Democrat Senators Don’t Need No Steenkeen Rules
By Ward Smythe | Friday, February 4th, 2011 | Policy, PoliticsFor a majority party that is dangerously close to becoming a miniority in November, Virginia Senate Democrats are playing some preschool level games with legislation.
Last week in the Privileges and Elections committee Senator Janet Howell ruled a motion out of order “because I said so.” Her neener neener boo boo was not caught on tape.
This week, another Northern Virginia Democrat Senator did it again. We’ll let Senator Mark Obenshain explain:
Senate Democrats Refuse to
Hear ABC Privatization BillsMajority Rejects Motion to
Add Bills to Committee AgendaRICHMOND–Today, the Democratic members of the Senate Committee on Rehabilitation and Social Services refused to take up for consideration two bills copatroned by Senators Mark D. Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg) and John Watkins (R-Powhatan) on the privatization of Virginia’s ABC stores.
An important component of Governor McDonnell’s agenda, and an issue which has drawn widespread public interest, the question of ABC privatization is not presently scheduled to be considered at all in the Senate of Virginia.
“People on both sides of the issue have strongly-held beliefs about the merits of ABC privatization,” said Obenshain. “I don’t think the people expect us to speak in one voice on the issue, just as they do not speak in one voice. But they do expect us to review it, and they certainly expect us to vote on it.”
“This morning’s meeting was the last one prior to crossover,” explained Obenshain, referring to the day – Wednesday, February 9th – on and after which the Senate may only take up House bills for consideration (and vice versa).
The bills having failed to appear on the docket of the last scheduled meeting of the committee prior to crossover, Senator Ryan McDougle (R-Hanover) made a motion to add the bills to the agenda, which Chairman Toddy Puller (D-Fairfax) ruled out of order.
“A motion to add a bill to a committee’s calendar is always in order,” said Obenshain. “The members of the committee can vote not to add the bill, but the motion is absolutely in order.” On an 8-6 party line vote, Democrats on the committee voted to affirm the ruling of the chair, disregarding the rules and procedures under which the Senate is to operate.
Virginia is one of eighteen “control” states, where both retail and wholesale distilled liquor operations are the purview of the states, a vestige of the early post-Prohibition era. Senators Obenshain and Watkins copatroned SB 1272, a bill to divest both retail and wholesale operations, and SB 1417, the Governor’s more modest proposal to divest only the retail component. Neither bill has been placed on the calendar of the Committee on Rehabilitation and Social Services.
“I am disappointed with the undemocratic decision not to even let a vote be taken on ABC privatization,” said Obenshain. “I think most voters believe that when a bill is introduced, a vote is taken, at least in committee. That’s the civics class understanding, and that’s the way it’s supposed to be. Unfortunately, some members find it easier to duck votes on contentious issues, and their leaders refuse to ever let some bills be heard.”
“The chair of a committee should not be able to kill a bill by herself, without a vote, simply by never adding it to the agenda, and then ruling out of order the motions of other members to add it to the agenda” added Obenshain. “Unfortunately, Democrats on the committee affirmed her decision on a party-line vote this morning in the latest in a series of displays of complete disregard for democratic principles.” Recently, Democrats in the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections refused to hear in full committee bills that had previously been heard in subcommittee, in violation of the Rules of the Senate.
“Right now, taxes and fees on liquor sales are set undemocratically, by unelected bureaucrats,” said Obenshain, noting that the Commonwealth collects an effective 89% tax on the sale of distilled spirits. “It’s almost fitting that Democrats chose to prop up this antiquated, undemocratic system by undemocratic means. But is taking a vote too much to ask?”
The Committee’s refusal to take up SB 1417 is particularly notable, given that the bill was introduced at the Governor’s request. “I can’t remember a time when the General Assembly didn’t do the Governor the courtesy of at least giving his legislation a fair hearing,” said Obenshain. “Senate Democrats are breaking new ground here. Their decision is both unwarranted and unprecedented.”
“Of course, the voters understand what just happened,” concluded Obenshain. “A vote against hearing the bill is a vote against ABC privatization – and a vote against the traditions and principles on which this chamber is supposed to operate.”
