Category Archives: Politics

Sparks Will Fly

gridby James A. Bacon

Step aside Medicaid expansion. The big uproar in the General Assembly this year is over who gets the final say over the shape of Virginia’s Clean Power Plan: General Assembly Republicans or Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe.

At stake is the future of Virginia’s electric grid. Democrats and their allies are pushing for 30% renewable energy by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. Republicans and their constituencies fear that excessive investment in intermittent energy sources like solar and wind would saddle rate payers with billions of dollars in unnecessary costs.

In a straight party-line vote earlier this week, the House of Delegates passed House Bill 2, which would require both the House and the Senate to approve any plan developed by Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from electric power sources before submitting it to the Environmental Protection Agency.

After the bill’s passage, House Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford, said the energy plan will have a “devastating impact” on Virginia’s economy, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch. “It is critical that the people have a say in the energy policy of the commonwealth through their elected representatives, not by unelected bureaucrats in Washington and Richmond.”

The bill likely faces a veto by McAuliffe, who has said that he would combat any effort to limit the state’s ability to respond to climate change and sea level rise.

The state faces two strategic decisions on how to reach Clean Power Plan emission goals.

The first decision is whether to go with an “emission standards” plan or a “state measures” plan. An “emission standards” plan would apply EPA standards to coal- and gas-fired power plants in the state. A “state measures” plan would include a mix of measures, not just focusing on power plant emissions but allowing other elements such as renewable energy standards and residential energy efficiency. A stakeholders group advising the DEQ reached a consensus, according to the meeting minutes, “that the emission standard approach was preferred.”

The second decision is whether to adopt a “mass”-based approach or a “rate”-based approach for reducing CO2 emissions. A mass-based approach sets targets based on the absolute volume of CO2 emissions by electricity producers within a state. A rate-based approach sets targets based on CO2 emissions per kilowatt hour of electricity generated. The stakeholders group started tackling this issue in December and will resume the discussion in its February meeting.

Meanwhile, in an open letter to McAuliffe, 50 Virginia environmentalists and progressives pushed for an aggressive implementation of the Clean Power Plan. States the letter: “Virginia can and should reduce its total carbon pollution from power plants at least 30% by the year 2030, by applying the same emissions limit to all plants (existing and new) and increasing our use of energy efficiency and renewable energy. With this strategy, Virginia’s Clean Power Plan will reduce electricity bills and grow our economy, while helping to meet our obligation to future generations.”

PolitiFact Claim Based on Faulty Assumption

politifactby James A. Bacon

In a recent survey asking people if they supported or opposed Medicaid expansion in Virginia, Del. R. Steven Landes, R-Weyers Cave, made what PolitiFactVirginia reporter Sean Gorman regarded as a fallacious statement:

While expansion would enroll up to 400,000 currently uninsured Virginians in Medicaid, it could cost the Commonwealth of Virginia over $1 billion per year, forcing cuts to other key services like education, mental health and public safety.

Landes’ estimate rests on the “eye-popping” supposition that the federal government might one day renege on its commitment to pay 90% of the cost of expansion, as provided in the Affordable Care Act, wrote Gorman Monday. “But this is pure speculation on his part. There’s no effort in Congress now to cut the federal share at all, let alone by the proportion Landes suggests.”

The burden of proof rests on Landes to back up his statement with facts, Gorman says, “and he comes up short. We rate his claim False.”

Incredibly, Gorman failed to notice that Republicans in Congress succeeded in passing a bill that would have repealed the Affordable Care Act, which President Obama salvaged with a veto Friday. Here’s what House Speaker Paul Ryan had to say:

The idea that Obamacare is the law of the land for good is a myth. This law will collapse under its own weight, or it will be repealed. Because all those rules and procedures Senate Democrats have used to block us from doing this? That’s all history. We have now shown that there is a clear path to repealing Obamacare without 60 votes in the Senate. So, next year, if we’re sending this bill to a Republican president, it will get signed into law.

What would happen if Virginia enacted Medicaid expansion and a Republican administration and Congress then repealed it, thus eliminating federal funding for the program? Virginia would face the choice of either abandoning the program it had just enacted, throwing the health care market into turmoil, or continuing to fund the expansion itself.

Please note that Landes did not say that Medicaid expansion “will” increase state funding by $1 billion a year, he said that it “could.” Who will win the 2016 presidential election? While Las Vegas odds give Hillary Clinton the edge, they concede that a Republican has a solid shot at making it to the White House. The scenario that I just laid out — and very possibly the one that Landes was thinking about — very well could happen, and it would be reckless to ignore the possibility.

There are logical reasons for supporting Medicaid expansion — hundreds of thousands of Virginians still lack health coverage, we’re already paying for the expansion through other taxes under the Affordable Care Act, even if Virginia doesn’t take advantage of the opportunity, so why not? — but those are separate issues that must be considered on their own merits.

As for proclaiming Landes’s statement outright false, Gorman was seriously remiss in ignoring the political reality that the Republican Party remains ferociously opposed to Obamacare and likely will repeal it if it takes power in Washington next year. His analysis comes up short. I rate his claim False.

