I understand. It’s hard trying to explain a request to send a double-murderer to Germany where he could be free in two years, while doing zilch to protect innocent pre-born children; let alone how you pretzelized yourself trying to defend the Obamacare broadside against Catholic priests.

Still, being the nice guy that I am, if Tim Kaine wants to avoid “divisive social issues” like that, it’s OK with me. He has to have a good reason, right?

Well, he says the people with whom he talks “want to see leaders who will focus on results-oriented solutions to rebuild our economy.”

Yeah, about that, Tim.

Why we should we put our faith in you to “rebuild our economy” when unemployment rose from 3.0% in January 2006 to 6.9% in January 2010 – more than doubling under your watch?

Why would your election ease the uncertainty holding the economy back when you opposed tax increases while running for Governor in 2005 and then demanded tax increases in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010?

Why should we trust your ability to gauge the effect of tax rate reductions on revenue when as Governor your projected revenue figure was so off-base it led to a record $7 billion shortfall?

How can you claim to be able to work with your would-be fellow Senators on budget issues when your last proposed spending plan was so laughably ridiculous it was defeated 97-0 in the House of Delegates?

Oh, and one more question:

Are you sure you’re not more comfortable with those “divisive social issues?”

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

Gas prices have skyrocketed with the national average hitting $3.50 a gallon before the summer travel season. The prices have also jumped $1.59 more per gallon from the time Obama became President.

I guess we could have seen this coming four years ago, when then-Presidential Candidate Obama was on the campaign trail criticizing President George W. Bush for his support on offshore drilling and that it would not lower gas prices. Since Obama’s election, he has done everything to stand in the way of production. According to an op-ed that appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Obama has slowed the process of granting offshore drilling permits, killing the Keystone XL pipeline, and has placed more regulations on the energy industry.

Additionally, the President’s advisors have turned a blind eye to the rising gas costs and its effects on the economy. David Harsanyi recently wrote in a Reason Magazine op-ed that Democrats have been hell bent on not utilizing our own natural resources, rather they are relying on a European model that would only destroy our economy.

If Democrats had their way, after all, we would be enjoying the economic results of cap-and-trade policy these days—a program designed to increase the cost of energy by creating false demand in a fabricated market. As the theory goes, if you inflate the price of fossil fuels, the barbarians might finally start putting thought into how peat moss might be able to power a toaster.

In 2008, Steven Chu, Obama’s (and, sadly, our own) future secretary of energy (sic) lamented, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” The president, when asked whether he thought $4-a-gallon gas prices were good for the American economy, said, “I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment.”

The problem, in the end, is the fact that rising fuel prices are killing the economy. Since Obama killed the Keystone XL pipeline, he not only killed potential jobs, but he ensured the fact that Americans would not have access to an oil supply that would have the equivalent to a third of Iran’s oil exports.

For a President who is so focused on turning the economy around, you would think he would want to address the energy crisis as one of his re-election platforms.

“I am pro-life. I believe deeply in the sanctity of innocent human life and believe governments have a duty to protect human life. The more our society embraces a culture of life for all people, the better country we will have. Over the course of my 20-year career in elected office, I have been glad to play a leading role in putting in place common-sense policies that protect and defend innocent human life in the Commonwealth. One of those bills was Virginia’s informed consent statute, of which I was the chief patron in the House of Delegates, finally seeing its passage in 2001. This session, the General Assembly is now considering amending this informed consent statute to include a requirement that any woman seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound in order to establish the gestational age for appropriate medical purposes, and to offer a woman the opportunity to voluntarily review that ultrasound prior to giving her legal informed consent to abortion.

He ends the statement with;

“I have requested other amendments that help clarify the purposes of the bill and reflect a better understanding of prevailing medical practices. It is my hope that the members of the General Assembly will act favorably upon these recommendations from our office. We will await their action prior to making any further comments on this matter.”

This issue has generated static all over the country, including late night comedy TV. Frantic claims from Democrats, from those who should know better, or at least have better research departments, such as Saturday Night Live to Comedy Central, to those who know better but assume you do not such as Planned Parenthood. All claiming that Virginia is codifying into law the “rape” of women seeking an abortion. Their basis for this claim is that a first trimester ultrasound [sonogram] requires a “trans-vaginal” probe. (Sorry Dad, there ain’t no polite way to put it.)

