Category Archives: costs

Top 20 Reasons to Support Donald Trump

I didn’t write these and honestly do not know who did. They were circulated as having been written by Peggy Noonan in a column for the Wall Street Journal. This was not the case. And while the false attribution gives rise to many believing they can discount the message, that is simply not the case. These are valid reasons to support Donald Trump. And these are all statements Trump has uttered at his packed rallies or elsewhere.

I tried to post this on Facebook and I believe Facebook is censoring it. I can post anything else I want it seems, so I posted this on my blog.

1.) Trump believes that America should not intervene militarily in other country’s problems without being compensated for doing so. If America is going to risk the lives of our soldiers and incur the expense of going to war, then the nations we help must be willing to pay for our help. Using the Iraq War as an example, he cites the huge monetary expense to American taxpayers (over $1.5 trillion, and possibly much more depending on what sources are used to determine the cost) in addition to the cost in human life. He suggests that Iraq should have been required to give us enough of their oil to pay for the expenses we incurred. He includes in those expenses the medical costs for our military and $5 million for each family that lost a loved one in the war and $2 million for each family of soldiers who received severe injuries.

2.) Trump wants America to have a strong military again. He believes the single most important function of the federal government is national defense. He has said he wants to find the General Patton or General MacArthur that could lead our military buildup back to the strength it needs to be. While he hasn’t said it directly that I know of, Trump’s attitude about America and about winning tells me he’d most likely be quick to eliminate rules of engagement that handicap our military in battle. Clearly Trump is a “win at all costs” kind of guy, and I’m sure that would apply to our national defense and security, too

3.) Trump wants a strong foreign policy and believes that it must include 7 core principles American interests come first. Always. No apologies. Maximum firepower and military preparedness. Only go to war to win. Stay loyal to your friends and suspicious of your enemies.Keep the technological sword razor sharp. See the unseen Prepare for threats before they materialize. Respect and support our present and past warriors.

4.) Trump believes that terrorists who are captured should be treated as military combatants, not as criminals like the Obama administration treats them.

5.) Trump makes the point that China’s manipulation of their currency has given them unfair advantage in our trade dealings with them. He says we must tax their imports to offset their currency manipulation, which will cause American companies to be competitive again and drive manufacturing back to America and create jobs here. Although he sees China as the biggest offender, he believes that America should protect itself from all foreign efforts to take our jobs and manufacturing. For example, Ford is building a plant in Mexico and Trump suggests that every part or vehicle Ford makes in Mexico be taxed 35% if they want to bring it into the U. S., which would cause companies like Ford to no longer be competitive using their Mexican operations and move manufacturing back to the U.S., once again creating jobs here.

6.) Trump wants passage of NOPEC legislation (No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act – NOPEC – S.394), which would allow the government to sue OPEC for violating antitrust laws. According to Trump, that would break up the cartel. He also wants to unleash our energy companies to drill domestically (sound like Sarah Palin’s drill baby, drill?) thereby increasing domestic production creating jobs and driving domestic costs of oil and gas down while reducing dependence on foreign oil.

7.) Trump believes a secure border is critical for both security and prosperity in America. He wants to build a wall to stop illegals from entering and put controls on immigration. (And he says he’ll get Mexico to pay for the wall, which many have scoffed at, but given his business successes I wouldn’t put it past him.) He also wants to enforce our immigration laws and provide no path to citizenship for illegals.

8.) Trump wants a radical change to the tax system to not only make it better for average Americans, but also to encourage businesses to stay here and foreign businesses to move here. The resulting influx of money to our nation would do wonders for our economy. He wants to make America the place to do business. He also wants to lower the death tax and the taxes on capital gains and dividends. This would put more than $1.6 trillion back into the economy and help rebuild the 1.5 million jobs we’ve lost to the current tax system. He also wants to charge companies who outsource jobs overseas a 20% tax, but for those willing to move jobs back to America they would not be taxed. And for citizens he has a tax plan that would allow Americans to keep more of what they earn and spark economic growth. He wants to change the personal income tax to: Up to $30,000 taxed at 1%. From $30,000 to $100,000 taxed at 5%. From $100,000 to $1,000,000 taxed at 10%. $1,000,000 and above taxed at 15%.

9.) Trump wants Obamacare repealed. He says it’s a “job-killing, health care-destroying monstrosity” that “can’t be reformed, salvaged, or fixed.” He believes in allowing real competition in the health insurance marketplace to allow competition to drive prices down. He also believes in tort reform to get rid of defensive medicine and lower costs.

10.) Trump wants spending reforms in Washington, acknowledging that America spends far more than it receives in revenue. He has said he believes that if we don’t stop increasing the national debt once it hits $24 trillion it will be impossible to save this country.