Welcome to the Fan, Randy

randy_forbes

Watch out, Mr. Forbes, you have a new constituent, and his name is Les Schreiber.

In recent years Virginia’s politics has appeared disjointed. In the past two presidential elections, the Democratic nominee has prevailed here. The current governor as well as both U.S. Senators, John Warner and Tim Kaine, are Democrats. Yet representation in the House of Representatives favor the House G.O.P. by a ratio of 8-to-3.  It is small wonder that some observers believe that Congressional Districts were drawn to protect the Republicans.  An article and a map in today’s RTD indicates that a federal court states that in order to achieve more balanced representation, the City of Richmond will shift from the congressional district of Bobby Scott, a Democrat, that of Randy Forbes, a Republican.

A quick glance at Forbes’ website indicates that he supports the usual G.O.P. platitudes on domestic policy.  Forbes, as one would expect, would repeal the Affordable Care Act.  The question for Forbes is: “How would a 62-year-old making $45,000 per year with a pre-existing condition be able to buy almost any health insurance?

Rep. Forbes also wants a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Quick, Randy-name five federal programs you would slash, and how much would be saved by each cut.

If Randy can not respond to these questions with specifics, he joins Rep. David Bratt sharing the coveted title of Fauxconomist.

Like so many of Dave’s followers, he espouses programs that he can not possible implement.

— D. Leslie Schreiber

Why T.J. Deserves a Place in Our Pantheon of Heroes

TJ-statueby James A. Bacon

Students at the College of William & Mary have carried on a long tradition of festooning the campus statue of Thomas Jefferson with accouterments ranging from woolen scarfs to party hats. The latest fad is to append the effigy with sticky notes denouncing the founding father as a slave holder, a racist and a rapist. The activity imitates a similar movement on the University of Missouri campus, which has been coupled with a petition to remove a Jefferson statue on the grounds that it was offensive to idealize someone who owned and raped slaves. I don’t know if the anti-Jefferson movement will gain the same momentum at William & Mary, a public university in a state where Jefferson is revered like no other historical figure. But, given the tenor of the times, some kind of debate is inevitable.

TJI find the negative sentiments expressed in the sticky notes to be indisputably true at one level and profoundly misinformed at another. True, by today’s standards, Jefferson’s views and behaviors were reprehensible. He did own slaves. He did sell slaves and break up slave families. He most likely (though not indisputably) did keep a slave woman as a concubine. He did believe blacks to be inferior to whites. It is not unreasonable to ask why, for all his brilliance as an author of the Declaration of Independence, a United States president, an architect, the founder of the University of Virginia, and all-around polymath, we should continue to hold him in such high esteem (or, for that matter, why we should esteem any member of Virginia’s slave-holding aristocracy).

The case I would make for Jefferson (along with James Madison, George Washington, Patrick Henry and George Mason) is not that they reflected 21st-century sensibilities, which they clearly did not, but that they articulated values and principles for the first time in history that laid the foundation for the values we hold today. We could not have gotten to where we are today had Jefferson & Company not laid the groundwork.

Colonial America imported its institutions and mental constructs from a Europe that was emerging from the Middle Ages. Collective entities such as towns, cities, guilds, social classes and ethnicities — not individuals — were imbued with rights. When Nathaniel Bacon led a revolt against the autocratic Governor Berkeley of Virginia in 1676, leading a rag-tag band of impoverished farmers and freed slaves, he called for a restoration of the “rights of Englishmen.” Virginians were entitled to rights and privileges, embodied in the Magna Carta and common law that their ancestors had fought for and won. But those rights were not regarded as universal; they were peculiar to Englishmen and derived from English institutions. Jefferson’s great contribution was to draw from Enlightenment-era principles to argue that all men were endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Essentially, he reinterpreted the rights of Englishmen as rights applied universally to everyone. In Jefferson’s formulation, rights did not belong to collective entities; they belonged to individuals, and they were intrinsic to a person’s existence as a human being — the core principle of 21st-century political thought.

What is perhaps most remarkable about Jefferson is that he articulated principles in direct conflict with his own material self interest as a slave holder. While Jefferson indisputably failed to live up to his own principles, it is intellectually facile and lazy to end the discussion there. It is a truism (and one of Karl Marx’s few useful insights) that economic and social classes, both the rulers and the oppressed, create ideologies that support their material self interest. One must ask: How many ruling elites in the history of mankind have ever developed a governing philosophy that undercut their material self interest? How many ruling elites in history have wrestled with the dichotomy between those principles and the way they actually lived their lives, as Jefferson, Madison, Washington and others did? The answer: precious few. Indeed, I cannot off-hand think of any other ruling elite in the history of mankind that has done such a thing.