Last November, the electorate screamed out in retalliation at the overreaching hand of Congressional Democrats. Could it really be that the Democrats in the Virginia Senate weren’t paying attention?
All 40 Virginia State Senate seats are up for election this November.
As they say “rules are made to be broken.” This fall, Senators are made to be defeated.
See also: Obenshain: “Nobody said carrying conservative bills in a Democrat-controlled Senate would be easy”
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Ward Smythe is a pseudonymous aspiring freelance writer from Central Virginia. Until late 2007 Ward blogged at the now defunct "Ward View" and was active in Virginia and national politics. Ward's signature style of snarkery gained him a unique following that he hopes to regain here at Bearing Drift. Ward uses humor, satire and sometimes photoshop to make his point. Ward is proud to be an equal opportunity offender.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
45 Responses to "Democrat Senators Don’t Need No Steenkeen Rules"
Agree that the bill should be taken up-however why does the House not want to take up the companion bill. This baffles me
That is not to say that I support the bill-I dont-but every bill should be given a recorded up or down vote in committee. (note to both senate dems and house gop)
How often does this have to occur before there’s a change?! It’s almost like the Dems got away with it the first time (despite the public outcry) and so they are going to keep doing it regardless of the consequences?!?!
@SEVA MWC
I think the principle here is two-fold…
The first is that subcommittees in the Senate can be as small as three people. Generally, in the House, there are far more legislators involved. So, if the bill is killed, you’re at least reasonably assured more than a handful of people debated and looked at the thing.
The second is the “ruling out of order” of the motion to add the bill to the Senate committee’s agenda. Not only is that a direct affront to decades of Senate precendent and decorum, it is an arbitrary act by fiat by the committee chair.
You guys might have had a point about the Howell decision but here?
Del. Chris Jones (R-Suffolk) has said that he’s going to use his “chairman’s discretion” not to bring the ABC bill up in House General Laws.
The position in the Senate had been since the beginning of session, that they wouldn’t take up the issue unless the House passed someething.
Is that how it works now, Steve? A legislator in the other body has to bring up a bill now too for an idea to even be considered? I thought we had a bicameral legislature. According to your comment, we might as well just have one if ideas have to be proposed in both chambers in order for them to have merit.
And, personally, with all due respect to Del. Jones, he’s wrong too.
Frankly, Bearing Drift has sunk to a new low. I guess discussion and debate on the important issues of governance and legislating need to be put aside so we can discuss minutia. As republicans plunge toward fiscal hari kari by issuing bonds based upon anticipated federal revenue and surplus general fund revenue, this page is debating sub committee procedures on a bill that is dead. Get a grip!
Mike, you’re really going to have to touch your keyboard more than clicking cut-and-paste. Your comments are beyond repetitive and boring.
If we wanted to discuss “minutia” we could post on your hairline, your client list, and the number of bills you’ve successfully advocated and gotten passed, and the numbers of high-tax candidates you’ve gotten elected.
Thanks again Brian for confirming my point. As the chief of minutia, you must deny the obvious with a quip and an insult. What else is new.
Mike, you’re always free to find a blog that you like to read.
So Brian, tell me again why this page remains silent when the House of Delegates approves $4B in new debt collateralized by “anticipated” federal revenue on the same day House Representatives cut funding to the Federal Highway Administration, and on “surpluses” from the General Fund that will be subtracted from education, public safety, and of course, support for VRS. Instead, you’re discussing sub committee procedures. Have you no sense of priority? Is more debt OK as long as your guy issues it?
Ok, Mike. I’ll side with you. Roads are just fine the way they are. Happy?
JR-I think that decision to only bring the bill up in the Senate if something passed in the House was bipartisan. It spared Republican Senators having to vote against their governor. But then they saw an opportunity to get some political mileage out of it…..
Sure Brian, anything to avoid the hypocrisy of condemning others for dependence upon debt while advocating the same when McDonnell is the proposer.
I would throw the “hypocrisy” flag on both chambers.
Each one knows this is an issue burdened with negative consequences from loss of revenue, to negative social issues (not to mention the negative political fallout).