11.) Even though he says we need to cut spending, he does not want to harm those on Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. He believes that the citizens have faithfully paid in to the system to have these services available and that the American government has an obligation to fulfill its end of the bargain and provide those benefits. Therefore, he wants to build the economy up so that we have the revenue to pay those costs without cutting the benefits to the recipients. He disagrees with Democrats who think raising taxes is the answer and says that when you do that you stifle the economy. On the other hand, when you lower taxes and create an environment to help businesses they will grow, hire more workers, and those new workers will be paying taxes that become more tax revenue for the government.

12.) Trump also wants reform of the welfare state saying that America needs “a safety net, not a hammock.” He believes in a welfare to work program that would help reduce the welfare roles and encourage people to get back to work. And he wants a crackdown on entitlement fraud.

13.) Trump believes climate change is a hoax.

14.) Trump opposes Common Core.

15.) Trump is pro-life, although he allows for an exception due to rape, incest, or the life of the mother.

16.) Trump is pro 2nd Amendment rights.

17.) Trump’s view on same-sex marriage is that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he also believes that this is a states rights issue, not a federal issue.

18.) Trump supports the death penalty. Trump believes that there is a lack of common sense, innovative thinking in Washington (Hmmm… looks like he believes in horse sense!). He says it’s about seeing the unseen and that’s the kind of thinking we need to turn this country around. He tells a personal story to illustrate the point: “When I opened Trump National Golf Club at Rancho Palos Verdes in Los Angeles, I was immediately told that I would need to build a new and costly ballroom. The current ballroom was gorgeous, but it only sat 200 people and we were losing business because people needed a larger space for their events. Building a new ballroom would take years to get approval and permits (since it’s on the Pacific Ocean), and cost about $5 million. I took one look at the ballroom and saw immediately what needed to be done. The problem wasn’t the size of the room, it was the size of the chairs. They were huge, heavy, and unwieldy. We didn’t need a bigger ballroom, we needed smaller chairs! So I had them replaced with high-end, smaller chairs. I then had our people sell the old chairs and got more money for them than the cost of the new chairs. In the end, the ballroom went from seating 200 people to seating 320 people. Our visitors got the space they desired, and I spared everyone the hassle of years of construction and $5 million of expense. It’s amazing what you can accomplish with a little common sense. On top of his saving years of construction and $5 million in expenses, he also was able to keep the ballroom open for business during the time it would have been under remodeling, which allowed him to continue to make money on the space instead of losing that revenue during construction time.

  1. Donald Trump’s entire life has been made up of success and winning. He’s been accused of bankruptcies, but that’s not true. He’s never filed personal bankruptcy. He’s bought companies and legally used bankruptcy laws to restructure their debt, just as businesses do all the time. But he’s never been bankrupt personally.

  2. He’s a fighter that clearly loves America and would fight for our nation. Earlier I quoted Trump saying, “I love America. And when you love something, you protect it passionately – fiercely, even.” We never hear that from Democrats or even from most Republicans. Donald Trump is saying things that desperately need to be said but no other candidate has shown the fortitude to stand up and say them. Looking over this list of what he wants for America I see a very necessary set of goals that are long past due.

Article written by: Tom White

IT’S OUT! The Statewide Indigent Defense Bill Sponsored by Senator Dance is OUT! Senate Joint Resolution 51!

The Commonwealth is one small step closer to equal justice under law tonight with the introduction of Senate Joint Resolution 51, sponsored by Senator Rosalyn R. Dance and co-sponsored by Delegates Lashrecse D. Aird (newly elected) and Lamont Bagby.  (I expect one or more delegates to sign on to it; stay tuned.)  Here is the place to read the text of the bill and here is the blurb about it:

SJ 51 Comprehensive indigent defense system; State Crime Commission to study.

Introduced by: Rosalyn R. Dance | all patrons    …    notes | add to my profiles


Study; indigent defense; report. Directs the Virginia State Crime Commission to study the feasibility and costs of establishing a comprehensive indigent defense system in the Commonwealth.

Now here is the full text:

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 51 Offered January 13, 2016Prefiled January 6, 2016Directing the Virginia State Crime Commission to study the feasibility and costs of establishing a comprehensive indigent defense system in the Commonwealth. Report.

———-Patrons– Dance; Delegates: Aird and Bagby———-Referred to Committee on Rules———-

WHEREAS, in 1920, the Virginia General Assembly first determined the need for more adequate defense of indigents in the Commonwealth, but it was not until 1972 that the Virginia Public Defender Commission (now the Virginia Indigent Defense Commission) was established and the General Assembly established the first public defender offices; and

WHEREAS, public defender offices currently exist in some jurisdictions of the Commonwealth but not in others; and

WHEREAS, it is imperative to evaluate the disparity in services and resources between those jurisdictions that have public defender offices and those that do not; and

WHEREAS, in the past, the General Assembly has studied various issues associated with indigent defense but never the feasibility of a statewide public defender system with an appellate defender and post-conviction unit; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary to study the amount and sources of funds that the judicial branch brings into the state budget, as well as other sources of funds such as court costs and split recovery for punitive damages, as potential sources of funds to establish and maintain a statewide public defender system; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED by the Senate, the House of Delegates concurring, That the Virginia State Crime Commission be directed to study the feasibility and costs of establishing a comprehensive indigent defense system in the Commonwealth and potential sources of funds for a statewide public defender system with an appellate defender and post-conviction unit. In conducting its study, the Virginia State Crime Commission shall focus on three broad areas: the feasibility of a statewide system and how best to establish and maintain such a system; the costs to establish and maintain a statewide system, including identification of potential sources of funds; and the disparities that exist as a result of the existing system, including whether those disparities warrant the establishment of a statewide public defender system.

