Category Archives: Budget

Easy Savings: LED Street Lights

LED street lights in action -- China

LED street lights in action — China

by James A. Bacon

Installing LEDs  in street lights may be no panacea for municipal budget woes, but the payback is so high that one can’t help but wonder why every local government in Virginia isn’t doing it.

It’s heartening to heart that Virginia Beach, Virginia’s most populous city, is taking the plunge. Well, dipping its toe might be a more accurate description. According to the Virginian-Pilot, Highway Electric of Chesapeake will install about 180 LED street lights in the median of the newly expanded Princess Anne Road beginning January 5.

The main drawback of LEDs (light emitting diodes) is that they are more expensive than the high-pressure sodium lamps they replace: $6,600 compared to $4,800.  But fewer LEDs are needed to light Princess Anne Road — 182 compared to 257 of the sodium lamps —  so the total project cost is lower.

Moreover, maintenance and electricity costs are lower. An LED street lamp lasts five times longer than conventional lights. Over time, that saves the cost of buying new lights and the cost of sending crews to replace them. They also consume about half as much electricity as a sodium light. Virginia Beach spends about $5.4 million a year lighting all of its street lights, according to the Pilot. The city expects to be saving $650,000 annually within ten years by phasing in the LED lights.

Arlington County had converted 85% of its street lights to LEDs by August. But only a few Virginia localities have implemented the technology.

Bacon’s bottom line: The payback is so high that any citizens ought to get up in arms if their locality is failing to take advantage of this cost savings. But why not go a step further? Local governments can save even more by attaching sensors that detect the movement of cars and people. The lights turn on when someone is walking or driving nearby and turn off when no one’s around. As a bonus, burning less electricity reduces carbon dioxide emissions and power-plant pollution.

Admittedly, in Virginia the picture is complicated by the fact that Virginia Dominion Power owns many street lights. I’m not clear on how much say-so local governments have over how those lights are maintained. With that caveat, smart LED street lights is low hanging fruit that every local government should be plucking.

McAuliffe Goal: Take a Closer Look at Incentives

Governor Terry McAuliffe as salesman in chief

Governor Terry McAuliffe as salesman in chief

by James A. Bacon

Governor Terry McAuliffe’s great gift is salesmanship. He approaches the job of Virginia’s chief economic development officer with great enthusiasm, and he loves to wheel and deal. It’s not surprising, then, that his new strategic plan, “New Virginia Economy,” calls for an increase in the Governor’s Opportunity Fund to keep it “competitive with other states.” The fund is nearly depleted after the first year of the biennial budget, and the economic-development game won’t be much fun without more incentives to dangle.

The problems with incentives are well known. First, it is unknowable whether incentives actually induce a particular company to invest in Virginia, or whether the company simply takes the money because it is there for the taking. Second, there is an inherent unfairness in taxing existing citizens and businesses in order to shower benefits to newcomers.

What’s refreshing about the strategic plan is that it does recognize the need to scrutinize state incentive programs. In particular it proposes to prioritize the allocation of state dollars by conducting Return on Investment (ROI) analysis on different incentives and programs to see which yield the biggest bang for the buck. “New Virginia Economy” mentions three specific ideas:

Evaluate current policies and study the ROI on incentives and programs. The idea of setting up an “internal working group” to review performance is a good idea. All programs should be continually scrutinized by outsiders to see if they deliver value. I would argue that scarce public funds should be channeled to programs that yield the greatest ROI and poorly performing programs should be shut down.

The fact is, administrators of the programs themselves cannot rarely be trusted to give an honest evaluation. Bureaucrats have an instinct for self preservation. They want to maintain their programs — to grow them, if possible — and can be counted on to cherry pick evidence to justify continued funding. The best counter to this all-too-human tendency is to have outsiders  ask tough questions. Private companies have elaborate systems for allocating capital within their organizations with the goal of maximizing ROI. State government needs to create comparable processes for allocating public funds.

