Our beloved state of Virginia is known for its rich history of individuals and events that have helped shape our great Nation. But did you know that the origin of Father’s Day is also attributed to a Virginian?

According to the Virginia Museum of History and Culture, “Kate Richardson Swineford of Drewry’s Bluff wanted to honor her father, Edward, in a special way. Even before the close of World War I, she began an effort to bring particular recognition to fathers, which led to her formation of the National Fathers’ Day Association in 1921.” Kate also wanted to establish a special day of recognition for Fathers. Gaining local support for her vision, and backed by Virginia governors Westmoreland Davis and E. Lee Trinkle, in 1933 she successfully obtained the trademark status for Fathers’ Day from the United States Patent Office.

In a world that is diminishing the importance of fatherhood, we, like Kate, must continue to honor and celebrate fathers, paternal bonds, and the impact fathers have on society. From our nation’s great heroes to a family’s guide and protector, a father’s influence is immeasurable.

One of our great Virginian Founding Fathers, also known as the “Father of the Declaration of Independence,” Thomas Jefferson wrote: “The happiest moments of my life have been the few which I have passed at home in the bosom of my family.”

Will Rogers, Jr., American politician, writer, and newspaper publisher, commented on fatherhood, “His heritage to his children wasn’t words or possessions, but an unspoken treasure, the treasure of his example as a man and father.”

As we at the Virginia Institute strive to uphold the principles of virtue, integrity and liberty this Nation was founded upon, we reflect with gratitude the “treasured examples” that have come before.

By Michael C. Maibach

During the 1788 New York ratification convention, anti-federalists opposed the new Constitution “for lack of a Bill of Rights”.  Alexander Hamilton replied, “The Constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS” (Federalist #84).  Indeed, it was written to safeguard liberty against the worst form of tyranny, the tyranny of the majority about which Plato, Aristotle, and Montesquieu warned, as did Tocqueville five decades later.

The American Left (no longer worthy of the term “liberal”) has always chaffed against the Founders’’ “checks and balances” within Madison’s “compound republic” (Federalist #51).   If the mission of the Left can be summarized, it is “Tear down every rafter in the Constitutional edifice until all the protections for minority rights and diversity of regions and political thought are gone.”

In 2006 wealthy Californians launched a cynical attempt to remove one of the load bearing pillars of our Constitution – the Electoral College – by way of a National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.  They aim to convince state legislatures to enact their Compact until states representing 270 Electoral College votes sign on, the number needed to elect a President.  Already 15 entirely “blue” states have enacted the Compact for a total of 196 Electoral votes.  Now those Californians have convinced Sen. Adam Ebbin (D) and Del. Mark Levine (D) to advance their model legislation in the January 2021 legislative session in Richmond.  There are five major reasons why this legislation must be defeated:

NPV COMPACT:  A CONSTITUTIONAL ASSAULT

The NPV Compact is a Constitutional assault on three fronts.  First, the State Compact Clause (Article I) reads “No state shall, without the consent of Congress, enter into any Compact with another state…”  The NPV cabal has not sought Congressional approval for their illicit state Compact.  Second, the NPV cabal has not attempted to use the Constitution’s amendment process to achieve their goal as they know 38 states will never agree to this radical change to how we elect our Presidents.  Third, the Framers considered three other ways to elect our President – election by Congress, by state governors, and by a national popular vote. All three were rejected for an Electoral College, what is today a Presidential election in each of our 50 states.  Once agreed in Philadelphia, 13 state ratifying conventions voted to adopt our Constitution as written, including an agreed amendment process.  The manner of electing our President was a keystone in the document’s architecture, one that must not be altered absent agreement with the requisite 38 states.  It was the states that created our Constitution, the Constitution did not create the states.

NPV COMPACT:  CONTRARY TO THEIR OATH’S “SACRED PROMISE”

The dictionary defines an oath as “A solemn promise, often invoking a divine witness, regarding one’s future actions or behavior.”  Members of the Virginia legislature and the Governor affirm this oath of office:  “I do solemnly swear I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia… to the best of my ability, so help me God.”   The NPV Compact is an un-Constitutional state compact (its name alone confirms this), a cynical attempt to change the Constitution without the votes of 38 states.

Moreover, the Commonwealth Constitution provides that only Virginia residents are entitled to vote for Virginia’s elected officials.  Yet the NPV Compact would mandate turning the votes of Virginians over to the voters of other states to decide for whom Virginia’s 13 Presidential Electors will cast their votes!  Can Virginia legislators who support the NPV Compact legislation tell the citizens who elected them that they are living up to their oath of office?

NPV COMPACT:  AN AFFRONT TO THOSE THEY REPRESENT

A Virginia legislator or Governor who supports the NPV Compact defies the Constitution and offers a civic afront to the citizens of our state.  They are saying, “Regardless of how the majority of Virginians vote, I favor allowing citizens of larger states to decide how our Electors shall vote –  none of whom elected me, none of whom pay my salary, and to none of whom have I given an oath of office.”

NPV COMPACT:  ONLY NORTHERN VIRGINIA WILL MATTER

The population of “Northern Virginia” has exploded along with the US government and the high-tech industry.   Today NoVA accounts for 67% of the state’s population!   If the NPV Compact were in place, future Presidential candidates would only visit major metropolises like New York, Miami, Houston, Chicago, LA County… and the DC metro area.  Virginia legislators who favor the NPV Compact are saying to the rest of the state – “You will no longer matter.”  Will downstate legislators and the Governor support this unlawful Compact and then explain this additional affront to those who elected them and pay their salaries?

NPV COMPACT:  A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TAKE-OVER OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

In 2020 the vastly different and swiftly changing elections laws of our 50 states have whipsawed our national elections. Over 30 states require photo IDs to vote, the rest do not.  Until 2020 only seven state had 100% mail-in voting, now officials are finding boxes full of ballots all over the place and recounts abound!   With Covid we saw 44 states change their voting laws and systems, often without public hearings. We are now witnessing the bitter harvest of election dysfunctions.  Too many Americans today no longer feel that our elections are “fair and transparent”.  This is a real threat to our ability to govern ourselves with good will and a sense of democratic justice.

Along comes the NPV Compact to heap upon our civic environment even more disruption and cynicism.  It says, “regardless of how your state votes, those states with the most voters will forever rule this Nation.”  Nine US states are home to 50% of our citizens.  LA County has more people than 41 of our states!  The “national popular vote” scheme aims to turn farmers and rural Americans into modern day serfs, feeding the major cities who will forever rule them.  Gone will be the quaint Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire Primaries.  Want to alienate Americans more than they are now in this republic?  Support the NPV Compact!  And with all of the differences among our 50 state voting systems, the NPV Compact will naturally lead to calls to “nationalize our election laws” by placing the US government in charge of the voting systems of our 50 states.  In turn, this will place a future American President in charge of their own re-election machinery.  Stunningly unwise!

Yes, the Left seeks to take down the US Constitution, pillar-by-pillar.  And they understand that taking down the Electoral College is actually the swiftest way to take down the entire Republic.

Michael C. Maibach is a Distinguished Fellow on American Federalism at Save Our States, Managing Director of the James Wilson Institute, and the first American to be elected to public office under the age of 21 in US history.  www.SaveOurStates.com

Original article posted with permission from Save Our States.

Staff – Sept 03, 2020

Critics of the Electoral College Paint a False Narrative for Partisan Purposes.

Today, Save Our States, a non-partisan nonprofit, responded to critics who allege the Electoral College is racist. In a soon to be released documentary, “Safeguard: An Electoral College Story,” the group shows that the Electoral College serves to protect and promote minority voices.