All agencies of the Commonwealth shall provide assistance to the Commission for this study, upon request.

The Commission shall complete its work in time to submit its findings and recommendations to the Governor and the 2017 Session of the General Assembly as provided in the procedures of the Division of Legislative Automated Systems for the processing of legislative documents.

It’s not too late for YOUR delegate and senator to sign on to this bill.  Let’s find out what it will take to have a statewide indigent defense system and why we should do it.


Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

Animosity Builds Toward Dominion Power in James City and Lancaster Counties

Dominion Power is leaving a great many residents around James City County and Lancaster County furious with their proposed above ground power line proposals across the James and Rappahannock Rivers respectively. The essential controversy is between two possible ways of getting power lines across a river. The first and least expensive option is to run giant towers and lines about the water, ruining the landscape for tourists and locals. The second and more expensive option is to run these power lines underneath the river. While it is necessary for Dominion Power to get these extra lines across these rivers to maintain quality of service for their customers, one does have to wonder, regardless of cost, why they would not preserve the appearance of  their natural resources when it is within their power to do so.

Opponents of the towers have accused Dominion of inflating estimated costs for an underground line. According to Lancaster County supervisor Jason Bellows, they got their estimate of $225 million off a fact sheet from James City County for the York River crossing. It also noted the actual costs for the underground line were significantly less at $75 million.

“I don’t know where they got that estimate,” said Krek. “We never did a detailed estimate. The final costs were about $85 million.”

Dominion estimated a cost of $10 million for the Rappahannock River towers when they applied for a permit from the Virginia Marine Resources Commission. They later revised the estimate to $30 million. Southside Sentinel

Dominion-After-River-Tower-1015It may be impossible to prove whether or not Dominion is overestimating the cost of underground lines. Assuming that is the case, whatever Dominion claims the cost will be is what these counties will have to deal with if they want to strike a compromise. I am completely opposed to requiring companies to operate at a lose while they provide a valuable service to their customers, but there must be some room for a deal.

This picture is what the Rappahannock Power Lines would look like constructed above ground. It isn’t pretty. I can understand Dominion Power preferring to construct necessary lines at a minimal cost, but the ugliness of it all may have added costs for local counties if tourists decide these eye-sores are a cause to spend their dollars elsewhere.

At the end of the day, a bargain ought to be struck, and James City County and Lancaster County should find a way to pay for underground lines in order to preserve their landscape. I am unsure of all the legal and financial issues involved, but I find it difficult to believe that there is no room for agreement. The residents of James City County and Lancaster County absolutely do not want these above ground lines and it is not as if they could choose a different power supplier in protest of Dominion’s decisions here. These projects should be put on hold until a workable alternative amenable to all parties can be established.


Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker

Canova Peterson Platform: Eliminating proffers that were never actually paid made new houses, (up 13%), more affordable.

Canova Peterson is the current Mechanicsville District Supervisor in Hanover County, Va. Four years ago I helped get him elected and he barely squeaked by, winning by just 75 votes.Canova

I was proud to help with signs and I talked to hundreds of voters on election day at the polls in Mechanicsville. I don’t know the exact number, but I know a good portion of the 75 votes that put Peterson over the top were from people I personally convinced to vote for Canova.

And in reviewing the last 4 years and Peterson’s record, I can say I will not be taking a vacation day on November 3, 2015 to help Peterson at the polls. He has been a disappointment and, in my opinion, detrimental to the dream of keeping Hanover a safe, rural place to live.

Voters made a tremendous error in 2011 by electing too many supervisors to the board that had ties to developers and builders. We have seen $52 million in proffers fly out of window as Peterson and the other developer cronies voted to eliminate proffers that help to defray the costs to the existing property owners in the form of cash, land and roads and other items that will prevent a lot of the costs of the development from being passed on to existing property owners.

Canova Peterson’s largest source of campaign money, not surprisingly, is the Real Estate / Construction business according to VPAP. Peterson is an architect with close ties to the construction business.

So it shouldn’t have been a surprise that Canova Peterson was one of the developer lackeys leading the charge to eliminate proffers and line the pockets of his top donor class. And the spin and excuses Peterson has delivered in the years since he voted to get rid of proffers is staggering.

And at the September meeting of the Hanover County Republican Committee Canova Peterson rose to address the committee at the end of the meeting and complained about the misinformation being spread around. We agree with him that there is a lot of misinformation, but all he need do to locate the source is look in a mirror.