Enhance state research capacity for conducting ROI analysis. The strategic plan only hints at what the authors have in mind, but it seems self evident that it is impossible to conduct ROI analysis without data. In the realm of economic development, that means evaluating programs in light of the number of jobs created, how well those jobs pay, the level of capital investment, the impact on the state and local tax base and other basic data. A more sophisticated level of research would look for second-order effects. Would recruiting a new business to Virginia contribute to building a competitive and self-sustaining industry cluster? Would the company create contracting opportunities for other Virginia businesses? The list of questions is endless.

Reform the Tobacco Commission. The Tobacco Indemnification and Community Development Commission was founded with high hopes that it would revitalize the economies of Southside and Southwest Virginia, beset by the erosion of tobacco cultivation and the decimation of its mill-town manufacturing economy. The Commission has been criticized for a lack of oversight, which allows powerful politicians on the Commission to reward favored constituencies. The strategic plan calls for reforming the Commission to “maximize ROI on Commission investments” and to create a long-term sustainable funding model.

If we accept the premise that state government should dispense subsidies, tax breaks and other incentives to business — I personally don’t accept that premise, but the practice isn’t going to change any time soon — then we ought to ensure that the money is spent to the great public benefit.

Kudos: U.S.-China Climate Pact

Shanghai: Soot City

Shanghai: Soot City

By Peter Galuszka

President Barack Obama’s trailblazing pact with Chinese leader Xi Jinping to limit greenhouse gas emissions through 2025 is welcome news and could do much to reduce carbon dioxide emissions since the two countries are responsible for about 40 percent of the globe’s total.

China is an economic powerhouse so energy hungry it builds a new coal-fired generating plant about every eight to 10 days. Its leaders have pledged to cap  carbon emissions by 2030 or earlier.

Obama announced a plan to cut U.S. emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. This is a bigger cut than the 17 percent reduction by 2020 that he had announced earlier.

The agreement, reached in Beijing, is most welcome for the obvious reason that it would make a huge contribution to reducing greenhouse gases. It also undercuts the arguments by the fossil fuel industry, some utilities and their drum beaters that any steps the U.S. takes in cutting carbon pollution are pointless since China (or other Asian countries) will keep polluting anyway.

The arguments are crucial since Virginia’s Big Energy industry and the staff of the State Corporation Commission are attacking plans by the EPA to greatly reduce carbon.

Consider this gem of wisdom from another correspondent on this blog: “Virginia could revert to stone-age levels of zero greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, and the savings would offset the increase in CO2 from coal-fired power plants built in India and China in a year! (OK, maybe not a year, but over a very short period of time.)”

Sadly, this kind of mentality is regressive and, with the new Washington-Beijing pact, is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

One thing many American commentators don’t seem to realize is that China isn’t necessarily a primitive business juggernaut stomping on any rational plan to check pollution. Beijing and Shanghai have some of the highest rates of air pollution in the world and its leadership, especially engineers and policy makers capable of understanding how technology can help them, knows they just can’t continue as before.

Three years ago, I visited both cities to research a book on the coal industry (newly out in an updated paperback, by the way, see below). I also went to Ulanbatour, the capital of coal-driven Mongolia where the air was so bad, I felt delirious within hours after arrival and by the next morning I showed signs of pulmonary illness.

The promise for changing things seems to money and the system.

In the U.S., we have a regulatory oversight apparatus over energy generation. This is reasonable because it prevents electric utilities from using their monopoly power to stick customers with high rates. But the system is flawed because: (1) it too often favors big utilities over average consumers and; (2) it is rigged to prevent new, experimental and possibly transformative technologies that very well could allow the use of dirty and dangerous but still cheap coal.

In the latter case, the thinking seems to be to go for ephemeral cost benefits (like using natural gas) without having any long-term strategy that actually might save lots more money through better health and more efficient, less-polluting energy.

