<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Bacon&#039;s Rebellion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.baconsrebellion.com/comments/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.baconsrebellion.com</link>
	<description>Reinventing Virginia for the 21st Century</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 02:06:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Voter ID: Get Over It, and Get Out the Vote by madness</title>
		<link>http://www.baconsrebellion.com/2012/05/voter-id-get-over-it-and-get-out-the-vote.html#comment-64446</link>
		<dc:creator>madness</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 02:06:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.baconsrebellion.com/?p=11910#comment-64446</guid>
		<description>Yes, but you have to remember to vote absentee in advance. I cannot tell you how many conversations I&#039;ve had with people in the polling place on election day, who moved and thought that by changing their driver&#039;s license, they changed their voter registration. (Nope - still doesn&#039;t, as it still requires an explicit process and I believe form, though it can be turned in while changing driver&#039;s license.) Or those who moved within the county, but went to the polling place close to their new home, thinking being in the same county was sufficient. (Unfortunately, no - you have to go to your old polling place within a year of moving, as long as you haven&#039;t registered to vote in your new location.) And all of the other situations possible.

And unfortunately, those legitimate votes don&#039;t get to vote that year. (Well, if they want to drive to their old voting location, it would count. Just gotta get there by 7pm.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, but you have to remember to vote absentee in advance. I cannot tell you how many conversations I&#8217;ve had with people in the polling place on election day, who moved and thought that by changing their driver&#8217;s license, they changed their voter registration. (Nope &#8211; still doesn&#8217;t, as it still requires an explicit process and I believe form, though it can be turned in while changing driver&#8217;s license.) Or those who moved within the county, but went to the polling place close to their new home, thinking being in the same county was sufficient. (Unfortunately, no &#8211; you have to go to your old polling place within a year of moving, as long as you haven&#8217;t registered to vote in your new location.) And all of the other situations possible.</p>
<p>And unfortunately, those legitimate votes don&#8217;t get to vote that year. (Well, if they want to drive to their old voting location, it would count. Just gotta get there by 7pm.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Virginia&#8217;s New Manufacturing Challenge &#8212; Peoria, not Peking by Peter Galuszka</title>
		<link>http://www.baconsrebellion.com/2012/05/virginias-new-manufacturing-challenge-peoria-not-peking.html#comment-64445</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Galuszka</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 00:21:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.baconsrebellion.com/?p=11944#comment-64445</guid>
		<description>&quot;Low taxes, low wages and right-to-work laws made the south the most competitive region in the country for manufacturing investment. &quot;

Yassay, why not you &#039;n me saddle up to the veranda and get us a couple juleps while we watch them lintheads and Nagras make us some downright good money with them low wages and no unions and no taxes to educate &#039;em! Then we&#039;ll play us a round of golf!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Low taxes, low wages and right-to-work laws made the south the most competitive region in the country for manufacturing investment. &#8221;</p>
<p>Yassay, why not you &#8216;n me saddle up to the veranda and get us a couple juleps while we watch them lintheads and Nagras make us some downright good money with them low wages and no unions and no taxes to educate &#8216;em! Then we&#8217;ll play us a round of golf!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Supporting Community Development One Business at a Time by DJRippert</title>
		<link>http://www.baconsrebellion.com/2012/05/supporting-community-development-one-business-at-a-time.html#comment-64444</link>
		<dc:creator>DJRippert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 23:26:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.baconsrebellion.com/?p=11958#comment-64444</guid>
		<description>My Grandmother from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan used to make meat pastys.  Unbelievable.  If your man can make something like this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasty - I&#039;ll be down to have a few.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My Grandmother from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan used to make meat pastys.  Unbelievable.  If your man can make something like this &#8211; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasty" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasty</a> &#8211; I&#8217;ll be down to have a few.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on MWAA&#8217;s Murky Constitutional Status by larryg</title>
		<link>http://www.baconsrebellion.com/2012/05/the-murky-constitutional-status-of-mwaa.html#comment-64443</link>
		<dc:creator>larryg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 15:18:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.baconsrebellion.com/?p=11924#comment-64443</guid>
		<description>No venting DJ...  I&#039;m just pointing out that you appear to be an ardent defender of what MWAA does these days and at the same time a heavy critic of the clown show that created them and signed off on their role with regard to toll roads and railroads.

