McDonnell criticized by conservative AFP over environmental spending in Richmond
By JR Hoeft | Wednesday, August 4th, 2010 | PolicyVirginia Governor Bob McDonnell was criticized late yesterday by Virginia’s Americans for Prosperity chief, Ben Marchi, over perceived wasteful environmental spending by the government in the city of Richmond.
In a press release by the governor yesterday:
“Governor Bob McDonnell today broke ground on a set of construction projects that will “green” Virginia’s Capitol grounds and surrounding Richmond streets. The Governor was joined by the City of Richmond Mayor Dwight Jones, representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, and other local leaders to initiate these projects that will retrofit the Capitol and make it one of the greenest in the nation. Several low impact development techniques will let storm water slowly infiltrate rather than flow over the ground and into the James River.”
These environmental projects did not sit well with Marchi who wrote:
“At a time when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is pursuing job-killing cap-and-trade legislation, it is unthinkable that this administration would take nearly a million dollars in taxpayer funds from the EPA and other agencies to waste on non-essential core services. Today, Governor McDonnell and Richmond Mayor Dwight Jones participated in a groundbreaking ceremony for a series of so-called “green” projects around Virginia’s Capitol Square, which will cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time when government spending has no end in sight. The money, which apparently will be used to create rain gardens and install special brick pavers in a couple of locations in Richmond, is a joint grant from the EPA and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
We are disappointed to see that Governor McDonnell and other state and local leaders have decided to take advantage of yet another example of Washington’s aimless spending spree.”
Marchi’s attack on McDonnell – who has balanced Virginia’s budget and slashed government spending – saving taxpayers billions – is quite unexpected.
And, on this particular issue, where concrete steps must be taken to revitalize the James River and Chesapeake Bay from manmade destruction, it strikes me as a bit reactionary.
I’m an American who wants prosperity too – but prudent steps to achieve ecological, economical, and environmental balance should be pursued – not a policy that advocates an ostrich like laissez faire approach to our environment.
Conservatives are for limited government – not imprudent government.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
Comments
15 Responses to "McDonnell criticized by conservative AFP over environmental spending in Richmond"
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bearing Drift, Old Virginia. Old Virginia said: New Blog Post: McDonnell criticized by conservative AFP over environmental spending in Richmond http://bit.ly/bBAMiX [...]
I agree totally with J.R. Fact is, new development is required to meet stringent EPA/DEQ and local regulations as to stormwater management and quality. For legacy development like the Capitol Square, storm water managment meant a clay pipe directly into the river. That is one reason the bay is polluted. Don’t stop new development, refit old development, like the Governor is doing, or stimulate redevelopment. That will help clean up the Bay.
I don’t agree with Jim here or the first comment.
First, I find it very hard to believe that storm water seeping off of the Capitol lawn and down the hill into the James constitutes “pollution” of the Chesapeake Bay. That’s a real stretch.
Second, us voters did not elect McDonnell to be a fair weather fiscal conservative. We elected him to slash the budget, cut spending, and send unnecessary federal money back to Barack as he’s done with Race to the Top funds and some stimulus money. He promised that he was a fiscal conservative yet still accepts nearly a million dollars from the EPA for, essentially, landscaping. Marchi and his group are not the bad guys here, the problem is McDonnell’s “imprudent” lack of a clear-cut policy on rejecting federal funds.
The other problem in the situation is over-regulation by the EPA, to the point where they regulate natural rain water drainage. Accepting these funds only gives legitimacy to the EPA and their fight to eliminate the coal industry and jack everyone’s electric bill up.
All in all, McDonnell should have never put a shovel to the dirt and sent out a press release touting this.
I don’t see much of a problem with what Gov. McDonnell did. However, I’m not sure that criticism by Marchi should be characterized as anything, but criticism. An “attack” goes a bit far I think.