In the wake of George Floyd’s death, Americans have grappled with race relations. Many communities, especially big cities, have experienced unrest. Some activists and politicians are now arguing that the way we elect our president is a product of racism and hurts black voters.

Prominent civil rights leader Vernon Jordan, who as president of the National Urban League in the 1970s was a vocal defender of the Electoral College, argues this is untrue, “For blacks, abolition of the electoral college would severely limit our political leverage in national elections.”

This issue has come to the forefront as the presidential election approaches and with voters in Colorado about to vote on a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) ballot measure. This effort – openly described as an“end-around” of the Constitution is endorsed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and funded by George Soros. NPV would essentially give away Colorado’s voice in presidential elections, as voters there would be drowned out by those in bigger states like California or New York.

In a compelling new documentary, Save Our States shows the flaws of NPV and the need for the Electoral College. “Safeguard: An Electoral College Story” explains how the American Founders established the Electoral College as part of a system of checks and balances, allowing the people of each state to have a voice in presidential elections. “Safeguard: An Electoral College Story” – will be released nationally and internationally on September 8, 2020. The film will be made available on Amazon Prime (an audience of 120 million viewers), iTunes and other platforms. The film will be submitted to multiple film festivals.

“Attacking the Electoral College as racist makes for a good talking point, but bad history. The constitutional system has helped to moderate our politics, forcing political parties to reach out to new voters. Support for the Electoral College by figures like John F. Kennedy and Vernon Jordan remind us how the system has benefitted minority voters,” writes Trent England, Executive Director of Save Our States.

Just this last week, a number of interesting news stories crossed my desk. Two in particular stood out – the Trump administration’s newest moratorium on evictions, and the Federal Reserve’s purchasing $1 trillion worth of mortgage bonds. Now, I don’t think there is any question as to why the feds have chosen this path; times are hard for some people and the feds don’t want them to get harder. The question is, what problem does this solve? The answer: it doesn’t solve any problems. As Thomas Sowell was quoted recently, “There are no solutions, there are only trade-offs; and you try to get the best trade-off you can get, that’s all you can hope for.”

The real question is, then, “what are the trade-offs for these policies?”

Well first, the administration’s moratorium certainly provides some much sought after breathing room for America’s renting population. The Aspen Institute estimates that between 30 and 40 million people are at risk of being evicted: that is quite the number. What happens, however, to the landlords when their troubled but legally protected tenants stop paying rent until the end of the year?

Consider the following: a reasonable percentage of at-risk renters cease paying rent for the next 4 months. Due to this, the less financially prepared property owners must choose to foreclose rather than to continue to deal with the mortgage that many are using the rent to pay. January 2021 comes along, renters are no longer protected, and the houses they live in are now bank-owned assets which will undoubtedly be sold at auction after the tenants are evicted en masse. Potentially millions of rental properties may end up in just such a circumstance, and the potential of a sudden decrease in rental supply could very well mean higher rents in 2021. Will this policy truly help America’s renters, or will the trade-offs come back to bite even those that are not currently “at risk”?

Beyond this, what happens to all those mortgage-backed bonds that are being held by the Federal Reserve if mortgages go belly-up like they did after the 2008 recession? Mortgage delinquency peaked in 2010 at 9.3% as we began the agonizing process of digging ourselves out of a politically driven recession with the same political burdens slowing down our efforts. This last August, mortgage delinquency had reached 8.2% at the same time that the Fed was approaching $1 trillion in what some might consider toxic securities; incidentally, that is approximately 30% of the American housing market. I can only imagine that among the threats of continued lockdowns, a flagging service industry, and the administration’s short-run compassion, we may see considerable difficulties in the new year vis a vis 2008.

This does not address all of the potential trade-off for these policies, but this is what you need to be thinking about when you read the news on new economic programs, public welfare spending, and public policy more generally. It should always be your very first question: “what are the trade-offs?”

June 17, 2020, article republished with permission from CATO Institute.

By Neal McCluskey

A couple of days ago Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom hosted a discussion on one of the hottest topics in education: homeschooling. The issue is in the front of many people’s minds because COVID-19 forced just about every child in the world to school at home. But people have been debating the right degree of parental and government control of education for centuries, and the debate specifically concerning homeschooling reached peak heat last month with a Harvard Magazine article pondering “a presumptive ban on the practice.” Our event featured Elizabeth Bartholet, the Harvard professor who called for the presumptive ban; Cato adjunct scholar and homeschooling advocate Kerry McDonald; historian and Messiah College professor Milton Gaither; and me, serving as both a panelist and moderator.

Homeschooling: Protecting Freedom, Protecting Children

In my opening remarks I endeavored to quickly work through a libertarian thought process on the role of government vis‐​à‐​vis homeschooling, with an emphasis on the difficulty of fitting children into a basic libertarian framework. That basic framework is grounded in freedom for people whom we assume are capable of self‐​government – typically adults. For at least some amount of time—we can debate how long for any given person—children cannot make many informed decisions for themselves, nor can they defend themselves against abuse or neglect. Someone else controls them.

In light of that, the homeschooling debate is more complicated than simply concluding that parents should be able to do whatever they want with their children. Few people, for instance, would disagree that government should stop child abuse or neglect. Of course, the norm for dealing with criminal activity, as I explained in my remarks, is for someone to suspect a crime is occurring, an investigation to occur, and if an investigation provides sufficient evidence for government to intervene, alleged perpetrators are charged and tried, with their innocence assumed unless they are proven guilty.

That said, our event was intended to discuss difficult issues from multiple perspectives, hopefully with all involved trying to understand how reasonable people could hold opinions different from their own. With such a discussion as a goal, and knowing that there have been very rare, but also very devastating, cases of isolation and abuse of children under the guise of homeschooling, in my remarks I said that it “may” be reasonable to “maybe” annually have some government official drop in unannounced on homeschooling families to briefly check in on children.

Many people heard this and thought that I was asserting that such a policy should be implemented. That was not my intention – I wanted to offer food for thought, and perhaps something that could spur a search for common ground.

So where do I stand? Again, the legal norm is suspicion, investigation, and trial with a presumption of innocence. That remains the best approach because a government empowered to inspect our homes and families without probable cause is a dangerous, insufficiently constrained government. The same presumption of innocence and due process should apply to how we deal with potential educational neglect, which I define as failure to educate a child to read, write, and calculate – the building blocks a child needs to become self‐​governing and access more expansive education.

I also, though, believe that we need to spend more time and effort thinking about how we can protect children from abuse and neglect. This may well mean reforming child protective services, encouraging communities to pay closer attention to families that appear to be isolated or in crisis, and maybe just discussing abuse more to raise the public consciousness. And we must remember that children are not adults—many cannot defend themselves or self-govern—rendering the policy framework we use for them more complicated than simply letting people do as they want as long as they do not forcibly impose things on others. No matter what, someone other than the child is imposing on them.

March 27, 2020 article republished with permission from Mercatus.org

By James Broughel and Yuliya Yatsyshina

One of the most urgent challenges facing policymakers managing the current COVID-19 public health crisis is how to ramp up diagnostic testing on a mass scale. Companies such as Walgreens, CVS, and Target have already started working with the federal government, as their locations are well-suited to become testing sites. As a result, pharmacies and pharmacists themselves are likely to become instrumental in testing for COVID-19 in the coming weeks and months. However, certain regulatory restrictions on pharmacists should be relaxed so that they can practice to the full extent of their training and abilities.