The Governor tried to make political hay by submitting the bill only in the democrat controlled Senate so he could cast “blame” the other party for its failure.
The democrats one-upped him by submitting it in the house.
Neither chamber took the measure forward because it is a loser of an idea for the Commonwealth. Even the consulting firm that the Governor paid, big bucks, to give him some good news could provide nothing more than pie in the sky numbers they admit were “fraught with risk”.
We, conservatives, have plenty of opportunity to sound off on “hypocrisy” from the other side; doing so on an issue where we are making the same moves makes us appear exceedingly duplicitous.
This is a bad idea for the Commonwealth, bad idea for conservatives, bad idea for our children and is best left to follow the course that both chambers have charted to a quiet demise.
Mike, you mean those billions in bonds that were proposed by Tim Kaine voted on with large majorities of Democrats including Ward Armstrong back in 2007?
The main reason the blog has remained silent on it, in my opinion, is because I’ve been sick and haven’t had a chance to do a post thanking the Governor for finally taking a positive step to deal with transportation issues. It’s about time we started investing some money in transportation.
The amount we’re financing is considerably less than it would be in a few years because interest rates are at historic lows and they can’t remain there. The federal money will be there, regardless of the fact that the House announced 302(b) allocations that cut THUD’s budget by about 18%, even though most of that was for the HUD part. Chairman Mica has gone on record (telling me to my face, in fact) that he is committed to completing a surface transportation bill this Congress. Even though I still think that’s a long shot, given recent history where we’ve had a major transportation bill every 3-4 years (TEA-21, SAFETEA-LU) we’re due for one in the next two or three years. It’s a safe bet we’ll be okay.
I wish you guys would stop with the chicken little routine. It’s old.
Prudence would dictate that you have bonding capacity, but only use it when you can pay the debt service. I have no doubt there will be a reauthorization of the surface transportation bill, but the risk is that it will succumb to the cuts insisted upon up tea party republicans and the allocations to states will be reduced. Frankly, I am not willing to take that risk when all this talk of surplus by the Governor is based upon the Legislature’s failure to fund VRS. There is no surplus; there is obligation avoidance. Where is the voice of fiscal conservatism normally indicative of this blog?
Mike, we can pay the debt service. That’s the point – there’s nothing wrong with incurring this kind of debt. It’s fiscally responsible, and there’s no reason for us to be afraid of it.
The point of fiscal conservatism is to ensure that government stays within its means and is able to meet its obligations with tax increases being the absolute last resort. That’s what this bill does – it funds transportation at as high a level as is fiscally responsible and does so in a way that won’t add the budget deficit or require a tax increase. These bonds are good debt – not like unfunded entitlement debt. They’re attached to improvements and they will pay for themselves over the life of the projects through increases in transportation efficiency.
I am tired of the whining about pushing off some payments to the VRS. Those are long-term decades off commitments. They aren’t immediate needs, like roads are, and catchup payments are just a line item in a budget – they don’t require years of planning and research in order to even begin, like a road or intermodal project. You guys act like the sky is falling because the state pension plan has to wait an extra year to get funding it will inevitably get. The Commonwealth isn’t going to break it’s promise to it’s workers, so that whole issue is just political posturing. Everyone defers payments into pension plans when times are bad – every Union I work with has done it, every company plan has done it, every state has done it. It’s not a big deal.
What is a big deal is that Governor McDonnell got a plan through that will spend more on transportation than any plan the Democrats proposed or passed in the last eight years and he did it without raising taxes.
Give the man some credit.
Totally agree with Mr Barrett when he says “Prudence would dictate that you have bonding capacity, but only use it when you can pay the debt service.”
Just wish that our socialist president and his crazy house administration of eco-loons, crypto-Marxists, progressives, collectivists, surrender monkeys and anarchist harpies would listen to him on this point..
Actually Brian, no, he can’t pay the debt service unless he relies on unappropriated federal payments which at this point in time, given the attitude of House republicans, are very risky, and second, in the case of the bonds not financed by anticipation notes, on surplus money from the General Fund which is there now because he failed to pay the investment in VRS. You, and the other so called fiscal conservatives on this forum, know these facts, yet because this is your man, issuing more debt in the amount of $4,000,000,000 is just fine with you. Ironically, Kaine did not issue the debt because the House of Delegates would not provide a revenue source to pay the debt service. So after all, your view really is just partisan politics, isn’t it?
