In the April 8, 2011 Virginian Pilot (Letters to the Editor, “Devastating Cuts,” April 8, 2011), Joe Cook (Hampton Roads Coordinator, MoveOn.org) asserts that Rep. Scott Rigell’s (R-2VA) support of Congressional Bill HR 1 to cut $100 billion from the budget was a “blazing trail of destruction” leading to a loss of 19,500 jobs in Virginia. He further asserts “This is a moral issue; the budget is a moral document.” In between these two statements, he inserts his favorite social programs, which may face cuts, and then sounds the clarion alarm to eliminate corporate subsidies and cut defense. While this is great political theatre, it misses two points.
First, whether the cuts are “moral” or not, stealing money from the next generation by spending money that we do not have is clearly immoral. Because the government borrows forty-three cents on each dollar of its $3.8T budget, Mr. Cook’s argument over the $100B cut is similar (in rough numbers) to our family having a monthly credit card bill of $10,000, but we can only pay $6,000 so my wife and I argue heatedly and incessantly about how to cut $26 of spending.
Second, I agree with Mr. Cook that all cost should be on the table; however, the determination of what should be cut is not just a moral decision, it is also a Constitutional decision. It is not clear to me that all of his priorities (i.e., job training grants) are Constitutional, whereas defense, for example, is clearly a Constitutional priority.
So let’s agree on this: we need to find a way to cut another $3,974 from our “home” budget. If we can’t agree, then let’s carve out those things that are clearly Constitutional expenditures and reduce everything else on a pro rata basis. That will force us to discuss what this political battle is really about: what is the purpose and scope of government and where does government’s responsibility end and the individual’s begin. In this regard, Rep. Rigell is on the right track.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Brother Can You Spare 43 Cents on the Dollar?
Over the next several weeks, Congress faces a tough debate over the 2012 budget. My back of the envelope calculation indicates that the country must cut $500 billion per year out of the budget if it has any hope of remaining solvent in the long term. I do not think that Congress is up to the challenge – they have been unable to cut $60 billion out of last year's budget, which is yet to be approved. And now, according to the Wall Street Journal, groups facing funding cuts are re-defining their marketing message to pander to the concerns of the conservative right. Specifically, Legal Services Corporation, a nonprofit that provides legal assistance to the poor, has been emphasizing that its programs exist to carry out the Founding Fathers’ desire to create fair courts. They cite the preamble to the Constitution. The House voted to reduce the corporation's $394 million appropriation for 2011 by $70 million dollars, but 68 Republicans joined with 191 Democrats to vote down a proposal to cut all funding. More community action programs are lined up behind them.
No matter how empathetic one is to social causes, the money does not exist to fund them. We are currently borrowing 43 cents of every dollar Congress spends. Second, in many cases I do not think that some of these activities are even constitutional. That said, Congress should eliminate funding that the country cannot afford, provides no return on investment, and / or is clearly unconstitutional. For example, included in this category (by way of example, but by no means inclusive) are: (1) elimination of foreign aid to countries who consistently vote against us at the UN and want to kill us, (2) funding that goes to the World Bank / IMF, (3) funding to National Public Radio, and (4) funding that goes to the National Endowment of The Arts. For me these would be straight forward decisions, but apparently not for Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, who keeps a grand piano in his office. Perhaps instead of having the public support NEA, he should simply give concerts in his office. And if he supports NPR, I suggest that he help the public out by personally giving more money to this endeavor.
Last, I do not think any Congressional Republican should entertain visits from George Schultz, who has been asked by the United States Institute of Peace, a federally-funded think tank, to ask Congress to restore its $42.7 million funding in 2011, all of which was eliminated by the House in February. Apparently the group's charter does not allow it to raise private funds: perhaps it should.
No matter how empathetic one is to social causes, the money does not exist to fund them. We are currently borrowing 43 cents of every dollar Congress spends. Second, in many cases I do not think that some of these activities are even constitutional. That said, Congress should eliminate funding that the country cannot afford, provides no return on investment, and / or is clearly unconstitutional. For example, included in this category (by way of example, but by no means inclusive) are: (1) elimination of foreign aid to countries who consistently vote against us at the UN and want to kill us, (2) funding that goes to the World Bank / IMF, (3) funding to National Public Radio, and (4) funding that goes to the National Endowment of The Arts. For me these would be straight forward decisions, but apparently not for Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, who keeps a grand piano in his office. Perhaps instead of having the public support NEA, he should simply give concerts in his office. And if he supports NPR, I suggest that he help the public out by personally giving more money to this endeavor.
