SixtyFour81.com

Will Mark Warner vote anti-business and create unneeded federal agency?

2009-11-20T15:00:00.001-05:00

Call Sen. Mark Warner (804.775-2314 or 202.224-2023) and tell him NO new federal agencies.

While most eyes are on the massive federalized government health care bill now making its way through the Senate, Congress is secretly working on other legislation to broaden and expand government even more. We cannot afford this continued spending ... America's back is breaking under the burden of debt.

Maximus at The Contemporary Conservative summed it up very well: Will Senator Mark Warner vote to create a new Frankenstein Federal Agency designed to strangle business recovery?

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) introduced a wide-ranging piece of legislation last week that combines some of the worse anti-business provisions of securities "reform" legislation that was floating around.

Known as “Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2009," the bill would create the Consumer Financial Protection Agency and promote what is referred to as "scheme liability."

There are business impacts that are direct to certain kinds of businesses, those that are indirect (such as to realtors, small banks, and auto dealers who will be harmed further if people can't get home loans or car loans) and those that hit all of us as end consumers either through reduced or eliminated access to certain kinds of loans or through higher prices for products and services (as the increased cost of doing business is passed along).

This thing is massive ... and creates another bureaucratic agency with more layers in government resulting in more taxpayer costs at a time when the federal debt has TRIPLED in the past six months.

One sentence in this massive Senate financial regulatory legislation would leave small businesses, banks, and accountants as well as virtually any other business subject to a flood of new securities class action lawsuits. Class action lawyers, who support the bill, would be allowed to sue virtually anyone who did business with a public company alleged to have engaged in fraud even if they didn't know anything about the alleged fraud.

This guilt-by-association provision would hurt innocent companies by forcing them into extortionate settlements. Because securities class action lawsuits tend to seek massive damage awards, many bystander businesses -- even those bearing no culpability whatsoever -- would feel compelled to settle the lawsuits rather than go to trial and risk losing a "bet-the-company" case.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice are already in place and authorized to prosecute those who aid and abet violations of securities laws so why is another newly-created agency necessary?

There have been news reports in many states of securities class action lawyers engaging in pay-to-play with public pension fund officials, contributing large amounts to their campaigns in return for contracts to represent the pension fund in lawsuits in which the lawyers are likely to make tens of millions of dollars in legal fees.

Aside from specific concerns that certain businesses have because of the direct impact coming from this legislation, it is a given that consumers will be adversely impacted by anything that drives up the cost of doing business.

So whether it is because of increased legal costs in defending against lawsuits, increased costs of complying with regulations or artificial determinations about the cost of products, these new increased costs of doing will will be passed on to the consumer. And that is everyone.

The Heritage Foundation agrees there is absolutely no rationale for creating such an agency:

During last year's presidential campaign, Barack Obama noted that "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."

This phrase neatly sums up the ongoing ... Financial Services Committee markup of .... the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) Act of 2009. Despite honest attempts to improve the bill, the overall concept is still badly flawed, and any result that comes close to the original concept will be a major mistake. There is simply no rationale for creating such an agency that a coordinating council of state and federal financial regulators cannot accomplish easier and at a lower cost.

Sen. Mark Warner is a member of the committee and, as a businessman, should be pulling back in horror at the thought of this overreaching government bureaucracy. Calls and letters are urgently needed to ask Sen. Warner to vote NO on creating another bureaucratic agency. He can be contacted by letter, FAX, or phone call:

The Honorable Sen. Mark Warner
919 East Main Street, Suite 630
Richmond, VA 23219

FAX: (804) 775-2319
PHONE - Richmond Office: (804) 775-2314
PHONE - Washington Office: (202) 224-2023

Congress should rely on legislation already in place, such as the SEC and Department of Justice, to enforce the laws on the books rather than create new bureaucracy, more debt, and more opportunity for ACORN to have access in this Obama administration.

Election Day 2009 ... vote GOP McDonnell~Bolling~Cuccinelli

2009-11-03T09:30:00.000-05:00

Virginia's winning Republican team ...
Bill Bolling ~ Bob McDonnell ~ Ken Cuccinelli

Election Day 2009
Please exercise your freedom to vote
and go to the polls today.

Nothing is so sweet as the taste of freedom....

Photo by SWAC Girl
Lynn Mitchell
GOP Flyaround at Weyers Cave Airport - 1 November 2009

Augusta BOS votes to continue spending over citizen objections

2009-10-15T14:00:00.000-04:00

Augusta resident Ed Long presents facts to try and persuade BOS not to spend $60,000 a year on new cell phones.

~We will REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER 2011.~

Ignoring county citizens who spoke before the board of supervisors Wednesday night to ask that the county postpone unnecessary spending until the financial atmosphere improves, Augusta County supervisors unanimously voted 6-0 (Supervisor Tracy Pyles was on a business trip) to provide new cell phones and Blackberries for employees at a minimum cost of nearly $60,000 a year.

County resident Ed Long had charts showing the depressed economy with research that showed a huge never-before-seen drop in consumer confidence, Virginia unemployment that has continued to rise, home foreclosures that have continued to rise, median home prices that are down 20%, home sales that are down 11% the past year, and a state budget that projects a $3.3 billion deficit for 2010.

David Karaffa echoed Mr. Long's concerns and ask that supervisors consider making do with current cell phones until the economy improves.

It fell on deaf ears.

My own cell phone is a used model that was provided to me when my phone failed ... it is old and battered ... and I would like a new one but have held off because my husband had taken a 15% pay cut this year to help his company and we have cut back expenses.

But our tax money is paying for new equipment for county employees. Meanwhile, supervisors wonder why county residents are upset with their lack of representation when citizens are dealing with lost jobs, repossessed houses, decreased salaries, and furloughs.

SWAC bloggers respond....

- Bob at The Journey writes Why it's time to retire the Augusta County BOS:

"Get real! My cell phone is several years old. I'll replace it when it breaks. Then I'll buy the nicest one I can afford."

- David Karaffa at the Augusta Conservative notes an Augusta County Board of Supervisors wasteful spending alert!

Augusta BOS: "Be careful how you speak out against our decisions"

2009-10-01T10:00:00.000-04:00

Staunton News Leader cartoon by Jim McCloskey

~Board seeks financial sanctions against local citizen~

Churchville attorney Francis Chester goes to court today in a return of Mr. Smith Goes To Washington ... Augusta County style.

In exercising his First Amendment right and representing over 10,500 citizens against the County of Augusta, the board of supervisors, and commissioner of the revenue Jean Shrewsbury, Mr. Chester has been smacked up side the head by Augusta County government with a lawsuit asking for financial sanctions against him for having the audacity to question his public officials.

Today's Staunton News Leader editorial, appropriately named "The fly and the hatchet," illustrates the reality of the little guy going up against City Hall when City Hall has unlimited taxpayer funds to fight against the very taxpayer who dares to question the public servants he voted into office.

The News Leader wrote:

An irritating little fly has landed at the Augusta County Government Center. It's notification of a lawsuit filed in circuit court claiming the Board of Supervisors erroneously assessed real estate values in the most recent reassessment.
...
The county in turn asked its lawyer to file a motion asking the judge not only to dismiss Chester's lawsuit — it's frivolous, after all, because there's no such thing as a class action lawsuit in Virginia — but they also asked the judge to sanction Chester for filing it. In other words, ask for attorney's fees and related charges.

In doing so, the county has raised a hatchet to kill the irritating little fly.
...
In asking that Chester, a county resident and a spokesman for thousands of residents angry about what they saw as unfair property assessments, be sanctioned, the supervisors are sending a clear message — be careful how you speak out against our decisions. [Emphasis added]

County attorney Pat Morgan admitted to News Leader reporter Trevor Brown that this action is extremely unusual ... but the county is going through with it anyway:

"It is kind of an unusual procedure," Morgan said of his decision to move for the sanction, "but I did not file it on behalf of the defendants lightly."

The News Leader editorial concluded:

Rather than asking for sanctions against Chester, the supervisors need to let it go. Let the case go before the judge and let justice rule. No need for a hatchet, no need for recrimination. No need to send the message that disagreement will not be tolerated.

This time when the supervisors picked up the hatchet to kill the irritating little fly, they didn't realize the fly had landed on their own forehead. [Emphasis added]

Because of their actions, the Augusta Board of Supervisors has come across as extremely arrogant to the citizens they were elected to represent.

The county has indicated it wants all 10,500 cases be tried individually in the court system. The court filing fees alone for that many cases would equal almost $1 million, and the sheer number of cases could tie up the court for years, something Mr. Chester was trying to avoid to save taxpayer money and time.

