uvAggravator2.0

We have often heard mention of Ronald Reagan’s speech about “bold colors” and not “pale pastels” in which he encouraged Conservatives to draw clear distinctions between themselves and the Liberal movement. There are some in the Republican Party who long derided this philosophy as “divisive” and claimed that this style of conservatism “could not win”.

However, according to a The New Republic article, this tactic is not only working, but working brilliantly.

The Pew Research Study cited by The New Republic indicates that voters are, by and large, identifying their philosophy as conservative. In other words, by being bold in our beliefs, via the TEA Party movement and other recent activism, we have seen a public shift in our direction.

It would seem that Ken Cuccinelli-style conservatism is more “mainstream” than many would like to admit.

It’s been nearly two months since the Gaza “freedom flotilla” captivated and divided the world.  Now, for the first time, we have an idea of what the Turkish electorate thinks – and for the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP), the answer is not good.

Amidst the discussion of Turkey becoming the newest jihadist haven (and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan becoming the next jihadist leader), yours truly noticed that Erdogan’s AKP was in political trouble.  What was not known was the effect of the flotilla fallout.

Well, now we know.  Sonar Aristrima conducts monthly polls on Turkey.  Angus Reid and Bloomberg reported on its July figures.  Compared to May (before the flotilla raid), the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) has gained a point, while the AKP is flat.  Among other things, this put’s CHP’s lead outside the margin of error.

Meanwhile, the third place Nationalist Movement Party/Nationalist Action Party (MHP) easily clears the 10% threshold needed to remain in Parilament – meaning the CHP and MHP can still block the AKP from returning to power.

Bloomberg has some other details which are none too promising for the AKP:

Erdogan received the lowest rating for trust of any Turkish leader or government branch listed in the poll, at 33 percent. The most trustworthy was the armed forces, with 78 percent. The poll also shows 46 percent of respondents had a negative outlook on the economy.

According to the poll, 77 percent said unemployment was the country’s most important problem.

I reiterate two things I said last time: the election is a year away, and the CHP, while secular, is a left-wing party that will give Washington some headaches.  Still, two months after Erdogan was basking in the glow of an international spin campaign par excellence, the people who actually determine if he’ll keep his job are as unhappy with him now as they were then.

The rest of us need to keep that in mind.

Cross-posted to BD

It’s been nearly two months since the Gaza “freedom flotilla” captivated and divided the world. Now, for the first time, we have an idea of what the Turkish electorate thinks – and for the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP), the answer is not good.

Amidst the discussion of Turkey becoming the newest jihadist haven (and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan becoming the next jihadist leader), yours truly noticed that Erdogan’s AKP was in political trouble. What was not known was the effect of the flotilla fallout.

Well, now we know. Sonar Aristrima conducts monthly polls on Turkey. Angus Reid and Bloomberg reported on its July figures. Compared to May (before the flotilla raid), the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) has gained a point, while the AKP is flat. Among other things, this put’s CHP’s lead outside the margin of error.

Meanwhile, the third place Nationalist Movement Party/Nationalist Action Party (MHP) easily clears the 10% threshold needed to remain in Parilament – meaning the CHP and MHP can still block the AKP from returning to power.

Bloomberg has some other details which are none too promising for the AKP:

Erdogan received the lowest rating for trust of any Turkish leader or government branch listed in the poll, at 33 percent. The most trustworthy was the armed forces, with 78 percent. The poll also shows 46 percent of respondents had a negative outlook on the economy.

According to the poll, 77 percent said unemployment was the country’s most important problem.

I reiterate two things I said last time: the election is a year away, and the CHP, while secular, is a left-wing party that will give Washington some headaches. Still, two months after Erdogan was basking in the glow of an international spin campaign par excellence, the people who actually determine if he’ll keep his job are as unhappy with him now as they were then.

The rest of us need to keep that in mind.

Cross-posted to RWL

Governor Bob McDonnell today announced a town hall tour around Virginia. Coming on the heels of a stellar report on his approval ratings, the Governor will continue his outreach to Virginians across the state. This should be pretty interesting considering unemployment is still extremely high in some parts of the state. Can’t wait to see what kind of stories and soundbites come from this tour.

From the press release:

Governor Bob McDonnell will hit the road in August to hold eight town hall meetings around the Commonwealth. The tour will kick off in Roanoke on Wednesday, August 4th. The “Virginia Speaks: A Conversation about Jobs, Government Reform and Our Future” events will allow Virginians to speak directly with Virginia’s governor about the issues facing the Commonwealth. The governor will also spend a portion of each town hall discussing his efforts to make government smaller and simpler, privatize Virginia’s state run ABC stores, and create good jobs statewide. In addition to Roanoke, “Virginia Speaks” town halls will be held in Norfolk, Chester, Fredericksburg, Fairfax, Harrisonburg and Danville before concluding in Bristol on August 31st.

Discussing the “Virginia Speaks” statewide tour, Governor McDonnell noted, “I’ve served in elected office for 18 years. During that time I have consistently found that the best ideas don’t come from Richmond, they come from Virginians in communities statewide. We are focused on reforming state government to make it simpler, smaller and more efficient. To best accomplish this goal we must hear from the citizens who own that government, and who deal with it on a daily basis. That’s why we are launching the ‘Virginia Speaks’ statewide town hall tour. It’s your government, and we want to know how we can make it work better for you.”

