let a wrongfully convicted individual immediately free.

To use the clichéd example: slavery was once legal in Virginia. Thus, laws can be wrong and in cases such as Montgomery’s, should be circumvented to preserve the authority of our country’s legal system.

Hats off to Gov. McDonnell for making the right decision to release Montgomery. This is not a partisan issue, it’s an issue that cuts deep into the heart of what makes America the country that it is.

---

[1] http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/ap/wrongly-convicted-va-man-gets-pardon-new-life/article_56b2bf32-e810-54be-aceb-5cf7047a4bbd.html

[2] http://www.examiner.com/article/va-s-attorney-general-ken-cuccinelli-denies-an-innocent-man-s-release-from-jail

Richmond City Council cancels “special” meeting on Washington Redskins training camp

On Tuesday, the Richmond City Council canceled its “special” meeting on the Washington Redskins summer training camp, opting instead to consider the issue at the council’s Land Use, Housing and Transportation Standing Committee.[1]

Instead of the scheduled meeting at 4PM, Mayor Dwight C. Jones made a presentation on what critics consider the “sweetheart” deal to lure the Redskins to Richmond for their summer training camp.

Bon Secours also held a community meeting on Tuesday in which it talked about its partnership with Richmond and their mutual plans to construct a training camp for the Redskins near the Virginia Science Museum.

Proponents of the Redskins deal have lauded its potential to raise millions of dollars in annual revenue and create jobs. According to the city of Richmond, close to 200 jobs would be created and the expected economic impact of the three-week training camp would be about $8.5 million annually.[2]

But for opponents of the deal, the pitfalls are many. According to the Richmond Times Dispatch, “a crowd of about 50 grilled city officials on the project's financing, its economic impact, traffic and noise, the site selection process, a perceived lack of transparency and the merits of essentially transferring a valuable piece of city property to Bon Secours Virginia Health System, the chief sponsor of the training camp, as part of the arrangement.”[3]

While the idea of the Redskins holding their three-week summer training camp in Richmond sounds good, it has all of the outward trappings of a deal ‘too good to be true’.

The city has called the deal “a $40 million investment,” an investment that will supposedly have considerable future returns.[4]

But the lack of transparency noted above, among other things, is just one reason why this deal should at the very least be further scrutinized with greater public input. Of course, the upfront costs are also a rub.

In the words of a former Richmond City Council president, Manoli Loupassi: “I want the Redskins here; I think that would be great. But the question is at what cost?”[5]

---

[1] http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/latest-news/council-committee-discussing-redskins-deal/article_26a265cd-c715-5433-b665-ab050df51e21.html

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins-richmond-announce-training-camp-site/2012/10/22/8a9ce7d0-1c8e-11e2-8817-41b9a7aaabc7_story.html

[3] http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/11/redskins-richmond-officials-grilled-about-training-camp-plans-81910.html

[4] http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/richmond/richmond-to-front-money-for-redskins-training-camp/article_0d3c75fe-ccb7-5778-8c52-542ddbb53061.html

[5] http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/richmond/richmond-to-front-money-for-redskins-training-camp/article_0d3c75fe-ccb7-5778-8c52-542ddbb53061.html

American Petroleum Institute begins ads against Mark Warner, but their tax breaks are numbered

In their attempt to keep their government welfare alive and well, at least for another session of congress, the American Petroleum Institute (API) has broken out a new ad targeting U.S. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA).[1]

The ads aren’t so much of an attack on Sen. Warner as a vague assessment of November’s elections and what they mean, or should mean, for America’s energy future. The ad runs, “America spoke loudly, clearly: 

We want a common sense plan to help people succeed. Sen. Mark Warner can make energy a big part of improving our economy.”[2]

Thus, not only does the ad not touch upon the oil industry’s $4 billion in annual tax breaks (and why would Big Oil?), the ad also approaches November’s election results in a way that could backfire in the face of Big Oil.

That is, America did speak in November’s election, and it didn’t say “extend the $4 billion in tax breaks for big oil.[3] If anything, voters from all points on the political spectrum said enough with congressional gridlock and unnecessary handouts to industries that hardly need government assistance.

For instance, in 2011, the “big five” in the oil industry produced 4% less oil and “oil equivalent” in 2011 relative to 2010 while raking in $137 billion in profits[4]. That’s right, $137 BILLION. So why would our government, and our hard-earned taxpayer dollars, go towards feeding this gluttonous monstrosity anymore than it already feeds itself on the backs of Americans?

The answer is, of course, we shouldn’t. We’ve been giving Big Oil handouts for too long while focusing our budget-cutting axe on some of the neediest elements in our society. And I’m not talking about faceless Big Oil board members and their CEOs, I’m referring to the hard working American who has seen social programs continuously cut under the ruse of “tightening the budgetary belt.”

Folks, we shouldn’t need a wakeup call every four years, and the idea of stripping billion-dollar companies of tax breaks shouldn’t even be a point for serious discussion. There are a number of things that need to be changed in America, and this is at the top of the list.

---

[1] http://www.nationaljournal.com/blogs/influencealley/2012/11/api-to-energy-state-dems-support-our-tax-breaks-13

[2] http://www.nationaljournal.com/blogs/influencealley/2012/11/api-to-energy-state-dems-support-our-tax-breaks-13

[3] http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2012/02/07/11145/big-oils-banner-year/

[4] http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2012/02/07/11145/big-oils-banner-year/

Prince William County chairman outlines series of proposed cuts to social service programs

Virginia’s elected Republican representatives have one thing going for them, predictability. When the economic times get tough, social service programs are never too far from the Republican chopping block.