Augusta is a microcosm of the larger taxpayer unrest going on nationwide as manifested by the tea party events and the 9/12 March on Washington three weeks ago. As pointed out in this editorial, the supervisors have little interest in working with the "little people."

The hearing is today, October 1, 2009, at 1:30 at Augusta County Circuit Court at the corner of Johnson and Augusta Streets in downtown Staunton. The public is invited and ecouraged to attend.

We will remember in November 2011.

Recent articles about today's court action:
- Staunton News Leader: Judge to hear reassessment case
- Waynesboro News Virginian
- SWAC Girl: Augusta pursues lawsuit against local tax assessment hero
- Staunton News Leader editorial cartoon

Deeds calls one man on stage a "debate"? Isn't that an "interview"?

2009-09-21T15:15:00.000-04:00

What is going on with the Democrats and debates? First Democrat Jody Wagner pulls out of a debate with Republican Bill Bolling and blames it on the Lt. Governor.

Now Democrat Creigh Deeds, at the eleventh hour, has decided he wants to be on stage alone for the Tuesday "debate" with Republican Bob McDonnell.

Is it called a "debate" when there is one candidate on the stage at a time? Or is that more of an "interview"?

The press release explained it all:

Tomorrow night's Community Forum with the gubernatorial candidates at Virginia Union University was originally planned, as many are aware, to be a joint event with Bob McDonnell and Creigh Deeds. Both candidates were to have been on stage, together, for the full event from 6:15 to 7:45pm. The two would have jointly taken questions from the moderator, allowing the audience to hear from both candidates at the same time. However, late Friday the Deeds campaign officially requested that this format be changed. The Deeds campaign requested that each candidate now appear separately, and not be on stage at the same time as the other. In order to ensure that this long scheduled event would still take place, we have agreed to the Deeds request to change the format. We are disappointed the Deeds campaign will not allow the audience the opportunity to hear from both candidates at the same time. We apologize for any confusion or difficulty this change presents. The formal media advisory can be found below.

So is Deeds running scared after his dismal performance at Thursday's Fairfax Chamber of Commerce debate? Does this follow the line of thinking of, "Better to be silent and thought a poor debater than to open your mouth and prove it"?

Details of the debate:

Bob McDonnell, Republican gubernatorial candidate and former Attorney General of Virginia, will participate in the gubernatorial community forum on the campus of Virginia Union University tomorrow night, Tuesday September 22, beginning at 6:15 pm. The exact time of Mr. McDonnell's now individual portion of the program is still to be determined.

The Community Forum is sponsored by Radio One Inc., the Chesterfield Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., the Rho Eta Omega Chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., and the Richmond Crusade for Voters in partnership with Virginia Union University.
All members of the media are invited and encouraged to attend. What: Bob McDonnell Participates in Community Forum at Virginia Union UniversityWhen: Each Candidate's New Separate Time Still to be Determined; Event Will Start at 6:15 pm; Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2009Where: Coburn Hall, 1500 N. Lombardy Street, Virginia Union University, Richmond

Bob McDonnell for Governor 2009

The real story behind the Bolling-Wagner debate

2009-09-21T10:15:00.001-04:00

Over the weekend when the lib bloggers began broadcasting their talking points that the debate between Republican Bill Bolling and Democrat Jody Wagner was off, they put the blame on Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling.

Something didn't ring quite true with me. I've known Bill Bolling for six or seven years and I've never known him to run from anything ... especially a debate with an opponent. The man is charismatic and a great public speaker, and he seems to thrive when in circumstances such as debates and grassroots discussions.

So when I began to read that the Wagner campaign was accusing the Bolling campaign of "backing out" of the debate, a red flag went up and I did a little research.

Try this out for truth about the matter ... information from the Bolling campaign:

Unfortunately, earlier today the Wagner campaign released a statement accusing us of attempting to back out of the debate, and changing rules that had previously been agreed upon. Neither of these charges were true, and we have no idea why they chose to release such a statement, other than an obvious attempt to score some cheap political points, which seems to be their standard mode of operation.

At this point, it became painfully clear to us that the Wagner campaign was more interested in debating about debates than actually holding a debate. No final rules had ever been agreed to, and to state otherwise is simply a lie. In addition, the organizers of the debate had requested that we keep all discussions on rules, etc private and out of the press. The Wagner campaign's attempt to score cheap political points at the expense of our organizers is inexcusable. Frankly, behavior like this is the kind of thing that turns people off of politics.

Read the entire explanation of what happened at the Bill Bolling for Lt. Governor website.

Karaffa invites Sen. Webb & Warner to Valley townhall meeting

2009-08-21T15:30:00.001-04:00

~Using own money to rent facility and advertise event~

His name is David Karaffa, he is 25 years old, and he is an Augusta County resident. He's a cardiac RN at the local hospital and he has many questions about the Democrat nationalized health care bill.

David wants to talk to his U.S. senators about his concerns. The problem is his senators are nowhere to be found. He has tried calling, emailing, sending faxes -- everything he can think of -- with no response other than form letters that don't answer his questions.

Since Jim Webb and Mark Warner were not holding any townhall events anywhere in the Commonwealth of Virginia, David decided to invest his own money and rent the auditorium at Riverheads High School in southern Augusta County and set it up so all the senators have to do is show up.

Invitations have been sent to Sen. Webb and Warner.

Friday morning David called Glenn Beck's conservative radio program to spread the news about his townhall meeting. He went on the air and explained his concerns and why he felt it necessary to go out on his own to set up a townhall meeting that may end up with the names of the senators on signs sitting on empty chairs.

But a townhall meeting ... with or without the senators ... gives local residents the opportunity to bring their concerns about nationalized health care to a public forum. This young man is moving forward in his quest to receive answers to his health care questions.

The Shenandoah Valley
invites
Virginia U.S. Senators Jim Webb and Mark Warner
to a
Healthcare Town Hall Meeting!!

Sunday, September 6, 2009
6-8 p.m.
Auditorium at Riverheads High School
Augusta County, Virginia

All Valley residents are encouraged to attend. Please bring your questions, support, or criticism.

This is the Valley's opportunity to have its voice heard.

Come out and be heard!

Obama: "Get in their face" ... America, read HR 3200

2009-08-05T14:00:00.000-04:00

Americans ... that vast "silent majority" of law-abiding citizens ... are silent no more as they speak out against government programs being jammed down their throats, showing up at townhall meetings to get answers from their elected representatives.

Now the White House is throwing out accusations that townhalls are being taken over by "organized mobs." Apparently the masses are not being the sheep the Democrats would want them to be. Angry lefty liberals are swarming conservative blogs to slam the townhall protests ... hypocritical minions with short (or selective) memories, protesting the very tactics they have used for years.

The staggeringly huge "stimulus bill" was passed earlier this year without Congress reading the details. The government is micromanaging automobile companies and banks, its fingers reaching farther and farther into private enterprise.

Now, with the 1,017-page HR 3200 socialized health care bill* being forced onto unwilling Americans, they are pushing back ... speaking up ... making their voices heard. Hundreds are showing up for townhall meetings that in the past saw 15 or 20 participants.

In what should be a two-way discussion between electeds and constituents, the White House is now critical and accusing the gatherings of being organized mobs, trying to silence and cease discussion so to keep the masses in the dark on the wicked details of socialized health care ... separate and isolate a la Sun Tzu.

Don't insult the intelligence of the American public.

A lead "community organizer" is now the President of the United States. In this video he can be heard telling people, "I need you to go out and talk to your friends ... I want you to argue with them and get in their face."

Mr. President, we are getting in your face. We are trying to get your attention. We don't want to sign on the dotted line without knowing the facts. Why are you afraid of that? What are you hiding? Why the rush? Why not practice some of that "transparent government" you campaigned about while running for president?

My folks used to say, "When in doubt ... don't."

An issue as big as nationalized health care needs serious debate and discussion with information given as questions are asked. It is only common sense! I was raised to check the details ... read the fine print ... be sure of what I am signing before I sign it.

Why are the Democrats not doing the same?

Read HR 3200.* Then read an abridged version that highlights the problems with the bill.

Sen. Jim Webb and Sen. Mark Warner have no townhall meetings for Virginia on their schedules. We need to hear from our elected representatives. Call and ask for a townhall meeting so you can be informed of this important impending vote.

Jim Webb: (202) 224-4024
Mark Warner: (202) 224-2023

* Many changes were made to HR 3200 on Friday, July 31, and those changes may not be published online for several weeks.