The Importance of Testing

The president has declared a national emergency and the federal agencies and state governments overseeing the response to the pandemic have recommended or required that citizens stay at home, practice social distancing, and, in some instances, self-isolate, self-quarantine, or shelter in place. To-date, authorities have offered little guidance as to when these recommendations will expire. Without reliable information about how many people are infected with COVID-19 as well as the rate at which the disease spreading, it is likely that policymakers currently have no clear sense of when to recommend a return to normalcy. Critical data required to inform such decisions will only emerge once large-scale testing is implemented.

Tragically, the federal government botched its early response to the crisis. Among other things, the first COVID-19 tests distributed around the country by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) produced unreliable results. Furthermore, commercial labs and public health officials in the states couldn’t get initial approval to perform their own tests (though in some cases, they tested anyway). These failures, largely a result of inflexible regulations, have contributed to delaying the rollout of testing in the United States. Even now that many legal barriers to testing have been removed, shortages of supplies could be hampering the scaling up of testing.

This is a particularly unfortunate outcome because the experience of other countries suggests that testing on a large scale has been a key ingredient of an effective response to the pandemic. Testing, when combined with practices such as isolating infected individuals and using contact tracing methods to identify who else may have been exposed to the virus, has shown promising results in places such as South Korea and Singapore. Testing to confirm that those who are exhibiting no symptoms or who were previously ill are in good health could also potentially speed the transition back to normalcy.

The effectiveness of mass testing is powerfully illustrated by the experience of Vò, a small town that reported Italy’s first death from COVID-19. The town’s 3,300 or so residents were tested and retested as part of an experiment rolled out by the University of Padua, with assistance from the government of the Veneto Region and the Red Cross. Residents were tested regardless of whether they were exhibiting symptoms. Those who were confirmed as infected were quarantined. The second round of testing revealed that the number of infected residents had dropped from 3 percent of the population to nearly zero, and Vò eventually reached zero new cases within a few weeks. Notably, this outcome differs dramatically from the experience of other parts of northern Italy, which has been one of the regions of the world most affected by COVID-19.

The Role that Pharmacists Can Play

At the time of this was written, 579,000 COVID-19 tests had been administered in the United States. If the disease continues to spread exponentially, testing will have to keep up with that pace of growth. Meeting that goal is going to be a significant challenge, as laboratories are already facing shortages of testing equipment. Another challenge is going to be finding safe places where potentially infected individuals can be tested without infecting others and healthy individuals can be tested without getting infected themselves. A role for pharmacies is thus quickly becoming apparent.

Massachusetts, for example, set up one of America’s first drive-through testing facilities in a pharmacy parking lot. Other states, such as Michigan and Pennsylvania, are following suit. Major drug store chains have publicly committed their support for the fight against COVID-19.

Pharmacies are well positioned to become testing sites because of their geographical coverage across the country. There are more than 309,000 employed licensed pharmacists in the United States and its territories, and 90 percent of Americans live within five miles of a pharmacy. Many pharmacies have adequate parking, which makes them well suited for drive-through testing. Some pharmacies even have drive-through windows. The familiarity patients have with pharmacists could prove important if sick individuals are more comfortable driving to their local pharmacy than going to a doctor’s office or a hospital.

Pharmacists can be of critical assistance in triaging the coming avalanche of patients seeking diagnostics and care. Pharmacists could test patients for COVID-19 and, if the results return positive, give directions for home care if the illness is mild. If the illness is severe, pharmacists could direct patients to designated facilities for their particular area. Even if results were to come back negative, the pharmacist would save the patient from having to visit another venue of care, thereby freeing up time for other medical professionals to focus on more urgent cases. Should patients suffer from other minor ailments, pharmacists could also provide treatment (though this might require legal changes in many jurisdictions; to be discussed later in this brief).

Pharmacists’ training makes them capable of providing this kind of basic medical care. It takes about eight years to obtain a doctor of pharmacy degree, a regular requirement for a pharmacist license. This time includes three to four years of undergraduate prerequisite work and four years of additional professional study. The COVID-19 test is relatively simple and usually involves taking swabs from a patient’s nose or throat. This is a task well within the capabilities of a pharmacist to perform. Although for now the analysis of the swab is likely to take place off site at a lab, in the future this work could potentially be done on site. Indeed, rapid-turnaround COVID-19 tests are currently being developed and, in some cases, undergoing FDA approval. Moreover, pharmacists themselves stand ready to assist, as identified by a recent call by the American Pharmacists Association for expanded pharmacist services to combat COVID-19.

Policy Recommendations

Fortunately, there are not many laws standing in the way of pharmacists and pharmacies immediately assisting in testing efforts for COVID-19. Personnel working at testing sites set up near pharmacies should be able to collect specimens from patients and send those specimens to laboratories for analysis without facing significant legal hurdles. These laboratories, however, do need government approval to operate, and indeed this has been one of the central bureaucratic hurdles that has hampered the US government’s response to the crisis.

These same restrictions also affect pharmacists with respect to performing laboratory testing for other ailments. For several decades, many pharmacies have been allowed to perform low-risk health tests thanks to the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA). Even in ordinary times, pharmacies can obtain CLIA waivers and perform tests related to such ailments as influenza, strep throat, human immunodeficiency virus, and other medical conditions.

Currently, however, the percentage of pharmacies holding CLIA waivers varies enormously across states. One study finds the percentage of pharmacies possessing CLIA waivers to be between 0 and 60 percent, depending on the state, with a median percentage of 19.56 percent. One reason for the disparity across states is varying state and local regulations, which include restrictions related to testing procedures, licensure of the personnel conducting tests or overseeing a lab, phlebotomy requirements, and waste disposal requirements.

Allowing pharmacists to perform tests in ordinary times would better prepare them for crises like the current pandemic. Moreover, as CLIA waivers have increased, pharmacists and lab technicians have been able to incorporate basic testing into their existing workload without needing to work more hours. Pharmacist testing has an additional benefit of potentially reducing the time between symptom development and treatment. Thus, ensuring that CLIA-waived COVID-19 tests quickly become available should be a top priority of the US Department of Health and Human Services.

When pharmacists are testing for an ailment, they are usually qualified to treat similar conditions as well. Florida recently passed a law that allows pharmacists to test and treat for influenza and strep throat. These kinds of changes are likely to alleviate some of the stress on the medical system as pharmacists take on the burden of handling some of the more routine cases. However, Florida’s reform remains far from ideal, in part because it requires a licensed pharmacist to have in place a collaborative agreement with a supervising physician, which can act as a disincentive for many pharmacists.

Idaho is perhaps the model state in this regard, as Idaho allows pharmacists to prescribe autonomously if a pharmacist identifies a medical condition as a result of a CLIA-waived test, as well as under a number of other routine situations, all without a collaborative agreement with a physician in place. Idaho also allows for substitution of therapeutically equivalent drugs without express physician authorization (but with notification to the physician). As more states like Idaho and Florida allow for basic testing and prescribing authority for pharmacists, colleges of pharmacy are likely to respond by updating curricula, thereby enhancing preparedness for future pandemics.

Many states are relaxing other kinds of regulations as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Massachusetts has allowed pharmacies to produce hand sanitizer and mandated that insurers cover certain telehealth services. Some states are now accepting out-of-state medical licenses or embarking in reciprocity agreements with other states with regard to medical licenses. Again, Idaho has a reciprocity law for pharmacists that could serve as a model in this regard.

Relaxing restrictions on telepharmacy could also yield beneficial outcomes. Currently, most tests for COVID-19 have a relatively long turnaround time, often requiring patients to wait at home for results. When results become available, tested individuals could have a consultation with the pharmacist on the phone or via video conferencing platforms such as Skype or Zoom. Not only is this convenient for the patient, it also encourages social distancing. Currently, there is a debate taking place about take-at-home COVID-19 tests. If these tests become common, relaxing telepharmacy rules could enable pharmacists to provide remote instructions to patients administering their own tests. Telepharmacy reforms have also been known to increase access to pharmacies among underserved populations, such as rural populations.