Canova’s Spin: Proffers make housing un-affordable.

In a debate held last month between Peterson and his challenger Glenn Millican, Peterson made the following argument as a reason to eliminate proffers:

We have a need for all types of housing in this community. Not just single family housing for the well to do. Our teachers, and first responders on the Fire Department, they deserve to be able to have homes too. Many of them when they are first starting out cannot afford that first house. One of the things that’s very important that we have done over the last 2 ½ years is we did help that by getting rid of the proffers. We reduced the price on those houses so that the lower people can afford a house quicker. Our children are no longer banned to living in other communities because they cannot afford to live in the county they grew up in. (Video can be found here and this statement is at the 10:00 minute mark in video #1.)

So according to Peterson, eliminating proffers made housing more affordable so the “lower people” can afford to buy. But proffers were only added to brand new homes. The county has plenty of starter homes and rentals for those starting out who are at the dawn of their careers. But the truth is, eliminating proffers has done nothing to lower the price of new homes in Hanover.

false-fact-checkFact Check: Peterson gets an F on this  claim.

One of the arguments for eliminating proffers was that the cost of housing would go down. In a presentation on the state of the county in November, County Administrator Rhu Harris reported that new housing costs were up by 13 percent in 2014. (See article in the Hanover Herald Progress.)

So even the county administrator would have to give Peterson 5 Pinocchio’s on this claim. Peterson’s developer buddies are not passing the savings on to the new home buyers. They are simply taking the opportunity to milk more money from new citizens while leaving the current citizens holding the bag for additional police, fire, school, water, sewer and other costs. Peterson is not being honest with the Hanover voters on this.

Canova’s Spin: The County Lost Nothing by Eliminating Proffers

In the same debate, Peterson made the following statement:

The County lost nothing. We never had $52 million to begin with. What we had was a wish and a hope that this money would come forward to begin with. Proffers came into being in Hanover in 1990 at $1,800 per house. When we got rid of the policy in 2012-2013 session it was $20,000 per house.

At $20,000 the most we ever collected was $2 million and that was in 1 year. The average over the 20 years was $1.3 million. People were talking about trying to collect $10 million over the next several years. That’s all based on hope and promises.

We replaced that with the Reserve Capitafalse-fact-checkl Improvements Project that used guaranteed money adding up to $180 million over that same amount of time.

Fact Check: Peterson gets an F on this claim.

Here are a few actual examples of proffers that Peterson calls a “wish and a hope”. And remember, the Real Estate / Construction industry is his largest single source of campaign funding.

Total Receivable Applicant/Developer
1,640,160 Rogers-Chenault, Inc
6,539,141 Wilton Development Corp.
186,692 Colonial Homecrafters, LLC
412,794 The Hanover Group
120,876 The Hanover Group
410,685 D.O Allen Homes
118,430 S L A, LLC
413,375 Diamond Group
377,165 Dee Associates, LLC
2,951,517 Four West Company
2,231,307 Four West Company
661,353 BWW Holdings
8,620,326 Hanover Development LLC
854,426 Glebe Hill Associates
558,858 Godsey Properties, Inc
3,518,669 Hickory Hill, LLC
2,340,184 Commonwealth Lands
1,511,664 Rogers-Chenault
2,159,520 Mountain Air, LLC
1,190,520 D&R Property Development, Inc
396,126 Atlantic Coast Townhomes, LLC
938,706 Atlantic Coast Townhomes, LLC
3,120,480 HHHunt, LLC
277,051 Godsey Properties Inc.
364,925 Historic Polegreen Church
417,656 Colonial Homecrafters, LLC
76,168 Rogers-Chenault, Inc
494,460 Carter Oaks, LLC
373,531 Balducci Developers, LLC
372,572 Mount Hermon, LLC
223,882 Mountain Run, LLC
383,530 Rogers-Chenault, Inc
843,771 HHHunt, LLC
446,445 Santee Farm, Inc
492,470 Anthony Sherman
705,778 Godsey Properties, Inc
412,940 West Point Resolution Co.

So, what could we do with this list of “wishes and hope”? Could our schools use any of that money? How about police and firefighters? Yes, there are limits on what proffers may be used for, but money is fungible.

Can you spot the glaring error in Canova Peterson’s logic?Stupidity-quote-inspiration

Political junkies like myself have been following and watching in horror as Canova Peterson and his developer buddies (along with the rest of the Board of Supervisors) have watched with horror as Hanover is paved with blacktop, houses and low income housing with no source of revenue to take the additional burden off of taxpayers. Something about Canova’s absurd arguments didn’t add up. And it hit me the other night.

Peterson claims that proffers made housing too expensive and in almost the same breath he claims we never actually collected the money.

So eliminating the proffers that were never actually paid and made housing too expensive (for the children he cries) has now made new houses, which have gone up in price by 13%, more affordable.