Cross-posted at SWAC Girl

Del. Saxman on Bearing Drift at Noon

2009-07-23T11:00:00.001-04:00

Jim Hoeft will be interviewing Del. Chris Saxman (R-20th House) today at noon. After yesterday's unveiling of eight candidates vying for Del. Saxman's House seat, it will be interesting to hear his thoughts about the issue.

Cross-posted at SWAC Girl
Cross-posted at StrictlyVA

Gubernatorial debate Saturday at the Homestead

2009-07-22T20:00:00.000-04:00

Beautiful Homestead resort in western Virginia.

Political eyes will turn toward western Virginia this weekend as the gubernatorial candidates meet for the annual Virginia Bar Association debate at the Homestead in Hot Springs.

Bob McDonnell (R) and Creigh Deeds (D) will continue in the summer tradition of prominent candidates debating the issues before an audience of Virginia lawyers and the public. The event is always entertaining and the setting encourages political junkies to make room on their calendars to attend.

This will be the first meetup between Mr. McDonnell and Mr. Deeds since the June Democratic primary. While Mr. McDonnell has proposed a series of 10 debates between now and election day, Mr. Deeds has agreed to only four.

Bloggers United had invited both candidates to attend at its annual event, debating one another in the presence of political bloggers from across the Commonwealth. Mr. McDonnell agreed; Mr. Deeds declined.

Since Mr. Deeds appears to be a reluctant debater, there may not be many opportunities to observe him discussing issues with Mr. McDonnell so this weekend is especially important.

Saturday, July 25, 11:00 a.m. at the Homestead. I will be there blogging the event.

Bob McDonnell for Governor

Cross-posted at SWAC Girl
Cross-posted at StrictlyVA

Bob McDonnell: "Keep rest areas open"

2009-07-20T12:00:00.000-04:00

~Bob McDonnell Proposes New Ways to Keep Facilities Open Now; If Closed, Pledges to Re-Open All within 90 Days of Taking Office in January~

The Democrats are playing games with Virginia's rest areas in the middle of summer when more travelers on the road vacationing than any other time of the year.

Saturday morning I stopped at the I-64 rest area just west of Richmond, something I often do because it's location is convenient from Staunton to Richmond and there are few businesses along that Charlottesville-to-Richmond stretch of the interstate.

The rest area was packed with vehicles just as it always is, and I had to wait for a parking place. Yet this is one that is slated to closure on July 21.

Since taking a stand on rest areas, I have heard from many people who agree and have relayed their various stories about why they use them, how they rely on them, and why they feel Democrat Governor Tim Kaine is playing politics.

Today Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell took a definite stand on the rest area controversy with the following press release:

RICHMOND- One day before Virginia begins to shutter eighteen safety rest stops and one welcome center statewide, Bob McDonnell, Republican gubernatorial nominee and former Attorney General of Virginia, announced his support for prompt, proactive and creative measures to keep the facilities open. McDonnell further pledged that if the rest stops are closed, he will open them back up within 90 days of taking office as governor in January 2010. Eighteen interstate-highway safety rest areas are set to close tomorrow, and the Interstate 66 West Welcome Center at Manassas will close on September 16th, due to budget choices made by the Kaine administration.

McDonnell called for a series of steps to be taken, all of which would help keep the rest stops open to the benefit of motorists, public safety, and Virginia's tourism and hospitality industry.
Specifically McDonnell proposes the following:
· The immediate creation of an "Adopt a Safety Rest Stop" program with Virginia businesses, community and civic organizations, modeled on the successful "Adopt a Highway" initiative, to help keep the safety rest stops open in the near term, without providing commercial services. Leaders of the Virginia Business Council have already been contacted and have indicated their willingness to help fund rest stop operations in the near term to help the State.

· The General Assembly must explore creative financing structures to fund rest stop operations and maintenance during the 2010 session, and engage the private sector in new partnerships.

· Governor Kaine and the Virginia Department of Transportation should promptly construct a more limited budget for rest stop operations, below the current 9 million dollar annual budget. We must work with local sheriffs, community corrections officers, as well as the state DOC to explore the feasibility of landscaping and clean-up of rest areas as an option for those currently sentenced to community service or eligible for work release programs. Many non-violent offenders are already successfully assigned to roadside clean-up work crews around the state.

· The CTB budget should be reprioritized to allocate the necessary money to keep the rest stops open.
Speaking about his proposals McDonnell noted, "Any person, whether a candidate for statewide office or a parent who has been on a family vacation, can tell you about the importance of Virginia's rest stops. Our rest stops provide a safe place for truckers and motorists to rest, and serve as information centers for tourists looking to find out about Virginia's many attractions. Shutting down Virginia's rest stops will negatively impact motorists, impair public safety, weaken our tourism industry, and slap a "Closed" sign on the Commonwealth. That's not what Virginia needs right now."

McDonnell continued, "With the rejection of recent efforts in Congress to seek a waiver from federal regulations prohibiting the commercialization of our rest stops, it appears this administration is content to let our rest stops be shuttered tomorrow. We should not give up on this issue so quickly. We can still fix this problem. By being creative, working across party lines, making rest stop safety a priority, and involving the private sector, we can keep our rest stops open for the benefit of all motorists and the entire Commonwealth. We should initiate an "Adopt a Rest Stop" program to be funded by private sector companies, wherein they would sponsor the continuing operation of a rest stop by the Commonwealth. You can "Adopt a Highway" why not "Adopt a Rest Stop"? I will contact members of the Virginia Business Council, an organization comprised of the Commonwealth's largest corporate citizens, and ask for their immediate assistance in keeping the rest areas open in the short term. There are also ways to construct a more limited budget to keep the rest stops open that should be explored fully."

McDonnell also stated, "I refuse to believe that we can't work together to make sure our highways stay safe and Virginia stays "open" to travelers, truckers and everyday motorists. And I make this pledge. If the rest stops do close tomorrow, and remain dark in the months ahead, that will end when I am elected governor. I will work with the General Assembly to find a way to fund the operation of these facilities. And within 90 days of my taking office all 19 rest stops will be open again. We have a two-year budget of nearly $80 billion. To keep the rest stops open we need $9 million, or less if we get smart about how we manage things in Richmond. We can do this. It just takes commitment and creativity."

Rest stops play an important role in keeping Virginia's highways safe. They provide a secure location for weary travelers and truckers to rest, reducing the number of accidents. According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Board, driver fatigue results in 100,000 accidents and 1,500 deaths a year in the United States. Studies show that truck-driver fatigue could be a factor in up to 40 percent of truck crashes, and night-time truck crashes increase when the distance between rest areas increases. Rest stops also play an important economic role in Virginia, as they are a place where out of state travelers can pick up promotion sources for the tourism and hospitality industries. Further, according to a recent article in the Richmond Times Dispatch, the closing of the safety rest stops and welcome centers will mean 209 contract workers and 3 welcome-center employees will be laid off, and the state will lose about $800,000 in revenue from vending machines.

Bob McDonnell for Governor

Cross-posted at SWAC Girl
Cross-posted at StrictlyVA

Lt. Gov. Bolling: "Virginia's financial Bull Run?"

2009-06-29T09:25:00.000-04:00

By Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling
Washington Times - June 28, 2009

We learned last week that Virginia will be facing another budget shortfall in the current fiscal year. Though the news seemed to surprise many people, it should not surprise anyone.

Over the past three years, Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine has attempted to balance the state budget through overly optimistic revenue projections, the use of one-time money to pay for ongoing programs, an excessive use of state debt, federal bailout dollars and raids on the rainy-day fund.

The result has been predictable. Over a three-year period, we have experienced more than $5 billion in budget shortfalls, with more on the way, and I have no doubt that we will deplete the state's rainy-day fund by the time this governor leaves office.

In the current fiscal year, it appears as though we will miss our revenue projections once again. The result could be another budget shortfall of $300 million or more, but this is just the beginning of what well may be a long-term problem.

On July 1, we will start another budget year, fiscal 2009-10. The new budget is only "balanced" because it assumes revenue growth of 4 percent. Frankly, this Republican thinks it is very unlikely that our state's economy and subsequent tax collections will grow by 4 percent in the next 12 months.

If we fail to meet this revenue projection, we will face another budget shortfall in 2010. For each 1 percent that we miss our revenue projection, the shortfall will be $170 million.

But once again, this is just the beginning of a larger problem.

When the General Assembly returns to Richmond in 2010, it will not only have to make amendments to the state budget for fiscal 2009-10, it also will have to adopt a new state budget for the 2010-2012 biennium. That budget process could be the most difficult one of all.