Last, I do not think any Congressional Republican should entertain visits from George Schultz, who has been asked by the United States Institute of Peace, a federally-funded think tank, to ask Congress to restore its $42.7 million funding in 2011, all of which was eliminated by the House in February. Apparently the group's charter does not allow it to raise private funds: perhaps it should.
Meanderings about Gerrymandering: A Stake in the Grass Roots
Community leaders and concerned citizens turned out Monday to protest proposed redistricting maps at the Virginia General Assembly’s final public hearing. The hearing was held by the House and Senate elections committees as the General Assembly convened for a special session on redistricting. Sen. Janet Howell (D-32) presented Senate Bill 5001, the plan expected to be voted upon and approved by the full Virginia Senate, which has a 22-18 Democratic majority. In Howell’s proposed plan, the Senate Democrats grouped Republican Sens. Frank Wagner and Jeff McWaters, both of Virginia Beach, into the one district, and shoehorned Sens. Ralph Smith of Roanoke and Lynchburg's Steve Newman into another one. Sen. Frank W. Wagner, R-Virginia Beach, spoke out against the proposed redistricting plan: "They [Virginia Beach citizens] deserve — as a community of over 435,000 people — they deserve, they warrant, they earn two senators," said Wagner. “You want a yardstick for gerrymandering?” Carl Wright, a Virginia Beach resident asked the committee. “Come to our city! It’s been gerrymandered, gerrymandered, re-gerrymandered, and gerrymandered again ... “I’m asking you all today, when you look at the city of Virginia Beach, please consider all of the citizens with a fair and true representation. That’s all I ask.”
In the run-up to these hearings, Governor McDonnell appointed a bipartisan commission to make redistricting recommendations. The commission published maps that look more sensible. Three students from George Mason University showed the committee their map, which won the Virginia Redistricting Competition. Nicholas O’Boyle, one of the map’s designers, said the students’ map reduced the splits of counties to 161 from more than 300 in Howell’s map. The students’ map does not pay much attention to incumbents or political partitioning. Neither the Senate nor the House paid any attention to their inputs. Then again, since when do progressive elected officials listen to citizens when they can re-district them and thereby discount their vote.
Howell said she anticipates changes will be made to the legislation, but said her bill meets all federal and state requirements including the federal Voting Rights Act, which requires, among other things a percentage of voting districts in which minorities are a majority of the population. Not everyone agrees. In a letter to Senator Howell , Clarke County Board of Supervisors chairman Michael Hobert (Berryville) said “Clarke County strongly objects to being divided as part of the Virginia General Assembly redistricting process.” Hobert, an attorney, said that the plan also violates numerous legal precedents regarding election district creation. Citing the Guide to Local Redistricting for 2011, Hobert said that election districts are required to be “reasonably compact with irregular district shapes justified because the district line follows a political subdivision boundary or significant geographic feature” and must “represent communities of interest.” Hobert told Howell that her redistricting proposal achieves neither requirement and will divide Clarke County, a jurisdiction of less than 15,000 people and less than 10,000 registered voters, and violates the principles stated in the Guide to Local Redistricting for 2011 published by the Virginia Division of Legislative Services.
Robin Lind of the Virginia Electoral Board Association and Chesterfield County General Registrar Larry Haake said the new plans could create a substantial financial burden on Virginia's 134 counties and cities because of the number of voting precincts that would be split. Haake said that in Chesterfield alone, the plans could cost the county $600,000 to $1 million in the creation of precincts. State-wide cost is estimated at $6.2 to $6.7 million.
The governor can still fix this mess. McDonnell will get a shot at the final map. Then again, it must be approved by Obama's Department of Justice. Wonder how that will work out for the citizens of Virginia, especially Virginia Beach?
In the run-up to these hearings, Governor McDonnell appointed a bipartisan commission to make redistricting recommendations. The commission published maps that look more sensible. Three students from George Mason University showed the committee their map, which won the Virginia Redistricting Competition. Nicholas O’Boyle, one of the map’s designers, said the students’ map reduced the splits of counties to 161 from more than 300 in Howell’s map. The students’ map does not pay much attention to incumbents or political partitioning. Neither the Senate nor the House paid any attention to their inputs. Then again, since when do progressive elected officials listen to citizens when they can re-district them and thereby discount their vote.