In several cases, regulators nixed pilot plants that burn coal but use special new ways of doing so that capture a lot of carbon either in a chemical process involving ammonia or by stripping off the carbon emission from the pollution stream and sequestering them safely away. The plants cost big money. They are much cheaper to do as greenfield sites but regulators are more inclined to prevent them in favor with the soup d’jour of power that happens to be cheapest at the moment, in our current case, natural gas. Continue reading

At Last, a Chance to Address Fundamental Issues

Image source: Congressional Budget Office

Image source: Congressional Budget Office

by James A. Bacon

With yesterday’s elections, the Republican Party has taken control of the United States Senate and padded its lead in the House of Representatives, assuring a markedly different political dynamic in the two years ahead. The big question on everybody’s minds is, “Can Republicans govern?” Or will we see two more years dominated by Ted Cruz trying to shut down government?

My sense is that Republicans are very serious about governing, certainly more serious than was outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the one-man algae bloom who rendered the Senate a dead zone for new legislation over the past four years. Republicans are likely to pass a passel of new laws. The question then will be, “Is President Barack Obama serious about governing?” Will he  work with Congress or will he veto everything that comes across his desk?

While the last four years have been a big battle over nothing, rest assured that the next two years will grapple with issues of fundamental importance. As the United States hurtles toward Boomergeddon, Republicans will tackle budgetary issues that Obama has been studiously avoiding since he disavowed the recommendations of his own Bowles-Simpson budget-balancing commission. The issues will be debated in a way they haven’t been for far too long.

This year, the budget situation looks relatively benign. Economic growth is puttering along and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the deficit will shrink to its smallest size since 2007, equivalent to about three percent of the economy. That’s roughly equal to the rate of economic growth, so the national debt, while growing, is not growing as a percentage of the economy. But the CBO does not expect this balmy scenario to last. Says the CBO:

The pressures stemming from an aging population, rising health care costs, and an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance would cause spending for some of the largest federal programs to increase relative to GDP. Moreover, CBO expects interest rates to rebound in coming years from their current unusually low levels, raising the government’s interest payments. That additional spending would contribute to larger budget deficits—equaling close to 4 percent of GDP—toward the end of the 10-year period spanned by the baseline, CBO anticipates. Altogether, deficits during that 2015–2024 period would total about $7.6 trillion.

That sounds bad but not Boomergeddonish. But there’s a big caveat. At some point, says the CBO, government spending crowds out economic growth in the private sector.

The large amount of federal borrowing would draw money away from private investment in productive capital in the long term, because the portion of people’s savings used to buy government securities would not be available to finance private investment. The result would be a smaller stock of capital and lower output and income than would otherwise be the case, all else being equal.

Translation: Under the current policy framework, as government spending crowds out the private sector, economic growth will slow. Slower economic growth reduces tax revenues, which increases budget deficits. I’m not certain, but I don’t believe that the CBO cranks that lower economic growth into its long-term budget forecast, which, by its own admission, is highly conjectural and based upon long-term assumptions that likely will not prove to be accurate.

Under a more pessimistic set of assumptions, the federal debt, instead of rising to 111% of Gross Domestic Product by 2039, would reach 180%.

When discussing climate change, Democrats invoke the “precautionary principle.” While we cannot know with certainty that global temperatures will increase by 4° Fahrenheit by the end of the century, as some climate models forecast, the consequences would be so disastrous that we must act to forestall the possibility. I would invoke a fiscal precautionary principle. While we cannot know with certainty that the national debt will approach 180% of GDP within twenty-five years, the consequences will be so potentially disastrous that we must act to forestall the possibility.

Republicans will be animated by the fiscal precautionary principle in the next two years. If past is precedent, the Obama administration will be driven by the desire to protect government spending at all costs. Americans will engage in the most serious debate over the size and scope of government spending, unclouded by distracting side issues, that we have seen in a generation.