McDonnell continued, “One of our ideas to make government smaller and simpler, while providing an immediate infusion of new revenue for transportation, is to privatize Virginia’s state-run ABC stores. Our state government must be focused on core priorities instead of services that should rightly be provided by the private sector, offering Virginians more choice and convenience. In a tough economy, why should we miss out on hundreds of millions of dollars for roads just so the state government can retain a monopoly on the sale of bourbon and vodka? We need to get roads built, and we need to refocus government on its core responsibilities. Privatizing ABC will accomplish both goals, and I’m going to talk about this proposal at each one of our town halls. I know Virginians will be able to help us privatize ABC the right way by sharing their experiences and good ideas.”

The Governor concluded, “I’m also going to discuss other ways by which we can reform Virginia’s state government, and how we are working to help the private sector create the good jobs we need in every community. More importantly however, I’m going to spend my time listening. I want Virginians to tell us how government can work better, what would make it easier to access and use, what doesn’t work, and what we can do to ensure a better return on their investment. I’m looking forward to starting this tour and traveling all across the Commonwealth in August.”

The governor will be joined at each town hall by a number of cabinet secretaries and Administration officials. In addition to the sites of the official “Virginia Speaks” events, the governor will be traveling to a number of other Virginia cities and counties during this same time period. Details of the governor’s public events for each week will continue to be released through the Friday weekly public schedule.

Additionally, in order to accommodate the “Virginia Speaks” tour, and ensure the maximum amount of public input for the Governor’s Commission on Government Reform and Restructuring, the previously scheduled final full meeting of the Commission has been moved from August 26th to September 13th. The meeting will still be held in Richmond. The interim report of the Commission will now be issued by September 15th.

Townhall Dates:

August 4, 2010 — 7:00pm-8:30pm

Roanoke
Roanoke County Administration Center
Board of Supervisors Board Room
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke

August 9, 2010 —7:00pm-8:30pm

Norfolk
Old Dominion University
Webb University Center – Hampton/Newport News Room
4201 Hampton Blvd.
Norfolk

August 19, 2010 — 7:00pm-8:30pm

Chester
Cultural Center of India
6641 Ironbridge Parkway
Chester

August 24, 2010 — 7:00pm-8:30pm

Fredericksburg
University of Mary Washington
Lee Hall – Room 412
1301 College Avenue
Fredericksburg

August 25, 2010 —7:00pm-8:30pm

Fairfax
Northern Virginia Technology Council Auditorium
2214 Rock Hill Road, Suite 300
Herndon

August 26, 2010 —7:00pm-8:30pm

Harrisonburg
James Madison University
East Campus Dining Hall – Montpelier Room
800 S. Main Street
Harrisonburg

August 30, 2010 — 7:00pm-8:30pm

Danville
Institute for Advanced Learning and Research
Great Hall
150 Slayton Ave.
Danville
***Partnering with the Sorensen Southside Public Leadership Series***

August 31, 2010 — 7:00pm-8:30pm

Bristol
Bristol Public Library
J. Henry Kegley Meeting Room
701 Goode Street
Bristol

I posted over at United Liberty:

Here we stand in 2010 and the Republicans are asking fiscal conservatives and libertarians to trust them again.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times ? No, you’re going to have to prove it this time before I trust you.

Read the whole thing.

• The Coming Crack Up
• The Coming Crack Up
• Comment Left Elsewhere Of The Day
• Comment Left Elsewhere Of The Day
• The Great Libertarian Purge Of 2008

With unemployment numbers at an all-time high, there is a great need for job creation. However, Congress and the White House seems to be pre-occupied with passing anti-business legislation which continues to drive jobs out of the United States.

Recently, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) has introduced legislation in Congress to bring jobs back to the United States from overseas. The Bring Jobs Back to America Act would align existing federal funding (with no additional cost) to support job repatriation and manufacturing growth. This act would also bolster intellectual property protection. This legislation would require the Secretary of Commerce to develop a national manufacturing and job repatriation strategy and set targets for job creation in the manufacturing sectors. Additionally, the legislation would also call for a study of new tax incentives to help lure businesses back to America.

Wolf said, “These companies want to bring their manufacturing jobs back home but they won’t do it simply because we ask them to. We need to consider tax incentives to aggressively ‘onshore’ these jobs.”

Additionally, this bill would also bring back President Reagan’s “Project Socrates” as an independent “American Economic Security Commission” to identify and monitor emerging technologies and global economic threats. Project Socrates was initiated during the Reagan administration to address America’s competitiveness challenge and determine the source of the nation’s declining competitiveness and develop programs to address the source of the problem.

Wolf has worked hard to address the rising unemployment levels and has hosted three job fairs within the 10^th District. Below are Wolf’s remarks from his press conference on the legislation:

Today I am introducing today the Bring Jobs Back to America Act, which would start the process of bringing real jobs back to America that have gone overseas during the last two decades.

My legislation will build on language I included earlier this year in the fiscal year 2011 Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill directing the Commerce Department to launch a job repatriation initiative to bring those jobs back home.

I believe that a strong manufacturing and technology development base is critical to job creation and the economic competitiveness of the United States.

Something has happened in our country. We’re making fewer and fewer things. Today, everything seems to be labeled: “Made in China.”