Earlier this year, the governor told us we were facing a budget shortfall of $3.7 billion. To close this budget shortfall, we were looking at significant spending reductions in most state agencies.

Fortunately, most of these budget cuts were avoided when Virginia received an estimated $4.8 billion from the federal stimulus package. While this enabled us to avoid spending reductions this year, it was a short-term solution to a long-term problem.

Unfortunately, the federal stimulus dollars will expire in September of 2011, and most of the budget shortfalls we were facing earlier this year will return. So, our current budget shortfalls could pale in comparison to the shortfalls in the next biennial budget.

The next governor will likely inherit a financial mess, and we will have to be guided by core principles if we are going to solve this problem the right way.

The basic problem in Richmond is that we are spending more money than we are taking in, and we cannot continue to do that. We cannot continue to balance our budgets through gimmicks. That is not how we became the best-managed state in the nation, and it is not how we earned a AAA bond rating.

We have to restore fiscal integrity in Virginia's state government. That means basing our budgets on realistic revenue projections and reducing spending to match the revenues that are available to pay for it.

Restoring fiscal integrity to our budget process will not be easy. It will require us to set strict budget priorities and focus our spending decisions on the core responsibilities of state government.

These are the same difficult decisions families and businesses have to make in challenging economic times, and state government must do the same thing.

We also must aggressively pursue business-friendly policies that create new jobs for Virginians. A growing economy, coupled with spending restraint, is the best way to increase state revenues and close our budget shortfall.

The only other alternative is to enact massive tax increases on families and businesses, and have no doubt, that is exactly what some will propose. Raising taxes during a recession would kill jobs. That is the wrong approach at the wrong time.

Restoring fiscal integrity to state government and creating new jobs will be the most significant issues facing Virginia for the next several years. It should be at the core of the debate this year as we will elect our next governor and lieutenant governor and all 100 members of the House of Delegates.

To facilitate this debate, Mr. Kaine should be very forthright about the magnitude of this problem and not fall prey to the temptation to mask the problem until after the November elections.

Likewise, we should require every candidate for governor, lieutenant governor and the House of Delegates to tell us if he or she would raise taxes or reduce spending and create jobs to solve this problem.

Bill Bolling, a Republican, is the lieutenant governor of Virginia.

Health care: AFP wants government to MYOB

2009-06-23T13:12:00.001-04:00

From Tim Phillips, President of Americans For Prosperity....

Throughout this challenging year you have responded when we've asked you to help defend our freedoms.

Now, I'm asking you again. The issue is health care. The urgency is high because legislation is moving now in Congress. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and MoveOn.org want legislation that will:

- create a massive new government health plan costing us over $1.6 trillion;
- raise taxes on Americans across the board;
- force us to buy the type of insurance the government says we should;
- and take away our freedoms to decide which treatments and doctors are best for our families.

So, Americans for Prosperity is getting involved in a big way. But to be successful, we need your help.

Will you take a moment to send this message to Congress: KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OUR HEALTH CARE!

Visit Patients First to sign our petition and contact your legislators. Send it on to friends. Let Congress know we won’t stop until our rights and freedoms are protected. We need 500,000 Americans to sign this petition that we'll send to Congress this summer. Please be one of the first to sign.

President Obama promised us on the campaign trail that there would be no new tax increases for anyone making less than $250,000 a year. But now he and members of Congress are talking about taxing soda and alcohol – beverages that are hardly confined to the super-wealthy!

They’re talking about taxing YOUR health benefits to pay for this government takeover of health care, too. And that’s not even counting the global warming-driven energy tax – “cap-and-trade” – which has been floated to help pay for health care as well.

But, it’s not just more of our money (Sen. Kennedy’s bill has been estimated to cost $4 trillion over 10 years). It’s also about our freedom. The freedom to make health care decisions for our families – something that is precious, something we cannot allow the government to take away from us.

My wife, Julie, and I have four precious children. We cannot imagine the government stepping in and dictating to us what treatments will be covered by insurance should (God forbid) they become sick. But, that's exactly what's at stake.

Please join your fellow Americans for Prosperity activists in urging Congress and the president to put Patients First in health reform. Sign the petition now at and tell President Obama and Speaker Pelosi to KEEP THEIR HANDS OFF OUR HEALTH CARE.

Sincerely,

Tim Phillips

AFP fighting universal health care

2009-06-17T09:19:00.000-04:00

From Tim Phillips, President of Americans for Prosperity....

Last night I spoke at the Arkansas Tea Party event in Little Rock, Arkansas. The folks there held a great event with hundreds of fired up citizens keeping the pressure on Washington politicians to rein in spending and stop the tax increases on our families and businesses.

AFPF's Patients United Now team, led by Teresa Crossland-Okee, handed out cold water and educational materials to activists on a hot, humid evening.

Things were hotter for Senator Lincoln who continues to stay on the fence when it comes to the job killing energy tax called "Cap-and-Trade." Senator Lincoln also refuses to rule out supporting President's Obama's government health care takeover that will mean a government bureaucrat between patients and their doctors, long lines for doctor's appointments, and worst of all medical procedures DENIED based on age or chronic illnesses.

As we head into a crucial summer for our economic freedoms these two issues dominate the landscape:

1. Will our health care system be taken over by the government; and
2. Will the biggest job-killing, energy tax in American history pass as legislation called "Cap-and-Trade."

You and I have at most two months before the decisive battles in the United States Senate this September.

We've got to be ready for an all-out effort to win these two vital issues.

Next week, our AFP team will be back on the road with the anti Cap-and-Trade Hot Air Tour in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska. For details on the Hot Air Tour and to learn more about Cap-and-Trade visit CostofHotAir.com.

Events like last night's Arkansas Tea Party event in Little Rock tell me our side is getting ready. But, we need to do so much more.

Will you take two steps to help us get ready for the decisive September Senate battle over Cap-and-Trade and health care?

Urge your representatives to sign our No Climate Tax Pledge, and let your elected officials know that you're watching how they vote on hidden energy taxes.

You can also tell your representatives to Vote NO on any bill that puts bureaucrats before patients.

One last thing, remember that the Obama-Pelosi $1 trillion "stimulus" we fought so hard to defeat? President Obama and Speaker Pelosi promised the massive spending bill would create jobs and turn around our economy.

Did you see Vice President Joe Biden on NBC's Meet the Press this past Sunday when he was asked why so many jobs were still being lost even months AFTER the Stimulus bill passed?

Biden actually said, "Everyone guessed wrong."

Think about it. They spend $1 trillion that we don't have -- taking us deeper into debt -- while promising Americans that their spending binge would "create jobs." Then, when job losses mount despite the massive spending, they shrug their shoulders and say, "Well we all guessed wrong..."

W've got to make sure that when it comes to health care and Cap-and-Trade we remind our fellow citizens that our opponents "guessed wrong" on the Stimulus and they're "guessing wrong" again!

Thanks for all you are doing. But, much more lies ahead.

I hope to see some of you next week in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska.

P.S. Join me on Facebook and Twitter as we build the best grassroots network in the national defending our freedoms.

2009-06-08T19:30:00.000-04:00

Brigitte Gabriel know of which she speaks. As her introduction say at Act! for America, "I founded ACT! for America because Islamic militants have declared war on America. I know what this means. For years, I witnessed first-hand how brutally jihadists treat non-Muslims. We are in for the fight of our lives and we must ACT! - before it's too late."

Ms. Gabriel is a phenomenal speaker and is neither Republican nor Democrat. She is American. She is also the New York Times bestselling author of They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It. She is the founder and president of ACT! for America.

Here is her Open Letter to President Obama.

Dear Mr. President,

You face difficult challenges in matters such as achieving peace in the Middle East and protecting America from the threat of radical Islam and terrorism. These are challenges that have vexed past presidents, going as far back as our second president, John Adams. I have no doubt you appreciate both the gravity of these challenges and the enormous obstacles that exist to solving them.

I also have no doubt that you and your staff understood that, no matter what you said in your speech last Thursday in Cairo, there would be those who would take issue with you. That is always the case when attempting to solve problems that are as deep and emotionally-laden as these challenges are.

I am assuming it is your sincere hope that the approach you have chosen to take, as evidenced by what I’m sure was a carefully crafted speech, will ultimately prove successful. However, it pains me to say this sir, but, while you said in your speech that you are a “student of history,” it is abundantly clear that, in these matters, you do not know history and thus, as Santayana noted, you are doomed to repeat it. In doing so your efforts, however well-intentioned they may be, will not produce what you profess to hope they will produce.