Tobacco Commission Needs Huge Makeover

tobacco leafBy Peter Galuszka

One more glaring example of mass corruption in Virginia is the grandly named Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission formed 14 years ago to dole out Virginia’s share of a $206 billion settlement among 45 other states with cigarette makers.

I’ve been writing for years about how millions of dollars are doled out with little oversight to economic development projects supposedly helpful to the former tobacco-growing parts of the state from the bright leaf belt around Dinwiddie out west to the burley leaf land of the mountains.

There have been no-strings giveaways to absentee tobacco quota holders, a board member sent to prison for siphoning off grant money and the shenanigans of the extended Kilgore family which is very politically powerful in those parts. The commission even figured in the McDonnell corruption trial starring the former and now convicted governor and back-slapping witnesses for the prosecution, entrepreneur and tobacco-believer Jonnie R. Williams Sr.

I revisit the issue in Sunday’s Washington Post and I ask the obvious question of why no one seems to watching the commission. I raise broader ones, too, such as why the commission  serves only people in the tobacco belt. That doesn’t seem fair since the Attorney General’s office represented all of the state in the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement against four major tobacco firms. People in Hampton Roads, Arlington, Onancock and Winchester should be benefit but get nothing from the settlement. They didn’t  because tobacco road legislators pulled a fast one back in 1999 when they set things up.

There needs to be a thorough disassembling of the commission’s current governance structure with many more people far from Tobacco Road included. There’s far too much family and friend back-scratching as it is. It is like watching a vintage episode of the Andy Griffith show but it really isn’t funny.

(Hat tip to James A. Bacon Jr. who spotted the commission as a great story back in the year 2000 when he was publisher of Virginia Business).

So, please read on.

One Very Sad Day In Court

maureen_and_bob(1)By Peter Galuszka

One literally could have heard a pin drop in U.S. District Court in Richmond today.

William Burck, lawyer for  Maureen McDonnell, said in his opening argument in a trial that Virginia’s Former First Lady who has been indicted no 14 corruption charges along with her former governor husband was “collateral damage” in a deeply troubled marriage. She had developed a “crush” on the businessman who had given her and her husband more than $150,000 in loans, gifts and cash.

“Their marriage had broken down,” Burck said. “They were barely on speaking terms,” Burck said. Ms. McDonnell was angry and frustrated that her husband had been working 16-hour days in public service for 20 plus years and had little to show for it. They had five children. Big debt. Bob wasn’t paying attention to her.

As John L. Brownlee, McDonnell’s lawyer, said, McDonnell’s hard public service work “took a toll on his family and a terrible toll on his wife. He was not nearly as successful as a husband. He tried to keep from the public the most painful aspects of his marriage. He never humiliated her. He never scorned her.”

In pops Jonnie R. Williams Sr., a smooth-talking entrepreneur pushing a new anti-aging cream made in part from tobacco plants (although his firm, Star Scientific, had lost a couple hundred million over the previous decade.) Brownlee described the star witness for the prosecution as a “master manipulator.”

“This marriage broke apart and an outsider, another man, would invade and poison their marriage,” Brownlee said.

At one point, Maureen was said to have “hated” Bob who wrote a lengthy email to her trying to reconcile. In fact, Brownlee said, the Governor will read the email when he goes on the jury stand during the trial that is expected to last at least five weeks. When McDonnell sent the email, however, “that evening, Maureen was distracted by other interests.”

One could get snarky about this seemingly over-the-top soap opera. But no one in the courtroom seemed to be smirking. It is strange enough to be at a trial like this in a place like Virginia that considers itself above the petty corruption that plagues other states. It is even stranger to hear such excruciatingly personal and painful things about the state’s top former executive and his wife.