Let me repeat Canova’s stance on proffers:

Eliminating the proffers that were never actually paid and made housing too expensive (for the children he cries) has now made new houses, which have gone up in price by 13%, more affordable.

And Peterson whines about the misinformation going around.

Are you beginning to see why I will not be taking my vacation day this time to help Canova at the polls? No, I will sit back like the majority of the Hanover Republicans and do as little as possible. I will not be the grassroots this time to elect this supervisor to another 4 year term. Because he doesn’t deserve it. It is a shame that there was no primary challenger. One who will be truthful and honest with the voters.

Peterson Avoiding Debates

The Herald Progress planned to hold a debate at Lee Davis High School last month, but Peterson, citing a scheduling conflict, backed out. When I suggested that he use his Town Hall scheduled for tonight (10/13/2015) as a makeup debate, he refused.

You know why he refused? Because he can’t find a response to the question:

Eliminating the proffers that were never actually paid and made housing too expensive (for the children, he cries!) has now made new houses, which have gone up in price by 13%, more affordable.

Peterson Won’t Debate, but Sends in a Plant

Glenn Millican, the challenger, was more than willing to answer questions from Mechanicsville voters and held a Town Hall meeting in place of the debate Peterson backed out of. And while Peterson was unable to come, he did send in a plant, a Mr. Warren Rice. Rice read from talking points and repeated the same absurd claims Peterson has used to defend his “Eliminating the proffers that were never actually paid and made housing too expensive (for the children he cries) has now made new houses, which have gone up in price by 13%, more affordable” platform. (And by the way, Rice is a Peterson supporter and donor.)

What Rice claimed was that his son, a Hanover Firefighter, was forced to move to New Kent because the cost of proffers made a home in Hanover unaffordable – fitting in nicely as a prop to attempt to bolster Peterson’s argument from the debate that he muffed so badly.

And we will ignore the absurd contention by Rice that the proffers add $20,000 to the assessment of the house and the taxes ever year forever. Amen. Assessments don’t work like that, and besides, if they did, that same $20,000 would be refunded when you sell or pass on the house.

So let’s do the math on a firefighter living in New Kent and working in Hanover. And note that a firefighter living in New Kent and working in New Kent is paid less.

  • Rhu Harris said new home prices in Hanover were up 13% in 2014 after eliminating proffers.
  • The average Hanover firefighter makes $31,000.
  • The average Firefighter salary in New Kent is $27,000. 12% less.

At $.81 per $100 Real Estate Tax Rate in Hanover, if it was true that the $20,000 in additional costs added by proffers (that are not actually real according to Canova) are paid year after year, the additional tax comes to $162 per year. Which would have to come out of the additional $4,000 Hanover Firefighters are paid in Hanover vs New Kent.

But the Real Estate Tax Rate in New Kent is higher than Hanover at $.84 per $100.

Real Estate Tax on a $250,000 home in:

Hanover: $2,025.00

New Kent: $2,100.00

So, out of that $162 extra tax Rice was complaining about due to proffers in Hanover, you can subtract $75 because Real Estate Taxes are higher in New Kent. Leaving the cost of the additional $20,000 in non existent proffers in Hanover costing $87 more a year. Which is about $1.67 per week.

Now let’s say the commute from New Kent adds 40 miles per day round trip to the commute. I know firefighters schedules vary, but others, like Teachers who make an average $56,00 in Hanover and $50,00 in New Kent drive 5 days per week during school. Other jobs that are 5 days per week year ’round would drive an extra 200 miles per week. With gas pretty low right now  at $2 or less per gallon, if your car gets 25 MPG you are looking at 8 extra gallons per week, $16 dollars more per week and that comes to $832 per year in additional gas costs to live in

New Kent.false-fact-check

 So if Mr. Rice’s son lived in Hanover instead of New Kent he would save $745 per year.
So we will have to give Peterson’s plant Warren Rice a rating of False.
Peterson also made the claim that proffers were “replaced that with the Reserve Capital Improvements Project that used guaranteed money adding up to $180 million over that same amount of time.
Wow! Peterson replaced proffers that were only $52 million, but a figment of our imagination, with guaranteed money more than triple that of proffers. $180 million.
Let’s see. The proffers that made housing unaffordable but were imaginary and increased the price of housing by 13% when they were eliminated and which were paid by builders were replaced by $180 million in guaranteed money.
Notice that Peterson didn’t say who would be paying this $180 million. This time we must look in the mirror to see Peterson’s ATM. And if you are really quick, you might see a vapor trail of Canova’s hand picking your pockets.