Conversely, the heavy critics of MWAA seem to not want to acknowledge that MWAA is a willingly-created critter of Richmond ....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No venting DJ&#8230;  I&#8217;m just pointing out that you appear to be an ardent defender of what MWAA does these days and at the same time a heavy critic of the clown show that created them and signed off on their role with regard to toll roads and railroads.</p>
<p>Conversely, the heavy critics of MWAA seem to not want to acknowledge that MWAA is a willingly-created critter of Richmond &#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on MWAA&#8217;s Murky Constitutional Status by DJRippert</title>
		<link>http://www.baconsrebellion.com/2012/05/the-murky-constitutional-status-of-mwaa.html#comment-64442</link>
		<dc:creator>DJRippert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 11:20:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.baconsrebellion.com/?p=11924#comment-64442</guid>
		<description>&quot;This is not about the “bios”of the board members DJ… this is about an agency that has run amok IMHO.&quot;.

You really have lost your way on this one, LarryG.

I&#039;ll try one more time:

1. The MWAA operated the Dulles Access Road because it was a road built on land owned by the Feds for the singular purpose of providing access to Dulles Airport.  Once you get on the access road you can&#039;t get off until you reach the airport.  It is not a local road, it is an airport access road - just like the roads that take you to the rental car lot once you arrive at the airport.  The road has no purpose other than access to Dulles Airport.

2. The federal government is about 10X more forward looking than the Imperial Clown Show in Richmond.  So, when the Feds acquired the rights of way for the Dulles Access Rd they also acquired a fairly extensive amount of &quot;buffer space&quot;.  Enough space, in fact, to build a second local access road next to the access road dedicated to Dulles Airport.  Imaging for a moment how much better off we&#039;d be if the Imperial Clown Show in Richmond did things like that.

3. VDOT built the Dulles Toll Road on land owned by the Federal Government and leased by MWAA.  The road is on the rights of way adjacent to the Dulles Access Road.  So, MWAA leased he dirt from the Federal Government and VDOT sub-leased the dirt under the Toll Road from MWAA.

4. In 2005 five companies provided bids to the Commonwealth of Virginia to privatize the Dulles Toll Road.  MWAA provided a sixth bid.  THE IMPERIAL CLOWN SHOW IN RICHMOND FREELY AND WILLINGLY GAVE CONTROL OF THE DULLES TOLL ROAD TO THE MWAA.

5. A big part of the accepted bid from MWAA to the Commonwealth of Virginia was the commitment by MWAA to build the Silver Line in the median strip of the Dulles Toll Road.  THE IMPERIAL CLOWN SHOW IN RICHMOND FREELY AND WILLINGLY GAVE CONTROL OF THE PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT THE SILVER LINE TO THE MWAA.

Now, LarryG, I know you are a huge apologist for the Imperial Clown Show in Richmond.  I would be too if the Clown Show were robbing others around the state and using the money to provide me with free services.  Unfortunately, I am one of the ones being robbed so I am not much of an apologist.  However, if you don&#039;t like the MWAA as a tri-modal transportation agency I would think that even you would have to wonder why The Imperial Clown Show in Richmond gave that agency so much control over roads and projects that exist entirely within the state of Virginia.

Phase I of the Silver Line appears to be on schedule and on budget.  If others have facts to the contrary, I&#039;d like to hear them.  In other words, it appears that MWAA is doing a good job so far.  This simple fact consistently eludes you, Jim Bacon and all the other whiners.