Jefferson articulated principles that most Americans, including the people who now despise him, hold dear today. We should revere him for making the leap from rights rooted in collective entities to rights applying to all. We should respect him for making that leap in contravention of his own material self interest, and appreciate the fact that the contradiction haunted him until his dying day, even if he failed to free all his slaves and impoverish himself in the process. The journey to equal rights for all Americans certainly did not end with Jefferson, but it started with him, and he rightly deserves a place in our pantheon of heroes.

Battle Lines Forming Over Clean Power Plan

Attorney General Mark R. Herring

Attorney General Mark R. Herring

The partisan battle lines are forming over the implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which calls for Virginia to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from state power plants 32% by 2030.

Attorney General Mark R. Herring, a Democrat, announced two weeks ago that Virginia will join a coalition of 17 other states supporting the Obama administration against a lawsuit filed by 24 other states. Foes of the plan argue that the EPA far exceeded its legislative authority in regulating CO2, and observers say the case could well reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Del. Israel O'Quinn, R-Washington.

Del. Israel O’Quinn, R-Washington.

Meanwhile, Del. Israel O’Quinn, R-Washington, has introduced a bill that would require the General Assembly to approve and oversee implementation of the plan in Virginia. While the Clean Power Plan mandates CO2-reduction targets for each state, it allows each state to figure out how to achieve the goals.

Herring justified his support for the plan on the grounds that climate change “is a real and urgent threat to the health and safety of Virginians, our environment, and our economic success as a Commonwealth.” By way of specifics, he cited the threat of sea-level rise in Hampton Roads that could displace residents and businesses and threaten Naval Station Norfolk, and the prospect of extreme weather, droughts and floods. said Herring: “It’s long past time to acknowledge these realities and take decisive action.”

O’Quinn’s bill would require the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to work in conjunction with the State Corporation Commission (SCC) to prepare a report assessing the plan’s effect on the Virginia’s electric power sector, electric customers, jobs, economic development, economic competitiveness,  and state and local government.

The report also would identify new state laws that might be needed to implement the plan, study whether to rely upon EPA measures for calculating the CO2 reduction goal, and report on whether the Commonwealth should invest in energy efficiency programs, promote non-emitting nuclear power or participate in multistate programs. The report also would advanced recommendations on how best to avoid stranded investments in power plants that would be shuttered before they were fully paid off.

Getting answers to those questions is probably a good idea — the more information, the better — but sure to be controversial is the final item in the bill: “DEQ shall not submit to the EPA any state plan until both the Senate and the House of Delegates have adopted resolutions that approve the state plan in accordance with this act.”

It is safe to predict that the McAuliffe administration will not respond favorably to the idea of requiring the Republican-dominated General Assembly to approve the plan. Separation-of-power issues are potentially at stake here as well as ideological differences over climate change. Look for this to become a hot topic in the 2016 session.

— JAB

Thanks For the Memories

I have not written much over that past several months because I have been dealing with some family problems. I thought a brief article on the Dave Brat interview might be worth a comment. Boy,was I wrong.

I was upset at one of the responses to my Brat article and have decided that continuing to prepare and write an occasional article for this blog is not worth the time. I have never been accused of being a liar. It seems that some simply don’t understand the give and take, is not an excuse to call into question the basic values of one with whom they do not agree.

— Les Schreiber

Dave Brat, What to Make of this Guy?

As I flipped though the New York Times Sunday Magazine, I was shocked to find a full-page interview with Rep. David Brat.  The Times usually does not pay much attention to House freshmen, but Brat has created a high profile for himself by becoming an outspoken member of the “Freedom Caucus” of ultra-right wing Republicans that recently promoted the resignation of Speaker John Boehner of Ohio.

The interview was amazingly short on policy as Brat seemed to want to dwell on his knowledge of philosophy rather than on governing.  The brief outline that he did give of policy consisted of not raising the debt limit, lowering taxes, and bulking up the military. Brat refused to say how he would accomplish these goals, which taken into totality seem to defy simple math. How is he able to lower taxes and hike defense spending, without significant cuts in the rest of the budget? One doesn’t need a PhD in econometrics, to see that the numbers don’t add up: witness the presidency of George W. Bush and the deficit fiasco that followed.

Brat seemed to be critical of popular culture.  In the interview, he bemoaned what he perceived as a paucity of movies “capturing the highlight of Western tradition.” It seems that the congressman has forgotten that the purpose of free speech is to put all ideas in the public sphere.  Spoken by a federal legislator, this type of media criticism is nothing if not disturbing.

Brat, as most economists, is a fan of Adam Smith who in 1776, published Wealth of Nations, which described the fundamental workings of market-based economies, but Brat transforms the questions about the application of Smith’s principals to today’s complex problems into a criticism of European economies. Perhaps Dr. Brat is unfamiliar with the classic article written by Robert Mondell, the theory of optimal currency unions, and compares this work with the European Union’s plan to implement the Euro. Brat, this “scholar–his word”, should compare the present Euro zone that demonstrates the results of the type of austerity that Brat seems to advocate, with low inflation, but near-zero growth and very high rates of unemployment.

This guy should represent Disneyland!

— D. Leslie Schreiber

Nous sommes touts Parisien