What each of these has failed to do is truthfully explain the current recommendations from NAF, (National Abortion Federation). Their 2012 clinical policy guidelines state clearly that, in the first trimester, a sonogram is required to determine the gestational age of the little guy in the uterus.

Policy Statement: Proper use of ultrasound can inform clinical decision-making and enhance the safety and efficacy of abortion care.
Standard 1: Staff members who perform ultrasound exams and clinicians who interpret those exams must either show documentation that they have completed a program of training or must complete such a program developed by the facility. Training must include a period of direct supervision. Documentation of this training must be maintained. Following initial training, a system for evaluation of ongoing proficiency must be in place and documented.

Option 1.01: The Ultrasound Training in Abortion Care CD-ROM developed by ARMS, NAF, and CAPS is a good resource for training and may be utilized as part of a training program.

Standard 2: A system of clinical privileging must be in place for staff members who perform ultrasound exams and clinicians who interpret those exams. This system must include periodic review and renewal of these privileges.

Standard 3: Patients must be informed of the purpose and limitations of the ultrasound exam in the abortion care setting.

Option 3.01: This information may be provided in writing and the patient may be asked to sign a form acknowledging receipt of this information.

Standard 4: The findings of all ultrasound exams and the interpretation of those findings must be documented in the medical record. Photos or another method of storing the ultrasound images must be included as part of the documentation. This documentation must also include the name(s) of the staff members who performed and interpreted the exam.

Recommendation 4.1: A standard form for documenting findings and interpretation should be used.

Standard 5: In the first trimester, the ultrasound exam must include the following:
a. a full scan of the uterus in both the transverse and longitudinal planes;
b. measurements to document gestational age;
c. views to document the location of the pregnancy;
d. evaluation of fetal number; and
e. evaluation of the presence or absence of fetal cardiac activity.

5.1: When clinically indicated, evaluation of other pelvic structures (i.e., adnexal structures and the cul de sac) should be performed and documented.

Recommendation 5.2: Technology permitting both abdominal and transvaginal scanning should be available.

Standard 6: In the second trimester, the ultrasound exam must include the following:
a. fetal measurements to document gestational age;
b. views to document intrauterine location of the pregnancy;
c. evaluation of fetal number;
d. evaluation of the presence or absence of fetal cardiac activity; and
e. placental localization.

Recommendation 6.1: When placenta previa is suspected in a patient with a prior uterine scar, or when other placental abnormality is suspected, a referral for further diagnostic imaging should be made.

Standard 7: A procedure must be in place for further evaluation or referral of a patient in whom an intrauterine pregnancy has not been definitively identified or for whom an initial finding on the ultrasound may affect abortion management or future patient care.

Standard 8: Real-time ultrasound scanners must be used. Ultrasound equipment must be properly calibrated and maintained.

Standard 9: Ultrasound transducers must be disinfected between patients according to applicable infection control standards.

4 Adequate precautions must be taken to
protect both staff members and patients from the potential toxicity of chemical
agents.

To its credit Planned Parenthood follows these guidelines explicitly. They do not, however extend to the patient the courtesy of observing the results of this procedure.

SB484 merely requires that ALL abortion clinics follow these NAF abortion guidelines, and requires that a patient who desires to do so be allowed to view the result.

I’m disappointed in Governor McDonnell for caving to an obvious smear campaign. But I applaud him for keeping Virginia out of such an obnoxious propaganda battle.

Cross posted at imnotemeril.blogspot.com

Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican George Allen both earning 46% support. Three percent (3%) prefers some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

Only Kaine and Allen’s names were tested.

Interestingly, these numbers come in the face of an aggressive effort by the Kaine campaign to tie Allen to the ultrasound and personhood squabbles currently underway in the General Assembly. It would appear as though those dogs just won’t hunt, Mr. Kaine.

“I am pro-life. I believe deeply in the sanctity of innocent human life and believe governments have a duty to protect human life. The more our society embraces a culture of life for all people, the better country we will have. Over the course of my 20-year career in elected office, I have been glad to play a leading role in putting in place common-sense policies that protect and defend innocent human life in the Commonwealth. One of those bills was Virginia’s informed consent statute, of which I was the chief patron in the House of Delegates, finally seeing its passage in 2001. This session, the General Assembly is now considering amending this informed consent statute to include a requirement that any woman seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound in order to establish the gestational age for appropriate medical purposes, and to offer a woman the opportunity to voluntarily review that ultrasound prior to giving her legal informed consent to abortion.

