Yesterday in Congress, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011” was being debated. Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-MA) introduced an amendment to the Act that would have removed funding of $485 million for an alternate F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine (F-136) which was to be built by a joint venture between General Electric (GE) and Rolls Royce. The current F-35 engine (F-135) is built by Pratt & Whitney, who won the contract with the Department of Defense almost 10 years ago, and whose competition for the contract was GE/Rolls Royce. According to Reuters, this is the fourth year that the legislation to scrap F-136 has been introduced, also failing each of the previous 3 years.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has classified the engine as wasteful, as there is no need for a second engine for the F-35. The $485 million that Rep. Pingree’s amendment would have cut from the bill would have been used to reduce the deficit. It’s not much, considering the grand scope of the deficit, but the amendment served a dual purpose, removing wasteful spending and reducing the deficit. You would think that Republicans in Congress would be behind this. Of course, you’d be wrong.The amendment failed, 193-231, with some Republicans voting to strip, and some Democrats voting to save. But one Congressman who voted to save the wasteful spending was our own resident deficit hawk, Frank R. Wolf (R-10). This seems to go against what Rep. Wolf has posted on the home page of his Congressional campaign website, which states:

Nationally, I continue to push Congress to address our nation’s skyrocketing debt, calling for a deficit reduction commission that puts everything on the table and requires Congress to vote up or down on its recommendations.

From reading that, and seeing his vote yesterday, I presume Rep. Wolf would rather pass on the responsibility and have someone else tackle the nation’s deficit, rather than directly voting on an amendment that would reduce the deficit. Of course, Rep. Wolf is no stranger to voting for wasteful government programs, as he voted in lock-step with every Bush administration program that caused the deficit to balloon between 2001 and 2009.

Frank Wolf may talk a good game about reducing our deficit and eliminating government waste, but when the cards are on the table, he’s not a deficit hawk; he’s nothing more than a deficit peacock.

Jeff Barnett knows that we have to solve our nation’s problems in our time and on our dime. As a former Air Force lieutenant colonel, he knows wasteful defense spending when he sees it, and will truly fight to reduce the deficit.

Isn’t it time we had a congressman who kept his word?

Rather than regurgitate something covered very much in depth by Lowell over at Blue Virginia, I just recommend everyone go over there and read what he had to say about the transgressions at the Republican 10th District convention on Saturday.

In short, Frank Wolf’s preferred nominee to head the committee lost, and they get a “Kookanelli Kollaborator” instead.

So, to recap, we have a Cooch disciple heading the LCRC, and now a Cooch disciple running the 10th CD Republican committee. This in itself portends that the congressional campaign this Fall is almost surely going to take a severely negative turn.

But luckily, we have a man running for Congress in Jeff Barnett who isn’t afraid of what the lunatic fringe is going to lob at him. He served valiantly for 26 years in the Air Force, including a stint as “a campaign planner for the first Gulf War”, and then later as “Chief of Staff for a 6,000 person, multi-national peacekeeping force” in Croatia, “the most successful peacekeeping mission in UN History” (all quotes from Jeff’s campaign website). A true patriot, indeed.

So bring on the dirty politics, Republicans; we’re ready for it, and the good people of the 10th District are going to see through it for what it is – desperation.

Sometimes I wonder why we waste our time creating blog posts about Sterling District Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio. He seems to relish the controversy and bask in the criticism. Lowell of Blue Virginia put up a post yesterday about Delgaudio’s opposition to H.R. 4530, the “Student Non-discrimination Act”. This act would basically protect LGBT students from bullying and harassment. Nothing objectionable there, right?