If you have ever taken the train from Washington, D.C., to New York and looked out the window, you can see our empty factories. You pass through my old neighborhood in Philadelphia. GE’s switchgear factory used to be one block from my home. Now there’s nothing there but an empty, littered field.

You pass through Trenton, New Jersey, and can see the famous bridge sign that reads: “Trenton Makes, the World Takes.” Trenton doesn’t make anything anymore.

Last year, General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt noted that in recent years in the United States, “Real engineering was traded for financial engineering.” Immelt called on the U.S. to grow manufacturing jobs to comprise at least 20 percent of American jobs – nearly double the current level.

In this era of intense global competition, we must work aggressively to bring jobs that have gone overseas back home to the U.S. to immediately start growing the percentage of these jobs, as Immelt called for.

It’s not enough to talk about creating jobs. We have to take immediate steps to create jobs.

I have been, and remain, a staunch supporter of free trade. Free trade has yielded benefits to the American people and our economy.

However, we have been far too slow in responding to our international economic competitors in this era of global markets and competition.

The irony is that as much as American firms have offshored manufacturing and development jobs, they remain reliant on America for support. And with American unemployment hovering around 10 percent, it’s time for some of these American firms to come home.

When an American plant manager in Mexico is kidnapped, the firm doesn’t call the Mexican Federal Police, they call the FBI.

When the Chinese steal an American firm’s intellectual property, the firm calls the U.S. Commerce Department.

It’s time to bring some of these jobs home because America can be competitive in this global economy and it’s the right thing to do. My legislation will start this process.

Overall, I believe that my bill helps to re-focus the United States to be more proactive and a smarter competitor in the global economy – both in the short-term and long-term.

Specifically, this bill requires the secretary of Commerce to set targets for job repatriation and creates multi-agency “Repatriation Task Forces” to identify American companies manufacturing abroad and work with states to bring jobs back to the U.S.

The goal is to bring back real jobs from overseas to the United States – jobs that are already created and an American could immediately fill.

This bill would require the Commerce Department to survey all American firms with significant manufacturing facilities in foreign countries, allowing the Repatriation Task Forces to proactively identify all firms interested in working with state and local governments to facilitate a mutually beneficial repatriation of jobs.

The bill would also comprehensively align federal resources in support of repatriation efforts. It allows state and local governments to use a variety of federal funding – at no new cost – to support job repatriation initiatives by state and local governments.

For example, my bill aligns Economic Development Agency (EDA) and National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) grants to allow state and local governments to use this funding for repatriation.

It also would direct the secretary of Commerce and the IRS to quickly study and report on the merits of a new federal tax incentive to encourage repatriation.

In addition to repatriating jobs today, we must redouble our efforts to foster emerging technologies to create our manufacturing base of tomorrow.

For too long, the U.S. has failed to strategically monitor emerging opportunities and threats in our competitive global economy. We are starting to see the ramifications of this failure in the rise of China as an economic power.

My bill would reconstitute President Reagan’s “Project Socrates” as an independent “American Economic Security Commission” to identify and monitor emerging technologies and global economic threats.

Project Socrates was initiated during the Reagan Administration to address America’s competitiveness challenge and determine the source of the nation’s declining competitiveness and develop programs to address the source of the problem.

Our Commission – composed of 12 business leaders and economists appointed by the majority and minority leaders – will similarly take a comprehensive and unbiased look at all of our global economic competitors – both strengths and weaknesses – and help inform the Congress on how to bolster American economic security.

This will ensure that we have an independent mechanism to monitor new opportunities and threats to ensure that America can capitalize on revolutionary technologies and create new jobs in the U.S.

The bill also provides stronger protections for American intellectual property and helps to expedite the patent process for cutting-edge new technologies developed by universities.

The faster we can secure our innovations and move them to market, the more jobs we can create in this country.

We can no longer afford to ride the coattails of yesterday’s innovations; we have to identify and support the emerging technologies of tomorrow that will create American jobs.

The Chinese, Indians and other international competitors are actively monitoring new technologies and trends to support their firms. To date, we have not.

Are Americans willing to continue to sit idly by and allow the Chinese to dominate new industries at our expense?

Norm Augustine, the former chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin, best captured the situation we now find ourselves in when he said:

“In the technology-driven economy in which we live, Americans have come to accept leadership as the natural and enduring state of affairs. But leadership is highly perishable. It must be constantly re-earned.

“In the 16th century the citizens of Spain no doubt thought they would remain the world leader. In the 17th century it was France. In the 19th century, Great Britain. And in the 20th century it was the United States.

“Unless we do things dramatically different, including strengthening our investments in research and education, the 21st century will belong to China and India.”

Author Richard McGregor wrote in his new book, The Party, that the Chinese government, “still runs on Soviet hardware.” It uses the full resources of the state to advance the interests of Chinese firms.

The Chinese are spying on us. They are launching millions of cyber attacks against American companies and the federal government every day. The Chinese are funding the genocide in Darfur. They have Catholic bishops in jail, Protestant pastors in jail, and they have plundered Tibet.

If the U.S. is to be truly competitive in the global economy, we must be vigilant and proactive – in a manner that is consistent with our national interest and international treaties.

I urge swift passage of this legislation to help bring jobs back to the United States today and to lay the groundwork for tomorrow’s manufacturing and technology base. We cannot afford to wait. Our international competitors aren’t.

I better watch out. Bloggers are lawsuit-bait for thin-skinned liberals who don’t like it when bloggers show videos of speeches.