Canova Peterson Wants More Secret Meetings Hidden From the Public

secret-meeting-safe-picHow can you deceive the voters and come up with platforms like “Eliminating the proffers that were never actually paid and made housing too expensive (for the children he cries) has now made new houses, which have gone up in price by 13%, more affordable.”?
Easy. You try to eliminate the freedom of information act laws that make closed door secret meetings illegal. Canova wants to meet in secret, away from prying eyes and ears to help out his developer buddies and their plans to take advantage of the taxpayers of Hanover County.
In an unbelievably attack on government transparency,  Peterson tried to have the law changed.
Times-Dispatch: When elected officials in Hanover and other jurisdictions want to meet, they have a simple choice. They can issue a public notice and get together to discuss the issue in the open, as they should. Or they can skirt the law’s intent by holding a series of “two-by-twos,” in which two supervisors at a time meet with county staff. (Virginia’s open-meetings law applies to gatherings of three or more elected officials.) Hanover’s supervisors find this inconvenient. So their chairman, W. Canova Peterson IV, wants state law changed so open-meeting laws apply only to quorums. In Hanover, that would permit three supervisors at a time to meet behind closed doors. This is a rotten idea, whose sole purpose is to put the convenience of public servants ahead of the interests of the public they are supposed to serve.
 Is this any way to serve the voters?

Article written by: Tom White

The Blog is Ready: It’s-It’s-It’s Del. Buddy Fowler in the 55th!

Our first general election blog endorsement is out!  I am authorized to make the unanimous announcement that the Virginia Right Blog will endorse:  Buddy Fowler in the 55th.

I am impressed with a couple of pieces of legislation.  Concerning petitions in Circuit Court to have gun rights restored when they live in other states, where the Virginia Supreme Court said could not be done under existing law – here is what Buddy did (from the VGA website):

Firearms; restoration of rights; venue. Permits a nonresident of the Commonwealth prohibited from possessing a firearm, ammunition, or a stun weapon because of a felony conviction or a juvenile adjudication of delinquency of certain offenses to petition the circuit court where his last felony conviction or adjudication of delinquency occurred for restoration of his right to possess, transport, or carry a firearm, ammunition, or a stun weapon. Current law does not provide for venue for a nonresident’s restoration petition.

And it passed and the Governor signed it!  Here’s the new law.

Del. Fowler also introduced (alas unsuccessfully) a constitutional amendment to place transportation funds in a lock box.  Here’s the bill.

Yes, as Steven Brodie Tucker stated much more eloquently than I did or maybe could, Del. Fowler did oppose Medicaid expansion.  I can add:  Medicaid expansion will cause taxes to be raised after 100% from the federal government (it will normally be 90%) and it may increase costs.

Fowler’s Democrat opponent seems like a sincere person but she is way way too liberal for the district.  She is pro-choice on abortion, she supports more money for public colleges as a way to reduce tuition hikes (the solution is cut costs especially in administration):

MAKE COLLEGE AFFORDABLE AGAIN! Twenty years ago, the Commonwealth was supporting our state colleges by about 30 percent. Now it’s about half that. Virginia ranks 35th among the states in support of higher education and state support continues to drop. Our colleges and universities have become more efficient, but now there is not much more they can do other than lower standards or raise tuition. Tuition increases puts higher education out of reach for many students, and all of us suffer.

Radler also is against off shore drilling:

PROTECT OUR COASTLINE AND BEACHES! We have seen the devastation from major oil spills resulting from offshore drilling in other states—spills such as the horrific BP Horizon disaster. But in addition to the major oil spills, there have been more than a dozen oil spills/leaks of more than 1,000 barrels in the last 10 years from offshore drilling. We don’t hear about those.

From the Virginia Beach Restaurant Association to environmental groups, opposition to offshore drilling is loud and clear. But not so much from Virginia politicians. I will be a legislator who remains committed to protecting our tourism industry, fishing and recreation industry, and our coastline and Eastern Shore.

Instead of offshore oil drilling, I would support legislation for offshore wind power…safe, clean, and effective. Let’s not become the next BP Oil Spill, the next Louisiana Gulf Coast disaster. We want our grandchildren to have the benefits of the beauty had.

Seems like a poor answer.  I think we can have safe drilling and the economic benefits from drilling as well.

For these and many other varied reasons, the Virginia Right blog endorses Del. Hyland F. “Buddy” Fowler, Jr. for the 55th District.  Please make sure every conservative and Republican votes!  Otherwise you might not like the result!

Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

A Libertarian Solution to a Republican Problem

From 2004 to 2012, the Republican Party lost around 3 million voters. While Romney scored big with Independents, something the Republican Establishment has always believed was central to their success, he lost the uninformed, 9 to 5, taxpayer who have neither the time, nor the inclination, to follow politics and political theater. Pollsters and analysts seem to believe that a majority of these voters who didn’t show up in 2008 and 2012 were evangelicals. Thus, they conclude, that we need a social-conservative as a nominee in order to regain those 3 million votes. This obsession with evangelicals and independents demonstrates a remarkable error in analysis.

It is fundamentally untrue that in order to win Independents, you have to campaign as a moderate, and if you want to win the Evangelical vote, you have to campaign as a social conservative. In fact, I don’t want to vote for anyone running a campaign aimed at getting the votes of one or the other specific groups of Republicans. You have to run on a consistent political platform the average American can understand and get excited about. President Obama won with Hope and Change. He won by playing on the fears and the dreams of the American People. It was a farce. His Presidency has been a disaster, but he defeated McCain and Romney, who were supposed to be the only Republicans that could win.