The decision to use Dulles Toll Road revenues to fund the Silver Line was may well before MWAA was given control of the project.  In Februrary, 2005 the CTB (Clown-Show Transportation Board) approved a 50 cent increase in the Dulles Toll Road tolls to provide funds for the Silver Line.  As with everything else done by the Imperial Clown Show in Richmond, this increase was ill-conceived and inept.  It was large enough to be frustrating but far too small to actually provide the needed funds for the Silver Line.  However, it did set the precedent that Dulles Toll Rd tolls would be increased to provide funding for the Silver Line.

LarryG - if you want to vent - direct your bile in the right direction.  It is not the MWAA that made these decisions, it is the jack asses in Richmond.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;This is not about the “bios”of the board members DJ… this is about an agency that has run amok IMHO.&#8221;.</p>
<p>You really have lost your way on this one, LarryG.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll try one more time:</p>
<p>1. The MWAA operated the Dulles Access Road because it was a road built on land owned by the Feds for the singular purpose of providing access to Dulles Airport.  Once you get on the access road you can&#8217;t get off until you reach the airport.  It is not a local road, it is an airport access road &#8211; just like the roads that take you to the rental car lot once you arrive at the airport.  The road has no purpose other than access to Dulles Airport.</p>
<p>2. The federal government is about 10X more forward looking than the Imperial Clown Show in Richmond.  So, when the Feds acquired the rights of way for the Dulles Access Rd they also acquired a fairly extensive amount of &#8220;buffer space&#8221;.  Enough space, in fact, to build a second local access road next to the access road dedicated to Dulles Airport.  Imaging for a moment how much better off we&#8217;d be if the Imperial Clown Show in Richmond did things like that.</p>
<p>3. VDOT built the Dulles Toll Road on land owned by the Federal Government and leased by MWAA.  The road is on the rights of way adjacent to the Dulles Access Road.  So, MWAA leased he dirt from the Federal Government and VDOT sub-leased the dirt under the Toll Road from MWAA.</p>
<p>4. In 2005 five companies provided bids to the Commonwealth of Virginia to privatize the Dulles Toll Road.  MWAA provided a sixth bid.  THE IMPERIAL CLOWN SHOW IN RICHMOND FREELY AND WILLINGLY GAVE CONTROL OF THE DULLES TOLL ROAD TO THE MWAA.</p>
<p>5. A big part of the accepted bid from MWAA to the Commonwealth of Virginia was the commitment by MWAA to build the Silver Line in the median strip of the Dulles Toll Road.  THE IMPERIAL CLOWN SHOW IN RICHMOND FREELY AND WILLINGLY GAVE CONTROL OF THE PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT THE SILVER LINE TO THE MWAA.</p>
<p>Now, LarryG, I know you are a huge apologist for the Imperial Clown Show in Richmond.  I would be too if the Clown Show were robbing others around the state and using the money to provide me with free services.  Unfortunately, I am one of the ones being robbed so I am not much of an apologist.  However, if you don&#8217;t like the MWAA as a tri-modal transportation agency I would think that even you would have to wonder why The Imperial Clown Show in Richmond gave that agency so much control over roads and projects that exist entirely within the state of Virginia.</p>
<p>Phase I of the Silver Line appears to be on schedule and on budget.  If others have facts to the contrary, I&#8217;d like to hear them.  In other words, it appears that MWAA is doing a good job so far.  This simple fact consistently eludes you, Jim Bacon and all the other whiners.</p>
<p>The decision to use Dulles Toll Road revenues to fund the Silver Line was may well before MWAA was given control of the project.  In Februrary, 2005 the CTB (Clown-Show Transportation Board) approved a 50 cent increase in the Dulles Toll Road tolls to provide funds for the Silver Line.  As with everything else done by the Imperial Clown Show in Richmond, this increase was ill-conceived and inept.  It was large enough to be frustrating but far too small to actually provide the needed funds for the Silver Line.  However, it did set the precedent that Dulles Toll Rd tolls would be increased to provide funding for the Silver Line.</p>
<p>LarryG &#8211; if you want to vent &#8211; direct your bile in the right direction.  It is not the MWAA that made these decisions, it is the jack asses in Richmond.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on MWAA&#8217;s Murky Constitutional Status by larryg</title>
		<link>http://www.baconsrebellion.com/2012/05/the-murky-constitutional-status-of-mwaa.html#comment-64441</link>
		<dc:creator>larryg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 09:25:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.baconsrebellion.com/?p=11924#comment-64441</guid>
		<description>MWAA leases Federal Assets because the Federal Govt wanted an airport authority to do that rather than the FAA do it.