Importantly, as pharmacists take on additional responsibilities, they will likely need to rely more on pharmacy technicians to pick up more routine tasks. However, many states have restrictions in place that mandate a maximum ratio of technicians that can work with each pharmacist. Notably, many states have no ratio requirements, and some states even have provisions in place that allow technicians to work remotely, suggesting that some restrictions on pharmacy technicians can be relaxed or lifted altogether.

In short, pharmacists could readily play a role in ramping up COVID-19 testing and treatment, and eventually, when available, providing the vaccine. Relaxing state phlebotomy laws could yield additional benefits, as drawing blood may be necessary in efforts to search for antibodies for COVID-19. Any restrictions on the ability of pharmacists to immunize using FDA approved vaccines should also be reconsidered.

Conclusion

As pharmacies and pharmacists become instrumental in COVID-19 testing, any related regulatory restrictions at the state and federal level should be reconsidered. States should make it easier for pharmacies to obtain CLIA waivers, pharmacists should have the ability to prescribe in low-risk situations, regulations should be amended to make it easier for pharmacists licensed in one state to practice in another state, and the use of telepharmacy should be encouraged. Restrictions on pharmacy technicians and the ability of pharmacists to vaccinate are also areas where liberalization could prove beneficial. Combined, these reforms are likely to improve the public’s access to testing and treatment for COVID-19 as well as a variety of other medical conditions. Equally important, these reforms can enhance preparedness for future pandemics.

Stephen D. Haner, Senior Fellow for State and Local Tax Policy at the Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy, brings us a list of the tax hikes coming to Virginia as early as July 1st of this year.

Highlights include: big increases in state and regional gasoline taxes, double the cigarette tax, and authorization to impose a 5-cent tax on plastic bags. Read the full Jefferson Journal article here.

The Importance of the Freedom Caravan

Saturday, April 25, 2020

Dear Lynn,

I have seen our freedoms disappear over the years. The inception of our country was spurned on by our founding father’s revolts against King George’s policies, and they fought relentlessly for the rights and freedoms we now possess in our constitution. This month, we were witness to another tyrannical government in the form of our governor and his administration.

I believe we as citizens of this great nation have a responsibility to stand against the tyranny designed to destroy our state and country. This notion is shared with hundreds of patriots I spoke with on Wednesday, at the rally point near the Capitol in Richmond. These patriots came from all over Virginia to voice that the “free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice,” therefore meaning we must open Virginia for business as soon as possible. If we are to survive as a state and nation, we must take a stand against our governor to protect the constitutional values that are under fire.

To not attend the rally on Wednesday out of fear of COVID-19 or government reprisal was not an option. It was an opportunity to peacefully object to the government overreach that is plaguing Virginia today. My hope is that our governor and his administration will view the assembly on Wednesday as leaders of conservative groups that represent thousands of votes this November, and as a peaceful message to reopen the state so that we, as a state and nation, can become economically viable again.

Lynn, I could not begin to tell you how many people commented on the Thomas Jefferson quote on the little blue truck. Thank you for your support!

“When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”- Thomas Jefferson

Regards,

Major Mansfield

Delegate Terry Kilgore represents the First District in the Virginia House of Delegates. His district consists of Lee County, Scott County, part of Wise County, and the City of Norton. He is a Republican from Scott County.

On May 3, 2020, The Roanoke Times published Del. Kilgore’s reflection on his push for HB1332 and the necessity of telehealth services during the current pandemic. Kilgore mentions the Tuesday Morning Group coalition in his letter Kilgore: Advancing telehealth in the Commonwealth.

On April 17th, Don Kroah interviewed VIPP President Lynn Taylor on the bills Gov Northam recently signed into effect. Listen to the radio show below.

Republished with permission from American Enterprise Institute.

Authors: Scott Gottlieb, Mark McClellan, Lauren Silvis, Caitlin Rivers, Crystal Watson.

This letter re-posted from The Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Delay tax increases until economy recovers

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

The op-ed column by Del. Dave LaRock, R-Loudoun, “We can do this; Gov. Northam can help,” was insightful and on target. One suggestion to Gov. Ralph Northam was to postpone for 12 to 18 months any legislation that imposes regulatory or financial burdens on Virginians or their businesses, including tax increases at the state or local levels. These impactful decisions should only be made after the full economic impact of the virus is known.

There are two proposed tax increases that I find hurtful: fuel taxes and tobacco taxes. Fuel taxes hurt tourism to our state, which impacts restaurants, hotels, parks, beaches, etc. These entities already have been decimated by the virus and will need help to reopen. Tobacco taxes hurt farmers, tobacco workers and convenience stores the most. Tobacco has helped Virginia’s economy for 400 years. Philip Morris USA donated an $8 million property to Richmond Public Schools and in return, the city increased taxes on cigarettes and now the state wishes to impose more. Both taxes bite the hands that help us.

The RTD’s Michael Martz reported that the General Assembly still intends to meet April 22 to take up amendments on winter session legislation. They should cancel the session and stay at home as per Northam’s own order. There is no way that Secretary of Finance Aubrey Layne, Northam chief of staff Clark Mercer or the governor himself can accurately predict where the economy will be in two weeks, much less two months. Postpone and give us a break.

Bob Putney.

Richmond.

By Delegate Dave LaRock April 6, 2020

Column originally published in the Richmond Times-Dispatch

I hope you and your family are healthy and safe today. Few were prepared for what we are going through right now, but I know many of us are anxious about family members, jobs and our businesses. Despite all the bluster and politics, Virginia’s legislators are worried for both our families and yours. In considering what we can do to help Virginia make it through the COVID-19 fallout, there have been many promising suggestions.

To provide a little context, in October 1982, single-week unemployment claims spiked to an all-time high of 695,000 people — a record that even the 2008 recession failed to overturn. This was a scary time for America, but we had tough-minded people in key positions who were able to do what was necessary — Paul Volcker, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan to name a few. Because of their efforts, America was able to forego quite a bit more pain than what the late 1970s and early 1980s could have inflicted.

In the week ending March 21, 2020, a record-setting 3,341,000 Americans filed initial claims for unemployment — roughly five times the record number from 1982. The advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims for the week ending March 28 was 6,648,000. In two weeks, 10 million Americans have lost their jobs. In Virginia, 160,000 of our friends and neighbors have become unemployed in the past two weeks. Don’t misunderstand, the point of this article is not to lament over the startlingly high number of people claiming unemployment, although these numbers are indicative of where we stand right this moment.

I am writing to call on those tough-minded men and women who are prepared to do what’s necessary to get Virginia through this crisis.

The budget passed in this past General Assembly session made certain rosy assumptions that can no longer be considered reasonable. Most importantly, these assumptions led the commonwealth to forecast a 17% cumulative growth in revenue between fiscal years 2019 and 2022 — very rosy, indeed. I think we can agree that this projection is unlikely at best, if not impossible.

Virginia Secretary of Finance Aubrey Layne recently forecast that we will take a $1 billion hit to state revenues. That’s a shortfall of approximately 3%, which fits well with those reports from early March suggesting that we might see a contraction of 3% to 5% of gross domestic product (GDP). Unfortunately, those forecasts have since been updated to indicate the contraction is expected to be between 10% and 25% of GDP. At this point in time, a $1 billion shortfall in Virginia state revenues appears too optimistic.