Over the past days I have discussed the specific language of the proposed legislation with other governors, physicians, attorneys, legislators, advocacy groups, and citizens. It is apparent that several amendments to the proposed legislation are needed to address various medical and legal issues which have arisen. It is clear that in the majority of cases, a routine external, transabdominal ultrasound is sufficient to meet the bills stated purpose, that is, to determine gestational age. I have come to understand that the medical practice and standard of care currently guide physicians to use other procedures to find the gestational age of the child, when abdominal ultrasounds cannot do so. Determining gestational age is essential for legal reasons, to know the trimester of the pregnancy in order to comply with the law, and for medical reasons as well.

Thus, having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done. Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state. No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.

For this reason, I have recommended to the General Assembly a series of amendments to this bill. I am requesting that the General Assembly amend this bill to explicitly state that no woman in Virginia will have to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound involuntarily. I am asking the General Assembly to state in this legislation that only a transabdominal, or external, ultrasound will be required to satisfy the requirements to determine gestational age. Should a doctor determine that another form of ultrasound may be necessary to provide the necessary images and information that will be an issue for the doctor and the patient. The government will have no role in that medical decision.

I have requested other amendments that help clarify the purposes of the bill and reflect a better understanding of prevailing medical practices. It is my hope that the members of the General Assembly will act favorably upon these recommendations from our office. We will await their action prior to making any further comments on this matter.”

So…what do you think?

This column from “Greater Greater Washington” urges Virginia Beach to stop dawdling and get on the winning team. For light rail. Because, as we all know, the light rail line in Norfolk has been such a smashing success:

Norfolk’s 7.4-mile starter light-rail line, which launched six months ago Sunday, has drawn an average of 4,642 riders on weekdays, 4,850 on Saturdays and 2,099 on Sundays, when trains run fewer hours. About 2,900 weekday riders had been forecast.

Since it opened on Aug. 19, nearly 750,000 trips have been taken on The Tide.

Hampton Roads Transit President and CEO Philip Shucet predicts that The Tide will hit its 20-year projection of 7,200 daily rides within three years.

Well, good for them. Except, as Randal O’Toole inconveniently reminds us, all this success is so much bunk:

…back in 2003, Hampton Roads Transit confidently predicted the 7.4-mile-long line would carry 10,400 riders each weekday in its opening year. Deft last-minute re-predictions of much lower numbers allow the the agency to claim success when actual ridership is less than 45 percent of the original prediction.

Needless to say, the Norfolk line also suffered a huge cost overrun, costing about $320 million instead of the $198 million that had been predicted in 2003. It was supposed to open in 2008; instead, it opened in 2011. These problems cost the transit agency head, Norfolk city manager, and several other officials their jobs.

So it is no surprise that the current transit agency head wants people to think the light-rail line is a success. Thanks to credulous reporters whose idea of investigative journalism is to reprint transit agency press releases, many members of the public will soon forget about these cost overruns and ridership shortfalls.

But Bradley Heard’s Greater Greater Washington entry makes no mention of these unfortunate facts, either, so we are left to conclude that the cost overruns, potential corruption and vastly smaller ridership numbers are beside the point. Virginia Beach needs to go down the same, shoddy path as Norfolk because, by thunder, it’s what all the smart (growth) kids are doing.

The real shame is that neither Norfolk, nor Virginia Beach — nor VDOT, for that matter, has the stones to do what the folks in Beaufort county, South Carolina recently did when the federal government came calling with promises of a bag of “free” transit money:

A Beaufort County committee has decided to reject a $3.1 million federal grant to expand public bus service after determining future costs would outweigh the benefits.

The county was approved for the Federal Transportation Administration’s Bus Livability grant more than a year ago. The money can be used to buy buses, bus stops and sidewalks, but it cannot be used for daily operational costs, according to a county staff report.

Those daily operational expenses would end up costing $1.5 million a year, according to county staff.