Howell said she anticipates changes will be made to the legislation, but said her bill meets all federal and state requirements including the federal Voting Rights Act, which requires, among other things a percentage of voting districts in which minorities are a majority of the population. Not everyone agrees. In a letter to Senator Howell , Clarke County Board of Supervisors chairman Michael Hobert (Berryville) said “Clarke County strongly objects to being divided as part of the Virginia General Assembly redistricting process.” Hobert, an attorney, said that the plan also violates numerous legal precedents regarding election district creation. Citing the Guide to Local Redistricting for 2011, Hobert said that election districts are required to be “reasonably compact with irregular district shapes justified because the district line follows a political subdivision boundary or significant geographic feature” and must “represent communities of interest.” Hobert told Howell that her redistricting proposal achieves neither requirement and will divide Clarke County, a jurisdiction of less than 15,000 people and less than 10,000 registered voters, and violates the principles stated in the Guide to Local Redistricting for 2011 published by the Virginia Division of Legislative Services.
Robin Lind of the Virginia Electoral Board Association and Chesterfield County General Registrar Larry Haake said the new plans could create a substantial financial burden on Virginia's 134 counties and cities because of the number of voting precincts that would be split. Haake said that in Chesterfield alone, the plans could cost the county $600,000 to $1 million in the creation of precincts. State-wide cost is estimated at $6.2 to $6.7 million.
The governor can still fix this mess. McDonnell will get a shot at the final map. Then again, it must be approved by Obama's Department of Justice. Wonder how that will work out for the citizens of Virginia, especially Virginia Beach?
Monday, March 28, 2011
Congress's Choice: Rude Awakening or Rule Making
Recent actions by the administration clearly demonstrate the President’s intention to circumvent enacted laws and clear direction by Congress, through regulation, on matters on which Congress has taken a firm, opposing position. Specific recent examples include:
• FCC regulation of the Internet (so called Net Neutrality) even though the FCC has no legal authority to regulate the Internet and the Congress expressly voted against his rule-making in December 2010.
• Proposed rule-making by the EPA to regulate carbon emissions (so called Cap and Trade) even though the Congress expressly voted against these policies in December 2010.
• The President’s and his Justice Department’s decision to provide special protections to non-uniformed, non-state combatants (terrorists) under so-called Protocol 1 Amendment to the Geneva Conventions, even though this provision was rejected by Congress and former President Reagan during his administration.
This should concern every American, who believes in the rule of law, as expressed by our Constitution. Only legislation that passes both Houses and is signed by the President should be enforced as law. These actions by the President and his administration marginalize the Congress, by-pass the constitutional process, and over time are intended to establish a precedent for unilaterally enacting “law” through Presidential fiat. Beyond this, it is an example of how secular progressives have and will continue to transfer power from the people to the “elected few” in their goal of global governance and a establishment of a new world order, at the expense of our individual, God-given liberties.
It is time that Congress takes action to re-establish Constitutional limits on presidential authority and reassert Federalism under the Constitution by taking one or more of the following actions:
• Pass resolutions in the House that DIRECTLY and CLEARLY repudiate the rule-making actions that are being taken by the President and are in contravention to the expressed direction of the will of the people, their elected representatives in Congress, and the Constitution of the United States.
• Under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution explicitly limit the number of “inferior officers” (this would include cabinet heads, Czars, and other regulatory officers) that can be appointed by the President and, instead, have them appointed by Congress.
• Use the budgeting process to cut funding to those administration departments that choose not to follow Congress’s expressed will.
If the foregoing actions do not produce the desired result and instead the President continues to contravene the will of the Congress, the aforementioned resolutions should be used to draw up a bill of particulars that would form the basis for impeachment, which is a power granted solely to the House of Representatives under Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution.
I fear that without action by Congress, continued Presidential “legislative action through rule-making” will make the constitution irrelevant.
• FCC regulation of the Internet (so called Net Neutrality) even though the FCC has no legal authority to regulate the Internet and the Congress expressly voted against his rule-making in December 2010.
• Proposed rule-making by the EPA to regulate carbon emissions (so called Cap and Trade) even though the Congress expressly voted against these policies in December 2010.
• The President’s and his Justice Department’s decision to provide special protections to non-uniformed, non-state combatants (terrorists) under so-called Protocol 1 Amendment to the Geneva Conventions, even though this provision was rejected by Congress and former President Reagan during his administration.