Shirley Sherrod, whose videotaped comments about sending a white farmer to “one of them that his own kind would take care of him” since she “didn’t give him the full force of what I could do,” has decided to sue the blogger who played the video excerpt that led her to being fired and subsequently coddled.

At the National Association of Black Journalists convention in San Diego, Ms. Sherrod said she would “definitely” file a lawsuit. The type of suit is unclear.

“He had to know that he was targeting me,” she said in a speech at the convention.

Quite the speaking gig she’s got going on, eh?

Let’s see. If “targeting” a public figure by playing a clip of a speech is something to sue over, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and a host of other news networks and programs better open the checkbook.

Wonder what the statute of limitations are about media sources “targeting” public figures by playing a few sentences of a speech.

Dan Quayle can be the richest man in America. Someone tell Sarah Palin she can sue the media. Newt. Bush. WOW! This could be a lawyer’s field day. The Washington Post better watch out for George Allen’s attorney.

Hey, Sherrod. Here’s a hint. When you give a speech, especially a distinctly long and boring one to audiences as diverse and multi-cultural as the NAACP and the National Association of Black Journalists, some media will probably report parts of your speech without playing the entire insomnia-curing thing.

And let’s get another thing straight. If, a few years ago, a white Bush Administration official gave a speech to a Whites organization and talked about how he was supposed to help this black farmer, and he didn’t do everything he could’ve and just sent him to “one of his kind,” what do you think the Left would be saying?

And if he whined that he was taken out of context, would the Left suddenly say “OK, we understand. Everybody gets too worked up.”

And if that Bush Administration official decided to sue the blogger who reported what he said, the nutroots would explode.

So let’s cut the hypocrisy. Sherrod is becoming a huge embarrassment. Her 15 minutes are up.

Yet is there a single reason in the world why George Allen should not respond to this?

“We vehemently disagree with your analysis and wonder if serving in the elite, rich, United States Senate has skewed your vision of the world in which we live,” wrote executive director King Salim Khalfani.

“Your opponent then and coming, George Allen, would not have had the gall to write about the ‘myth of white privilege’ even though I am sure he feels that way.”

Huge opportunity to find out what’s really on George Allen’s heart, and maybe have an honest conversation on affirmative action and race in Virginia.

One would think that after the numerous findings and reports of data fudging and other shenanigans (since this past November, I have been posting on the slew of errors, data manipulation, and other shenanigans that have been plagued cliamte change alarmism; including today’s post, we are now up to thirty-one of them), the fplks at East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit would know better than this (Steve Goddard at WUWT):

HadCrut released their January 1850 through June 2010 temperature data yesterday, and something “interesting” happened. Their temperature anomalies from January-April jumped up from their published values on June 3.

 . . .

HadCrut still shows 1998 hotter than 2010 so far, but they seem to be working on “correcting” that problem.

Why is it that post facto adjustments always seem to be upwards in later years, and downwards in earlier years? This whole global temperature business looks like a complete joke to me.

Did they really think we wouldn’t notice?

Cross-posted to VV

Reason took a trip to the set of the Atlas Shrugged movie and I must say it left me feeling more positive about the project than I was initially:

Let’s see what they come up with.

• Atlas Shrugged Movie To Go Into Production ?
• Atlas Shrugged Movie Update
• Atlas Shrugged Movie Update
• Atlas Shrugged Movie Begins Filming
• Yet Another Atlas Shrugged Movie Update

He’s the new Internet sensation, he’s Basil Marceaux Dot Com:

The whole thing looks vaguely familiar:

• If You’re Reading This, Another Show Will Be Cancelled
• If You’re Reading This, Another Show Will Be Cancelled
• Saturday At The Liberty Papers
• Saturday At The Liberty Papers
• Eurosocialism And The Internet

Clinton appointee US District Judge Susan Bolton issued a temporary injunction stopping five parts of Arizona’s legal attempts to do what the Federal Government won’t do – stop illegal immigration.

According to news sources, those five parts are the following:

1. Requiring police officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws.

Bolton says that’s troublesome because “burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked.”

By that logic, handgun waiting periods are unconstitutional because law-abiding handgun buyers will be restricted while their status is checked, right?

Do we think police don’t check for outstanding warrants when they stop someone for speeding?

The judge will cause lots of left-loving restrictions to fall if her logic is the final say.

2. Requiring state officials to check the immigration status of anyone in custody in Arizona before they were released from jail.

This was blocked because the judge felt the Federal Government would never be able to handle the number of status requests. So, basically, Arizona can’t enforce laws because the Federal Government is too inefficient.

3. Making it a state crime for legal immigrants to be without immigration documents.

Here’s the funny thing. It’s already federal law that immigration documents be carried at all times. Feds just don’t enforce it.

So, the judge says its wrong for Arizona to have a law that mirrors federal law, because Arizona might actually enforce it?

4. Banning illegal immigrants from soliciting employment.

See, the Obama administration wants to crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants, but they have no problem with illegal immigrants applying for work. Liberals…..if it’s wrong for companies to hire illegals, shouldn’t it be wrong for illegals to apply?

5. Arresting suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant.

This is the famous “racial profiling” fear that prompts 90 year old Jewish grandmothers to be searched in airports while not offending Khalid sheikh Mohammed in line ahead of her.