A wise man once said that if you start with the wrong assumptions, no matter how logical your reasoning is, you will end up with the wrong conclusion. With all due respect Mr. President, you are starting with certain assumptions that are unsupported by history and an objective study of the ideology of political Islam.

You began in your speech by asserting that “tensions” exist between the United States and Muslims around the world, which, of course, is correct. Unfortunately, you then proceeded, incorrectly, to lay virtually all the blame for these tensions at the feet of America and the West. You blamed western colonialism, the Cold War, and even modernity and globalism.

A student of American history, who is not trying to reconstruct it to fit a modern politically correct narrative, would state that tensions between America and Muslims began with the unprovoked, four-decades long assault by the Muslim Barbary pirates against American shipping in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. I find it telling that you mentioned the Treaty of Tripoli in your speech but ignored the circumstances that led to it. That treaty was but one of numerous attempts by the United States to achieve peace with the jihadists of the Barbary Coast who were attacking our shipping and killing and enslaving our citizens and our soldiers – and who by their own admission were doing so to fulfill the call to jihad.

These jihadists were not acting to protest American foreign policy, which was decidedly isolationist, and there was no state of Israel to scapegoat. They were doing what countless Islamic jihadists have done throughout history – acting upon the hundreds of passages in the Qur’an and the Hadith that call upon faithful Muslims to kill, conquer or subjugate the infidel.

A student of world history would know that, for all the acknowledged evils of Western colonialism, these evils pale in comparison to the nearly 14 centuries of Islamic colonialism that began in Arabia under the leadership of Mohammed. The student of history would know that Islamic forces eradicated all Jewish and Christian presence from Arabia after Mohammed’s death, and then succeeded in conquering all of North Africa, most of the Middle East, much of Asia Minor, and significant portions of Europe and India – eventually creating an empire larger than Rome’s was at its peak.

The number of dead and enslaved during these many centuries of Islamic imperial conquest and colonialism have been estimated to total more than 300 million. What’s more, the wealth of many of the conquered nations and cultures was plundered by the Islamic conquerors, and millions of millions of non-Muslims who did survive were forced to pay onerous taxes, such as the “jizya,” a humiliation tax to the Islamic caliphs. Indeed, in some areas Christians and Jews were made to wear a receipt for the jizya around their neck as a mark of their dishonor.

These facts have not been invented by Christian or Jewish historical revisionists, but were chronicled by Muslim eyewitnesses throughout the past 14 centuries and are available to be researched by any person seeking an objective understanding of how Islam spread throughout the world.

You say in your speech that we must squarely face the tensions that exist between America and the Muslim world. That is a laudable notion with which I agree, but by casting Islam as the historical victim and the West (and by implication, America) as the aggressor, you do not face these tensions squarely, but alleviate the Muslim world from coming to grips with the jihadist ideology embedded in its holy books and acted upon for 1,400 years.

Even worse, you empower and embolden militant Islamists who regard your gestures as signs of weakness and capitulation.

The issue is not that all Muslims are terrorists or radicals or extremists. We all know that the majority of Muslims are not. We also know that many peace-loving Muslims are victims of Islamist violence.

The issue is this: what drives hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide to call for the death of Jews?

What drives millions of Muslims to riot, destroy property, and take innocent lives in reaction to the Danish cartoons?

What drives tens of thousands of Muslims to demand the execution of a British teacher whose only “crime” was allowing her students to name their teddy bears “Mohammed”?

What drives countless Muslims worldwide to actively participate in, or fund, or provide nurture to, terrorist organizations?

What drives Muslims in mosques in America to proclaim and distribute materials that call for hatred of and the destruction of infidels?

What drives entire Islamic countries to prohibit the building of a Christian church or synagogue?

To assume, as you apparently do, that what drives these actions is not an ideology embedded in the holy books of Islam, but rather other “root causes,” most of which you lay at the feet of America and the West, is at best naïve and at worst dangerous.

Lastly, I must address your statement that “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.” Unfortunately, the examples you gave are the exception rather than the rule.

Historically speaking, I seriously doubt the Egyptian Copts, the Lebanese Maronites, the Christians in Bethlehem, the Assyrians, the Hindus, the Jews, and many others who have been persecuted by Islamic violence and supremacism, would agree with your assertion.

For instance, Christians and Jews became “Dhimmis,” a second class group under Islam. Dhimmis were forced to wear distinctive clothing; it was Baghdad’s Caliph Al-Mutawakkil, in the ninth century, who designated a yellow badge for Jews under Islam, which Hitler copied and duplicated in Nazi Germany nearly a thousand years later.

I witnessed first-hand the “tolerance” of Islam when Islamists ravaged my country of birth, Lebanon, in the 1970’s, leaving widespread death and destruction in their wake. I saw how they re-paid the tolerance that Lebanese Christians extended toward them. My experience is not an isolated one. When you make an unfounded assertion about the “proud tradition” of tolerance in Islam, you do a great disservice to the hundreds of millions of non-Muslims who have been killed, maimed, enslaved, conquered, subjugated or displaced – in the cause of Islamic jihad.

Mr. President, those of us like me who are ringing the alarm in America about the threat of radical Islam would like nothing better than to peacefully co-exist with the Muslim world. Most Americans would like nothing better than to peacefully co-exist with the Muslim world. The obstacle to achieving this does not lie with us in America and the West. It lies with the hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide, including many of their spiritual leaders, who take seriously the repeated calls to jihad in the Qur’an and the Hadith. Who regard “infidels” as inferior and worthy of conquering, subjugating and forcibly converting. Who support “cultural jihad” as a means to subvert non-Muslim societies from within. Who take seriously the admonitions throughout the Qur’an and the Hadith to convert the world to Islam – by force if necessary – and bring it under the rule of Allah.

Unless you are willing to courageously and honestly accept this, your aspirations for worldwide comity and peace in the Middle East are doomed to fail.

Sincerely,

Brigitte Gabriel

Cross-posted at SWAC Girl

D-Day sacrifice remembered ... June 6, 1944

2009-06-06T16:05:00.000-04:00

~Remembering their valor, fidelity, and sacrifice~

Today is D-Day. How many will continue to remember this major milestone battle of World War II that played such a big part in the freedom we enjoy? How many will keep the observance alive even as the Greatest Generation dies off and the memories fade?

From the Washington Times:

It's "A Gathering of the Greatest Generation" - though this year only a small group of that era's aging heroes will commemorate the invasion of France at Normandy 65 years ago.

On Saturday afternoon, veterans will attend a National World War II Museum ceremony in New Orleans recognizing soldiers, sailors and airmen who made that invasion a turning point for Allied forces. However, organizers acknowledge few members of an already dwindling population are hardy enough to make the trip.

"We won't have a veteran from each state, unfortunately," said William Detweiler, who is in charge of the event. "They're all in their 80s and 90s now, and getting around is just too hard for many of them."

Nowhere did that touch home more than in Bedford, Virginia, where the National D-Day Memorial is located as a reminder of a small town that sacrificed so much for America:

Like eleven other Virginia communities, Bedford provided a company of soldiers (Company A) to the 29th Infantry Division when the National Guard's 116th Infantry Regiment was activated on 3 February 1941.

Some thirty Bedford soldiers were still in that company on D-Day; several more from Bedford were in other D-Day companies, including one who, two years earlier, had been reassigned from the 116th Infantry to the First Infantry Division. Thus he had already landed in both Northern Africa and Sicily before coming ashore on D-Day at Omaha Beach with the Big Red One.

Company A of the 116th Infantry assaulted Omaha Beach as part of the First Division's Task Force O. By day's end, nineteen of the company's Bedford soldiers were dead. Two more Bedford soldiers died later in the Normandy campaign, as did yet another two assigned to other 116th Infantry companies. Bedford's population in 1944 was about 3,200.

Proportionally this community suffered the nation's severest D-Day losses. Recognizing Bedford as emblematic of all communities, large and small, whose citizen-soldiers served on D-Day, Congress warranted the establishment of the National D-Day Memorial here.

Sadly, the last of the surviving "Bedford Boys" passed away April 19, 2009, at the age of 94. The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported:

The storied journey of the “Bedford Boys” came to an end Sunday with the death of the group’s last surviving member, Ray Nance.

Nance, 94, was among the 35 young men from Bedford who stormed Normandy’s Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944.

In a 2007 interview, Nance recalled the day 65 years ago when he was wounded by shrapnel in his hand and foot. He took cover from machine gun fire in a pool of floating bodies. He watched friends die, he lay on the beach for hours and was ultimately rescued by a sergeant from Roanoke.