I think you know what I am getting at here. Our biennial budget, as it stands today, is frankly impossible to fund, much less to balance. This is not the position we, as a state, want to be in, particularly considering our rainy day fund is $1.9 billion (76%) underfunded, the state pension plan is $19 billion (22%) underfunded, and four of the six state postemployment funds — known as other post-employment benefits (OPEB) — are underfunded from a low of 17% to as much as 87% (this last figure being particular to health care funding for retired teachers). What’s the solution? This might be the simplest answer of this whole mess: There are two specific actions Gov. Ralph Northam should take.

First, deal with legislation recently passed; the governor should add a re-enactment clause to any bill passed in the 2020 session that will impose additional regulatory or financial burdens on Virginians or their businesses, including any increased taxes at the state or local level.

This would mean the General Assembly will re-look at these bills in the 2021 session, once we see how our economy is faring. What might have seemed like a good idea in rosy economic times could easily intensify already tough times. Second, deal with state spending; considering the difficult times to come, the governor needs to offer amendments to begin shifting Virginia’s budget toward a preparatory stance. Specifically, state spending from the General Fund that is not essential should be made contingent on hitting specific revenue benchmarks as we move forward in the next 12 to 18 months. In other words, we spend the money we have, not the money we wish we had.

It’s time Virginia focuses on how COVID-19 is affecting our citizens first, and on our own pet projects second. Northam can make this happen and save us all an excess of heartache and anxiety. The longest economic expansion in history is over. The potential for suffering is high but preparation can help.

Virginia Del. Dave LaRock’s letter to Gov. Northam (download pdf)

This research brief is republished with permission from CATO Institute.

February 19, 2020

By Mark Hoekstra and Vijetha Koppa

From 2000 to 2018, 20 states enacted voter identification requirements, bringing the total to 34 states. The most pronounced shift has been toward strict voter identification. While no states had such laws in 2000, 10 states had enacted (and sustained) such laws as of 2018. Under strict requirements, a vote is counted only if the voter produces a photo ID (in seven states) or nonphoto ID (in three states) within a specified period. These laws are controversial and have come under immense public and legal scrutiny. Proponents argue that these laws are necessary for protecting the election process from fraud and note that identification is required for other normal life activities. Critics argue that voter impersonation fraud is rare and that the laws are designed to disenfranchise low‐​income and minority voters. They also note that as many as 11 percent of American adults lack a valid photo ID required to vote and argue that there are significant costs and impediments associated with acquiring a valid ID. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the potential effects of these strict voter identification laws on voter turnout and election outcomes

Republished with permission from CATO Institute.

March 11, 2020

By Jeffrey A. Singer

Posted to Politics February 16, 2020 by Jessica R. Towhey

Republished from InsideSources.com

Michael Bloomberg’s billions aren’t just buying ads. In at least two Super Tuesday states, his money funds private lawyers working inside attorneys general offices, advancing his political agenda on the environment.

One Democrat AG compares accepting this private funding from a political candidate with federal funding from “President Trump’s” Department of Justice.

Bloomberg Philanthropies gave $6 million in 2017 to create the New York University School of Law’s Environment and Energy State Impact Center to provide lawyers to state attorneys general whose sole focus would be on environmental and climate change lawsuits and regulatory actions.

Massachusetts and Minnesota, whose Democratic voters will go to the polls on Super Tuesday, are among at least 10 states where activist attorneys are working for the state AGs offices but are paid through the Impact Center. Their mission is to promote state legal action to advance Bloomberg’s political views, such as lawsuits against energy companies.

“Candidates who are approved by the attorneys general and the State Impact Center will receive offers to serve as SAAGs (or the equivalent appropriate title within the office) from the attorneys general, based on an understanding that they will devote their time to clean energy, climate change and environmental matters,” Impact Center Executive Director David J. Hayes wrote in an email inviting attorneys general to apply for the program.

Hayes is a former deputy secretary and chief operating officer of the Department of the Interior for Presidents Clinton and Obama.

The email, obtained by Climate Litigation Watch, was sent to attorneys general offices in California, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Washington, D.C., on Aug. 25, 2017. The email noted that the State Impact Center would pay the law fellows’ salaries and explained that each would be an experienced attorney in environmental or related law.

New York participates in the program, and in December lost what environmental activists had dubbed “the trial of the century” against ExxonMobil. Originally brought by former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, the three-week trial ended with state Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager ruling that the energy giant had neither misled investors about the impact of climate change nor broken any state laws.

In the run-up to the trial, lawyers for ExxonMobil objected to what they saw as a conflict of interest in having “two employees of private parties who are currently working in the [New York] Attorney General’s Office … selected and paid for by private interests who were pursuing an agenda” involved in the case, according to a court transcript. ExxonMobil attorney Justin Anderson said the lawyers are “compensated entirely by this third-party … that’s funded by Michael Bloomberg’s philanthropy.”

Kevin Wallace, acting chief for the Investor Protection Bureau for the New York Attorney General, accused ExxonMobil of “picking on an individual, a young lawyer.” Emails from Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh obtained by Climate Litigation Watch, however, indicate that the legal fellows are experienced attorneys.

“Do you know anyone five to 10 years out of school who would be interested in saving the planet from the predations of [former  EPA Administrator] Scott Pruitt and [former Interior Secretary] Ryan Zinke?” Frosh emailed to the dean of Yale Law School. Frosh served as a recruiter for the State Impact Center program, frequently exchanging emails with Hayes.

A spokesman for the State Impact Center declined to answer questions about the program, including whether anyone other than Bloomberg Philanthropies has provided funds for the legal fellows program. The spokesman also declined to comment on whether there was a conflict of interest with Bloomberg running for president while funding assistant attorneys general in at least 10 offices.

“The nonpartisan State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at the NYU School of Law brings academic rigor and independence to its mission of supporting state attorneys general who are protecting existing environmental regulations, addressing climate change and respecting the law,” spokesman Tom Lalley said in an email. He also declined to name any participating attorneys general who are Republicans to back up the “nonpartisan” description of the program.

Most of the attorneys general offices known to be participating in the program declined to comment either on the program or on the potential conflicts of interest accepting funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies.

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, whose office participates in the program, is suing ExxonMobil in a case that bears several similarities to New York’s. Healey’s office declined to comment.

A spokesman for New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas compared private money given through an individual’s foundation to federal tax dollars.

“Our office accepts fiscal support from President Trump by way of the Department of Justice, as well as NYU, because the Attorney General is independent and only focused on representing the interests of New Mexico,” said spokesman Matt Baca.

Although Bloomberg is a late entrant to the Democratic presidential primary, he has already far outspent his opponents. According to Advertising Analytics, he has spent $209.3 million on broadcast television, $13.7 million on cable, $1.1 million on radio, and $27.2 million on digital ads. His Super Bowl ad reportedly cost $10 million.

Bloomberg’s campaign is entirely self-financed, and he is presenting himself as a centrist in a field crowded with candidates from the progressive left. The Democratic National Committee recently dropped a requirement that candidates receive a minimum number of donors to qualify for debates, prompting an outcry from some former candidates who were unable to meet the arbitrary thresholds that Bloomberg was using to buy his way to the nomination. Bloomberg skipped the Iowa Caucuses to focus on Super Tuesday states.

Steve Milloy, founder of JunkScience.com and a senior fellow with the Energy & Environment Institute, severely criticized Bloomberg’s donations to New York University and the legal fellows program.

“God help anyone on the right who tried to do that,” Milloy said. “The Left and allies in the [mainstream media] would be in total outrage mode if they discovered that the NRA or pro-life movement had funded state AGs to carry out the groups’ political agenda.”

A spokeswoman for the NRA scoffed at the privately funded program.

“No one should be surprised,” said spokeswoman Amy Hunter. “This is yet another example of billionaire Michael Bloomberg using his money to impose his personal agenda on the American people. He wants to be emperor of America, and make every citizen his subject.”