This should concern every American, who believes in the rule of law, as expressed by our Constitution. Only legislation that passes both Houses and is signed by the President should be enforced as law. These actions by the President and his administration marginalize the Congress, by-pass the constitutional process, and over time are intended to establish a precedent for unilaterally enacting “law” through Presidential fiat. Beyond this, it is an example of how secular progressives have and will continue to transfer power from the people to the “elected few” in their goal of global governance and a establishment of a new world order, at the expense of our individual, God-given liberties.
It is time that Congress takes action to re-establish Constitutional limits on presidential authority and reassert Federalism under the Constitution by taking one or more of the following actions:
• Pass resolutions in the House that DIRECTLY and CLEARLY repudiate the rule-making actions that are being taken by the President and are in contravention to the expressed direction of the will of the people, their elected representatives in Congress, and the Constitution of the United States.
• Under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution explicitly limit the number of “inferior officers” (this would include cabinet heads, Czars, and other regulatory officers) that can be appointed by the President and, instead, have them appointed by Congress.
• Use the budgeting process to cut funding to those administration departments that choose not to follow Congress’s expressed will.
If the foregoing actions do not produce the desired result and instead the President continues to contravene the will of the Congress, the aforementioned resolutions should be used to draw up a bill of particulars that would form the basis for impeachment, which is a power granted solely to the House of Representatives under Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution.
I fear that without action by Congress, continued Presidential “legislative action through rule-making” will make the constitution irrelevant.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Progressive Energy Policy: Too Much Sun, Too Little Sense
In the article, “Sierra Club slams Gov. McDonnell's Va. energy plan,” Associated Press, October 11, 2010, Steve Szotak writes that the Sierra Club is not happy with Governor McDonnell’s energy policy. In its report, entitled "Power Failure: How Virginia is Losing the Competition for Clean Energy Jobs," the Sierra Club states that the Governor has failed “to recognize and take advantage of abundant opportunities that exist with energy efficiency and renewable energy.” In addition to the criticism of McDonnell's proposed energy strategy, the Sierra Club report also recommends a series of proposals, among them:
• Utility rate structures that increase in price based on power consumption, and reduced rates for customers who use less power.
• Programs to help homeowners evaluate and retrofit their homes for energy efficiency.
• Adoption of a standard that requires at least 20 percent of electric demand be met by renewable energy by 2025.
• Rescinding tax credits paid to coal mining companies and utilities.
• Rebates or tax credits for investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy.
In effect, the Sierra Club wishes to replace market demand with political demand.
So how is the replacement of economic science (the law of supply and demand) by political science (the law of unintended consequences) working out so far in the real world? All we have to do is turn to two other recent reports.
In a July 31, 2010, Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook article, entitled “Peak Water,” it was reported that the state of Arizona has mandated that utilities produce 15% of their electricity from “green sources” by 2025. With more than 10 months of plentiful sunshine and vast tracts of desert, Arizona would appear to be ideal for solar. There is only one problem: because of solar’s low energy density, the steam turbine that drives the electrical generator requires twice as much water than a conventional coal plant. And that’s a big problem: there is limited water in the desert. In fact, in 2009, the Congressional Research Service examined the consequences of a solar expansion in the southwest, and reported that it could consume as much as 1% of the state's finite water resources within a few years. So, Arizona – which is currently a net exporter of conventional electricity to surrounding states (most notably California, the “greenest” of all states), is about to create a water shortage to meet some artificial environmental emergency.
How about electric vehicles (EVs)? In the Wall Street Journal article, “Bumpy road for electrics”, by Mike Ramsey, October 18, 2010, the Obama administration is spending more than $5B in tax credits, subsidized loans, and grants to automakers with the goal of getting one million EVs / hybrids on the road. Ford, Honda, Toyota, and various battery suppliers caution that this goal is too optimistic. According to Ramsey, “Many experts say the trade-offs and economics of the cars don’t make sense for most drivers – even with a $7,500 US tax credit to buyers.” Cars, like the Nissan Leaf and GM Volt will cost between $33,000 and $41,000: about twice the cost of similar conventional vehicles. Johnson Controls, which makes batteries for the cars, found that the pool of potential buyers, for which the cars make sense, is very small – about 3% of all drivers. What needs to occur to drive demand? According to Boston Consulting Group’s Xavier Mosquet, gas prices must rise to $8 to $9 dollars per gallon before electric cars will be cost effective.