Mike, for crying out loud. He’s the governor. If the funds from the federal government don’t come when the interest on the debt is due, he can ask the General Assembly to pay for it out the general fund. That’s a worst case scenario, but it’s there. Come on. Stop being obstuse.
That Kaine didn’t want to do that was his decision, but I supported the bonds at the time and still do – the money for transportation is critical and it will be paid for. There’s a reason we have a AAA bond rating – we’ve never failed to service the debt on a bond.
There’s surplus money now because tax revenues were larger than anticipated. Your fetish with the VRS needs to stop. As I said before, the plan he used has been used by Republicans and Democrats across the country in both the public and private sectors. It’s a standard thing. VRS is in no danger of collapsing. You sound like a broken record.
My view is based on what’s in the best interests of the Commonwealth. I know you’d much rather see a tax increase to pay for these improvements, but that’s not going to happen.
Well yes, of course he can, but a responsible executive, when proposing an initiative, pays for it. This Governor touts his initiatives, but consistently fails to both tell, then acknowledge, the cuts he has to make to fund his latest and greatest program. In this case, after howling for years about stealing from the transportation trust fund to support the general fund, republicans steal from the general fund to pay for transportation and expect concurrence without another thought. Frankly, pitting education and public safety against transportation is poor public policy.
Weird, I agree with Mike – using FRANS (I.O.U.s) to “repay” the Transportation Trust fund (TTF) is a huge reason our state’s transportation funding is such a mess. I oppose the use of FRANS and taking on billions in new debt to fund an unspecified list of “transportation” – no doubt “transportation” that will be provided in Northern Virginia yet paid for across the state.
However, Mike and his business lobby pals never supported my efforts to amdent the state constitution to protect that TTF from raids to subsidize the General Fund – raids undertaken by folks funding many of the ill advised spending programs that Mike Barrett and his “friends” endlessly advocate in support of.
Mike likes to attack Republicans about transportation funding strategies but he also advocates an endless list of wasteful spending our our transportation dollars. Things like Norfolk’s light rail/TOD train wreck and dumb slow speed rail/Amtrak boondoggles.
Mikes true point is not prudent use of debt but rather he seeks to keep raising taxes to pay for endless spending on his pet pie-in-the-sky so-called “economic development” scams.
Few of us buy a home, we borrow.. The undercapacity and crumbling roads for this state are no exception.. We borrow responsibly and over time and revenues will repay by orders of magnitude. DOne right our roads value to industry and commerce will more than offset their cost to build and maintain and reduce our tax liability.. Of course I believe that ez-pass is alsol long overdue for our region..
Further, this gives one big slush fund to the Governor to dole out to PPVs to contract with international conglomerates to “buy” a concession and charge us the tolls they set for the next 50-60 years. Especially here in Hampton Roads, that puts control of our economy into the hands of private corporations. Frankly, this is a risk I am not willing to take. Knowing how the Governor seems to prefer private enterprise at every turn, and knowing how he wants to favor the private sector as shown in the ABC debacle, even though it makes no financical sense, I would not cede this control to him nor his supporters in the international conglomerates.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, Mike Barrett – champion of business lobbies controlling everything objects to … business lobbies controlling things. Oh … I get it, Mike doesn’t like business lobbies HE can’t control to control things … I see.
We all see.
Just gotta grin & Barrett, don’t we?
“a responsible executive, when proposing an initiative, pays for it.”
Unless you’re Mike Barrett, whose company asked the city to give him $135,000 to help pay for his development.
As you know, Brian, we asked for the city to pay to move their utilities in the ROW. Not quite the same thing.
Regretfully, none of the so called fiscal conservatives who populate this forum have actually responded to the issue I have raised; that is, to be called fiscally conservative, you don’t take undue risks, and you pay for your proposals. In this case, the Commonwealth appears willing to do both. Why? In one word, desperation. The House of Delegates refuses to provide a funding source, so every Governor since Gilmore has presided over the gradual deterioration of our transportation infrastructure, now quantified at over $8,000,000,000. Tell me, can any one of you so called fiscal conservatives countenance this destruction of public assets?