That said, I respectfully disagree with Marchi. No, the effect on the river will not likely be substantial. Neither will the real cost in terms of the size of the money being spent, have a substantial effect on the budget. Yes, I know. Marchi is going fiscally purist in his arguement and normally I appreciate that. The problem is, we are dealing with budgetary idiocy of insane proportions and any fixes will be incremental. Kinda hard to be a purist and survive as you watch the other states gobble up tax dollars and relieving you of your share of what was stolen from you to begin with. I could only wish Hampton Roads would find ways to get grants to off set the tax dollars the rest of the state rips the region off of. Maybe for roads or something.
No need to starve on principle. Cede the minor battle and live to smash the root cause of our economic woes later.
Another thing, though not in itself a significant effect on the environment, it is a positive one, however small. It also provides leadership in environmental stewardship. That prevented run off will no longer be rushing to the river and damaging the property rights of others affected by the river’s health. The public at large also benefits. It provides an example and a demonstration of postive steps that can and should be taken to protect our environment.
The good people at Virginia’s Americans for Prosperity do care about property rights. Perhaps they can appreciate that environmental damage to others will be mitigated by this project, and could potentially lead others to taking additional positive steps.
This is a good group of people, but unless there are EPA strings attached to this money, I would think Marchi would have bigger issues to gripe about. Additionally, if anyone should be the focus of his criticism, it should be the Feds that issue the grant, not the governor for accepting it.
Another fundraising effort by Marchi. If he didn’t gripe about stuff then people would not give to AFP so he would not get paid and then he would have to get the only job he is truly qualified for…picking up chicken crap at the Purdue chicken farm.
Never forget what a special interest groups first priority is – raising money so they get paid.
As for this horseshit about McDonnell being a fair weather fiscal conservative, are you taking crazy pills? Yes America is in a fiscal deficit, but McDonnell forgoing this money would have meant that the funding was headed to Raleigh or Columbia or Atlanta. If the money is appropriated by Congress, McDonnell should go get all of it he can. Every penny so at least we get something for the debt we all have to pay off later. If you’re pissed about the EPA spending this money, then find out how your Congressman voted and if you don’t like it work to get him defeated or tell him to change his position going forward.
Marchi is a total drama queen. And I mean that in every sense of the word. I simply can’t fathom that anyone takes him or his little piss-ant group seriously.
Seems as if Bearing Drift’s helmsman has shifted the rudder. The problem with the supposed conservative label is that the meaning is skewed and lost by justifying progressive rationale. Welcome to the world of neo-liberalism JR!
Oh that’s classic; now we find that Conservatives do not support conservation. The world really has turned on its head.
I thought this was a little over the top when I got the press release.
I guess it proves that in politics “no good deed goes unpunished.”
There wasn’t anything wrong with what McDonnell did.
Kevin Jackson, author of “The Big Black Lie” added, “There are two kinds of people I have never seen at a Tea Party: a racist and anyone who owns a yacht. And if they do own a yacht, they pay their taxes.”
Black Political Activists: Tea Party ‘Not Racist’
Black political activists who also call themselves members of the Tea Party movement on Wednesday rebuked charges of racism running rampant in the group.
At a news conference in Washington, the black members asserted that the Tea Party is not at all racist and that the accusations come from outsiders trying to discredit and sabotage the movement.
“The injection of race has come from those who want to destroy us,” said Selena Owens, an regular speaker with the Tea Party Express, one of the many libertarian, anti-tax groups in the movement that organized the news conference.
Herman Cain, a radio talk show host, said the accusations are “hurled at us to divide us and to deflect attention away from the failed policies of this congress and this president.”
Kevin Jackson, author of “The Big Black Lie” added, “There are two kinds of people I have never seen at a Tea Party: a racist and anyone who owns a yacht. And if they do own a yacht, they pay their taxes.”
The Tea Party Express organized the news conference to refute accusations of racism that have been heightened by the recent split with former group leader Mark Williams. Recently, Williams posted a letter on his blog written from “Colored People” to Abraham Lincoln, which suggested that black people would choose slavery over having to do real work.