It could be that a “throw Maureen under the bus” strategy may work to get both of them off. After all, she wasn’t a public official and could do what she wanted as far as gifts. The prosecution’s opening statement drew a rather detailed and concise outline of just what and when the McDonnells solicited Williams’ largesse, right down to the “thank you” emails when money arrived in the bank to Maureen’s cell phone snap shot of Bob wearing slick, wraparound sunglasses while driving Williams’ Ferrari.

Giving the McDonnell’s the benefit of the doubt, I have to say I’ve heard this kind of story before among long-married couples suffering through middle age as their children are ready to fly away. Their stories may not be dramatic but I’ve got to admit that Bob McDonnell never seemed to exhibit such grabby behavior before.

This raises another tough question. What should “public service” be and how much should it take from one’s private life. More importantly, why can’t it support men and women who pursue it? Should it be only for the rich?

McDonnell slogged through relatively low-paying jobs like the General Assembly, Attorney General and Governor. He had five kids and a wife who seemed very freaked out by being First Lady – a role she apparently never wanted. She came from a Northern Virginia civil service family that didn’t exactly have a grand disposable income.

Consider two other Virginia governors –former and current. Mark Warner, now U.S. Senator, is rich from his telecommunications investments made years ago. At one point he was said to be worth a couple hundred million dollars. Gov. Terry McAuliffe, another former businessman, is likewise wealthy but probably not as rich as Warner.

Should these people be in office because they are rich? Should public service be available only to those with great portfolios? What would Thomas Jefferson say?

Boomer….Wha?

a-bomb peace signBy Peter Galuszka

Remember the federal deficit that lurked behind the corner? Where did it go?

Al Kamen of The Washington Post asks that question in a column today. He writes:

“Not long ago, the federal deficit was projected to destroy the country, our country’s future and just about everything else. The politicians and the news media regularly fretted about what to do. Budget battles shut down the entire government for a couple of weeks.”

He continues: “So, what happened? The simple answer, of course, is that the deficit is way down and, for now, is no longer a big problem.”

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for f/y 2014 is $492 billion or 2.8 percent of GDP. That puts us back in the early years of the George W. Bush administration.

Hmm. Kinda of makes you wonder where all this out-of-control spending is coming from that the Tea Party types talk about so much.

It is off the media radar screen. The Post has a graphic showing that the words or mention of the “national debt,” federal debt” or “federal deficit,” reached a high around the first half of 2010. The conservative Washington Times the most at 18; The Post with 13; and the New York Times with 10. Now it’s around three.

This isn’t to say that federal spending doesn’t merit watching. But where is Jim Bacon when you need him?

RAM, Coal and Massive Hypocrisy

The Pikesville RAM clinic in 2011. Photo by Scott Elmquist

The Pikesville RAM clinic in 2011. Photo by Scott Elmquist

By Peter Galuszka

Sure it’s a photo op but more power to him.

Gov. Terry McAuliffe is freshly arrived from the cocktail and canape circuit in Europe on a trade mission and is quickly heading out to the rugged and impoverished coal country of Wise County.

There, he, Attorney General Mark Herring and Health and Human Resources Secretary William A. Hazel will participate in a free clinic to help the mountain poor get free health care. The political opportunity is simple: Many of the 1,000 or more who will be attending the Remote Area Medical clinic are exactly the kind of people getting screwed over by the General Assembly’s failure to expand Medicaid to 400,000 low income Virginians.

RAM makes its Wise run every summer and people line up often in the wee morning hours to get a free medical and dental checkup. For many, it’s the only health care they get all year unless it’s an emergency. Another problem: Distances are great in the remote mountains and hospitals can be an hour away.

Mind you, this is Coal Country, the supposedly rich area upon which Barack Obama is waging war and harming local people by not going along with coal executives’ demands on environmental disasters such as mountaintop removal, keeping deep mine safety standards light and avoiding carbon dioxide rules.