But no. Not according to The Man in the Orange Hat. You see, TMOH takes any opportunity he sees to spin anything referencing LGBT issues as a “homosexual agenda to radicalize America” (paraphrasing mine).Here’s what TMOH has to say about H.R. 4530:

You see, the Homosexual Classrooms Act contains a laundry list of anti-family provisions that will:

• Require schools to teach sodomy and other appalling homosexual acts so homosexual students don’t feel “singled out” during already explicit sex-ed classes;

• Spin impressionable students in a whirlwind of sexual confusion and misinformation, recruiting and even pressuring vulnerable teens and pre-teens into the homosexual “lifestyle”;

• Effectively outlaw voluntary prayer in schools, and expose students who pray privately to lawsuits and even criminal prosecution for “religious intimidation”;

• Exempt homosexual students from punishment for propositioning, harassing, or even sexually assaulting their classmates, as part of their specially-protected right to “freedom of self-expression”;

• Force parochial schools to secularize and purge any reference to religion because radicals claim it creates a “hostile learning environment” for homosexual students.

Simply put, The Homosexual Classrooms Act will use schools as weapons to eradicate traditional values in the next generation of American students.

Scary stuff, huh? Here’s what the actual purpose of H.R. 4530 states:

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES

(b) Purposes- The purposes of this Act are–

(1) to ensure that all students have access to public education in a safe environment free from discrimination, including harassment, bullying, intimidation and violence, on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity;

(2) to provide a comprehensive Federal prohibition of discrimination in public schools based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity;

(3) to provide meaningful and effective remedies for discrimination in public schools based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity; and

(4) to invoke congressional powers, including but not limited to the power to enforce the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and to provide for the general welfare pursuant to section 8 of article I of the Constitution and the power to enact all laws necessary and proper for the execution of the foregoing powers pursuant to section 8 of article I of the Constitution, in order to prohibit discrimination in public schools on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Not so scary after all. As a matter of fact, it seems like pretty prudent legislation.

We here in Loudoun have had to put up with the antics of TMOH for a long, long time. Until recently, no one stood up to Delgaudio and his hate speech. Come 2011, Loudoun will have to make a choice – will we continue to be mired in the politics of hate championed by a bigot like Eugene Delgaudio? Or will we finally progress to the point where everyone in Loudoun County (and America, at that) can accept and respect the diversities of everyone, be it race, creed, color, or sexual identity?

I think we all know the answer to that, but until we rid ourselves of miserable people like Eugene Delgaudio, we will be stuck in the Dark Ages.

The census is well underway, with Loudoun County checking in at 77% response rate. Late this year and early in 2011, state legislators will be deep in discussions regarding redistricting the House of Delegates and Senate district boundaries. A nice explanation of how that will go about happening is discussed here. Similarly, Loudoun County’s magisterial districts will also likely be redrawn in 2011, and Supervisor Lori Waters (R-Broad Run) has been making waves as to drastically changing the make up of the districts.

Supervisor Waters introduced on January 20, 2010, an action item that recommends exploring changes to the Board of Supervisors terms and districts. The changes she wishes to explore are: 1) staggered terms for Supervisors (i.e., 4 or 5 supervisors running every 4 years instead of all 9 at the same time); 2) an increase or decrease of the number of supervisor seats; and 3) having at-large representatives instead of district-based representation.Proponents of staggered terms say that moving to this type of system would ensure board continuity and would preclude the loss of institutional knowledge should there be a mass purge of supervisors. It can be argued that board continuity would be increased the longer that supervisors have to work with each other. Shorter terms of office (i.e., two years) would give the supervisors less chance to work together as a team, if there are supervisors being voted out every two years. Also, the “loss of institutional knowledge” argument is completely laughable, as incoming supervisors rely on paid county staff to bring them up to speed. The paid staff are the heart and soul of county government, and are the true “institutional knowledge”.

Staggered terms would also mean that with elections every two years, fund-raising will become more prevalent. With fewer candidates among whom to spread dollars (likely to incumbents), it would become inherently more expensive for citizens to mount serious challenges. And we would lose the opportunity for a “throw the bums out” movement, a la 2007, which is all the populist rage in politics today.