“Our slowness to split with Mark should by no means condone racism. It was just out of loyalty to our friend,” said William Owens, a black conservative author who has also been a featured speaker on past Tea Party Express tours.
The letter Williams wrote on his blog immediately led to a war of words between him and the NAACP, or National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which specifically called Williams a racist and suggested there are many more inside the Tea Party movement.
The black activists at Wednesday’s event were at some times dismissive of the NAACP, and at other times outright hostile toward the organization.
“I don’t think the NAACP are even relevant anymore,” said Tim Johnson, vice chairman of the North Carolina GOP. “I think they just did that to get some news coverage.”
Niger Innis, a spokesman for the Congress of Racial Equality was more direct.
“I have nothing but respect for the tradition of the NAACP, but I have nothing but contempt for the current leadership and tactics of the current leadership,” he said. “There’s still a need for the [group], but not if they continue to let themselves be prostituted by some elements of the Democratic party.”
When asked about an incident where Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a black Democrat from Missouri, was allegedly spit on during a Tea Party rally on Capitol Hill last march, Robert Broadus, who is running for a U.S. congressional seat in Maryland, said, “It never happened.”
Innis added:”There’s no evidence, and we are a country of laws.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/04/black-political-activists-tea-party-racist/
“They are angry, old, heavily armed white people who can’t come to terms with an African-American in the White House.”
Monday, July 19, 2010
“A RINO at a Tea Party
Like a bull in a china shop, a RINO at a Tea Party has the potential to be a messy situation.
That’s why Rep. Rob Wittman’s decision to bring in Sen. Scott Brown (R-Ma.) to headline a fundraiser July 30 is interesting.
Brown was briefly the darling of the Tea Party when, with considerable out-of -state financial assistance from Tea Party activists, he beat the odds to win the U.S. Senate seat left vacant by the death of former Sen. Edward Kennedy. The had been in Kennedy hands for more than 50 years and a Republican victory in one of the nation’s bluest states was seen as a personal rebuke to President Barack Obama.
Brown was important to the Tea Party because he was seen as the Republicans’ 41st vote to filibuster health care reform. However, Democrats skillfully found a way around the supposed 60 votes required to get anything done in the Senate — which, strict constructionists that they are, the Tea Party activists might note was never part of the founders’ intentions — and passed the bill anyway.
After that, Brown quickly began losing his Tea Party fans as he started voting like the moderate, Northeast Republican he always had been. That, of course, was the only kind of Republican who was going to win in “The People’s Republic of Massachusetts.” Which means he occasionally votes with the Democrats, just like Republican senators Snow and Dukakis from Maine. Which leads the Tea Party crowd to fill his Facebook page with accusations of “betrayal” and that he’s a “liar” and, even worse, a “RINO.” The most recent instance was when he voted to allow financial reform legislation to move forward, so hopefully the greed heads who wrecked the economy two years ago will have a slightly harder task the next time.
Wittman voted against that bill.
In fact, Wittman and Brown have differed on a number of votes. Because, while Brown is something of disappointment to the Tea Party folks, Wittman is, or should be, their model legislator.
He voted against the Bush administration’s TARP legislation, which was, depending on your point of view, a shameful “bailout” of Wall Street and the big banks, or necessary to keep us from spiraling into a second Great Depression. In my opinion, it was both.
He voted against the Obama stimulus package. Like most Republicans, and all Tea Party activists, he was concerned that it increased the deficit. Because as soon as a Republican president is out of office, Republicans care about the deficit. Dick Cheney famously said the lesson of Ronald Reagan’s term in office was that “deficits don’t matter.” Actually they do. But other things matter, too. Like getting the economy moving. There’s a time to worry about how high your water bill is, but not when the house is on fire. The real problem with Obama’s stimulus package was that it wasn’t big enough.
Wittman also voted against health care reform, extended unemployment benefits and the financial reform.