A cost-benefit analysis? For a transit project? Will wonders never cease?

They’d have to admit that Planned Parenthood rapes women.

It’s clear on its website that explains what happens in the office during an abortion, and the word ULTRASOUND is there in plain English.

In fact, the National Abortion Federation includes ultrasounds as part of its Clinical Policy Guidelines, to “inform clinical decision-making and enhance the safety and efficacy of abortion care.”

Call Planned Parenthood in Virginia like Alana Goodman did, and you get this message:

“Patients who have a surgical abortion generally come in for two appointments. At the first visit we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit generally takes about an hour. At the second visit, the procedure takes place. This visit takes about an hour as well. For out of town patients for whom it would be difficult to make two trips to our office, we’re able to schedule both the initial appointment and the procedure on the same day.

Medical abortions generally require three visits. At the first visit, we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit takes about an hour. At the second visit, the physician gives the first pill and directions for taking two more pills at home. The third visit is required during which you will have an exam and another ultrasound.”

That’s a whole lot of ultrasounds in Planned Parenthood’s own procedures.

So what we’re really talking about is sharing these ultrasounds with women. Shouldn’t we wonder why the big hue and cry from the left over ultrasounds that are already being performed? Isn’t it really about the left blocking women from seeing their own ultrasounds?

Will liberals in the General Assembly take the floor today and say “Planned Parenthood rapes women”???

They actually should apologize to REAL rape victims for the insult.
They can also admit it’s not really about Planned Parenthood.

It’s about Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Although the Roe decision discovered abortion had been constitutionally protected all along to the great surprise of the people who wrote and ratified the document, Planned Parenthood v. Casey is the pre-eminent decision here that rewrote a lot of Roe.

(Yeah, remember the flap between Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood when Planned Parenthood claimed abortion was only 3% of their services? Well, abortion is so insignificant to them that the pre-eminent Supreme Court abortion case in the world is Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit.)

Planned Parenthood v. Casey invented an “undue burden” test for abortion regulation. What does “undue” mean? Whatever 5 justices of the Supreme Court say it means on any particular day. How do nine Justices decide on whether a regulation creates a burden that is undue? Substantial? Adequate?

With so few of the Justices on the Court from that decision, I think the silly “undue burden” test is going right where Roe‘s “trimester test” went – out the window.

And the lawsuits in other states give me the impression that these ultrasound issues are headed right to the Supreme Court of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy (who sided with the majority in Casey but dissented in the strikedown of partial birth abortion bans).

Not only is Casey on shaky ground, these ultrasound cases may just be enough for the Court to say “Out, damned spot” and wash their hands of the whole abortion business.

With Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer among the oldest Justices on the Court, who is President in 2013 becomes very interesting.

One thing is sure.

It will be tough for Planned Parenthood to sue over requiring ultrasounds that they already perform.

Said McDonnell:

I am extremely concerned by recent reports that oil and gasoline prices continue to rise and gas could reach an average of $4.25 a gallon by April. Even more than that, I am concerned that the Obama Administration’s ongoing lack of a comprehensive energy policy leaves us vulnerable to continued future energy price spikes and uncertainty in this critical area. When the cost of gas and oil go up, all our citizens and businesses are impacted and any economic recovery becomes far more difficult to sustain.

The Governor added:

The Obama Administration rejected the Keystone Pipeline addition, which would have resulted in thousands of high paying new American jobs; solidified our strategic relationship with our most important trade partner, Canada; and brought vast new, secure supplies of oil into the country, while reducing the potential environmental risks of shipping these resources across the Pacific. At the same time, the Administration continues to leave valuable and much needed offshore domestic oil and gas deposits off limits to responsible exploration and production, including right here in Virginia. Unleashing these resources would lower the cost of energy for everyone, and create good jobs in the process.

McDonnell also pointed to pending legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, the “American Energy Initiative” (HR 3408), which aims to “expand access to American energy resources.” (A search of THOMAS, however, turns up no bill called the “American Energy Initiative.” HR 3408 is titled the “PIONEERS Act,” short for “Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security Act.” It was passed on February 16 by a vote of 237-187 in the House of Representatives.)

McDonnell’s statement brought to mind (my mind, at least) an interview I conducted last year with Alan Pisarski, a transportation expert and author of the “Commuting in America” series for the National Academy of Sciences.