The big question, of course,  is why if the land is so rich in fossil fuel, are the people so poor and in need of free medical care? It’s been this way for 150 years. And now, coal’s demise got underway in Southwest Virginia in 1991 when employment peaked at about 11,000. It is now at 4,000 or less. It’s getting worse, not better.

In June 2011, by coincidence, I happened along a RAM free clinic in Pikesville, Ky., not that far from Wise when I was researching my book, “Thunder on the Mountain: Death at Massey and the Dirty Secrets Behind Big Coal.” My photographer Scott Elmquist and I spotted the clinic at a high school. There must have been hundreds of people there —  some of whom told me they had been waiting since 1:30 a.m. It was about 8:30 a.m.

Attending them were 120 medical and dental personnel from the U.S. Public Health Service. They were dressed in U.S. Navy black, grey and blue colored fatigues. The University of Louisville had sent in about 80 dental chairs.

Poverty in Pike County had been running about 27 percent, despite the much-touted riches of coal. Pike is Kentucky’s biggest coal producer.

One man I spoke with said he had a job as a security guard, but he doesn’t qualify for regular Medicaid and can’t afford a commercial plan. In other words, had I interviewed him more recently and had he been a Virginian, he would have been lost through the cracks of Medicaid expansion. Alas, he’s in luck. In 2013, Kentucky opted for a “marketplace” expansion system where federal funds would be used to help lower income buy health plans through private carriers.

Lucky the man isn’t from here. The marketplace plan is exactly the kind that McAuliffe has proposed and exactly the one that stubborn Republicans such as Bill Howell in the General Assembly are throttling. The feds would pick up the bill for expanding Medicaid to 400,000 needy Virginians, at least initially.

Yet another irony. Expanded medical benefits are available just across an invisible border in two states whose coalfield residents somehow never got the great benefits of King Coal.

McAuliffe Hits Private IT Outsourcing

mcauliffeBy Peter Galuszka

Just a decade ago, privatizing and out-sourcing traditionally government work was all the rage.

Virginia’s Democrats and Republicans alike saw a philosophical advantage in fending off Information Technology, road maintenance and other work to for-profit, private companies who supposedly – if you believed the hype then  –could always do things better, faster and more efficiently than state workers.

The concept of “government” workers always seemed to be negative. Not only would taxpayers have to pay their health and retirement benefits, they might try to join unions and make labor negotiations even more difficult. It didn’t wash with Virginia’s conceit of being an anti-labor, “right-to-work” state that promised to keep workers docile as the state tried to recruit outside firms.

Now, Gov. Terry McAuliffe is turning this concept on its head. He is ordering a review of state contracts, especially on out-sourced IT service work that he says may be inefficient and expensive. “I am concerned that state government is inappropriately dependent on expensive contract labor when traditionally appointed state employees can perform at a higher level at a lower cost.”

Now that’s a major turn-around, even for a Democrat. After all, it was fellow Democrat and former Gov. and now U.S. Senator Mark Warner, currently running for re-election, that worked the get the state to accept a $2.3 billion contract for defense contractor Northrop Grumman to take over and upgrade the state’s antiquated IT system in 2005.

That deal proved disastrous as the contractor’s performance issues brought on bouts of oversight and renegotiation. The state ended up extending its contract with Northrop Grumman by three years.

An underlying problem is that while the contract lasts until 2019, the state must make some decisions if it wants to continue with the outsourcing route or start relying on its own state workers.

Another problem is whether the state identifies independent contractors as such or employees of state organizations. About 1 percent of the state’s workers were misidentified as independents. Apparently, state workers have their Social Security and taxes withheld from paychecks. But are they really independents? Or is it just window dressing to play homage to some fad thought up by fiscal conservatives?

McAuliffe is right to start thinking in these terms. What he’s going to have to face, however, is the conventional wisdom in Virginia that “public” is always bad and “private, for-profit” is always good. For evidence of this hidebound view, just read this blog regularly.