You’d think that would put him in good standing with the Tea Party, a populist movement in favor of rich people paying lower taxes, poor people having less access to health insurance and credit and Wall Street not being hampered by pesky federal regulations. Oh, and “taking our country back,” presumably from the folks who were lawfully elected to run it.
But you’d be only partially correct. While many local Tea Party activists said they supported Wittman, and his huge margin of victory would tend to bear that out, he was opposed for the Republican nomination by Tea Party activist Catherine Crabill.
Fortunately, she only got about 10% of the vote. I say fortunately because the kind of people who would vote for Crabill, who had a disturbing tendency to weave firearms into her statements on political issues, are the reason the Tea Party gives some people the creeps. While most Tea Party activists are just conservative swho are so ideologically confused they can’t tell the difference between Keynesian economics and socialism or run-of-the-mill Republicans who George W. Bush embarassed out of the party, a small percentage are dangerous nuts.
They are people who talk about a second American Revolution and mean it. Their political rhetoric is full of talk of “treason” and “executing” said traitors, be they Obama or members of Congress. They are angry, old, heavily armed white people who can’t come to terms with an African-American in the White House. In calmer times they’d be confined to militia groups that would be eyed warily by the FBI. Now, they are being welcomed into the Tea Party and its parent organization, the Republican Party.
That’s the kind of support that both RINO’s and mainstream conservative Republicans like Wittman could do without.”
About the Blogger
Steve Vaughan covers state and city politics and government, tourism and business for the Virginia Gazette. He has 20 years of experience and is an award-winning reporter and columnist. He lives in Richmond with his wife, son, dog and two cats. His daughter attends college in North Carolina. Vaughan is an Orthodox Skeptic and licensed wiseacre.
He can be reached at vapundit@gmail.com
http://virginiapundit.blogspot.com/2010/07/rino-at-tea-party.html
I find myself agreeing with Mike Barrett and Steve Vaughn on this one. Conservatives SHOULD stand for conservation. That doesn’t mean surrendering yourself to partisan “Green Agendas” and making al gore even richer. It just means taking common sense action for a positive result.
If there is something you can easily do to benefit the environment and private property rights, why not do it? Surely the bigger ticket items are more worth the scrutiny than something this small that does stand to benefit the constituents at large(even if in a small way)and show environmental leadership.
As for people questioning Gov. McDonnell’s fiscal conservative credentials, I have railed on McDonnell in the past(especially while he was AG) for not being a fiscal conservative. I still stand by everything I said. However, ever since he was elected as governor, he has performed pretty darn well. I call it like I see it, and I certainly believe in redemption. Additionally, while I do have high expectations of our elected officials, I don’t expect impossible perfection. McDonnell has done a good job so far and harping on something like this is non-productive and serves to unnecessarily divide.
Hey JH, thanks for the re-print.
A column in which I DEFENDED Rep. Wittman (R-1st) from loony right criticism is certainly relevant to this post where I’m DEFENDING our Republican governor from loony right criticism. Good call to spot the linkage.
Somehow we have turned the word conservation into an excuse for more governmental matching funds to be squandered on discretionary spending to fund construction projects to repay political favors and contributions. These feel good decisions and subsequent press releases are contrived to divert the public focus from necessary tasks government should be undertaking. I would rather have the funding be spent on eliminating something like the bumpy-bouncy accident producing hazards on route 264. Names in the Governor’s mansion may change, but the game is the same.
I guess on the fence concurs that the slow and steady destruction of the Bay and the businesses that depend upon the Bay is good public policy. Any attempt to restore the fisheries, to protect tourism, and to improve water quality is simply a feel good PR opportunity, not to be taken seriously. Never mind that it effects industries and jobs as well.
[...] McDonnell stood with EPA representatives and longtime Democrat and Richmond Mayor Dwight Jones to announce that nearly $1 million would be spent on projects meant to “green” Richmond in order to protect the James River (and ultimately the [...]
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.