Of those 35 Bedford Boys to land on the Nazi-held beaches at the start of the D-Day invasion, 19 died in the first wave and two shortly after. The loss of 21 soldiers in Bedford’s community of 3,200 gave Bedford the highest proportional losses for D-Day, and led to the drive to build the National D-Day Memorial there.
...
“Every time I heard him talk about D-Day, he often said he never understood why he left and all the other men died,” [Bedford resident Lucille] Boggess said. “I think he was always a leader. All the men looked up to him.”

It was said after D-Day that we would never forget. Will future generations remember that promise?

Cross-posted at StrictlyVA and SWAC Girl

Memorial Day 2009 ... "No greater love"

2009-05-25T15:00:00.000-04:00

"Greater love hath no man than this,
that a man lay down his life for his friends."

John 15:13

Memorial Day 2009 ... nationwide moment of silence at 3 pm

2009-05-25T08:00:00.001-04:00

A nationwide moment of silence to honor and remember America's fallen heroes will be observed Memorial Day, Monday, May 25, at 3:00 pm local time. The freedoms we take for granted each day are reminders of their ultimate sacrifice and our ongoing debt to them.

Memorial Day ... honoring those who sacrificed and remembering those who serve.

Dick Cheney: "The United States Has Never Lost Its Moral Bearings"

2009-05-23T08:35:00.005-04:00

By Dick Cheney
American Enterprise Institute
Washington D.C.
May 21, 2009

Thank you all very much, and Arthur, thank you for that introduction. It's good to be back at AEI, where we have many friends. Lynne is one of your longtime scholars, and I'm looking forward to spending more time here myself as a returning trustee. What happened was, they were looking for a new member of the board of trustees, and they asked me to head up the search committee.

I first came to AEI after serving at the Pentagon, and departed only after a very interesting job offer came along. I had no expectation of returning to public life, but my career worked out a little differently. Those eight years as vice president were quite a journey, and during a time of big events and great decisions, I don't think I missed much.

Being the first vice president who had also served as secretary of defense, naturally my duties tended toward national security. I focused on those challenges day to day, mostly free from the usual political distractions. I had the advantage of being a vice president content with the responsibilities I had, and going about my work with no higher ambition. Today, I'm an even freer man. Your kind invitation brings me here as a private citizen - a career in politics behind me, no elections to win or lose, and no favor to seek.

The responsibilities we carried belong to others now. And though I'm not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do. We understand the complexities of national security decisions. We understand the pressures that confront a president and his advisers. Above all, we know what is at stake. And though administrations and policies have changed, the stakes for America have not changed.

Right now there is considerable debate in this city about the measures our administration took to defend the American people. Today I want to set forth the strategic thinking behind our policies. I do so as one who was there every day of the Bush Administration -who supported the policies when they were made, and without hesitation would do so again in the same circumstances.

When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer. The point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our President's understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history.

Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after September 11th, 2001 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America ... and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.

That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad. In 1993, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, hoping to bring down the towers with a blast from below. The attacks continued in 1995, with the bombing of U.S. facilities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; the killing of servicemen at Khobar Towers in 1996; the attack on our embassies in East Africa in 1998; the murder of American sailors on the USS Cole in 2000; and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss we suffered on that day.

Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact - crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.

That's how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least - but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat - what the Congress called "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States." From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place.

We could count on almost universal support back then, because everyone understood the environment we were in. We'd just been hit by a foreign enemy - leaving 3,000 Americans dead, more than we lost at Pearl Harbor. In Manhattan, we were staring at 16 acres of ashes. The Pentagon took a direct hit, and the Capitol or the White House were spared only by the Americans on Flight 93, who died bravely and defiantly.

Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and our job was to stop it. We didn't know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad. This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology, and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.

These are just a few of the problems we had on our hands. And foremost on our minds was the prospect of the very worst coming to pass - a 9/11 with nuclear weapons.

For me, one of the defining experiences was the morning of 9/11 itself. As you might recall, I was in my office in that first hour, when radar caught sight of an airliner heading toward the White House at 500 miles an hour. That was Flight 77, the one that ended up hitting the Pentagon. With the plane still inbound, Secret Service agents came into my office and said we had to leave, now. A few moments later I found myself in a fortified White House command post somewhere down below.

There in the bunker came the reports and images that so many Americans remember from that day - word of the crash in Pennsylvania, the final phone calls from hijacked planes, the final horror for those who jumped to their death to escape burning alive. In the years since, I've heard occasional speculation that I'm a different man after 9/11. I wouldn't say that. But I'll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities.

To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks. We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists, and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to enemies of the United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists.

We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations ... the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network ... and the dismantling of Libya's nuclear program. It's required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan - and at every turn, the people of our military carried the heaviest burden. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive - and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.

So we're left to draw one of two conclusions - and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event - coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.

The key to any strategy is accurate intelligence, and skilled professionals to get that information in time to use it. In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn't invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force" to protect the American people.

Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn't serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.

In the years after 9/11, our government also understood that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. And in a few cases, that information could be gained only through tough interrogations.

In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.

Our successors in office have their own views on all of these matters.

By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public's right to know. We're informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.

Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.

Over on the left wing of the president's party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they're after would be heard before a so-called "Truth Commission." Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It's hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors.

Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of focus on national security, and what it requires. I would advise the administration to think very carefully about the course ahead. All the zeal that has been directed at interrogations is utterly misplaced. And staying on that path will only lead our government further away from its duty to protect the American people.

One person who by all accounts objected to the release of the interrogation memos was the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta. He was joined in that view by at least four of his predecessors. I assume they felt this way because they understand the importance of protecting intelligence sources, methods, and personnel. But now that this once top-secret information is out for all to see - including the enemy - let me draw your attention to some points that are routinely overlooked.

It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You've heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammed - the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.

We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. We didn't know about al-Qaeda's plans, but Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we didn't think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.

Maybe you've heard that when we captured KSM, he said he would talk as soon as he got to New York City and saw his lawyer. But like many critics of interrogations, he clearly misunderstood the business at hand. American personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to extract information from him before al-Qaeda could strike again and kill more of our people.

In public discussion of these matters, there has been a strange and sometimes willful attempt to conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib prison with the top secret program of enhanced interrogations. At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency. For the harm they did, to Iraqi prisoners and to America's cause, they deserved and received Army justice. And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.

Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.

Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.

I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about "values." Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.

Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What's more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.

The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned ... one lead that goes unpursued ... can bring on catastrophe - it's no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.

Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced interrogations is a broader misconception about the threats that still face our country. You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy. Apparently using the term "war" where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So henceforth we're advised by the administration to think of the fight against terrorists as, quote, "Overseas contingency operations." In the event of another terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will be ready for this, quote, "man-made disaster" - never mind that the whole Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist attack.

And when you hear that there are no more, quote, "enemy combatants," as there were back in the days of that scary war on terror, at first that sounds like progress. The only problem is that the phrase is gone, but the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there. And finding some less judgmental or more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn't change what they are - or what they would do if we let them loose.

On his second day in office, President Obama announced that he was closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. This step came with little deliberation and no plan. Now the President says some of these terrorists should be brought to American soil for trial in our court system. Others, he says, will be shipped to third countries. But so far, the United States has had little luck getting other countries to take hardened terrorists. So what happens then? Attorney General Holder and others have admitted that the United States will be compelled to accept a number of the terrorists here, in the homeland, and it has even been suggested US taxpayer dollars will be used to support them. On this one, I find myself in complete agreement with many in the President's own party. Unsure how to explain to their constituents why terrorists might soon be relocating into their states, these Democrats chose instead to strip funding for such a move out of the most recent war supplemental.

The administration has found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it's tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America's national security. Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, we learned yesterday, many were treated too leniently, because 1 in 7 cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. I think the President will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.

In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we've captured as, quote, "abducted." Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.

It's one thing to adopt the euphemisms that suggest we're no longer engaged in a war. These are just words, and in the end it's the policies that matter most. You don't want to call them enemy combatants? Fine. Call them what you want - just don't bring them into the United States. Tired of calling it a war? Use any term you prefer. Just remember it is a serious step to begin unraveling some of the very policies that have kept our people safe since 9/11.

Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a "recruitment tool" for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It's another version of that same old refrain from the Left, "We brought it on ourselves."

It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America's moral standards, one way or the other.

Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion ... our belief in equal rights for women ... our support for Israel ... our cultural and political influence in the world - these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes on September 11th, 2001.