From Budget Crisis to Constitutional Crisis

mcauliffeby James A. Bacon

We live in truly extraordinary times in Virginia. Never in my 61 years have I had occasion to ask myself, “Do Virginians believe in the rule of law or the rule of men?”

Governor Terry McAuliffe exercised his prerogative as governor yesterday to veto portions of the state budget passed by both houses of the General Assembly. Among the items he nixed was $20 million in funding for about 35 vacant or new judgeships. As I understand the state constitution (and I am no expert) he was fully within his rights to do so. Republicans can wail and gnash their teeth at the injustice or foolhardiness of it all, but nobody questions the fact that Virginia’s governor possesses the right to exercise a line-item veto.

More controversially, McAuliffe vetoed language in the budget bill specifying that Virginia’s Medicaid program cannot be expanded unless the General Assembly explicitly appropriates money for it. “The amendment is unnecessary,” he stated, “given its intent to restrict an appropriation that does not exist anywhere in the budget.” Republicans argue that the governor can veto the entire budget bill or he can veto specific appropriations but he cannot veto language in the bill that he does not like. Again, I am no constitutional law expert but the Republican argument seems plausible. The issue could well wind up being decided by the ultimate arbiter on state constitutional questions, the Virginia Supreme Court.

Then there is McAuliffe’s promise to find a way to bypass the will of the legislature and enact Medicaid expansion on his own authority. The money is there for the taking, with 100% of the funding provided by the federal government for the next few years under the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The problem is that Medicaid is administered by the state and any federal pass-through funds must be incorporated in the state budget, which under any traditional interpretation of the state Constitution requires legislative approval.

Calling expanded health care coverage a “moral imperative,” according to the Times-Dispatch, McAuliffe directed Secretary of Health and Human Services Bill Hazel to give him a plan by Sept. 1 on “how we can move Virginia health care forward even in the face of the demagoguery, lies, fear and cowardice that have gripped this debate for too long.”

Sen. Donald McEachin, D-Henrico, chairman of the Senate Democratic Caucus, vowed that Democrats would stand behind the governor “like a solid wall.” Reports Michael Martz with the T-D:

McEachin, a lawyer, also supported McAuliffe’s vow to expand health coverage by unspecified executive actions. “I’m comfortable with the legality of it,” he said, while declining to say how the governor plans to proceed.

I cannot imagine what novel legal doctrine Democrats might call upon to eviscerate the power of the legislature, but they can rest assured that they will face a battle royal from Republicans who will regard any such effort as an attempt to usurp the legislature’s constitutional powers.

McAuliffe appears to be modeling himself after President Barack Obama who, frustrated by his inability to get his legislative agenda through a hostile House of Delegates, has chosen to rule by executive action. The most notable of his unilateral actions has been expansion of the regulatory purview of the Environmental Protection Agency from air pollutants enumerated by the Clean Air Act to carbon dioxide, a chemical essential to life on the planet, on the grounds that CO2 contributes to global warming.

Impressed by the moral righteousness of their causes and contemptuous of Republicans who in their “demagoguery, lies, fear and cowardice” resist their efforts to re-engineer the nation according to their wishes, Democrats seem increasingly willing to dispense with the niceties of constitutional law. Rest assured, if the shoe were on the other foot — if, say, Sarah Palin or Ken Cuccinelli attempted to impose their agenda by such means — they would be howling that Republicans were dismantling the republic. Frankly, I am amazed how subdued the Republican reaction has been so far.

While McAuliffe calls them demagogues, liars and cowards, they have refused — so far — to respond in kind. But if the governor sticks to his guns and tries to impose Medicaid expansion against the wishes of the electorate (if we believe the polls) and both houses of the General Assembly, it won’t be long before people start calling him an usurper and  tyrant. He had better watch himself. His power grab could generate so much ill will that the Republican-dominated legislature will cut him off at the knees in any way it can. He will find himself a lame duck governor a mere half year into his administration.