Want to really read something funny? The judge had no problem with the part of the law allowing Arizona residents to sue any state office or agency for failing to fully enforce immigration laws.

What a hoot! One the one hand, the judge says Arizona can’t enforce federal immigration laws. Then she gives every Arizona resident the right to sue Arizona for following her ruling.

I can’t wait to read Scalia’s opinion on this one. Hopefully, it will be for the majority.

The American Petroleum Institute, advocates and standard-setters for the oil and natural gas industry, slammed the Senate over their recent approach to Offshore Energy Production proposed late yesterday.

The bill would raise taxes on refiners from 8 cents per barrel to 45 cents per barrel in order to increase funds to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

API’s President and CEO Jack Gerard called the provision on oil spill liability a “jobs killer.”

Gerard said that “Requiring an unattainable level of insurance coverage for domestic energy producers on the Outer Continental Shelf will force the vast majority of American companies out of U.S. waters….”

The institute issued an economic study indicating the United States would lose an estimated 175,000 jobs per year between now and 2035 and U.S. oil production would decline by 27 percent if deepwater drilling proposals under consideration were adopted and the moratorium lasted indefinitely.

“Legislation that raises the cost of production to uneconomic levels; that renders deepwater oil and natural gas areas off limits to production; drives small- and mid-sized firms out of business; shuts down access to domestic energy resources; or singles out our industry for punitive tax increases—all of which have been part of various bills in the House and Senate—will have significant impacts on jobs and economic growth,” said Gerard.

Democrats, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada say the tax hikes are necessary to hold oil companies “responsible” and that the legislation would increase jobs in the “green” economy.

Rasmussen Reports just released a poll about Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and his overall approval in Virginia.

According to the poll, McDonnell receives high marks overall, from independents, and those who favor a repeal of the healthcare bill.

Some key data points:

• Nearly two-thirds (64%) of Virginia voters continue to approve of the job new Governor Bob McDonnell is doing, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state. That includes 29% who Strongly Approve.
• Eighty percent (80%) of GOP voters and 68% of voters not affiliated with either major party approve of McDonnell’s performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Democrats disapprove.
• Seventy-one percent (71%) of those who Strongly Favor [repealing the healthcare bill] approve of McDonnell’s handling of the governor’s job, compared to just 31% of those who are Strongly Opposed to repeal.

Of note, 41% of African Americans also approve of McDonnell’s handling of the job – this, in spite of African-Americans only voting for McDonnell at less than 30%.

Today we take a look at some local political history here in Spotsylvania.

One of the things I discovered in my campaign for the Board of Supervisors last year was the rather dubious record the county regarding taxes.  In fact, the county has experienced sixteen property tax increases in twenty-two years (1988-2010).  Now, truth be told, the county has so many recent residents (escaping even higher-tax jurisdictions), that this history hasn’t been highlighted much.  Moreover, a number of the tax increases have come during reassessment years, where the tax rate was reduced, but not nearly enough to counteract assessment increases – and even when assessments fell (as they did this year), the tax rate rose by more than what would have equalized taxes.

This latter reason has, as one would expect, sparked quite the debate here.  Many (including some Supervisors) have convinced themselves that the equalization concept (i.e., if the tax rate leads to a higher average tax payment, it’s a tax increase no matter what the rate is) is some recent creation of right-wing, anti-tax crazies trying to hamstring local government.  So, I thought it best to take a walk down memory lane to see . . .

• How the tax rate was treated during reassessment years?
• What was done with taxes prior to 1988?
• When was the last time property taxes were actually reduced in Spotsylvania?

The first question led me to the 1982 reassessment, in which property values rose 30% in the county.  Keep in mind, this is 1982, long before the Republican Party elected any Supervisors in Spotsylvania (although Buford Carr was rumored to be one back in the day), let alone allegedly hijacked the tax rate discussion.

Yet what do we find as the headline for the budget story in the Free Lance-Star (emphasis added) . . .

Spotsylvania sets hold-the-line tax rate of 65 cents

Cutting the budget to avoid raising the average tax bill, the Spotsylvania Board of Supervisors last night approved a $28.7 million operating budget for 1982-83 that drops the real estate tax rate to 65 cents . . .

Hold-the-what?

As an added irony, none other than Emmitt Marshall (who in recent years has tried to wave off the equalization idea) made the initial motion for the 65 cent rate (county staff had proposed 68 cents).  So clearly, the idea that assessments can make a rate “cut” an actual increase has a long tradition in Spotsylvania.

Meanwhile, I found that, somewhat surprisingly given the nature of the spending debate, that even though the 1970s and 1980s had faster growth in population than the later decades (from 1970 to 1990, population grew over 350%, compared to 212% for 1990-2010), they also saw fewer tax hikes (seven versus fourteen).  Lest we forget, this is also despite the 1970s having two double-digit inflation spikes.

But what about a tax cut?  Well, after looking at Board meeting minutes and a slew of FLS stories (the archives going back 80+ years are on-line now), we find that the last genuine act of tax relief for Spotsylvania homeowners came in June of 1975.  Since then, we’ve had nineteen property tax hikes (and six presidents, nine governors, four sheriffs . . .)

Oh, and the overall budget has grown over 3600% in nominal terms since then (890% in real terms).