What everyone should know about the practical and moral failures of the socialist project

March 11, 2020

Republished with permission from Independent Institute.

(Oakland, CA)—A list of about forty books on the folly of socialism has been downloaded thousands of times and has been endorsed by economists, scholars, and journalists around the world.

More than 30 years after Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev implemented reforms that helped burn the ideal of a planned economy to the ground, socialist doctrines are once again gaining in popularity, especially among young people.

The list was compiled by Independent Institute Senior Fellow Williamson Evers, Ph.D., who offers this “counter curriculum” highlighting some of the most insightful critiques of socialism ever written. The list of books highlights the necessity of competition and voluntary free markets, rather than coercive monopolies of industries such as energy, banking, and technology in a socialist society.

“If you can read just one book on this list, then make it Red Plenty, by Francis Spufford,” says Evers. “If you can read only two, make your second pick Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, by Ludwig von Mises.”

Evers tells young people enamored with Scandinavian-style socialism, that most so-called democratic socialist countries are actually capitalist countries with high income taxes but also with no price controls such as minimum wage laws, and actually have freer trade than the United States in many cases. Real socialism, says Evers, usually promises the public that it will be democratic socialism, but soon puts into effect dictatorship and the crushing of constitutional liberties.

Books on the list include; The Gulag Archipelago, by Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn, Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell, and The Road to Serfdom, by F. A. Hayek.

The complete list of books can be found at this link on the Independent Institute’s website.

Published on InsideSources December 23, 2019 by Robert F. Graboyes

Telemedicine challenges the established order of medical licensure in the United States. Medical treatment with a physician in one place and a patient in another raises questions about the efficiency and constitutionality of state-by-state licensure.

Generally, a physician can only practice medicine in states where he or she holds a medical license, regardless of whether the doctor and patient are meeting in person or via electronic means (video conferencing, remote monitoring, online prescriptions, asynchronous consultation, email, or telephone conversations). Some states have partially lowered state-line barriers via mechanisms like the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact.

Fragmentary licensing makes it difficult for telemedicine providers to serve the entire country. A recent CNBC article said that a doctor who wished to practice telemedicine across the entire United States would have to spend around $90,000 and countless hours to obtain licenses in every state—followed by permanent efforts to maintain the licenses.

To minimize queuing and capture economies of scale, it’s important for telemedicine providers to have broad, multistate reach. If I take ill at night while a flu epidemic rages here in Virginia, I might have difficulty reaching an overburdened Virginia telemedicine doctor. But, with access to doctors in all 50 states, there’s a far better chance that I’ll get rapid, potentially lifesaving service. State-by-state licensing inhibits this capability. Presumably, nationwide reach also increases competition, with the potential for cost reduction and quality improvement.

I live in Virginia, and it’s perfectly fine for me to visit a doctor in Texas. However, if I wished to consult with the same doctor via video link from Virginia, the doctor would presumably require a Virginia license as well as a Texas license. Present-day law somewhat arbitrarily presumes that an encounter occurs where the patient sits—not where the doctor sits.

And suppose I engage with the Texas doctor while I’m visiting Florida and the doctor is in Hawaii? Is our encounter deemed to occur in Virginia, Texas, Florida, or Hawaii? Perhaps there’s a simple legal answer, but I’ve raised the question before enough audiences to think the answer isn’t crystal-clear.

Telemedicine adds a powerful new element to America’s health care system. It provides near-instantaneous access to care from any location, at any time, on any day. Cost-benefit analysis requires us to ask how often state-by-state licensing prevents, delays, or heightens the cost of care, along with asking whether state-by-state licensing somehow protects patients better than, say, a regime of national licensing.

This matters, because telemedicine increases access to care in ways that were unimaginable before the digital era. Imagine a Spanish-speaking migrant family whose child becomes ill on a remote ranch in the middle of the night. With telemedicine, a cellphone allows them to reach a Spanish-speaking doctor within minutes. Think of the access challenges faced by members of other linguistic minorities, Native Americans on reservations, people with mobility problems, people in neighborhoods lacking public transportation, those busy with work and childrearing, and individuals who take ill at odd hours and in isolated places.

I once wrote about a physician who saved a woman’s life because she was able to call him at night from her home, rather than waiting for a regular in-person appointment. At age 92, my own mother likely survived a potentially fatal illness because her grandson, a physician, recognized her illness in the course of a social video call on FaceTime. Ever since, I’ve thought that one shouldn’t require a physician in the family to enjoy such care.

When state-by-state medical licensing was devised, these weren’t issues. If you saw a doctor, you were face-to-face in the same state. Telephone calls or mail would likely have been the only potential exceptions. But today, sophisticated communication at a distance is omnipresent in our lives.

There is virtue in the principle of allowing states to manage economic activity within their individual boundaries—“laboratories of democracy,” in the words of Justice Louis Brandeis. But there is also virtue in erasing those lines for some purposes, a principle enshrined in the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause. Philosophically, I grapple with the tension between these two principles. I also wonder whether that tension may ultimately find its resolution at the Supreme Court.

Virginia Institute for Public Policy’s President Lynn Taylor speaks at the January 7th press conference during which Delegate Lee Ware (R) and Delegate Mark Keam (D) announced the Virginia Energy Reform Act as part of the legislative package to be submitted for the 2020 General Assembly session. The goal of the legislation is to lower consumer energy costs by ending monopoly control and creating competition in the retail market of Virginia’s electricity system.

The sudden flood of resolutions to protect gun owners will soon envelop most of the state.

This article is re-posted with permission from Gun Rights Watch.

Gun owners are demanding local government protection from the state – and getting it.

By: Scott D. Cosenza, Esq.

This article posted December 8, 2019, was re-posted with permission from the author.

A sea change came to Virginia on election day.  Democrats won majority control of both houses of the legislature – for the first time in over 20 years.  The new power brokers have taken their win to move the state markedly left on many issues, but especially gun control.  Prefiled bills in the statehouse would make Virginia swing from a state that broadly respects gun rights to one of the most restrictive if passed.  Gun owners have risen to challenge the proposals, not in the legislature just yet, but at the county and city levels.  Under a massive pressure wall, those local governments have, at a furious pace, adopted Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions, forbidding local officials from acting in opposition to the Second Amendment.

Let No Good Crisis Go to Waste

On May 31, 2019, a Virginia Beach employee went on a shooting spree, massacring a dozen people at a municipal building.  Days later, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam (D) ordered a special session of the legislature to be convened.  The legislature, which had adjourned for the year, would be recalled to Richmond to consider previously rejected gun control bills.  The rundown of proposals reads like a letter from Sarah Brady to Santa, including universal background checks; bans on “assault weapons,” sound suppressors, and bump stocks; red flag laws; one gun a month laws; and granting local governments increased authority to issue their own new measures hostile to gun rights, among others.

While legislative leaders had no control over the convening of the session, they asserted their power just after it started, ending the farce within 90 minutes of its beginning.  Republican Speaker of the House Kirk Cox accused Northam of “an election-year stunt.”  That may be just what it was, and effective too, given the results in November.

From Red to Blue

The Democrats last controlled both houses of the legislature in 1994.  While the state was recently considered a swing state, that has changed too; it now seems ever bluer.  Democrats now control all three statewide elected offices, both U.S. Senate seats, both chambers of the General Assembly, and seven of Virginia’s 11 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.  Quite a list, and driven in large part not by a change in attitudes of Virginians, but the additions of many new Virginians hostile to gun rights.