What changed MWAA from an airport authority into an agency that owns toll roads and builds railroads?

WMATA ought to be the agency that handles expansions to the system it is already in charge off no matter what the howlers in Richmond think.

When Richmond &quot;accepted&quot; the MWAA &quot;proposal&quot; to operate DTR, did anyone ask what gave MWAA the authority to do that to start with when their charter was to operate airports?

This is not about the &quot;bios&quot;of the board members DJ... this is about an agency that has run amok IMHO.  Given the logic with letting them buy the DTR, what would prevent them from buying other toll roads and expanding their mission to other parts of METRO?

As far as I know, we have similarly constituted airport authorities around the country and they all restrict their missions to airports. What happened here?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>MWAA leases Federal Assets because the Federal Govt wanted an airport authority to do that rather than the FAA do it.</p>
<p>What changed MWAA from an airport authority into an agency that owns toll roads and builds railroads?</p>
<p>WMATA ought to be the agency that handles expansions to the system it is already in charge off no matter what the howlers in Richmond think.</p>
<p>When Richmond &#8220;accepted&#8221; the MWAA &#8220;proposal&#8221; to operate DTR, did anyone ask what gave MWAA the authority to do that to start with when their charter was to operate airports?</p>
<p>This is not about the &#8220;bios&#8221;of the board members DJ&#8230; this is about an agency that has run amok IMHO.  Given the logic with letting them buy the DTR, what would prevent them from buying other toll roads and expanding their mission to other parts of METRO?</p>
<p>As far as I know, we have similarly constituted airport authorities around the country and they all restrict their missions to airports. What happened here?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Voter ID: Get Over It, and Get Out the Vote by larryg</title>
		<link>http://www.baconsrebellion.com/2012/05/voter-id-get-over-it-and-get-out-the-vote.html#comment-64440</link>
		<dc:creator>larryg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 09:16:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.baconsrebellion.com/?p=11910#comment-64440</guid>
		<description>&quot; I’m sorry we don’t live in a perfect enough world for you, or that you can somehow project how a court would rule, given the rather complex (and sometimes onerous) voting laws and guidelines have to follow (set at both the state and federal level).&quot;

Well, I&#039;m not looking for a perfect world but if we are going to pass new/additional laws that selectively disenfranchise certain classes of people - then people have a right to seek a remedy.  In a &quot;perfect world&quot;, we&#039;d have no legal challenges at all and we&#039;d have new laws that don&#039;t have the effect of discriminating against people. 

By the way, isn&#039;t it true that ANY qualified voter can vote absentee for Federal electors for any reason?