Unfortunately for the GOP, hypocritical, dumbed-down, toned-down, and uninspiring moderate campaigns don’t win. Furthermore, neither are social conservatives gaining steam with religious or social rhetoric. So what kind of rhetoric works? Well, there’s the problem: the Republicans and the Democrats have exhausted much of the rhetoric they’ve continuously used to win votes, but never delivered on. No one believes anything they identify as rhetoric, because they know, the second they hear it, that its balderdash.

My advice for Libertarian candidates is the same advice I have for Republican candidates, and that advice is as follows:

First, abandon the rhetoric, phrases, and premises associated with the common themes which have really run their course in American Politics. Talk about the issues Americans care about in a way that they haven’t heard before. As soon as the American voter hears a politician say the same thing every other politician has said over the last 30 years, their minds slam shut, and its Wawawawah Blah Blah Blah Rapateta.

Want to talk about immigration? Don’t use the words Mexican, or illegal, or undocumented, or criminal. Talk about the costs of immigration, the effects on the US economy, culture, and on our communities. Talk about the melting pot and assimilation. Talk about the history of immigration and about those periods where we were not accepting immigrants. Mention that immigration itself isn’t the problem, and use the topic to discuss the fact that we have the largest prison population in the history of the world and that we have a massive entitlement system which is the primary instrument in creating these overwhelming and unsustainable costs associated with immigration.

Want to talk about “Big Government”? Don’t use those words. I do it all the time and it never works. Immediately the Democrats stop listening and the Republicans stop listening and everyone gears up for why government is good and useful and necessary and blah blah blah, but nothing I say afterwards ever really sinks in, and I lose the opportunity to make an argument to my audience. Instead, we should be talking about the costs associated with entitlements, the unfunded liabilities which are so great that no nation could reasonably expect to survive economically when face to face with these amounts of expenses. Talk about the cost of employing the bureaucrats that run these institutions. Talk about the special interests that get involved and all the money that is wasted lobbying for unsustainable federal programs. There a myriad of reasons why our bureaucratic oligarchy is inevitably doomed to fail. Let’s address those and begin talking about using technology to reduce the federal workforce, streamline federal efficiencies and efficacy, and then discuss the importance of getting Americans off of Welfare and back to work.

StatueLibertyWhy can’t we get them back to work? Well, now we have an opportunity to discuss the costs of regulations and laws. We can talk about the cost of starting businesses and the cost of hiring workers and the cost of meeting arbitrary federal regulations. The same theme should be running topic to topic. We can’t afford thoughtless, unregulated, unrestrained government. We’re all for immigration, but the federal government is making immigration the bane of society, and not the boon it always was. We’re all for education, but the federal government is inflating the cost of education and taking money out of the productive private sector in order to pay for bigger college campuses and higher administrative wages at universities that are graduating young adults that can’t find jobs in a starved and over-regulated economy.

I want Americans to have wonderful lives, all the liberty they can handle, and all the happiness they deserve, but we’ve turned over our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness over to a greedy, corrupt, inefficient, ineffective, serially dishonest government that only benefits those who can purchase the political pull of the politicians in office.

We can’t afford our government. Let’s talk about how much money gets donated to our politicians. Do you know why so much money is donated to your Representatives and Senators? Because they are responsible for ensuring that much, much greater amounts of tax dollars flow back into the pockets of those big donors and lobbyists. These groups aren’t donating money because they believe in something. They are investing with the intent to make a profit. And unless you have hundreds of thousands or millions or tens of millions of dollars to purchase the political protection of your Representatives and Senators, then you really don’t have any real representation in your government.

And who is telling you that we can’t afford to cut anything? The politicians selling their political pull and the lobbyists purchasing that pull. They threaten you with catastrophe every time you suggest they behave more responsibly with the taxpayers’ money. In reality, we need politicians to begin talking about what it will take to solve the problems this country suffers specifically because of its’ politicians.

We don’t have to talk ideology or philosophy, we don’t have to carefully craft rhetoric. You want to get people back to the polls? Tell them the truth, talk about the costs, talk about how things really work in Washington D.C. and Richmond. Talk about how, regardless of what these politicians and special interests promise you, everything they do will be designed to benefit the politicians and the special interests and you will be stuck with the bill.

You believe all this talk about the environment has anything to do with the environment? Talk about how much money these politicians have invested in “green technology” and how much money they make when the federal government subsidizes those companies with the taxpayers’ money. You aren’t saving the environment. You’re making politicians rich and you are allowing companies that cannot make a profit, because they have nothing productive to offer the American People to continue to operate at your expense. Why?

I am still astonished that Republicans who oppose federal waste and the gigantic cost of government continue to favor incarceration over treatment for drug addiction. They are willing to cut everything, except the drug war and the waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon. Why?