In a post-election profile called “How Voters Turned Virginia From Deep Red to Solid Blue,” The New York Times tells us that immigrants, both from other states and other countries, are a big cause.  “Unlike three decades ago, the residents are often from other places, like India and Korea. And when they vote, it is often for Democrats.”  That’s not all. Those voters are not like the countrified Democrats who may understand and value the right to keep and bear arms:

“Guns, that is the most pressing issue for me,” said a 38-year-old software engineer from southern India, Vijay Katkuri, 38, as he explained why he voted for a Democratic challenger in Tuesday’s elections. “There are lots of other issues, but you can only fix them if you are alive.”

Mr. Katkuri, we learn, had been a resident of New Jersey before he decided to make his home in the Old Dominion.  Alas, that state had crime levels that were too high, among other factors, to keep him.  The Grey Lady doesn’t mention if Katkuri understood that unsafe New Jersey has had highly restrictive gun control laws for generations, while safer Virginia has honored the right to keep and bear arms.  Liberals who move from high tax, high regulation lefty states in favor of greener pastures in more conservative jurisdictions seem unable to draw the connections that seem plain as day to the rest of us.  Could adopting New Jersey style gun control laws make Virginia less-safe?  Mr. Katkuri doesn’t seem to have considered this possibility.

Not Lying Down

Virginia gun owners have, and they have responded swiftly and intensely to the coming onslaught against their rights.  Over 40 counties and independent cities in Virginia have passed Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions so far, and the list has grown rapidly.  Led by the Virginia Citizens’ Defense League*, one of the strongest single-issue state policy organizations, they have mounted a massive backlash against new gun controls.  Liberty Nation spoke with VCDL President Phillip Van Cleave about the resistance and sanctuary movement.  He said the idea behind the resolutions is to send a message:

“It’s a whole bunch of localities standing up and telling the Democrat leadership in Richmond we don’t want any more gun control.  These things affect only the law-abiding, and what they’re suggesting doesn’t do anything for criminals.”

He said no county official needs to enforce an unconstitutional law and called the AR-15 the most popular rifle in the U.S. and Virginia. Van Cleave explained that they were gearing up for a huge showing at the legislature on January 20 for VCDL Lobby Day, when they encourage everyone who cares about maintaining the right to keep and bear arms to come to Richmond and show their support.

Before then, however, many, if not most, counties will be Second Amendment Sanctuaries.  Lynn Taylor*, who heads the commonwealth’s leading pro-liberty public policy organization, the Virginia Institute for Public Policy, had this to say about the budding movement: “The 2A sanctuary is a political stance, not a legal protection. Everyone needs to be ready for this reality. Virginia is becoming a battleground for stripping away the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. We will need some strong men and women out there willing to take this issue to the mat, and even more to support them financially and with their prayers for freedom.”  Asked if she knew of a movement that has previously animated Virginians so vigorously, she replied, “not since the Founding.”

*This author has been a member of VCDL.  Ms. Taylor sits on the board of Liberty Nation’s parent organization, One Generation Away.

By Brennan Gilmore & Lynn Taylor
Virginia Energy Reform Coalition

This article was first published June 30, 2019, by The Virginian-Pilot. It was re-posted with permission from the authors.

ONE OF US was chief of staff for Tom Perriello and runs an environmental nonprofit. The other worked for the Koch brothers and facilitates a monthly meeting of Virginia conservative and libertarian activists. Needless to say, we do not exactly subscribe to the same political philosophies.

Here’s where we do agree: The energy sector in Virginia is broken.

An energy sector whose rules were written by monopoly utilities and their well-funded political allies has given us the 11th highest electricity bills in the nation when energy demand in Virginia is flat and energy itself is getting cheaper. It has kept businesses and families across the commonwealth from choosing their electricity provider. It has allowed Dominion Energy to run roughshod over property rights and plow ahead with a ratepayer-backed $7 billion gas pipeline without demonstrating any actual need for it. And it has stifled innovation and the deployment of cleaner, cheaper energy sources.

Virginia — including vast Dominion service territory in the Hampton Roads region — deserves better than this monopoly regulatory system designed to maximize profits for shareholders and greased by donations to politicians.

When faced with a problem this insidious, it is remarkable how quickly two opposing ideologies can find common ground.

The answer to this is simple: Give people a choice. Break up the monopolies, remove the barriers to competition, and remove the constraints preventing Virginia from leading the transition to a 21st century energy economy that is better for our bank accounts, our jobs and our environment.

No matter who they vote for, every Virginian should have the ability to choose their energy provider, just like they choose their car, phone provider, or grocery store. Currently, most Virginians who pay utility bills are stuck with one utility monopoly, and one with a track record of acting in bad faith to enrich shareholders on the backs of mostly unknowing ratepayers.

The core of our system’s rot is a skewed incentive system that allows utility profits to hinge on political gamesmanship rather than customer interest. A utility that both owns and operates the electrical grid has a conflict of interest that inhibits the development and deployment of the cost-effective energy resources of the future.

A utility earns a rate of return on infrastructure like wires and transformers, so it has a financial interest in huge infrastructure investments rather than resources owned or services provided by other entities — large-scale distributed energy storage systems, consumer-owned rooftop solar, or energy efficiency programs, for example — even though they are often cheaper.

Switching to a competitive market with performance-based rules and an independent grid operator will ensure energy providers only get rewarded for being the best on reliability, cost and customer satisfaction and that one monopoly’s special interests cannot hold customers captive.

Virginia’s potential to recharge our economy with 21st century energy is truly untapped. The Department of Energy ranks us a dismal 37th out of 50th for renewable energy production.

North Carolina has seven times as much installed solar as Virginia, and thousands of jobs in the fastest-growing energy sector along with it. On the other hand, Texas moved to a competitive market in the early 2000s and has since seen reduced energy bills, enhanced consumer choice and steady innovation. It is simple. When an energy market is competitive and monopolies are contained, the entire state benefits.

Luckily, this insidious problem is not beyond repair. Energy market reform may sound complex, but this issue is about Virginians paying their utility bills today and choosing the energy that will power their tomorrows. We want to build a statewide movement towards consumer choice and protection, a competitive and innovative economy, and a 21st century energy grid — and movements need people.

Candidates and legislators need to hear from their constituents and voters on this issue and demand that Virginia’s General Assembly advocate for hardworking people across the commonwealth paying their utility bills, not for utility giants whose political influence has allowed them to write the rules of a rigged game.

Take it from a political odd couple. When you take a chance to come together and reform something truly broken, it’s amazing what we can achieve.

Brennan Gilmore is executive director of Clean Virginia. Lynn Taylor is president and co-founder of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy. They are both members of the nonpartisan Virginia Energy Reform Coalition.

Republican legislators were successful in ending the special legislative session without new restrictions on gun rights of Virginians.

This article posted July 11, 2019, was re-posted with permission from Liberty Nation.

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam instituted a special session of the state’s legislature Tuesday, July 9 for the stated purpose of enacting new gun control laws.  Gun rights supporters won the day as Republican lawmakers, who tenuously control both houses of the law-making body, were able to stop it in its tracks, suspending consideration of the bills until the regular session in the fall.

Well over a dozen different bills were filed, offering a Vegas-sized buffet of anti-gun rights advocates’ wishes and wants.  A limited sample includes a “Red Flag” law that allows police to seize firearms with little to no due process, one gun a month purchase limits, and legislation that would allow counties and municipalities the right to enact their own gun control laws.  Legislators introduced several pro-gun rights bills, but this session was to be about restricting the rights of Virginians, not expanding them.