The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world - for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences - and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don't stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for - our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.

What is equally certain is this: The broad-based strategy set in motion by President Bush obviously had nothing to do with causing the events of 9/11. But the serious way we dealt with terrorists from then on, and all the intelligence we gathered in that time, had everything to do with preventing another 9/11 on our watch. The enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees and the terrorist surveillance program have without question made our country safer. Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place.

This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It's almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.

Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will be compromised. And at the CIA, operatives are left to wonder if they can depend on the White House or Congress to back them up when the going gets tough. Why should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when, even though they act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will treat everything they do with suspicion, outright hostility, and second-guessing? Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs. They support them in private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.

As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won't let the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month. I've formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was formally rejected. It's worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the President himself. President Obama has used his declassification power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials.

I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations - and I am not alone. President Obama's own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: "High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country." End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration - the missing 26 words that tell an inconvenient truth. But they couldn't change the words of George Tenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: "I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us." End of quote.

If Americans do get the chance to learn what our country was spared, it'll do more than clarify the urgency and the rightness of enhanced interrogations in the years after 9/11. It may help us to stay focused on dangers that have not gone away. Instead of idly debating which political opponents to prosecute and punish, our attention will return to where it belongs - on the continuing threat of terrorist violence, and on stopping the men who are planning it.

For all the partisan anger that still lingers, our administration will stand up well in history - not despite our actions after 9/11, but because of them. And when I think about all that was to come during our administration and afterward - the recriminations, the second-guessing, the charges of "hubris" - my mind always goes back to that moment.

To put things in perspective, suppose that on the evening of 9/11, President Bush and I had promised that for as long as we held office - which was to be another 2,689 days - there would never be another terrorist attack inside this country. Talk about hubris - it would have seemed a rash and irresponsible thing to say. People would have doubted that we even understood the enormity of what had just happened. Everyone had a very bad feeling about all of this, and felt certain that the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and Shanksville were only the beginning of the violence.

Of course, we made no such promise. Instead, we promised an all-out effort to protect this country. We said we would marshal all elements of our nation's power to fight this war and to win it. We said we would never forget what had happened on 9/11, even if the day came when many others did forget. We spoke of a war that would "include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success." We followed through on all of this, and we stayed true to our word.

To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets, instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.

Along the way there were some hard calls. No decision of national security was ever made lightly, and certainly never made in haste. As in all warfare, there have been costs - none higher than the sacrifices of those killed and wounded in our country's service. And even the most decisive victories can never take away the sorrow of losing so many of our own - all those innocent victims of 9/11, and the heroic souls who died trying to save them.

For all that we've lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those who asked them questions and got answers: they did the right thing, they made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.

Like so many others who serve America, they are not the kind to insist on a thank-you. But I will always be grateful to each one of them, and proud to have served with them for a time in the same cause. They, and so many others, have given honorable service to our country through all the difficulties and all the dangers. I will always admire them and wish them well. And I am confident that this nation will never take their work, their dedication, or their achievements, for granted.

Thank you very much.

Bob McDonnell coming to Weyers Cave Airport Monday

2009-05-21T14:07:00.000-04:00

Bob McDonnell, the Republican gubernatorial candidate, will be at Weyers Cave Airport as part of a statewide fly-around on Monday, June 1, at 12:00 Noon. He will have guests with him including House Speaker Bill Howell.

Questions may be directed to Craig Orndorff, Harrisonburg Field Director, at (804) 814-0926 or (540) 335-9428.

Directions from the north (Woodstock down):

Take I-81 South to Exit 235. Take Exit 235 (Weyers Cave). At the top of the off-ramp, turn left across Interstate, onto Route 256. Follow the signs to the traffic light at Weyers Cave. Cross Keezletown Road and continue on Route 256 to signs indicating a right turn onto Airport Road, into the SVRA parking area and terminals.

From the south (Waynesboro up):

Take I-64 to I-81 South to Exit 235. Take Exit 235 East toward Weyers Cave. At the end of the off-ramp, turn right onto Route 256. Follow the signs to the traffic light at Weyers Cave. Cross Keezletown Road and continue on Route 256 to signs indicating a right turn onto Airport Road, into the SVRA parking area and terminals.

"National Council for a New America" press release

2009-05-04T06:07:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON, D.C. –Saturday, in Northern Virginia, the National Council for a New America held its first “Conversation for a New America.”

Holding Saturday's Conversation were House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) and two members of the group’s national panel of experts – Governor Jeb Bush and Governor Mitt Romney. Watch video of the event.

Below, please find excerpts of the panelists’ opening remarks:

Excerpted Remarks From The “Conversation For A New America” (Arlington, VA, 5/2/09):

Rep. Eric Cantor: “This is the inaugural kickoff event for the National Council for a New America. This is a group that we have put together and started to begin a conversation with the American people. Just like we are all gathered here today, the National Council is meant to bring people together so that we can have a serious discussion about the challenges facing our country and the challenges facing small business people and the working families of this country every single day.

“We’ve chosen Pie-Tanza [pizza parlor] because it is emblematic of thousands of small businesses across the country. Ed McKee and what he goes through as a small business person is just like the struggle that so many small business people go through every day – decisions on staffing, negotiating with health insurers as to whether you’re going to be able to continue to have and provide benefits for your employees. These are the type of issues that small businesses are grappling with. Ed talks about his expansion plans and the challenges that he faces because of the credit markets, and what can we do to make sure that businesses and entrepreneurs such as Ed and Karen have a leg up so that they can continue to provide opportunity for communities such as this.

“Just the same, all of you are emblematic of the millions of people across this country facing extremely difficult economic times. And whether it is your decision as to how to provide for your children and their education, to save for college, to deal with the evaporation in retirement plans, these are the real issues that we want to hear about, what it is you feel that Washington has done either right or wrong because right now we have some serious decisions to make in Washington. It is very, very important for us to engage in this discussion and that’s why we’re here.

“As far as the agenda, the National Council for a New America is a wide-open policy debate. We’re going to be talking about things economic, things education, health care. These are the discussions that need to occur with the American people of any political stripe. We need to make sure that the discussions, I believe, should be to be focused on the principles that have made America great – the principles of freedom and opportunity.

“We’re joined today with obviously some terrific leaders. Leaders that have made a real difference in the lives of the people they represented in their states and have provided some true inspiration to so many. So we’re delighted to have them with us today. I’d like to first turn the mic over to Governor Jeb Bush of Florida.”
…
Governor Jeb Bush: “I’ve seen conservatives move up. I’ve seen conservatives move down. I’ve seen liberals move up and move down. That’s just kind of the nature of things in our country and that’s a good thing. But what I’ve seen in the last few years is really troubling, which is most of politics, it seems to me, is dominated by a food fight rather than about the issues going forward for our country. The short-term challenges we face are real. Ed talked a little bit about being a small business man in a severe recession. It is tough around the country. People are scared. They’re anxious. They’re fearful for their savings. They’re wondering how they’re going to retire. Those are short-term challenges that we need to face.

“And then there are the longer-term challenges related to things that we haven’t been able to deal with in a substantial way that we need to. We need to pause what we’re doing and as a country realize that the greatness of our country is in peril if we can’t figure out to deal with the ticking time bomb of our entitlement challenges of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. If we can’t figure out how the greatest country on the face of the Earth continues to be that way as it relates to being competitive in a world that is moving at warp speed, changing dramatically, where the China’s and the India’s have a command focus for economic growth and it does create opportunities for us but it also creates great challenges.

“My reason for being here is that I think ideas have consequences and that we ought to have a thoughtful discussion about those ideas. From the conservative side, it’s time for us to listen first, to learn a little bit, to upgrade our message a little bit, to not be nostalgic about the past because things do ebb and flow and it’s nice to remember the good old days when the good guys if you’re a conservative were in power or if you’re a liberal, remember nostalgically when they were in power. None of that matters right now. What we need to do is to listen, to learn and then there will be a new generation of leaders that will lead.

“Listen, learn, lead and that’s what I believe this National Council can provide is a chance to create a forum for people to truly listen and then to create a consensus around 21st century ideas that truly matter for American families. And then hopefully – God willing – embrace our conservative principles and take these new ideas and present them to the American people in elections and all sorts of other ways and lead.”
…
Governor Romney: “It’s an honor to be here with you and to have the chance to listen to you. I’ve learned that when you sit in a position of responsibility as you do now and as we did once, you typically get the best ideas that really make a difference from people that you’re serving. And I know that there are other people who have a different view of that. Some people think they have all the answers, all the ideas and that the people that they’re working with and they lead are just not going to offer much benefit to them. But I feel very differently.”
…
“Let’s not underestimate the people of America. Let’s make sure and listen to the people of America and that’s what Congressman Cantor is attempting to do with this Council. Make sure we get the chance to go across the country, and listen to what people are feeling and get their ideas because that will make a real difference.

“I remember I was in my office – I had just been elected. It’s a humbling experience to be elected and to have the responsibility to try and help a state and help its people. I campaigned with a pretty simple slogan which is I was running for office to try and help people. I wanted to help people. One of my constituents came in after I had been elected. He said, ‘Mitt, you said you wanted to help people right?’ I said, ‘Yeah.’ He said, ‘Well, if you really wanted to help people, you’ll find a way to get everybody health insurance.’ I said, ‘Tom, that’s impossible. I’m not going to raise taxes and I’m not going to have government take over health care.’ He said, ‘No, I know. I don’t want those things to happen but I want you to find a way to get everybody health insurance.’ And again I said it was impossible and again he said no, that’s why we elected you, to help people.

“So I went to work on that with a group of people – not government people – from all sorts of sectors and we spent a lot of time on it. Long story short we found a way to do just that.

“Listening to people can make a difference and we’ve got ideas about how we can help people get health insurance, how we can improve our schools, how we can make our economy strong today as well as down the road, how we can reform entitlements. These are the people of America that have these ideas. We want to share these ideas with one another and make sure that we’re laying out a vision and a plan for America that makes our lives and the lives of our kids better.

“There’s a divide about how you think of America. There are some folks who think that government really does know best. That people who are elected know better how to run the country and what to do than everybody else. Then there are those who say no, America is great because of the American people and the skill, and ingenuity and entrepreneurship of the America. That’s what we happen to believe. We’re going to work very hard to listen to the American people, and to do our very best to strengthen the American people and thereby to strengthen our nation.

“I happen to think right now with regards to our economy that we’re risking doing the very thing to our economy that government did to our housing market and that is borrow so much money that you create a bubble that ultimately collapses. And that’s the worry that I have. And I want to make sure that we turn this economy around and we stimulate the economy in the right way but not in such a way that we create a bubble of massive spending and debt that ultimately comes crashing down on us or on our kids.

“I want to thank you for letting be a part of this. Looking forward to spending more time with you and I’m honored today to be here and to listen to your thoughts.”

Additional information at SWAC Girl.

Chris Saxman survey question

2009-04-29T17:30:00.000-04:00

By Del. Chris Saxman
Republican - 20th House District

Thanks for all of the great input from last week’s email on the environment. I enjoyed reading all of the many varied responses to our question about what you are doing for the environment.

In reading your responses and listening to other constituents in my district, I have discovered that many people are rightly concerned about the environment and want to help; however, there is a wide difference of opinions on what we can or should do. I look forward to continuing this dialogue and again appreciate everyone taking the time to share your thoughts.

As I have spent most of the last month on the baseball, softball and lacrosse sidelines for our children’s many sporting events, I have been listening to folks who are very concerned about the economy. The one question that keeps coming up is not WHEN will it get better but rather WILL it get better.

That is a big difference in the way Americans are thinking. There is significant concern that the actions of our government, which in my opinion created this problem, are not going to actually work.

One of my fears is that the economy will recover despite the extra burden being placed on it by our government and people will credit the government, thus creating a nation of Patty Hearst Stockholm Syndrome captives who depend entirely on government control of their lives.

I do know what does work – freedom. Always has, always will.

Another observation that I have made recently is that people are realizing that they really do not want all the stuff that they previously thought they needed. I think in the future people will realize that with all the cutting back comes a great sense of freedom. It is quite liberating to not want. The real question will then become whether people think they are free because government provides or they themselves provide that freedom.

Remember that our US Constitution was written to protect our freedoms and rights FROM government and that our freedoms and rights come from God and not the government. I hope that does not change.

For this week’s question, I’d like to hear what your recommendation(s) would be to help get America’s economy moving forward again. As always, you can email me directly or answer online. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Sincerely,

Chris Saxman

PS- In case you missed it, check out former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week on the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.” Speaker Gingrich mentions work that Senator Frank Wagner and I initiated in Virginia related to exploration for off-shore energy resources back in 2004.

Del. Chris Saxman VSDB press conference today at 10:30 am

2009-04-14T06:12:00.000-04:00

Delegate Chris Saxman will hold a press conference on Tuesday, April 14th at 10:30 am at the Virginia School for the Deaf and Blind in Staunton. Construction has begun at VSDB-Staunton on the consolidation and renovation work, and Delegate Saxman will be providing updates on the project. He will be joined by several alumni of the VSDB.

Event: Delegate Saxman Press Conference
Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Time: 10:30 am
Location: VSDB-Staunton, Commerce Road Entrance across from Athletic Fields.

Chris Saxman on proposed changes to unemployment insurance laws

2009-04-10T07:00:00.001-04:00

Delegate Chris Saxman (R-Staunton) issued the following statement regarding actions by the General Assembly during yesterday’s Reconvened Session that would have permanently changed Virginia’s unemployment insurance laws in order to receive short-term, temporary federal funding.

“Today there has already been much coverage of yesterday’s Reconvened Session in Richmond, and unfortunately that coverage has contained misinformation about a House of Delegates’ vote regarding unemployment insurance laws in Virginia.

“Governor Kaine had proposed permanently amending Virginia’s unemployment insurance laws in order to receive an additional $125 million in temporary federal funding- this in addition to $62 million already being extended to the Commonwealth for unemployment benefits. While this federal money may have seemed to be short-term, quick-fix, it would have been a job-killer, and when those federal funds ran out, Virginia would have been left holding the bill for another federal unfunded mandate.

“We are acutely aware of the challenges Virginians are facing -- challenges I have experienced first-hand through our small family business. This is exactly why the legislature worked together this past session to pass meaningful, comprehensive initiatives that will provide real benefits to Virginians. We extended unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 59 weeks of coverage. We passed legislation to establish a program that allows employees of small businesses to have better access to the federal health insurance premium assistance program. We extended tax credits to businesses that create new full-time jobs here in the Commonwealth. Additionally, we approved funding for economic development incentives to attract new businesses to Virginia, aide in workforce development and promote tourism.

“The economic challenges we face are real, and Virginians expect comprehensive solutions and a balanced, long-term approach to address these problems. A short-term check from the federal government is no substitute for real, pragmatic solutions that will create new jobs, stimulate economic growth, and get Virginians working again in long-term, full-time jobs that provide good pay and good benefits.”

Cross-posted on SWAC Girl

Del. Saxman discusses VDOT

2009-04-03T16:00:00.000-04:00

By Del. Chris Saxman
Republican - 20th House District

I'm sure you have heard the news recently surrounding VDOT's challenges in this economic downturn. Here in the Valley -- and throughout the state -- the Governor has suggested shutting down Interstate Rest Areas as a way to save money.

I raised my concerns about this proposal yesterday at a meeting of the Joint Commission on Transportation Accountability with Transportation Secretary Pierce Homer. I issued a press release on this situation which offers some ways I think we can work together for some better solutions.

With VDOT expressing concerns about not being able to fund maintenance and other projects, it is concerning to read in this morning's Richmond Times Dispatch that "The Virginia Department of Transportation last year paid more than $200,000 in one-time bonuses and more than $300,000 in salary increases to retain some of its top employees.

"The article further notes that, despite shutting 28 facilities in 2008, VDOT has increased its payroll by 70 percent since 2000. We all know that costs go up, and Virginia is recognized as the best managed state, yet "VDOT's payroll this year is $651 million, up from $425 million in 2000."

You can read the full article online here.

I am not opposed to bonuses and salary increases. As a small businessman, I realize that it is important to reward hard work and results in order to retain good employees. I also understand that it is important to pay competitive salaries in order to keep good, highly trained employees.What concerns me is that these bonuses are coming at a time when the Commonwealth and the nation are experiencing a significant economic downturn, and VDOT is considering laying off workers, shutting down rest areas and complaining about funding cuts. It is also concerning that VDOT has been growing its payroll at a rate of nearly 10% annually.

Tough times require us all to prioritize. The legislature just spent this year's legislative session finding ways to tighten our belts for state government, so to speak, to help the Commonwealth weather this economic storm and protect core services.

It is my hope that our state agencies will likewise find ways to ensure that they are operating in a fiscally responsible manner with the hard-earned tax dollars of Virginia citizens.

Cross-posted at SWAC Girl