Pisarski contended then that rising gasoline prices do not have a significant effect on Americans’ behavior. Here’s an excerpt of our conversation:

While four dollars a gallon “sounds scary,” Pisarski explained, that “is actually about the same as we were paying in 1980 — even less if you take into [account] things like wealth and fuel efficiency.”

Even if gas prices move higher than that, “the benefits that people gain from the automobile are not really going to change,” he said. People will make minor accommodations to account for the higher prices, “but the fundamental change in the society will be trivial.”

As an example, Pisarski pointed out that the “last time we almost doubled the price of gasoline, in 2009, we had a three-and-a-half percent decline in travel.”

Pisarski also noted some interesting statistics regarding Virginia’s idiosyncratic commuting patterns that may be relevant to the Commonwealth’s own energy and transportation policies.

Update, February 22: Governor McDonnell’s office has reached out to Bearing Drift with clarification regarding the federal energy legislation referenced above. A bill called the “American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act” was rolled into HR 3408, the PIONEERS Act, and it was this piece of legislation that Governor McDonnell had supported, particularly because of its impact on jobs and energy resource development in Virginia. He had addressed this specifically in a news release dated February 17.

Two legislators — one a conservative Republican — speaking Tuesday on the condition of anonymity said one idea officials have discussed is making the ultrasound legislation optional rather than mandatory.

Other options are to pass the bills by or park them in committee. Either of those moves could effectively shelve the legislation for the year.

And not to be left out of the fun, my friend Paul Goldman is circulating one of his famous columns via email, in which he writes that his sources are telling him that Gov. McDonnell may be having second thoughts, too:

Governor McDonnell is going to delay the implementation of the ultrasound mandate bill circling like the albatross in Moby Dick. The public doesn’t want it, he doesn’t need it, and there is a iron law of politics: you don’t get selected the VEEP on a winning ticket when Saturday Night Live skits are part of the package put together by a Presidential nominee’s team vetting potential running mates.

I asked McDonnell’s office for comment on these possibilities and got this response from Tucker Martin:

“My only comment is if the General Assembly passes the bill the Governor will review it, in its final form, at that time.”

In other words, “no comment.”

As the saying goes, this is “developing…”

This from the Virginia Catholic Conference:

The VA Senate has just passed HB 189, conscience protections for child placing agencies, by a vote of 22 to 18. The bill now heads to the Governor’s desk.

Where Governor McDonnell will undoubtedly sign the bill into law.

For those who are wondering why this was even necessary, liberals had been pressuring private institutions such as Catholic Charities to allow transgenders and homosexual couples to adopt children in violation of their religious charter and their private conscience.

Needless to say, 22 Virginia Senators were horrified.

…and 18 of them were not.

But don’t worry folks.  The homosexual/transgender community is pushing hard for the White House to pass stuff like ENDA, which practically mandates that private schools and churches should hire “Marvin” in his transition to “Mary” — no joke.

I hope each and every single liberal who voted for this is lined up for defeat in three years.

I genuinely thank you for your letter of Friday, February 17, 2012, which was hand delivered after the adjournment of the session and after most Senators had left for the weekend.

For weeks, Senator Stosch and I have been asking what budget “policy” sensitivities the Democratic Caucus had so we could collaboratively develop a biennial budget that would enjoy bipartisan support in advance of yesterday’s meeting of the Committee on Finance. I think you will agree that, throughout the subcommittee process, we have demonstrated extraordinary deference to Democratic preferences, which are too many to enumerate here.

In your joint letter to the Governor of last Wednesday, you articulated that “our concerns about the budget are not partisan, but substantive.” Particularly in light of that assertion, it was disheartening to read your letter and see there were absolutely no policy concerns expressed, only raw partisan, political objectives having absolutely nothing to do with the budget. Intellectually, and as a good steward of the Commonwealth, I cannot link the budget to partisan, political pressures.

The passage of a Senate budget should be inoculated from your wholly unrelated suggestion to reorganize committees. I can only view a negative vote against the Senate budget as deliberate obstructionist behavior, inflicting enormous financial uncertainty and anxiety on the very Virginians you and your Democratic colleagues purportedly want to help in this biennium budget.To hold Virginians hostage over bruised political egos is disingenuous and an unflattering reflection of our legislative process.