Mike, if that’s how you define a responsible executive, you’ve just labelled pretty much every Democratic president since FDR irresponsible. I don’t disagree with you, but I don’t think that’s exactly what you were aiming for.
I would love for you to explain how someone can steal from a “general” fund. The point of the general fund is that it can be used to fund anything. It’s not the “education and public safety” fund. Taking from the transportation trust fund, which has a dedicated funding source specifically derived from transportation, is a bad thing. Taking from the general fund – which is funded by all other revenues the state takes in that aren’t specifically earmarked elsewhere – is what appropriations are all about. There’s nothing wrong with it.
Reid, I certainly hope that the unnamed projects are mostly in Northern Virginia – we have the greatest need. And since we pay for everything else and subsidize all of the downstate counties who get to keep their property taxes at half what mine are, I think it’s pretty darn fair. But I agree with the rest of what you said.
Mike’s concern about who gets the money is a fair one, but frankly I’m more concerned that Virginia construction interests have a fair shot at getting those deals. I would like to think that my colleagues in the Building Trades could get a piece of this action. But even if they don’t, this needed to be done and the Governor deserves credit for both proposing the package and getting the Senate to pass it.
Mike, us fiscal conservatives aren’t going to allow you to define what is a fiscal conservative to suit your line of attack. No one here is taking an undue risk and the Governor has already explained how the bonds will be paid for – you just think that explanation isn’t sufficient. That’s fine. If you’ve got a solution that doesn’t involve raising taxes, I’m sure we’re all ears.
And, no, I’m not a fan of letting our infrastructure crumble. Which is why I’m happy to see Governor McDonnell taking the issue head on.
Mike wouldn’t know a fiscal conservative if he saw one. He certainly wouldn’t vote for one or support one.
Mike wants a tax increase, and nothing less will do.
No Brian, he wants a tax increase he can offset.. Same old game.
Having just visited PolitiFact. They explain that Virginia has more then enough anticipated revenue from insurance premium taxes (with only the portion that comes from automobile insurance going towards transportation) to service the proposed debt.
I guess the trucking industry should be grateful as long as you are not a Virginia trucking company. How generous of Virginia citizens to allow us to travel on their highways without paying our fair share of the taxes! I’m contracted out of state, so I will escape.
What I object to in the plan is the tolls. One of the proposed tolls on the new super highway to parallel US-460 built by 3P (Public Private Partnership) is $75 for trucks for the 55 mile length. Are they out of their minds? That is close to a buck and a half per mile. That is more then the freight pays. Do they want me to operate my business at a loss?
Of course if I want to stay in business, I will just pass on the costs. But who is on the end of the corridor that will pay the costs? My family, YOUR family as well as all the local businesses trying to compete nationally.
The debt is not the only thing in the Governor’s plan, the plan includes increased usage of tolls. If additional revenue beyond the increased debt is needed, then the fairest way is increased fuel taxes. Every user pays their fair share, both commuters and truckers. Due to IFTA (International Fuel Tax Agreement) truckers will pay the tax even if they never purchase fuel in Virginia.
We truckers are willing to pay our fair share and we say fuel taxes are the fairest and most efficient method of raising increased revenue for transportation.
LittleDavid, if you’re just going to pass on the costs, why are you so worried about tolls.
They way you repeatedly rant about tolls and whining how you don’t want to pay them, despite the disproportionate use and damage you and your vehicle do to our roads, it seems like you’ll pay them.
Which is it?
Don’t be another special interest demanding new roads for free.
Well Brian, if you truly are not a fan of crumbling transportation infrastructure, then you will oppose the Governor’s plan which will make international conglomerates rich, toll payers poor, yet contribute nothing to reducing our backlog of maintenance and repair. This is a classic risky borrowing scheme, as bad or worse than Gilmore’s use of FRANs, with the same potential to bankrupt the Commonwealth. The excuses offered herein by those who would condemn this plan if offered by a Governor of the opposite party just shows how ideology trumps policy every time.