Ms. Waters also proposes looking into the possibility of reducing the number of supervisor seats. Currently, Loudoun County has 8 supervisors and one at-large representative. Waters’ action item used 2005 data to compare the number of residents represented in Loudoun with similar sized counties in Virginia. But 2009 census estimates put Loudoun’s population at just over 301,000, an 18% increase from 2005, and we are still growing. Using 2009 data, the 8 district-based supervisors represent an average of 37,646 residents each. Waters estimates that Loudoun can get by with 7 supervisors, representing over 43,000 residents per seat, on par with Prince William County, larger in population. Why we would want to increase the number of residents represented is beyond me. It would entail making the supervisor a full-time position, and would almost certainly require a hike in the supervisors’ salaries. Interestingly, Supervisor Waters voted to increase the salaries of the Supervisors by 84% in 2006. In a time of budget belt-tightening, is that what we really want to do, when teacher and school staff salaries are being frozen?

(When I questioned her on this in 2006, her e-mail response was “I do believe that whomever serves on the Board of Supervisors should be fairly compensated for their time, especially when most weeks this is a full-time job despite our technical “part-time” status.”)

But the most troubling aspect of Waters’ proposal is moving from a district-based representation to an at-large representation. The problems with this are many. First, Loudoun County is very diverse, from the go-go suburbia in the east to the pastoral west. Different sections of the county have different needs, and the only way to ensure fair representation of each sector of the county is to keep the district system. Second, supervisors today have opportunity to really get to know most of their constituents; moving to an at-large system with fewer seats would remove the connection supervisors have to their constituents, and vice-versa. Third, at-large voting systems bring with it the possibility of “manufactured majorities”, since an at-large vote is a “vote for four” (or five, depending on the year) system, and parties can run bloc campaigns, instead of district-by-district. This removes the issue of supervisors running for the good of their district and instead running for the county as a whole. Last, since an at-large system, with fewer seats and higher constituent numbers, would require the supervisor position to be a full-time job, only the wealthy would seemingly be able to run for office. As it stands now, in a part-time role, supervisors can continue to pursue a career and supplement their income with their county pay. Not necessarily so if the board becomes full-time.

So the district-based system of 9 supervisors, up for election every four years, is simply the best system for this county. There is no need to change.

Other References:

http://www.fixthelines.org/Abo…

http://archive.fairvote.org/?p…

http://www.wickedlocal.com/fra…

http://www.labyrinth.com/barb/…

It’s shaping up to be a very nice weekend. What better way to support your community than by attending one of the many farmer’s markets sponsored by the Loudoun Valley HomeGrown Markets Association.

Whether you’re in Ashburn, Brambleton, Cascades, Leesburg, or Purcellville, there are plenty of local farms selling fresh produce, breads, and meats, among other items, for your refrigerator or pantry.

And if you can’t get out to one of these locations, how about trying Loudoun Flavor, a “virtual” local farmer’s market, where you can buy local, on-line, and pick up your order at various Loudoun locations.

Buy Fresh, Buy Local!

When is pornography linked with job creation? When the idea-averse Republicans in Congress (including our own clueless Frank Wolf) decide it is.Yesterday, Democrats in the House of Representatives were poised to pass something called the COMPETES Act, which would have increased “investments in science, research and training programs”, thereby creating more jobs . But the GOP,  ever mindful that there’s an election coming up in 6 months, decided that they’d play political games and made a motion to recommit the bill, and attached to it an amendment which would bar federal funds from being paid as salary to federal workers viewing porn on government computers.

Now, I think we can all agree that misuse of government property in that manner is completely inappropriate. But how was that amendment in any way germane to the legislation in the COMPETES Act? Where was Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA-10th), who, as a 30-year member of the House of Representatives, could have shown some authority and said, “we need to create jobs in this economy; this amendment will kill the opportunity to do so”.

Of course, the blindly partisan Wolf took no such leadership role, instead falling in line with the rest of the obstructionist Republicans, and the bill died.

Jeff Barnett, running against Wolf this fall, is a champion for job creation. He understands that investing in education and training is key to getting people back into the workforce again. He’s not interested in going along with cheap political stunts like Frank Wolf is – he’s committed to fixing our problems in our time and on our dime.