Add to these unintended consequences, the fact that the Obama administration is promoting the idea of increasing the ethanol content of gasoline from 10% to 15%. Not only may such a move have a harmful effect on older automobile engines, but will provide additional incentives to agriculture to convert arable acreage from food production to fuel production. Based on various sources, one acre of land produces a paltry 12 to 20 gallons of gasoline per year or can feed 8 people.
So what can we conclude? In order to save the planet, we will have to make sure its inhabitants are living in poverty and hunger first. This is readily achieved by artificially raising the price of gasoline by taxing it so that electric vehicles are more “cost-effective.” In parallel, we can divert our water and agricultural resources to other uses, so that the price of food and water goes up. Not to worry, we can pay for it with the money we “save” from our now cost-effective transportation: that is, if we have enough food to eat or water to drink.
Maybe, just maybe, these folks should come in from the sun.
• Utility rate structures that increase in price based on power consumption, and reduced rates for customers who use less power.
• Programs to help homeowners evaluate and retrofit their homes for energy efficiency.
• Adoption of a standard that requires at least 20 percent of electric demand be met by renewable energy by 2025.
• Rescinding tax credits paid to coal mining companies and utilities.
• Rebates or tax credits for investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy.
In effect, the Sierra Club wishes to replace market demand with political demand.
So how is the replacement of economic science (the law of supply and demand) by political science (the law of unintended consequences) working out so far in the real world? All we have to do is turn to two other recent reports.
In a July 31, 2010, Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook article, entitled “Peak Water,” it was reported that the state of Arizona has mandated that utilities produce 15% of their electricity from “green sources” by 2025. With more than 10 months of plentiful sunshine and vast tracts of desert, Arizona would appear to be ideal for solar. There is only one problem: because of solar’s low energy density, the steam turbine that drives the electrical generator requires twice as much water than a conventional coal plant. And that’s a big problem: there is limited water in the desert. In fact, in 2009, the Congressional Research Service examined the consequences of a solar expansion in the southwest, and reported that it could consume as much as 1% of the state's finite water resources within a few years. So, Arizona – which is currently a net exporter of conventional electricity to surrounding states (most notably California, the “greenest” of all states), is about to create a water shortage to meet some artificial environmental emergency.
How about electric vehicles (EVs)? In the Wall Street Journal article, “Bumpy road for electrics”, by Mike Ramsey, October 18, 2010, the Obama administration is spending more than $5B in tax credits, subsidized loans, and grants to automakers with the goal of getting one million EVs / hybrids on the road. Ford, Honda, Toyota, and various battery suppliers caution that this goal is too optimistic. According to Ramsey, “Many experts say the trade-offs and economics of the cars don’t make sense for most drivers – even with a $7,500 US tax credit to buyers.” Cars, like the Nissan Leaf and GM Volt will cost between $33,000 and $41,000: about twice the cost of similar conventional vehicles. Johnson Controls, which makes batteries for the cars, found that the pool of potential buyers, for which the cars make sense, is very small – about 3% of all drivers. What needs to occur to drive demand? According to Boston Consulting Group’s Xavier Mosquet, gas prices must rise to $8 to $9 dollars per gallon before electric cars will be cost effective.
Add to these unintended consequences, the fact that the Obama administration is promoting the idea of increasing the ethanol content of gasoline from 10% to 15%. Not only may such a move have a harmful effect on older automobile engines, but will provide additional incentives to agriculture to convert arable acreage from food production to fuel production. Based on various sources, one acre of land produces a paltry 12 to 20 gallons of gasoline per year or can feed 8 people.
So what can we conclude? In order to save the planet, we will have to make sure its inhabitants are living in poverty and hunger first. This is readily achieved by artificially raising the price of gasoline by taxing it so that electric vehicles are more “cost-effective.” In parallel, we can divert our water and agricultural resources to other uses, so that the price of food and water goes up. Not to worry, we can pay for it with the money we “save” from our now cost-effective transportation: that is, if we have enough food to eat or water to drink.
Maybe, just maybe, these folks should come in from the sun.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Fact Re-distribution: The Myth of Meritocracy
In a letter to the editor of the Washington Post on October 17, 2010, “The myth of meritocracy,” Philip Allen asserts, without facts, that “Wealth in America is more often accumulated by the already wealthy, privilege by the entitled, and impoverishment by the already poor.” “... risk-taking diligents who ‘make it’ are far outnumbered by the fortunate and privileged who start ‘ready-made.’” While I cannot speak to privilege and impoverishment, I can speak to the accumulation of wealth by the "risk-taking diligents" and support my argument with facts.