&quot; Any registered and qualified voter may request a mail ballot for presidential and vice-presidential electors only by writing across the top of their absentee application &quot;request ballot for presidential electors only.&quot;  A voter who votes a &quot;presidential only&quot; ballot may not later decide to vote the rest of the ballot.  The same procedures and deadlines apply as for other absentee applications and ballots.&quot;

http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Absentee_Voting/Index.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8221; I’m sorry we don’t live in a perfect enough world for you, or that you can somehow project how a court would rule, given the rather complex (and sometimes onerous) voting laws and guidelines have to follow (set at both the state and federal level).&#8221;</p>
<p>Well, I&#8217;m not looking for a perfect world but if we are going to pass new/additional laws that selectively disenfranchise certain classes of people &#8211; then people have a right to seek a remedy.  In a &#8220;perfect world&#8221;, we&#8217;d have no legal challenges at all and we&#8217;d have new laws that don&#8217;t have the effect of discriminating against people. </p>
<p>By the way, isn&#8217;t it true that ANY qualified voter can vote absentee for Federal electors for any reason?</p>
<p>&#8221; Any registered and qualified voter may request a mail ballot for presidential and vice-presidential electors only by writing across the top of their absentee application &#8220;request ballot for presidential electors only.&#8221;  A voter who votes a &#8220;presidential only&#8221; ballot may not later decide to vote the rest of the ballot.  The same procedures and deadlines apply as for other absentee applications and ballots.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Absentee_Voting/Index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Absentee_Voting/Index.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Voter ID: Get Over It, and Get Out the Vote by madness</title>
		<link>http://www.baconsrebellion.com/2012/05/voter-id-get-over-it-and-get-out-the-vote.html#comment-64439</link>
		<dc:creator>madness</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 02:04:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.baconsrebellion.com/?p=11910#comment-64439</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t find it ironic, because there is disenfranchisement already built into the system. Have you moved to another part of the state, or even the county, after the deadline to register in your new location? (Hint - the deadline is typically 3 or 4 weeks ahead of the actual vote date.) If you didn&#039;t remember to vote absentee, you&#039;re technically disenfranchised with your level of concern. When I worked the polls, I was guaranteed to get between 2 and 10 of those cases every time (at least for general elections; depending on the type of primary, you might not see one). And that&#039;s for 1 precinct.

I get it. You&#039;re concerned. So am I - to a point. But it&#039;s not 100% possible to enfranchise every possible voter who shows up at the polls. That&#039;s why there are provisional ballots - for those cases that cannot be sorted out over the phone with the central office while the voter waits. And some real voters get turned away - every time. I&#039;m sorry we don&#039;t live in a perfect enough world for you, or that you can somehow project how a court would rule, given the rather complex (and sometimes onerous) voting laws and guidelines have to follow (set at both the state and federal level).

And if you didn&#039;t follow along, let me state again - the new law is near useless and does little to truly close the gap or stop the possibilities of fraud. All I need is a utility bill or a voter registration card (no picture ID there) and my vote counts.