Cross-posted to VV

An excellent debate from last week’s Stossel:

Watch the latest video at video.foxbusiness.com

• Lou Dobbs Doesn’t Believe Illegal Immigrants Have Natural Rights
• John Stossel Explains Why Free Trade Is Good
• The Final Presidential Debate: The Complete Video
• The Final Presidential Debate: The Complete Video
• A Fiscal Conservative’s Case For Tax Increases

I’ve written before about the questionable libertarian allegiances of Wayne Allyn Root, the LP’s 2008 Vice-President nominee and currently an At-Large member of the Libertarian National Committee. Now, Root is out with a blog post about the so-called “Ground Zero” Mosque that is anything but libertarian in it’s sentiments and it’s conclusions, and it should be of concern to anyone who thinks that Root represents the direction the Libertarian Party should take in the future.

Root starts out with the same sort of milquetoast paeans toward religious liberty and property rights that we saw in his book, but he quickly goes off in a direction that makes it clear that, on this issue, he is more in line with Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich than any Libertarian (or libertarian):

This proposed building of a mosque on hallowed ground is an ATROSITY towards America. To build a celebration of Islam within steps of 9/11 does nothing to increase religious freedom…it inspires hatred, divides our cultures, and increases the odds of violence and hate crimes. Common sense suggests this mosque, being built in this specific location, is NOT being built as a sign of friendship between Muslims and Americans…but rather as a sign of the lack of respect…a belief in our weakness…and an attempt to embarrass and belittle us. The financial district of Manhattan is not a residential area with a large number of Muslim residents for the mosque to serve. Therefore common sense suggests that the only possible reason to build it there (rather than in Brooklyn or Queens where there are large Muslim populations) is to show Muslim contempt for Americans by building a monument to Islam in the shadow of the site of their greatest triumph over America.

It is an offense to build a mosque in that location- an offense to all Americans (including Muslim Americans), all Christians and Jews, all relatives of 3000 dead heroes at the World Trade Center.

First of all, Root is just completely wrong on the facts here. The Cordoba House isn’t at all what he and the project’s critics have represented it to be:

The building’s planners, the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative, have said it’s modeled on religious and community centers such as the YMCA, and that the 13-story, $100 million building would also include an arts center, gym and a swimming pool, as well as a mosque. It would be two blocks away from Ground Zero.

Two blocks away and nowhere within line of sight of the area where the attacks actually occurred.

The attempt by Root, Palin, Gingrich, and other opponents of this project to call this a “Ground Zero” mosque are therefore a complete misrepresentation of the location of the project. A misrepresentation obviously intended to lead people to think that a mosque is being built on the location of the World Trade Center rather than being constructed inside an already-existing decades old building as part of a larger project that would be open to the public as a whole. For that reason alone, Root’s appeals to emotionalism and the supposed “atrocity” that this project represents should be rejected as silly and, quite frankly, dishonest.

Root goes on:

Yes, private individuals and organizations have the right to build houses of worship with their own funds. But one has to wonder where the money is coming from to build a 15-story building on some of the most expensive real estate in the country. We Americans believe in the separation of Church and State. If it turns out that this project is sponsored by a foreign government — either directly or through a state-sponsored organization that engages in terrorism — than the idea of this being an issue of religious freedom is a sham and an argument can be made that our Constitution would actually prohibit this mosque from being built.

Except, of course, for the fact that there is no evidence that this is the case. More importantly, there is no connection between the organization that wants to establish the center and anyone associated with the September 11th attacks.

In the end, Root falls into the same anti-Muslim hole that Palin, Gingrich, and others have. All he’s really saying is that we can’t let them scary Muslims build what they want to in a building they own. While he doesn’t go as far as Gingrich and Palin in calling for government action to stop the project, he adopts the same attitude of religious intolerance and, for any libertarian, that’s just unacceptable.

Let’s contrast Root’s paean to fear-of-Muslims with something published this past weekend by Libertarian National Committee Interns Marissa Giannotta and Josh Roll:

The attacks on 9/11 and its victims should not be ignored, however, we cannot lay blame on the entire Islamic community for the terrible acts that occurred on that day.  The Islamic cultural center would be a great way for others to learn about Islam and ultimately build bridges between the United States and the Muslim World.  Islam by principle is not an extremist religion and not all Muslims should be portrayed in such way.

More importantly, those who have ownership of the site should have the freedom and the right to build what they wish.  Property rights should be respected as a right for all citizens, not just a few. Our platform clearly states, “The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others.”  The Islamic cultural center does not infringe on the rights of others.

As Steven Chapman describes in his article at Reason, “Palin is not a slave to intellectual consistency. Change the church to a mosque, and put it a couple of blocks from the site of the World Trade Center, and she suddenly loses all patience with the rights of religious believers.”

Libertarian Party candidate for New York State Governor, Warren Redlich, also weighed in on the issue stating, “…I have asked some people if they would object if it was a synagogue, church, Jewish community center, or YMCA. All of them say that wouldn’t bother them. So the reason for opposing this facility is because it’s associated with the Muslim religion. That violates freedom of religion under the First Amendment.”

As Thomas Knapp notes, this is a litmus test for all libertarians (Big-L, or small-l):

If you don’t support private property rights and freedom of religion, you aren’t a libertarian.

Period.

Cordoba House, the project being fraudulently referred to as a “mosque” by those attempting to prevent its construction, is planned for construction on private property and with private funds.