The “wealthy” I assume are the top income earners: the people who either own small businesses in America or receive employment from those businesses. The small businesses they own are recognizable in every town: gas stations, laundries, retail franchises, and other boutique family businesses. According to 10 Secrets that Millionaires Keep, by Daren Fonda of Smart Money, the financially successful, defined as those who have a net worth of $1M, are 90% more wealthy than other US households, earn on average $366,000 per year, and are in the top 1% of taxpayers. Their number has doubled since 2002, with half of them earning their wealth in their lifetime from small business, one-third from large corporations, and less than 3 percent through inheritance. Most come from families, which would not be classified as wealthy, and have enjoyed their financial success for less than 15 years. Their median grade-point average in college was 2.9, with an average SAT score of 1,190. Fifty-nine percent attended a state college or university.
What is a “wealthy” person’s secret to success? In their words, it is hard work, discipline, education, and treating others with respect. This seems to be borne out by the Year 2000 Census data. Of the 39 million people representing the bottom 20% of income earners only 8 million heads of household worked. Of the 64 million people representing the top 20% of income earners 19 million worked.
Other than their wealth, the “wealthy” seem to be a lot like the average American, except they have taken extraordinary risks, worked smarter and harder, and converted the opportunities presented to them into greater financial success.
Mr. Allen is entitled to his opinion; he is not entitled to his own facts.
The “wealthy” I assume are the top income earners: the people who either own small businesses in America or receive employment from those businesses. The small businesses they own are recognizable in every town: gas stations, laundries, retail franchises, and other boutique family businesses. According to 10 Secrets that Millionaires Keep, by Daren Fonda of Smart Money, the financially successful, defined as those who have a net worth of $1M, are 90% more wealthy than other US households, earn on average $366,000 per year, and are in the top 1% of taxpayers. Their number has doubled since 2002, with half of them earning their wealth in their lifetime from small business, one-third from large corporations, and less than 3 percent through inheritance. Most come from families, which would not be classified as wealthy, and have enjoyed their financial success for less than 15 years. Their median grade-point average in college was 2.9, with an average SAT score of 1,190. Fifty-nine percent attended a state college or university.
What is a “wealthy” person’s secret to success? In their words, it is hard work, discipline, education, and treating others with respect. This seems to be borne out by the Year 2000 Census data. Of the 39 million people representing the bottom 20% of income earners only 8 million heads of household worked. Of the 64 million people representing the top 20% of income earners 19 million worked.
Other than their wealth, the “wealthy” seem to be a lot like the average American, except they have taken extraordinary risks, worked smarter and harder, and converted the opportunities presented to them into greater financial success.
Mr. Allen is entitled to his opinion; he is not entitled to his own facts.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
November is Nye Upon Us
This weekend, I traveled to Richmond to hear the second congressional district candidates defend their positions before the Virginia Tea Party convention. I was surprised to learn that Congressman Glenn Nye had backed out at the last minute. This behavior was not totally unexpected: he has previously canceled breakfast meetings, scheduled town halls on military bases where civilians could not participate, and in general, deferred forming an opinion on controversial issues until the last minute so that he did not have to defend them.
However, I did get the answer to the question I wanted to ask him. In a posting on the Hampton Roads Tea Party Facebook page, announcing Congressman Nye’s withdrawal from the forum, he was asked if he would vote for Nancy Pelosi again as speaker of the house. “He said, he would ‘cast a vote for whoever the Democratic Caucus put forward.’ … and if Pelosi was put forward? Glen[n] Nye responded, ‘Yeah, I’d vote for her.’”
That is why I am voting for Scott Rigell. Not only is Mr. Rigell qualified, but a vote for Nye or Ken Golden – the unelectable independent in the race – is in effect nothing more than a vote for Nancy Pelosi. It is time for a return to smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and constitutional principles.
However, I did get the answer to the question I wanted to ask him. In a posting on the Hampton Roads Tea Party Facebook page, announcing Congressman Nye’s withdrawal from the forum, he was asked if he would vote for Nancy Pelosi again as speaker of the house. “He said, he would ‘cast a vote for whoever the Democratic Caucus put forward.’ … and if Pelosi was put forward? Glen[n] Nye responded, ‘Yeah, I’d vote for her.’”
That is why I am voting for Scott Rigell. Not only is Mr. Rigell qualified, but a vote for Nye or Ken Golden – the unelectable independent in the race – is in effect nothing more than a vote for Nancy Pelosi. It is time for a return to smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and constitutional principles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)