Mike, I realize you suddenly oppose transportation improvements, but please respect some of us who support them.
LD, I can understand why you’d prefer a fuel tax increase – fuel taxes are easy for truckers to avoid. Just don’t gas up in Virginia. Let the four wheelers pay for it.
Mike, I have yet to hear you explain how you’d fund transportation, and I have yet to hear you explain why after eight years of Warner and Kaine nothing has been done since Gilmore. I am not a fan of crumbling infrastructure, which is why I want to see something passed now – you seem to think crumbling infrastructure is just fine because it’s too risky to borrow money to fix it.
You keep throwing around the same phrases and ignore every time me, Kirwin and others have proven you wrong about your statements. Perhaps its time to throw away the script and start thinking?
Brian,
I object to toll plans which will make some of the citizens pay while others escape. Everyone pays the fuel tax but some citizens think other citizens should also pay tolls.
If I am going to pass on the costs why am I so worried? I am not surprised why you ask. I am worried about the big picture. I am worried about the American economy which I participate in and you are only worried about pandering to citizens who think they can get something for nothing.
All toll plans make some citizens pay.
So you object to all tolls.
Probably because you’ll pay them.
Not impressing me.
Well Brian, I do support the use of bonds if Legislators have the integrity to pay for them. I support increasing the gas tax to the same purchasing power it had when last increased in 1987 and then indexing it to inflation. I support similar increases in transportation related taxes and fees. I do support tolls, but not to exceed about 1/3 of the cost. Frankly, I prefer the Commonwealth to own the project, not international conglomerates to whom we then owe tolls for decades. Immediate action as suggested would give us time to study and consider how to fund transportation as we shift away from gasoline.
Brian Kirwin,
You’re not impressing me either. You probably have a route to work paid for by past fuel taxes and will not be subject to tolls.
What amazes me is how it seems the Democrats are the ones who are pro-business favoring the fuel tax while Republicans are the anti-business folks favoring tolls.
Think about something made in America, let us use an automobile as an example. Do you understand just how many thousands of truck trips are involved in getting everything assembled into that fine automobile? Now how many trips does the automobile assembled offshore have to make? Just one, from the port to the dealership. It does not make sense to shoot the American economy in the foot.
If tolls are charged, I will pass on the costs of the tolls, and if the customer refuses to pay the tolls, I won’t haul the freight. But if the customer must pay, that is going to make him less competitive in the global market place and there will be less freight for me to haul.
Here’s something to think about: Did Reagan resort to tolls or did he raise the fuel tax?
Double post, sorry.
Here are a couple quotes from Ronald Reagan’s remarks as he signed the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982:
“Woeful tales of highway disrepair have become part of the trucking lore. Bridges are crumbling from under us in many of our older cities while growth is being stifled in our newer ones, because the transportation system can’t cope with the expanding population.”
My inclusion of this is rather self serving. The Gipper refers to us truckers. But here is the real money quote:
“When we first built our highways, we paid for them with a gas tax, a highway user fee that charged those of us who benefited most from the system. It was a fair concept then, and it is today.”
A complete transcript of President Reagan’s remarks can be found here:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=40943
Brian Schoeneman,
I forgive you for not understanding how IFTA (International Fuel Tax Agreement) works because too many legislators, those who actually vote on things, do not understand it either.
Here is a brief tutorial:
Due to IFTA, truckers pay fuel taxes on fuel consumed in Virginia whether or not they purchase fuel in Virginia. If too much fuel is purchased any state, the states benefiting from over purchases forward excess fuel taxes paid to states where not enough fuel was purchased. In the end, if the trucker bought too much fuel in low tax states, he must make up the difference through direct payment into the system and then the money gets forwarded.
Truckers can not escape paying the tax by not purchasing fuel in Virginia. Here is a link that provides a more detailed explanation of IFTA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fuel_Tax_Agreement
LD, I appreciate that information – I’ve been doing transportation for a while (not trucking) and I wasn’t aware of that. You learn something every day.
Little David, I’ll make you a deal.
You give me Ronald Reagan again, and you can have another 4 cents on the gas tax.
Leave your response