The opponents of Cordoba House are attempting to stop its construction by persuading a government board to declare the building currenly standing at the project’s prospective location “historic” so that the owners can be forced to “preserve” it and forbidden to demolish it and build a structure more to their liking there.

The opponents of Cordoba House oppose private property rights. Their opposition to private property rights stems from their opposition to freedom of religion. They are, therefore, not libertarians.

That, Mr. Root, is libertarianism. Perhaps you’re in the wrong party.

Update: Jason Pye has weighed in with his own take:

Property rights and religious freedom are among the principles of a free society, basic liberties are supposed to be protected from the mob. To hear of anyone casting them aside is concerning. For a libertarian to do it is a betrayal of these core values that we are supposed to believe in.

Indeed.

• The Insane Hysteria Over A Planned Mosque Near Ground Zero
• Homegrown Anti-Muslim Terrorism
• The Fight For Property Rights In Virginia
• The Fight For Property Rights In Virginia
• Rising Out Of The Ashes

Steve Goddard details (and debunks) another piece of the anthropogenic global warming facade – temperature “smoothing” at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (WUWT, emphasis added):

The GISS map below shows the geographic details of how they believe the planet has warmed. It uses 1200 km smoothing, a technique which allows them to generate data where they have none – based on the idea that temperatures don’t vary much over 1200 km. It seems “reasonable enough” to use the Monaco weather forecast to make picnic plans in Birmingham, England. Similarly we could assume that the weather and climate in Portland, Oregon can be inferred from that of Death Valley.

For those of us on the eastern time zone, think Cleveland and Savannah, GA.  They certainly have the same temperature all the time, right?

Among other things Goddard discovers . . .

• The closest temperature station to the North Pole is over 500 miles away; most are over 600 miles distant
• Even using a 250km “smoothing” technique, almost all of Africa, nearly all of the Arctic Circle, and most of South America have no measurable temperature data
• A Brazilian “hot spot” is literally created out of thin air

I’d also note that there are data-less swaths over Siberia, which is all the more interesting given the earlier reports of Russian data being ignored (for those interested, here are other posts I have written detailing the errors, data manipulation, and other shenanigans that have been just the last eight months.  Including today’s post, we are now up to thirty of them).

As Goddard himself puts it, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”

Cross-posted to VV

After I bang on against the manufacturer’s tax hike that was snuck into the Virginia budget, Delegate Bob Marshall proposes a constitutional amendment to prevent that sort of thing, cites that very tax as his justification . . .

. . . and I miss it.

Self-fail.

Thankfully, Chris Beer (Mason Conservative) did not.  He slaps up Marshall’s missive (excerpted here):

Barack Obama is now facing Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in federal court because my HB 10, the “Healthcare Freedom Act,” passed in Virginia this year.  Its purpose is to protect you from having to buy Obama approved “backroom deal” health insurance policies or face jail and heavy fines.

But today I am writing to you because similar tactics were used to slip almost $130 million in new fees and business tax credit cuts into Virginia’s budget at the last minute with little discussion or visibility.

. . .

The Virginia Manufacturers Association called the tax credit elimination a business income tax increase and said cutting the business tax credit would cost Virginia companies $105 million in profits by 2014, and 6,400 jobs in the next two years.

My 19 years in the Virginia General Assembly tell me that the $130 million this year will double and triple next year and the year after unless you and I, “we the people,” say no!

. . .

I’m drawing a line right here against allowing Washington tax extortion tactics to continue in Richmond.  But I need help from you and other Virginians to pass a permanent fix to stop Richmond lawmakers from slipping fee and tax increases into the budget.  

The only remedy is to pass a Constitutional Amendment in the 2011 Assembly session barring this practice.  Here is my “Taxpayer Protection Constitutional Amendment,” H. J. R. 496 which I introduced today, July 19.

“Any law that appropriates funds shall not contain any provision that imposes, continues, increases, or revives any tax, fee, or fine, nor shall any such law contain any provision that reduces or eliminates any credit, deduction, or exemption associated with any tax, fee, or fine.” 

Virginia citizens need this Amendment to block secret tax hikes from passing as part of the Virginia Budget.  No other legal means can prevent this.

Nicely done, Bob (and Chris).  Nicely done.

Cross-posted to VV

A good piece appears in Politico today about Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), political slayer of former Senate Leader Tom Daschle, and who will be at a Republican Party of Virginia event Wednesday.

The article postulates that Thune is establishing his street-cred for a potential run for president.

Thune would be in a strong position if he wants to make a White House run. Handsome, articulate and very popular among conservatives and evangelical Christians, Thune is unopposed in his bid for a second Senate term, an unprecedented position for any Senate candidate in South Dakota history.

He also has $6.9 million in cash in the bank for his Senate reelection fund, according to his June 30 report with the Federal Election Commission, money that could be used to jump-start a presidential campaign.

“I think this is a very critical time for this country. It’s a difficult time,” Thune added. “One of the reasons I think this whole budget debate plays into that is because that’s what most Americans have in terms of their agenda for Congress to be dealing with front and center.”

Thune is planning on rolling out today his proposal on how to change the congressional budget process.

While Thune might be a good cobination of fiscal and social policy conservatism, Gary Johnson of New Mexico should appeal to those with a more libertarian bent.

Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico, has long been a limited government advocate, which included a big push to legalize marajuana.

Of his national policies,

“[Johnson] laments that the nation is “bankrupt” and adds that the current level of national borrowing is “catastrophic.” He blames both parties for this sorry state of affairs.