I sincerely hope that over the coming days we can work together on the policy – not political – considerations that will allow us to pass a new biennial budget.

Damn.

Now I’m sure our friends on the left will spin this as some sort of hard-hearted response to a humble plea… but it’s pretty clear that Virginia Democrats are perfectly willing to hold the budget hostage… provided the MSM allows the consequences to fall on Republican shoulders.

…which, I’m sure, they’ll be more than happy to do.

Sen. Richard Lugar defended himself during an appearance in Indianapolis on Monday that came days after opponents claimed that he isn’t qualified to run for office because he doesn’t live in the state.

Lugar said two attorneys general have affirmed his position that the Indianapolis address on his Indiana driver’s license is valid, even though he sold that home in 1977.

Lugar said he and his wife sold their house in Indianapolis because the only way they could afford to keep the family together and be part of their sons’ school and after-school activities was to move to Washington, D.C. full time and buy a home there.

“We had a home that we had built in Indianapolis with room for our four boys and our family. It was too expensive, at least for us at that time in our lives, to maintain two houses,” Lugar said. “So we sold the house the following year after we had been elected.”

That this is only an issue now is rather curious. Then again, if the strategy is to make Lugar look like he’s “gone DC-native,” then it’s fair game. Back in 1994, a similar strategy was used against then-Speaker Tom Foley, who had a tenuous residency in Spokane, but had a real (and quite nice) home on Capitol Hill. Then there was George Bush — was he from Maine or Texas? Or Connecticut? And don’t get me started on the many, various and growing list of states Mitt Romney calls home.

One thing that struck me about talking to Newt Gingrich’s surrogates on the trail was how many of them lived in northern Virginia. Bob Livingston — once of Louisiana — lives in Alexandria. Fred Thompson, a one-time Tennessee Senator, lives in McLean, as does Gingrich himself. Even Rick Santorum lives in Great Falls (bonus points for those who also know that Santorum is also a native of Winchester).

While it’s very nice to have all these gentlemen as residents of the commonwealth, it does show how hard it is for some of them to go home again. There’s no mystery to it: they know Washington’s ways the city pays darned well for such knowledge.

And yes — Mr. Lugar, the incumbent Senator from Indiana, is a resident of McLean. Win or lose his re-election bid, his current location is ideal for continuing a career in or around government.

“This is a classic example of an over-reaching, paternalistic federal government imposing its will without regard for the needs, desires, or economic well being of the people,” said Rigell at a Congressional hearing.

At issue is a federal government plan to spend taxpayer money to move parking areas away from tourist areas, causing the community significant economic damage.

Well, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided to try and secure funding for the purchase, even though the public process was still ongoing.

Rigell is having none of it.

“The town, the county, and the Virginia House of Delegates have all adopted resolutions disapproving of any effort to expand the boundaries of the Refuge within the town to establish a Disney-like transit system. It is unacceptable, and today, we’ve suggested that it is unlawful, that the Refuge would continue to pursue a plan that has drawn such deep objections. Moving this project forward undermines the integrity of the public process. The refuge is sending a clear signal that the public process is nothing more than a pro forma exercise with a foregone conclusion.”

The National Environmental Policy Act has pretty strict guidelines. It’s disingenuous, and even unlawful, for the Obama Administration to move forward with funding an option so roundly opposed, while hosting a public process said to only be “reviewing all options.”

President Obama’s minions are on a fast track to destroy the economy of Virginia’s coastal tourism industry and making a mockery of the process designed to protect the public good.

It’s Obama vs. Chincoteague, and Scott Rigell’s fighting for the Shore.

Grover and I talked about the political landscape of this election year — he thinks that Barack Obama has decided that, since he’s a better campaigner than president, he’ll be a campaigner rather than president — and the interplay between Congress and the White House.

At the end of the interview, I asked him why each of the several Republican presidential candidates seems to have led in the public opinion polls at one point or another since last summer, and he responded with a rather colorful analogy:

“I think,” Norquist said, that “what it is is they’re all basically sufficiently similar. There’s no Goldwater/Rockefeller divide. There’s no Reagan/Bush divide. There’s no Taft/Eisenhower divide. Everybody’s a Reagan Republican.”