The first fix is to remove the 15-term, do-nothing incumbent from office, and keep this economy moving along.

Rosalind Helderman  of The Washington Post today tells us of a letter written by 10 members of the Virginia General Assembly, all military veterans, to Senators Jim Webb and Mark Warner, “expressing their apprehension” regarding President Obama’s selection of Elena Kagan as the next  Supreme Court justice.

The Assembly members (including Del. Thomas A. Greason (R-32)) take issue with Solicitor General Kagan’s amicus brief filed when she was Dean of Harvard Law regarding her opposition to military recruiters on Harvard’s campus. What the Assembly members fail to say in their letter to the Senators is that Ms. Kagan was against the recruiters’ presence primarily because the military’s stance on gay and lesbian servicemembers ran counter to Harvard’s non-discrimination policy. Simply put, if the military would treat all potential enlistees/officer candidates equally, regardless of sexual orientation, there would be no issue. The Atlantic further reveals that a Harvard student/soldier doesn’t doubt Kagan’s support of pursuing a military career; just the fact that the military discriminates against a certain sector of the population.(As a proud former military member myself, and a staunch supporter of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, I have no problem with Ms. Kagan’s completely rational argument.)

The Assembly members also go on to assert that Ms. Kagan :

would be the only current member of the Supreme Court to come to the bench without prior judicial experience. As such, she has no body of rulings from which to form even the most basic conclusions as to her judicial philosophy.

Yet another misstep on the legislators’ parts – there have been many instances of justices with no prior judicial experience serving on the Supreme Court; former Chief Justice Willam Rehnquist, for one. The Los Angeles Times states:

Kagan is most often compared to William H. Rehnquist, who was a lawyer in the Justice Department when President Nixon selected him for the court in 1971. Rehnquist had never served as a judge but had spent years in private practice in Arizona. Like (Earl) Warren, he later became chief justice.

Yes, that’s right, former Chief Justice Earl Warren also had no judicial experience when he was appointed to the court, either.

It seems that in the typical GOP obstructionary mode, they have no ideas other than to say “No”, so they will go to great lengths to distort someone’s record and qualifications to support their narrow views.

Virginia, along with the 32nd District, deserves better from its’ legislators.

I’ve outlined in previous blog postings about how Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA-10) claims to support the middle class through tax incentives and also seems to promote job creation.  Yet his actions speak louder than his words, to use an oft-quoted axiom.

On May 6, 2010, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5019, the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010, on a 246-161 vote.  This act, among other things, would “create jobs, save energy, and lower families’ energy bills”.  The act would authorize rebates between $3,000 and $8,000 for homeowners who upgrade their homes to be more energy-efficient. The jobs would be created in the construction industry (along with construction-related sectors), and would potentially offer benefits to 3 million homeowners.

Yet, Rep. Wolf voted “no” on H.R. 5019. In the past, Rep. Wolf has voted against Democratic proposals simply on the basis of party politics. Yet on this bill, a number of Republicans voted “Yea” (Maryland Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, for one), so party politics may not be entirely to blame.  It could have something to do with funding, yet the CBO states:

“Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues”

Nowhere on Rep. Wolf’s campaign website does it mention anything about protecting the environment or creating private sector jobs,  but on his official House website, he does state that he supports conservation and energy efficiency. It looks, though, as if that only applies to conserving fuel, not the energy in your homes.

He does support H.R. 2846, the American Energy Act, which provides “tax incentives to businesses and homeowners that improve energy efficiency”, but that bill is heavily tilted towards supporting off-shore oil drilling. That bill was sponsored by House Minority leader John Boehner (R-OH), and is currently in committee. H.R. 5019 was sponsored by Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT), so that could explain his ambivalence.

Nevertheless, when it comes to supporting job creation, energy efficiency, and tax incentives for homeowners, Frank Wolf continues to play politics, while Jeff Barnett, Democratic candidate for the 10th district of Virginia is actually looking out for your best interests.