Special Session

Northam announced the emergency session in the wake of a Memorial Day massacre in Virginia Beach, where 12 people were murdered by a municipal employee on a rampage.  “If we can save one life because we acted now, it is worth it.”  The Virginia legislature starts sessions in January and finishes no later than 60 calendar days afterward, but there is a provision in the commonwealth’s constitution for the Governor to institute a new one:

“The Governor may convene a special session of the General Assembly when, in his opinion, the interest of the Commonwealth may require …”

Republicans hold a 51-48 majority in the House of Delegates and a 20-19 edge in the Senate, with one vacancy in each chamber.  That was enough to put a stop to the special session on party-line votes in both houses.  They referred the various pieces of legislation to appropriate committees.  Those bills will be voted on in the 2020 session if they are passed out of committee – which they are unlikely to since so many have already been voted down in committee this very year.  From January:

A Republican-led subcommittee in the Virginia House of Delegates voted down more than a dozen Democratic gun control bills Thursday, including a red-flag proposal endorsed by President Donald Trump’s school safety committee.

In a packed hearing room, Republicans on a House Militia, Police and Public Safety subcommittee used their 4-2 majority to methodically defeat the gun bills over the course of more than two hours.

Governor Northam became nationally known earlier this year when his medical school yearbook seemed to show him in blackface.  That, combined with the legislature’s recent consideration of often identical legislation, fueled criticism that politics was the prime motivator behind the session rather than public safety.  Virginia Institute for Public Policy president Lynn Taylor* called it a political move, noting that “not one of the proposed laws would have changed the outcome in Virginia Beach.”

 

GOP Drama – Tempest In A Teapot

Senate Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment Jr. (R-James City) shocked his fellow Republicans by filing a bill just before the session that would ban guns in local government buildings in Virginia.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League**, a powerful gun rights advocacy group, sent out an email in the wee hours before the session, announcing “VA-ALERT: LEGISLATIVE ACTION ITEM: Senator Tommy Norment stabs gun owners in the back!”  Norment had introduced a bill that would treat all local government buildings like a courthouse, generally banning firearms for everyone but government officials.  That sentiment seemed to be completely reversed by the end of the day, when the group sent an email stating:

Senator Norment explained that the bill was incorrectly drafted due to a communication issue between himself and Legislative Services.  VCDL thanks Senator Norment for doing the right thing and striking that bad gun-bill from the docket!

Norment said Tuesday, “As currently drafted, the legislation represents neither my views nor my intention. I do not support – nor will I support – any measure that restricts the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.”

*Ms. Taylor sits on the board of LibertyNation.com’s parent company.

**The author has been a member of VCDL.

Giving Tuesday is around the corner, and the Virginia Institute for Public Policy wants to partner with you for the future of Virginia. This year we are looking forward to the next big battles in the home of American Liberty.

As healthcare costs begin to rise beyond expectations following the expansion of Medicaid, discussion begins in Richmond on where the money will come from. Increased taxes, however, will further depress business and population growth in Virginia. New and decisive answers are needed to get Virginia’s economy back on track. As always, the Virginia Institute is at the forefront, proposing bold solutions, educating legislators and advocates, and bringing people together in support of our home, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the birthplace of American exceptionalism.

We can’t do it without your help! Get involved by donating to the Virginia Institute for Public Policy on Giving Tuesday. Help us to fight for the brightest future for Virginia; one of individual freedom, personal responsibility, and constitutionally-limited government. Support courageous policies in healthcare, taxation, education, and good governance.

Together we can make Virginia the # 1 state in the # 1 nation on the face of the Earth!

Donate Here

The most popular flavors of the national debate in America today: immigration, healthcare, the Federal debt, and the budding trade war. The American welfare state is the common denominator in each of these quandaries and is the political quagmire which will derail any viable solution for these hot button issues.

The modern American welfare state was effectively borne of the New Deal. It came into being with President Franklin Roosevelt’s words, “Necessitous men are not free men.” It was grand-sired by Woodrow Wilson’s intellectual rejection of the US Constitution. Thanks to a widely misconstrued understanding of the “general welfare” and “charity,” the welfare state has grown into the largest seen in human history. Welfare programs and mandatory interest payments are expected to absorb roughly 60% of total federal spending (excel) this year – more than doubling the estimated 2018 deficit (.pdf). Thus, it’s no wonder this economic millstone has translated into so many different problems.

Illegal immigration, as much as it invades the daily news cycle, is more a correlative symptom of the welfare state than a problem in and of itself. Welfare spending has grown in a series of plateaus. The first began in the 1930s with FDR’s New Deal, and the second coincided with LBJ’s Great Society in the 1960s.

Shortly before, during, and immediately following the New Deal era, there was a decrease in legitimate immigration (which is important as illegal immigration estimations tend to correlate with actual measured immigration numbers). This decrease likely due to the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 coupled with the U.S. job market during and immediately after the Great Depression. If you also include a series of large, global wars, which were often fought with conscripted soldiers, the first two-thirds of the 20^th century would obviously not be the most popular time to move to the US.

Starting at about 1970, after the Great Society programs had taken hold and as the Vietnam War began to wind down, immigration (both legitimate and unauthorized) began to dramatically increase. There was a similar rate of growth in Medicaid vendor payments during this same period of time. Although concurrent growth does not necessitate correlation or causality, it seems that Medicaid spending and immigration at least correlate relative to incentives to immigrate among specifically the low-skilled. As it turns out, people immigrate to take advantage of better opportunities, including “free” money and public services.

Speaking of “free” public services, in the second entitlement plateau of the 1960s, LBJ’s Great Society policies included the guaranteed health insurance program – again referring to Medicaid. Healthcare costs subsequently began to skyrocket, more than doubling as a percentage of GDP by 2014 (excel). However, Medicaid creates a moral hazard, or the “lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences, e.g., by insurance.”

Insurance is particularly affected by moral hazard, and government-backed insurance especially so. These perverse incentives have led to considerable waste and excess within healthcare markets, which were exacerbated further by the activities of insurance companies and the more recent Affordable Care Act. The welfare state strikes again! But this time it has negatively affected the average American’s ability to access healthcare. In other words, the welfare state doesn’t simply add spice to the daily news cycle, it might actually kill you.

So, logically, everyone has accepted the welfare state as the culprit, right? Unfortunately, this has not been the case. Even conservatives are joining the fray in hopes of expanding it further by restricting free trade through tariffs. As we have all been told, America is not getting a “fair deal” on the world market. U.S. manufacturing has “suffered greatly” at the hands of the Chinese and others who have taken advantage of the US through trade deals, confiscation of intellectual property, and monetary manipulation. All of this is seemingly despite an increase in American manufacturing productivity to the tune of approximately 80% since 1990.

Rather than seeking to address the problem, numerous allegedly “fiscally responsible” and “pro free-market” conservatives have begun to harrumph for tariffs – import taxes that increase the market price of particular goods within the American market. To be clear, these are increased prices that only Americans will pay to subsidize a small portion of American industrial companies like steel and aluminum manufacturers. This is what traditional “free-market” conservatives refer to as “corporate welfare.”

As each new story passes by, it is amazing so few people are addressing the very real problem – the American welfare state. I am hard pressed to find a major story in the news today which does not connect with this quite ubiquitous concern. Where are the intrepid, fiscally responsible conservatives? Where are the sharp, unyielding libertarians or economically sane moderate progressives? There is an objective truth here which certainly applies: all solutions fail which fail to address the problem.

To celebrate American Independence, as well as our new website, here is the reason for the season: the Declaration of Independence. Let’s pay particular attention to why the Founders thought this was the best course of action upon which to gamble their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.

Spoiler Alert: Taxation was neither the first, nor the most consequential of those causes listed below.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the Lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free People.

Nor have We been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and de clare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

– Thanks to the Foundation for Economic Education for posting this important document every Independence Day.