He compared the crop of potential GOP presidential nominees to “a roomful of pretty women” and asked, “Which one do you talk to first?” The answer, he said, is “I don’t know. You talk to them all.”

The problem in finding contrasts between the candidates is that, he repeated, “they’re all basically sufficiently similar.” As a result, “when they get in these arguments, they’re nitpicking” and say things that amount to “‘Ah, four years ago, you were impure!’”

The similarities, he said, are such that “it’s not you want to go here and I want to go there.” Instead, “we all want to go here but” – one candidate might say to another – “‘I want to go more than you and x number of years ago you didn’t want to go there.’”

As a consequence, “it’s a YAF [Young Americans for Freedom] fight about who is more conservative.”

One has to wonder what Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum think about being compared to “a roomful of pretty women.”

Over the weekend, the Governor issued a press release in which he “…applaud[ed] the members of the House and Senate money committees for their support of our major budget priorities for the Commonwealth.” No word on whether that applause was thunderous or merely polite. Let’s just say that McDonnell is more concerned with the amendments the House and Senate have added to his draft:

The amendments put forth by both committees are detailed and numerous. They will require a very thorough review prior to our making any further, and more specific, comments about them. However, it is a very positive sign that there is broad agreement among our administration, the House and the Senate as to what the major priorities are in this budget, even if the funding levels differ somewhat at this point.

The different spending levels are going to be bones of contention. Legislators have been on a (forced) cutting spree the past few years and the pent-up demand to write bigger checks is likely enormous. That’s doubly so because this will be the first year in many that grants to non-state agencies will be off limits (owning to an opinion in early 2011 from the Attorney General’s office that such goodies violated the state constitution).

To help discover where the differences are, Sen. Mark Obenshain has created an unofficial “cheat sheet” showing where the House and Senate’s numbers clash, and how each set of figures differs from those set out by the Governor.

Bored yet? Hold, on there’s more…

My own Senator, Finance committee chairman Walter Stosch, has issued a guide to the Senate’s budget that has some interesting figures on revenue. Yes, the Senate intends to spend more, and here’s where they are getting the dough:

Reverses the proposed $110.7 million sales tax diversion to transportation in order to fund education and health and human resources priorities.

* Includes $68.4 million from the National Mortgage Servicing
Settlement:
- $61.8 million set aside in Non-recurring Reserve Fund.
- Appropriates $6.6 million for one-time capital project planning.

* Reflects $33.5 million in projected revenue from the impact of
SB 597, sales tax from businesses with a presence in Virginia.

So the ink is barely dry on the shambling, taxpayer-funded mess that is the national mortgage settlement and the Senate is already spending the cash. Well, not all of it, as the bulk of the money will be stuffed into the state’s mattress for the (inevitable) rainy day.

They are also counting on spending the money they hope to raise by taxing online sales — yet another windfall, for the state, from the Amazon economic development deal.

But it’s the first item that deserves a bit of explanation. Gov. McDonnell wanted, over time, to increase the amount of sales tax revenue diverted to transportation. As Jim Bacon and I discussed, this represented a further shift away from the classic user fee model and toward wealth transfers. The Senate balked at that and instead, plumped for a gas tax increase indexed to inflation (which is a simple way for them never to have to vote on such a hike again). Sen. Mark Obenshain said this move was the equivalent of the Finance committee hijacking the Governor’s transportation plan. Perhaps. Either way, it also would seem to violate one of the principles McDonnell set out for his budget:

I proposed that we not raise taxes, and instead that we prioritize existing state dollars to focus on the core functions of government most closely linked to job creation and economic recovery.

Not quite. But this is merely the opening act of what could be a very interesting play. As mentioned above, Senate Democrats are still smarting over their loss of gavels and prime committee seating. Unless they get something — either more power in the upper house or more money for their budget priorities — they may refuse to play at all. The latter is more likely.

Already, at least one possible deal is in the works between Democratic Sen. Louise Lucas and the McDonnell administration:

Don Comer with the Portsmouth Partnership tells 13News that State Senator Louise Lucas is in the midst of a deal with Governor Bob McDonnell that would lower the tolls, in exchange for a vote on the proposed state budget.

Expect more such deals, agreements and understandings to be reached in the days ahead.