Johnson’s prescription is plain: “slashing spending,” especially with regard to “the Big Four: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Defense.”

According to an article profiling Johnson in Salon:

As governor of New Mexico, Johnson vetoed some 750 bills, a total that he has said surpasses the aggregate vetoes of all the nation’ s other governors during that period. He became known as “Governor No,” a label he seems to wear with some pride.

If both Thune and Johnson decide to run, it appears conservatives, especially fiscal conservatives, would have some real choice in 2012.

Virginia Beach Will Sessoms has had a good fundraising year, outraising every candidate on the November City Council ballot. The odd thing is he isn’t even on it.

His supposed re-election effort isn’t until 2012, where rumors are former Mayor Meyera Oberndorff is mulling a rematch. Sessoms isn’t doing much to dampen the speculation, raising over $200,000 and currying favor with anti-business groups that were Meyera’s base. If he’s hoping to deter a rematch, kissing up to her base and raising a ton of cash are perfect ways to do that.

But at least he admits it’s also about the other races this fall, and he’ll spread more than a little bit of that to help his friends and hurt his foes. There have been a few too many close votes and drama at Council this year, two things the consensus-loving Sessoms doesn’t like.

How much could he spend? We’ll not know for a long time. Sessoms doesn’t have to file another report until January 18, 2011. He could raise a million dollars and we won’t know until well after the elections.

Political Action Committees have some of the same freedoms. Any contributions under $10,000 received by a PAC after October 1st aren’t reported until next January. No PAC expenditures after October 1st are reported until January either.

This makes the role of kingmaker relatively easy for PACs or non-election candidates like Sessoms. Of course, candidates would have to report any contributions in the normal reporting cycles, but that’s where it gets interesting.

Sessoms has noted great support for Barbara Henley, who lacks any business community support and has raised a scant $300. With Will’s checkbook racking in money for the rest of the year reportable only in January, will Henley need to raise a dime herself? And will voters know from where the support came in time for it to matter? Sessoms could write Henley a giant check on October 1st, not have to report it until January, and Henley wouldn’t have to report it either until October 25th, presumably well after the ads would be airing.

Of course, you don’t have to contribute to a friend to help him. You can pay for attack ads against an opponent. In races with several candidates running at-large, it would be difficult to ascertain any direct in-kind benefit from a heavy television buy attacking one of them.

A PAC can be dormant all year, start raising buckets of cash on October 1st and only contributions of $10,000 or more are reported this year.

I’ve long been a supporter of Virginia’s system of no-limit campaign finance, but these reporting deadlines are a joke, especially in the electronic age. Learning about contributions and expenditures two months after Election Day doesn’t help any voter. I have no problem at all with Mayor Sessoms engaging in the political process, or anyone else for that matter.

But these reporting deadlines are gaping loopholes that are a disservice to transparency that is crucial to Virginia’s campaign finance freedoms.

When I heard this on the road yesterday, I thought my ears decieved me, but they didn’t:

RUSH: We’re sitting here and since everybody is buzzing in Vietnam about Chelsea Clinton’s wedding, we are, too. We’re buzzing about Chelsea Clinton’s wedding. We’re wondering if there is a Lewinsky in Chelsea’s husband’s future. Greetings, and welcome back. Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh. Open Line Friday, Rush Limbaugh. Let’s grab a phone call, since it’s Open Line Friday.

Rush, you’re an asshole.

• Will The Clinton Dynasty Never End ?
• Will The Clinton Dynasty Never End ?
• David Shuster Is An Idiot
• David Shuster Is An Idiot
• The Bride Wore A Princess Leia Slave Costume

At least he didn’t say “Macaca.”

All throughout the 2006 campaign, I argued that the Democrats didn’t know what they were getting in James Webb.

True, on many of the favored issues, Webb toes the party line, but an op-ed in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal shows once again that Webb is not just another rubber stamp for the policies of the left.

Webb writes:

I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America’s economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white.

Read more: Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege

That’s not a typical argument from your typical Democrat. And Webb has to know that it won’t be a popular stance with his base.

In this case, I think Webb doesn’t care. He’s taking an honorable, reasoned approach to the issue, recognizing it may not win him any points.

Is this a signal that Webb is not considering a second term? His resume does read as one who switches jobs, and parties, on a fairly regular basis. Maybe he’s had enough of Washington and wants to get back to writing.

Or maybe he’s just not your typical Washington politician.

Or at least the Tea Party Caucus.

From the Richmond Times Dispatch: Cantor won’t join Tea Party, says ‘better left with the people”

“Part of what is so inspiring about the tea-party movement is that it is not structured like a political party and, instead, is a truly organic, grass-roots effort,” Cantor said. “The movement was born outside of Washington and includes people of all political stripes — Republicans, independents and Democrats — who have come together out of frustration with their government in an effort to force it to change.”

The questions are obvious. Is Cantor revealing that he’s not that conservative after all? Is he afraid that the fringe elements of the Tea Party will damage his future political ambitions?

Maybe.

It’s important to point out that, with regard to the Tea Party, a group of Congressmen is not the Tea Party. The Tea Party at it’s best is an explosion of grass roots activism. It’s not a Congressional Caucus.

True, there are a few Congressmen, Michelle Bachmann among them, that Tea Partiers call their own. But the many in the rank and file is ready to vote them all out.