Corey A. Stewart (R-At Large), chairman of Prince William Board of County Supervisors, outlined $9.6 million in possible cuts in a letter to fellow supervisors.[1] If enacted, funds for the Prince William County health department, substance abuse treatment for jail inmates, and the Juvenile Court Services Unit, among other services,  would be cut.

As a rationale for these proposed cuts, Stewart said in his letter that “uncertainty created…at the federal and state levels,”[2] including cuts in spending for defense and tax increases, highlights the need to “rein in” the county’s budget.

Not surprisingly, Stewart stated that his “initial instinct is skepticism about social government.”[3] Of course, because if I don’t need social service programs, no one else should, right?

The mindset shared by Stewart is as mind-boggling as it is ensconced in ideological narrow-mindedness.

First of all, social service programs do not necessarily lead to dependency on the part of those they serve. Further, social service programs are not “socialistic,” they are filling the gaps left behind by the break of America’s communities by the very system which Stewart and company so blindly extol.

Secondly, many social service programs are a positive factor in Virginian society, helping individuals overcome problems that might otherwise go unresolved (e.g., drug use among inmates). But individuals like Stewart would no doubt argue that social service programs like the one mentioned directly above only provide incentives for individuals to not take individual initiative, to not try to help themselves.

The free-market idea prevalent in our society is convenient for individuals who are already in privileged socio-economic positions. For those who are not (e.g. minorities, immigrants, etc), the pull away from social service programs and towards a more “let do” philosophy of economic practice is a harbinger of further hardship.

Of course, social service programs assist all sectors of society. But it is no surprise that white America has consistently been calling for removing government involvement in almost all areas of life.

That said, rolling back social service programs is not a permanent solution to the country’s economic woes. Instead, public officials like Steward are using the uncertainly in D.C. as a whipping horse to push through their ideological desires. But Virginia shouldn’t buy it.

---

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/corey-stewart-proposes-deep-cuts-to-social-services-in-pr-william-budget/2012/11/16/356627c0-2fff-11e2-9f50-0308e1e75445_story.html

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/corey-stewart-proposes-deep-cuts-to-social-services-in-pr-william-budget/2012/11/16/356627c0-2fff-11e2-9f50-0308e1e75445_story.html

[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/corey-stewart-proposes-deep-cuts-to-social-services-in-pr-william-budget/2012/11/16/356627c0-2fff-11e2-9f50-0308e1e75445_story.html

Two representative groups from Virginia publicly oppose uranium mining in Virginia

In another rejection of legislative attempts to lift Virginia’s thirty-year ban on uranium mining, the Virginia Municipal League AND the Virginia Association of Counties publicly came out in opposition of uranium mining in the state.

The Virginia Association of Counties, which represents Virginia’s 95 counties, called for the ban to continue “pending further study.”[1]

The Virginia Municipal League, which represents every city in Virginia, 157 towns, and 10 counties, noted worries about environmental and health issues related to uranium milling, mining, and disposal of radioactive tailings.

In response to these public announcements, a spokesman for Virginia Uranium Inc., Patrick Wales, stated he “was perplexed”[2] by the Virginia Municipal League’s and the Virginia Association of Counties stances because Virginia Uranium has promised the below-grade storage of uranium tailings. Well Mr. Wales, you’ll have to excuse these groups, and Virginians in general, for not entirely trusting your promises.

Wales stated, "We've committed to bring the tailings below grade and that seems to be something that everyone is in general agreement on and takes the massive release of tailings off the table. I don’t know why that doesn’t seem to be getting though.”[3]

Here is the rub of this issue, and the reason why Virginia Uranium Inc. (VUI) isn’t “getting through” to the majority of Virginians. Virginia Uranium Inc. BELIEVES that uranium mining and milling can be done safely in Virginia. But when tasked with evidence to prove their case, VUI and their proponents cite studies from regions that have ecologies entirely different than southern Virginia’s. Thus, they are comparing apples to oranges.

Most Virginians have seen the dilemma in this kind of reasoning and have remained skeptical about the safety of uranium mining as a consequence. But VUI just doesn’t seem to get this; it’s not “getting through” to VUI.

And here’s another problem: is VUI willing to submit to specific terms of liability that will not leave Virginians on the hook for any foul-ups that may occur? To date, I haven’t seen any evidence that VUI is willing to assuage this element of concern among Virginians.

But please VUI, by all means continue to look at this issue through your own propaganda and erroneous beliefs. With all of the money and influence behind your company and its goals, you will ultimately lose out because you can’t “get through” to the people of Virginia. Why? Because Virginians see the issue of uranium mining as a not-so-cut-and-dry issue of human and environmental health that can be alleviated by a few empty promises.

---

[1] http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/statewide-groups-back-va-uranium-ban/article_7122577c-3025-11e2-b432-001a4bcf6878.html

[2] http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/statewide-groups-back-va-uranium-ban/article_7122577c-3025-11e2-b432-001a4bcf6878.html

[3] http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/statewide-groups-back-va-uranium-ban/article_7122577c-3025-11e2-b432-001a4bcf6878.html