Listen, we have real problems and everyone knows what they are. We have to address each problem we face with solutions, but also by demonstrating the cause and nature of those problems, which can all be tied directly to our State and Federal governments, to special interests like the Chamber of Commerce and to the very politicians we voted for. Now, if you see a candidate who calls out the Ruling Class, then you’ll see someone who gets the attention of the average, 9-5, but not terribly interested in politics voter. They see a politician who wants to fight all those other politicians in Washington DC, and that’s a candidate the people will get interested in.

It’s not populism. It’s simply responsible government.

But remember, it can’t just be carefully crafted rhetoric. We’ve got to talk about the facts, about the costs, about the spending, the debt, the taxes, the corruption, and the special interests that spend millions on our elections, but receive billions in taxpayer dollars.

Anyway, that’s my Libertarian solution to a Republican problem. Most Republicans will vote Republican and the Democrats are quickly losing independents on their own. You don’t have to win them over. You’ll have them by default. What you, the Republican Party, needs to do, is to reach out to those Americans disgusted with the corruption, the waste, the fraud, and the abuse, that they are forced to pay for out their own pocket at the point of a gun.

Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker

Mr. President: I Don’t Want Your “Help”!

According to the USA TODAY, President Obama plans to up the national overtime threshold from $23,660 to $50,000 for salaried employees.

A proposed new rule governing overtime pay will mean bigger paychecks for up to 5 million workers, Obama administration officials said Tuesday.

The change “goes to the heart of what it means to be middle class in America,” said Labor Secretary Thomas Perez.

Business groups and congressional Republicans said the proposal would force employers to reduce overtime hours and perhaps cut the number of workers.

“Overtime expansion would drive up retailers’ payroll costs while limiting opportunities to move up into management,” said a statement from the National Retail Federation.

Cory Fritz, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said that “instead of working in a bipartisan way to streamline and modernize regulations,” the Obama administration is “proposing a new executive order that will limit opportunities and increase costs.”

I cannot demonstrate the sheer stupidity of this decision without detailing exactly how it will affect people like me.

I am a salaried retail manager who makes less than $50,000. My paychecks say 40 hours, but I’m expected to work 50 hours and often times I work more hours than that. Why? Because you cannot manage a business in 40 hours a week. At least, you cannot manage a business well in such few hours.

money-3Salaries are only part of a managers pay. The rest of our money we make in bonuses that, depending on the company, can average anywhere from $1500 to $6,000 a quarter and another bonus for meeting annual goals. So if a salaried manager is paid $49,000 a year, but can earn anywhere from $7,500 to $30,000 in bonuses, than his actual pay is anywhere from $56,500 to $79,000 annually. Salaried managers work longer hours in order to ensure the efficiency of their businesses, to ensure profit and sales goals are met, and to analyze and reduce shrink and costs. The more hours a manager works and the more time they invest, the more they tend to get paid.

What President Obama is doing, however, will ensure that retail managers under the $50,000 threshold never get the opportunity to work more than 40 hours a week. Federal Regulations might change, but my contract with my company stays the same. I will still be required to meet sales and profit goals, maintain execution of store standards, reduce costs and expenses, all while working 40 to 60 hours less each month.

So not only will I never see any of this estimated “overtime” money, I will be prevented from spending the time I require to run my store to the highest levels of profitability.

Even if my company allowed me to work 50 hours a week and they were willing to pay my overtime, that would only amount to about another $5,000 a year, at most; but the threat of not allowing me to work that overtime could cost me, and people in similar jobs, anywhere from $7,500 to $30,000 a year. How anyone in my position could possibly celebrate Obama’s proposal is beyond my comprehension.

Unless they are not in it for the money, only desire their base salary, and more than anything, simply do not want to work more than 40 hours a week.

I’ve never seen anyone get ahead in this world working 40 hours a week. Have you?

Some might argue, however, that if it will really have that much of an impact on a companies profitability, why wouldn’t they just give all their salaried managers a raise to $50,001 annually? Then, instead of getting overtime pay, you get a nice fat raise that you see every week in your paychecks.

That’s fine and dandy, except that one of the most expensive costs in our stores is our stores’ managers! The company can’t change their budgets to accommodate increasing salaries in each of their stores without cutting those expenses somewhere else. So, let’s say they give salaried managers $5,000, $8,000, or even $10,000 dollar raises to get us above the overtime threshold, each of those managers will still be less likely to meet their budgets and receive their bonuses which will inevitably cost them far more in performance pay than they gain in their base salary increases.

So, PLEASE Mr. President, don’t help me. You are too stupid to help me and your good intentions will cost me, and hundreds of thousands of Americans just like me, a small fortune – and you will hurt our companies as well. The entire reason that our companies pay bonuses is because of how important profits are to our corporations! People won’t invest if you aren’t showing a profit. But profit, loss, investment, etc. these are concepts this President simply does not understand.

Congressman Brat, if you’re listening, could you please explain to the President how the economy works? He’s clueless! 

Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker