FamilyFoundationBlog.com

Today, in the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee, the anticipated fireworks didn’t materialize. But it sure did have some strange twists and turns.

Although there wasn’t as much hype concerning HB 10, The Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, there was due to be some suspense. The patron, Delegate Bob Marshall (R-13, Manassas), had reason to be confident since three similar Senate bills escaped Commerce and Labor earlier in session, albeit by 8-7 votes, due to the brave votes of Democrats Charles Colgan (D-29, Manassas) and Phil Puckett (D-38, Tazewell). But HB 10 is worded slightly different. One difference from the Senate bills is that it clearly limits exemptions on insurance purchase mandates in divorce settlements, an omission Senate liberals objected to in SB 417, SB 311 and SB 283. On the other hand, its protections from the federal government are a little more expansive.

Stage set, here’s what happened: Delegate Marshall barely was into the introduction of the bill when he got a few questions, including one from committee chairman and Majority Leader Dick Saslaw (D-35, Springfield), who asked, “Do you think we have the power to tell Congress what to do?”

Of course, the bill won’t tell Congress what to do. Only that Virginia won’t participate in a certain action (health care insurance mandates) that it may pass. In fact, Delegate Marshall cited a 1994 Congressional Budget Office memo during the HillaryCare debate, that stated never before had Congress mandate Americans to buy any good or service, and that doing so would open the door for other mandated purchases and a command economy. (Hopefully, our public schools still teach what political system uses a command economy.) He reasoned, that if Congress has never required an individual mandate before, it must not be legal, or it would have done so already in more than 200 years. He also cited New York v. United States where a federal court ruled in New York’s favor over a federal mandate. Seemingly anxious to just get it over with, it was about here where Senator Creigh Deeds (D-25, Bath) asked if there was any difference between HB 10 and the Senate bills, which Delegate Marshall already had volunteered that there was. He amended his bill to preserve divorce settlements in which insurance coverage may be a part, something on which committee liberals hammered the Senate bills’ patrons. On the other hand, his bill, in a macro constitutional sense (I love creating new phrases) was a bit broader and probably more protective of the feds than the Senate bills.

Before the committee’s legal counsel and Delegate Marshall could complete their responses, motions and comments started flying all over the place. Senator Saslaw, confident that the differences were huge and that the bills were not the same, motioned that HB 10 be passed by for the year. Senator Frank Wagner (R-7, Virginia Beach) made a substitute motion to report. Senator Steve Newman (R-23, Forest) made a parliamentary inquiry if the bill could be conformed into one of the Senate bills. He was told no because the bills are in different sections of the code.

That struck me as odd right away because bills are conformed all the time. In fact, “conforming” is changing legislative language to the exact same language as another bill — in other words, that’s the point! Change it and put it in any code section you want! So the motion to report was voted upon with Senators Puckett and Colgan upholding their part, but the bill failed 8-7. How could this be when the others passed? Senator Tommy Norment (R-3, Williamsburg) voted no.

As supporters gathered outside to plan a next step — primarily, to get Senator Norment to offer a motion to reconsider at the next meeting — word came out of the committee room to head back in: That’s what indeed he was doing! So the bill was brought right back up, interrupting the introduction of the next bill. After the motion to reconsider passed, a motion to — believe it or not — conform it to SB 417 was made and passed on a 8-7 vote. So, HB 10 survives, amended to the same language as SB 417. You like unintended consequences (something liberals are always warning us about)? Good, because now the protections for divorce orders is gone!

It should now pass the Senate floor, where it will go back to the House. It remains to be seen if Delegate Marshall will then insist on his original language when it returns there and force a conference committee, or if he’ll take what he has. Does he want pride of authorship? Or, knowing the other bill will become law, does he want to roll the dice and try to get the additional protections in HB 10 to become the law of the Commonwealth?

Today on the floor of the House of Delegates, SB 18, legislation that creates a pro-abortion license plate, was amended so that money raised from the plate will not go to Planned Parenthood. The identical amendment was placed on the House version of similar legislation earlier in session.

The action by the House to divert the money from Planned Parenthood to the Virginia Pregnant Woman Fund has caused a verbal hissy fit from the pro-abortion lobby. It claims that the House is being “unfair” and is not treating Planned Parenthood the same as other organization’s that receive money from license plates.

The reasons for the House different treatment of the Planned Parenthood bill, patroned by Senator Louise Lucas (D-18, Portsmouth), are numerous. Of course, one reason is its pro-abortion agenda and its opposition to nearly every public policy in Virginia that relates to abortion, from our ban on partial birth infanticide to parental consent. There also is opposition because Planned Parenthood is the largest private provider of abortions in the Commonwealth. Planned Parenthood has “promised” that money raised by the plate will not fund abortion, but all we have is its word.

If those aren’t reasons enough, another explanation we have shared in the past was reinforced recently in a television interview I did on a local news broadcast regarding the license plate controversy. While interviewing the lead lobbyist for Planned Parenthood in her office, where she was arguing that Planned Parenthood is a health care organization, the camera caught an interesting sign in the background. Please watch the following brief video clip from that interview:

The camera doesn’t blink on partisan Planned Parenthood.

Clearly, as I said in the interview, Planned Parenthood is a blatantly partisan political group masquerading as a health care organization. If the video isn’t enough, you can go to its  Web site and blog and see its endorsements of political candidates, nearly all of which are from one particular political party. Regardless of its claims to be all about women’s health, it really is about winning elections and making money — much of it off of the taxpayer. Isn’t it interesting that the candidates it supports are advocates of taxpayer funding of its organization.

In the next few days, the Senate will reject the amendment, reverting the money from the license plates back to Planned Parenthood. The House is likely to insist on the change, forcing the bills into a conference committee for a “compromise” to be worked out. At the same time, the budget conference committee will be debating the budget amendment that prohibits taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood. It is simply unacceptable that taxpayers continue to be forced to fund a partisan organization that does not support the laws of Virginia.

The evidence is abundant. It is time to put a stop to this funding.

Below is the first part of a two part interview with nationally known political scientist Dr. Bob Holsworth, a regular commentator on Virginia and national politics. His articles and commentary can be read in publications and on the Internet, and heard on television and radio. He is a frequent speaker to numerous organizations, heads a consultancy, and is the editor of the widely read blog, Virginia Tomorrow. Today, we talk about the current session of the General Assembly and touch on national politics.

FamilyFoundationBlog.com: Dr. Holsworth, it’s a great honor to have you answer some questions on our blog about the General Assembly and Virginia politics in general. So, thank you very much for participating in this interview. We greatly appreciate your valuable time and look forward to your insights and are big fans of your blog, Virginia Tomorrow. Are you ready for some questions?

Dr. Bob Holsworth: Thanks very much for the opportunity to be on your site.

FamilyFoundationBlog: Has anything surprised you about this session of the General Assembly? Has the Republican sweep and increased House of Delegates majority created a visible difference or is it too early to tell (i.e., waiting for the budget)?

Dr. Holsworth: Certainly, the Republican sweep in the House has made it even easier for the GOP to control the legislative outcomes in that chamber. But the Democratic control of the Senate can still pose substantial hurdles for the Governor and the House GOP. I was surprised that five Democrats in the Senate supported the Health Care Freedom legislation, symbolically repudiating former Governor Kaine and President Obama. All of these Democrats are in districts where the GOP could field competitive challengers and this tells you just how concerned Democrats have become about the impact of the national mood here in Virginia. At the same time, Senate Dems have summarily dismissed part of the McDonnell agenda such as dedicating royalties for off-shore drilling to transportation and changing the budget cycle. What will happen with the overall budget is still up in the air as Senate Dems actually disagree if they should present a budget that includes some of the tax increases in (former) Governor Kaine’s recommended document or acknowledge the political reality that there will be no major tax increases and present a budget accordingly, even if it inconsistent with what they would really want to propose.

FamilyFoundationBlog: Governor Bob McDonnell ran on a jobs-creation platform and de-emphasized social issues. But social issues do play a role in the budget. Do you think he will go so far as to de-fund Planned Parenthood?

Dr. Holsworth: I think that you have phrased the question well. Some folks have said that McDonnell ran as a “moderate.” My sense is that he ran as an economic conservative and gave less priority in the campaign to his social conservatism. I fully expect that McDonnell will sign almost all bills with a “social conservative” orientation that emerge from the legislative process. What’s not entirely clear is how far his own proposals will move in this direction. He obviously made a symbolic change when he removed sexual orientation from the non-discrimination executive order with respect to state government workers. The question of whether he’ll propose a budget amendment to de-fund panned parenthood will be seen by many of his supporters as a test of whether he will implement the values of social conservatism in the budget. If he does, there will be a substantial fight in the Senate and the media will surely portray it as a switch from the “moderation” of the campaign. If he doesn’t, he’ll disappoint a segment of his core supporters.

FamilyFoundationBlog: If Governor McDonnell proposes a host of “fees” instead of taxes to close the budget gap, how will that affect his support on the right? creation

Dr. Holsworth: If McDonnell is perceived as simply playing semantics with taxes, it will harm him not only with the right, but with many independents as well. He was very clear during the election about his belief that revenue increases should primarily come from economic growth and I would be very surprised if he has a post-election conversion to a different point of view, especially in this political environment.

FamilyFoundationBlog: Governor McDonnell is getting a lot of positive attention right now — giving the GOP response to the State of the Union, doing several national interviews, even one for Newt Gingrich’s newsletter. Does he runs the risk of raising his own expectations?

Dr. Holsworth: I think of the smartest moves the new Governor made was to cancel his national interviews the day after his SOTU response. Virginians have made it clear that his first priority as Governor should be the Commonwealth and, in the long run, McDonnell’s national stature will be most enhanced by having a strong approval rating in-state.

FamilyFoundationBlog: What chances do you give of real reforms this or next year in areas of budgeting and in recalculating SOQ spending?

Dr. Holsworth: The Senate has already rejected a key McDonnell proposal on changing the two year budget cycle. Recalculating SOQ spending has been an issue that many House Republicans have pointed to over the last few years as a reform necessary to rein in future budget increases. We’ve seen some willingness from both parties to look at items such as staffing ratios regarding non-instructional personnel. If there ever would be a time where the entire SOQ calculation would be readjusted, it would be in the kind of fiscal environment we have now. But polls show that schools remain extremely high on the public’s priority list. In aggregate, school groups (teachers, superintendents, school boards, and principals) are extraordinarily well organized and very politically effective. Moreover, Virginia schools overall seem to perform extremely well — just this week, we ranked third in the nation in AP testing. I believe that the effort for major permanent structural changes in school funding will have substantial hurdles to overcome.

FamilyFoundationBlog: What are your thoughts on former Governor Doug Wilder calling for Tim Kaine’s removal as Democrat National Committee chairman?

Dr. Holsworth: Former Governor Wilder noted that he had supported Tim Kaine for Vice-President, but did not feel that the DNC Chair was the best fit for his talents and skills. My guess is that there are a number of Democratic activists who are more comfortable with the sharp edges of a Howard Dean than the more cerebral approach to the position of Tim Kaine. The proof, of course, will be in the November pudding. Kaine will succeed if Democrats do far better than expected. But if November is a Democratic debacle, Kaine will be fingered for part of the blame.

Be sure to check back with us tomorrow afternoon for part two of our interview with Dr. Bob Holsworth as we look at next year’s Congressional elections in Virginia, Senator Jim Webb’s prospects in 2012, and the Tea Party movement.

Today, the House of Delegates passed by a vote of 72-25 HB 393, patroned by Delegate Matt Lohr (R-26, Harrisonburg), a bill that would put unregulated abortion centers (see LiveActionBlog) under three simple regulations: licensure, an annual inspection and to have life saving equipment on premises, such as defibrillators. In fact, the General Assembly Building has three such devices.

In the floor debate on the bill’s second read yesterday, when bills in the House are debated, opposition came from one of the General Assembly’s biggest pro-abortion advocates, Delegate David Englin (D-45, Alexandria). He tried to make the case that unregulated abortion centers are regulated. But Delegate Lohr correctly replied that, if so, then the simple requirements in the bill would not be cause for concern to the abortion centers. Delegate Englin then tried to paint a picture of hypocrisy by stating that doctors’ offices of various specialties are not regulated by the state. However, as Delegate Lohr responded, specific boards govern each medical specialty. But there are no boards that institute standards for abortionists.

The bipartisan vote — 11 of the 36 voting Democrats voted yes — was one of the largest margins in recent history. The bill now goes to the Senate where it most likely will be referred to the Education and Health Committee. Although pro-life bills typically meet a horrendous fate there, we will continue to fight for — and ask your help in those battles — on just bills, such HB 393, and continue to spotlight the lawmakers who prove to be grossly out of step with mainstream Virginia.

Rumors have been swirling since Election night that Governor-elect Bob McDonnell was seeking to entice a Senate Democrat to take an appointment in his administration, opening an opportunity for a Republican perhaps winning the resulting open Senate seat, thus ending Democrat control of the Senate, making that chamber 20-20. That would lead to power sharing, new committee make up and an entirely new political dynamic in Richmond.

Of course, adding to the intrigue are two state Senate special elections that will not take place until January 12 — the 37th district seat that Attorney General-elect Ken Cuccinelli will vacate and the 8th district, where newly elected Virginia Beach sheriff Ken Stolle will leave his seat.

At his press conference today announcing several new cabinet secretaries, the Governor-elect stated that he would complete his appointment of cabinet secretaries the first week of January. If that’s the case, then the appointments will be done prior to the January 12 special elections.

It would be very risky for the Governor to appoint a Democrat to his cabinet hoping to win the seat, and then potentially losing either the 8th or the 37th, leaving McDonnell and the Republicans right where they started. Risky, but not impossible of course.

So, does the one line Governor-elect McDonnell dropped today end the possibility of a change in the Senate? Or are there other administration opportunities that could be available? Just one of the more intriguing questions revolving around the new administration.

Stay tuned.

Below is the text of a news release issued today from the office of Lt. Governor Bill Bolling concerning the votes by Senators Warner (contact here) and Webb (contact here) in favor of a procedural motion that will allow the Senate health care bill to proceed to a final up or down vote, where it is all but assured of passing. The text of the letter referenced in the news release is posted here.

BOLLING CALLS ON WARNER AND WEBB TO VOTE AGAINST FEDERAL HEALTHCARE LEGISLATION

RICHMOND – Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling today sent a strongly worded letter to Senators Jim Webb and Mark Warner expressing outrage over special concessions given to certain states to obtain support for federal healthcare legislation from their Senators and asking them to oppose this legislation, which Bolling called “misguided.”

“As you know, one of our major concerns with this legislation is the potential impact it could have on the cost of Medicaid for Virginia’s state government,” wrote Bolling. “Many reports have suggested that this legislation could result in much higher Medicaid costs for state governments across the nation, costs that state governments simply cannot bear.”

In his letter, Bolling cited reports from this past weekend that the Senate’s Democratic leadership had made concessions to Senator Ben Nelson that would hold his home state of Nebraska harmless for any additional Medicaid costs that might come about as a result of the enrollment of new Medicaid recipients after 2017, while all 49 other states would be required to pay a portion of the increased costs. This reportedly would save Nebraska $45M per year, while passing these costs on to other states.

Additionally, similar “sweet heart deals” were reportedly made to Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and other Senators to obtain their support for the healthcare bill, while the citizens of Virginia and other states were not afford the same benefits.

“I am outraged by reports that surfaced this weekend regarding concessions that were made to Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson to secure his vote in support of this legislation,” stated Bolling. “If these reports are accurate, this type of quid pro quo is unacceptable, and you and your colleagues should object strongly to the practice, which I have no doubt the American people will find offensive as well.”

“If the Senate’s leadership is so desperate to obtain votes to secure the passage of this legislation that they would make these types of concessions to these Senators, I would ask that you demand that the same concessions be extended to Virginia, and for that matter, to every other state in the nation,” continued Bolling.

In addition to the outrageous “pay off” tactics employed by Senate Democratic Leadership, Bolling encouraged Senators Webb and Warner to vote against the substance of the legislation, citing concerns that it will result in increased healthcare costs, increased insurance premiums, increased taxes on family and businesses and fewer options for individual patients.

The Family Foundation is currently in search of student pages who can assist our legislative team in our advocacy work for the upcoming General Assembly session. The unpaid positions offer high school students, including home schoolers, a valuable opportunity to experience the activities of a General Assembly session firsthand.

Family Foundation General Assembly pages are responsible for the efficient maintenance of information within The Family Foundation’s General Assembly Operations Room and information between The Family Foundation and the members of the General Assembly. Pages assist Family Foundation legislative staff in the accomplishment of their daily tasks and routine administrative responsibilities.

There will be opportunities to observe legislative committee meetings, floor sessions of the House of Delegates and Senate, and much more. It is a great opportunity to see firsthand the inside story of politics and lawmaking in Virginia.

The 2010 General Assembly session begins Wednesday, January 13, and runs for 60 days. Pages are encouraged to work at least two half days a week, preferably mornings. We are in particular need for pages who can work Mondays, Thursdays and Fridays.

Students (or their parents) interested in serving as Family Foundation General Assembly pages should contact Jessica Tseng at 804-343-0010 or e-mail her at Jessica@familyfoundation.org.

Annotations & Elucidations

Houck Not Going Anywhere

The hot rumor going around was that Senator Edd Houck (D-17, Spottsylvania) would accept a job in the new McDonnell administration, thus opening up a potential re-take of the Senate by Republicans by winning that seat in a special election. Democrats hold a one seat majority in the chamber, but a tie would flip it back to the GOP because of the re-election of Lt. Governor Bill Bolling. However, Senator Houck has dampened that speculation in today’s Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star.

In other news, Senator Robert Hurt (R-19, Chatham) has hired Chris LaCivita as his consultant in the crowded 5th Congressional District Republican nomination campaign. LaCivita, formerly a consultant to former Governor George Allen, is most noted for running the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry, and is fresh off Attorney General-elect Ken Cuccinelli’s landslide victory. Those who hire LaCivita mean to win. Elsewhere, a Democrat big gun is brought in for the recount in the 21st House of Delegates district election (where Republican Ron Villanueva defeated incumbent Democrat Bobby Mathieson); the effect of the Liberty University student vote is looked at in the 23rd district campaign (where Republican Scott Garrett defeated incumbent Democrat Shannon Valentine); and Public Opinion Strategies offers insights into the Obama affect in the Virginia campaign. But mainly, we’re happy to bring back editorial comics to the News Stand.  

News:

Houck: No plan to leave (Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star)

McDonnell disagrees with study on trimming tax breaks (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Falwell says he’s ’surprised’ by election results (Lynchburg News & Advance)

Counting in disputed 21st District race to resume at noon (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot)

Al Gore’s Attorney helps Mathieson (BearingDrift.com)

Hurt signs up LaCivita (Washington Post Virginia Politics Blog)

Population, inflation fuel 10-year budget growth in Va. (Washington Post)

Analysis:

Don’t Tell Anyone, But Obama Hurt Deeds in Virginia (Public Opinion Strategies/TQIA Blog)

Commentary:

Are Republicans too giddy? (Julian E. Zelizer/CNN.com)

Editorial Comics:

“Wahtchya doing?” (Eric Allie/Townhall.com)

“DrainO” (Nate Beeler/Townhall.com)

We don’t have a News Stand for you today, but if you take a look yesterday’s, you will see a link to a post entitled “Desperate Deeds” from Right Matters, a blog at the Washington Post, by conservative writer Ramesh Ponnuru (here). He concisely explains in six points why Democrat Creigh Deeds’ sudden, politically  eccentric attack on Republican Bob McDonnell’s pro-life positions won’t work. Here it is:

Democrat Creigh Deeds, down in the polls in the race
for governor of Virginia, has decided to campaign against Republican Robert McDonnell for having spent too much time during his career trying to restrict abortion. Here are five reasons why this tactic is unlikely to work:

1) Most people don’t enjoy discussions of abortion, and react negatively when people bring it up. The people who vote on the issue already know where the candidates stand and aren’t going to be swayed by ads.

2) Virginia isn’t a strongly pro-choice state. Its current governor, after all, is a nominally pro-life Democrat.

3) A lot of voters know that governors can’t ban abortion — and that Democrats have the White House, the House, and the Senate, and have just made an appointment to the Supreme Court.

4) Voters have other things on their minds, such as the economy, and will find it odd for a gubernatorial candidate to be talking about something else.

5) This campaign tactic puts Deeds in an impossible position. He has to persuade the voters that the candidate who isn’t talking a lot about abortion is the one who is dangerously obsessed with the issue. Good luck with that.

So what do you think? Is Deeds making a big mistake?

Update: I should have added another one. 6) McDonnell is on the right side of public opinion on the specific legislative issues Deeds is pointing at, such as a ban on late-term abortion and a requirement for parental consent.

One can imagine the Deeds team on a conference call last week, depressed by the poll numbers, frantically searching for in issue with traction. Finding none, someone yells, “I’ve got it! Abortion!” “Right,” the others would say, “the abortion card! Let’s play it!” But it’s no winning hand, as documented here.

It’s funny: Liberals always talk about conservatives “taking us back to bad times.” But this demagoguery is the real time warp.

Family Foundation Action today officialy released its 2008-09 General Assembly Report Card. A Capitol Square news conference is underway.  Below is the official news release from the orgnization:

FAMILY FOUNDATION ACTION RELEASES GENERAL ASSEMBLY REPORT CARD

RICHMOND — The Family Foundation Action today released the tenth edition of its non-partisan General Assembly Report Card. The educational document, released at a capitol press conference, informs citizens on key votes taken by the General Assembly during the 2008 and 2009 sessions. 

“In the House alone two-thirds of the members voted in favor of The Family Foundation’s agenda more than half the time, indicating a broad based, bipartisan support for The Family Foundation’s commonsense proposals,” said Victoria Cobb, president of The Family Foundation Action. ”It is our hope that the Report Card, along with Voter Guides that will be distributed in the fall, will motivate citizens to vote, and help them make informed choices when they go to the voting booth.” 

The mission of The Family Foundation Action is to protect families and promote responsible citizenship by giving Virginians the tools they need to hold their elected officials accountable. The Family Foundation Action is not a PAC and cannot endorse candidates. This organization will also be producing and distributing voter guides for Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General and select House races in the fall. The Family Foundation Action plans to distribute 100,000 Report Cards throughout Virginia in the coming months, double the number from the 2007 distribution. 

As with each Report Card distributed over the years, hundreds of votes taken by legislature during the past two years were reviewed. The first page of the report card explains the criteria used in determining which votes to include. Non-partisan and broad-based, the Report Card seeks not to benefit one party or one candidate over another, but to arm voting Virginians with the information they need to make an informed choice when they go to the ballot box.

This year’s Report Card has seven more “100 percenters” in the House than the last edition, bringing the total to 42. There are four in the state Senate, twice the number from 2007. In addition, there are no “Zeros” on this Report Card in either the House or the Senate.

“Demand for the Report Card continues to increase with each release,” added Cobb. ”We distributed 50,000 copies of the last edition, not including those that were downloaded from the Action Website. We hope to distribute twice that number with this edition to ensure that more Virginians know exactly where their elected officials stand on important values issues.”

Copies of the Report Card are available by contacting The Family Foundation Action at 804-343-0010 or at www.tffaction.org.