BTW, I don&#039;t see #1 happening. That&#039;s been the strategy up to now, and it worked for a few sessions, but you&#039;ve seen how cowed the current Clown Show (as one poster on here puts it) was by all of the publicity. A court case (which is guaranteed to follow) isn&#039;t going to make them change their mind any time soon. And as I&#039;ve mentioned before, I don&#039;t think #2 is going to fly, because it results in thousands no longer being able to vote. It&#039;s going to take#3 - enough changeover in legislators to possibly repeal it several sessions from now, if it&#039;s even an important issue that gets pushed through committee. It&#039;s going to require legislators to keep pushing it until it isn&#039;t the law any more and enough turnover to replace those who did vote for it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t find it ironic, because there is disenfranchisement already built into the system. Have you moved to another part of the state, or even the county, after the deadline to register in your new location? (Hint &#8211; the deadline is typically 3 or 4 weeks ahead of the actual vote date.) If you didn&#8217;t remember to vote absentee, you&#8217;re technically disenfranchised with your level of concern. When I worked the polls, I was guaranteed to get between 2 and 10 of those cases every time (at least for general elections; depending on the type of primary, you might not see one). And that&#8217;s for 1 precinct.</p>
<p>I get it. You&#8217;re concerned. So am I &#8211; to a point. But it&#8217;s not 100% possible to enfranchise every possible voter who shows up at the polls. That&#8217;s why there are provisional ballots &#8211; for those cases that cannot be sorted out over the phone with the central office while the voter waits. And some real voters get turned away &#8211; every time. I&#8217;m sorry we don&#8217;t live in a perfect enough world for you, or that you can somehow project how a court would rule, given the rather complex (and sometimes onerous) voting laws and guidelines have to follow (set at both the state and federal level).</p>
<p>And if you didn&#8217;t follow along, let me state again &#8211; the new law is near useless and does little to truly close the gap or stop the possibilities of fraud. All I need is a utility bill or a voter registration card (no picture ID there) and my vote counts.</p>
<p>BTW, I don&#8217;t see #1 happening. That&#8217;s been the strategy up to now, and it worked for a few sessions, but you&#8217;ve seen how cowed the current Clown Show (as one poster on here puts it) was by all of the publicity. A court case (which is guaranteed to follow) isn&#8217;t going to make them change their mind any time soon. And as I&#8217;ve mentioned before, I don&#8217;t think #2 is going to fly, because it results in thousands no longer being able to vote. It&#8217;s going to take#3 &#8211; enough changeover in legislators to possibly repeal it several sessions from now, if it&#8217;s even an important issue that gets pushed through committee. It&#8217;s going to require legislators to keep pushing it until it isn&#8217;t the law any more and enough turnover to replace those who did vote for it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Virginia&#8217;s New Manufacturing Challenge &#8212; Peoria, not Peking by DJRippert</title>
		<link>http://www.baconsrebellion.com/2012/05/virginias-new-manufacturing-challenge-peoria-not-peking.html#comment-64438</link>
		<dc:creator>DJRippert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 01:00:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.baconsrebellion.com/?p=11944#comment-64438</guid>
		<description>Well, that&#039;s too bad.  In Chicago and Oregon, the smelters left and the power was mighty cheap.  So, the data centers moved in.  Thought I might have a business development idea for Richmond.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, that&#8217;s too bad.  In Chicago and Oregon, the smelters left and the power was mighty cheap.  So, the data centers moved in.  Thought I might have a business development idea for Richmond.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on MWAA&#8217;s Murky Constitutional Status by DJRippert</title>
		<link>http://www.baconsrebellion.com/2012/05/the-murky-constitutional-status-of-mwaa.html#comment-64437</link>
		<dc:creator>DJRippert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 00:57:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.baconsrebellion.com/?p=11924#comment-64437</guid>
		<description>&quot;the Feds did not “demand”. The Constitution expressly prohibits interstate compacts without the concurrence (usually with strings) of the Feds.&quot;.

MWAA leases federal assets.  The feds didn&#039;t have to lease the assets to anybody regardless of the Constitution.

If WMATA were in charge of the project the Tea Pots in Richmond would be howling even louder.

Do me a favor - read the bios (that are available) of the WMATA board members.  Note the differences in background between those appointed by Virginia and DC and those appointed by Maryland and the feds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metropolitan_Area_Transit_Authority

Now, do the same for the MWAA board.

Once again, The Imperial Clown Show in Richmond has failed to properly serve the citizens of Virginia.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;the Feds did not “demand”. The Constitution expressly prohibits interstate compacts without the concurrence (usually with strings) of the Feds.&#8221;.</p>
<p>MWAA leases federal assets.  The feds didn&#8217;t have to lease the assets to anybody regardless of the Constitution.</p>
<p>If WMATA were in charge of the project the Tea Pots in Richmond would be howling even louder.</p>
<p>Do me a favor &#8211; read the bios (that are available) of the WMATA board members.  Note the differences in background between those appointed by Virginia and DC and those appointed by Maryland and the feds:</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metropolitan_Area_Transit_Authority" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metropolitan_Area_Transit_Authority</a></p>
<p>Now, do the same for the MWAA board.</p>
<p>Once again, The Imperial Clown Show in Richmond has failed to properly serve the citizens of Virginia.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

