Marc Fisher has a hard-hitting column this morning on "Virginia Values."
Virginia values? For nearly 200 years, the state has hewed to the ideals of low taxes, limited services and resistance to newcomers, Dunn says. "They don't want roads, they don't want schools, they don't want large cities. And yet they're idealistic, with this great vision of yeoman farmers, of rugged individualism in the name of real Virginia values."Today, Virginia "should be glad to have new blood coming in," the historian says.
Instead, legislators scurry to pick up the pieces after their latest attempt to fool the voters blew up in their faces: the cynical attempt to pay for new roads without raising taxes but, rather, by imposing steep abuser fees on drivers.
Now Howell and friends, anticipating the voters' wrath in next month's elections, wrap themselves once more in Virginia values, lashing out at immigrants every which way they can.
To read the entire article, click here. And be thankful that Virginia is changing fast.
House Speaker William Howell, a Republican from Stafford County, told a group of business leaders at a $250-a-head reception that the people who've been moving to the state of late -- such as, say, immigrants -- might not be clued in on the "shared values we have in Virginia." ... When The Washington Post's Tim Craig called Howell to inquire, the speaker gallantly hung up on the reporter. Later, Howell's spokesman said his boss was talking about "Virginia values" -- the slogan Mr. Macaca, former senator George Allen, used in his campaigns -- such as "lower taxes, less burdensome regulations and a positive business environment."How many different black marks can you fit into four sentences? Xenophobia, complete lack of accountability, allegiance with a known racist, pushing for lower taxes when the state faces a budget shortfall and massive infrastructure needs ... it's a smorgasboard of fear and loathing.Or is the ultimate Virginia value simply a matter of the political elite preserving its power?
(When I first moved here from Georgia 10 years ago, I thought I'd be getting into a bit more modern of a political environment. Ha. The thoughts of the uninformed. Virginia makes Georgia look positively progressive.)
We are anti illegal not anti immigration
We believe in efficiency and accountability in government
We think the individual should be trusted and is better able to handle situations than the government
Breathe take a step back. I would hope most logical thinking adults would agree with these points.
- If you're anti-illegal, what would you propose we do with the more than 10 million illegal immigrants and their children born here who are American citizens?
- How is "efficiency" going to provide the billions needed build needed roads and Metro to Dulles without tax increases when we're already in deficit?
- How is government telling two gay partners that they can't get married a triumph of the individual over government?
Point 2 efficiency would show that Metro to Dulles is a 5 billion dollar pipe dream and that there are much more important and cost-effective transportation projects that can be funded within existing revenues
Point 3 that is one issue that I personally disagree with the "official R position" I have no problem with civil unions but that is one red herring. On the larger point I was mainly talking about taxes and regulation
Point 1 - with a declining population among non-hispanic whites, how do you plan to grow the labor pool to provide for a growing economy? And how to you plan to prevent economic disruptions when you eliminate a labor force through enforcement measures? Take a look at this article on the effects of the Smithfield Food's raid. Is the labor market so nimble that is can efficiently absorb all these open positions? Are you for increasing legal immigration to make up for the labor lost by deporting illegal immigrants?
Point 2 - efficiency would have been increasing an excise tax or a broad based tax to fund the transportation bill rather than coming up with a slew of fee increases and a convoluted abusive driver fee. Both parties espouse efficiency, but talking the talk and walking the walk are obviously two different things. And on your rail to Dulles point, Republicans have been just as involved in making that happen. On competing projects, what would have been a more useful expenditure?
Point 3 - The Republican viewing on social issues is not a red herring. This is where Republicans feel that government has every right to intrude on the personal affairs of individuals. How is that not relevant to your statement about individuals knowing better than government? I think upon reflection, you will agree that it is very relevant and not a red herring.
On regulation, do you think that the state need not licence professionals? Do you think the state should not regulate privately owned public utilities? How do you apply this belief? Should there be no regulation? What is the right amount if it is more than none? As far as the state Republican party's position, they must favor more regulation because they re-regulated the state's electric utility market.
On taxation, taxes are needed to fund the operations of the state. And as the state grows and demographics change, the need for revenue also changes. Where exactly is your stance on taxation? Is it the House of Delegates Republicans position of no tax increases whatsoever? And if you are not raising revenue, what services are you cutting? Virginia runs a pretty lean operation as it is. Are you under the assumption that current taxation at present is too high or just right? Is it not possible that taxation is artificially low reflecting the old rural demographic of the state, but a more urbanized state might require greater tax revenue?
And I don't doubt that there are a large minority of Republicans that believe in that branding -- the party of personal responsibility. Except that the elites of the Republican party and the actual Republican elected officials couldn't care less about those types of ideals. It's all, and I mean ALL, about campaigning, trashing the opponents, and winning, for winning's sake. Once in power, it's about greasing the skids for those that helped pay to get them into power and perpetuating the machine. When in the minority, something y'all should get used to, it's about obstruction and preventing the popular majority positions from being enacted.
As Teddy has talked about in comments eloquently a number of times, this wave of illegal immigration was in most ways prompted by the actions of the Reagan administration as a way to further punish and emasculate the labor coalitions and supply cheap labor to industry. I think most Americans would like to see illegal immigration ended, but the fact is that that's very, very difficult, and I'm not in favor of cutting off my nose to spite my face. The Republican party in general has become the party that derives its power from xenophobia and hatred -- of Hispanics and Mexicans (they're all illegals!), of labor, of blacks, of gays -- and this is a purposeful tactic of Republican party elites.
If after almost 7 years of the Bush presidency and 4 uninterrupted years of complete Republican control of government you can say, with a straight face, that the Republican party stands for accountability in government, you are lying to yourself, or a liar.
As for your third point, that is demonstrably false. The Republican party stands for intervention by the state into the private decisions of citizens -- whether it's the private health decisions of women about their own bodies, or citizens that want to privately use certain substances to alleviate pain, whether it's a private decision of a family to confront the life or death decisions of a partner in a persistent vegetative state that is done clearly within the bounds of state law, whether it's the private sexual behavior of Americans. And on and on.
[And anyway, that last point is cant. The question is more properly framed as whether or not government has an obligation to extend a hand to help people improve their own lives. The Republican party stands mostly for helping out those that are already very well off and don't need any more advantages.]
I would agree that most logical adults would agree with those points, but Republican officials and elites absolutely do not stand for those ideals.
If you really think people like Tom Davis, George Bush, George Allen, Jim Gilmore, Corey Stewart, etc., etc., stand for those things, you are deluding yourself.
1. Truth and lies have switched places: Lies continually repeated function like the truth, while truths that go unuttered function as if they were lies. A prime example of this in the 2000 election was the conventional wisdom that Gore was a serial liar, while Bush was a man of great integrity-a straight-talker.2. Taken to the extreme, things that cannot possibly be so have taken the place of fundamental truths. A prime example of this is the so-called "war on terror"-something that makes absolutely no sense, if you stop and think about it.
3. Verbal formulations are used that are inherently nonsensical and cannot be used rationally-at least in the existing total environment. "Supporting the troops" is a prime example of this.
Yes, in conservative world, up is down, war is peace, and truth is lie. Just keep that in mind whenever you read "truthseeker" or his ilk's Wormtongue-speak.
**We believe in efficiency and accountability in government**
The republican party only believes this when Democrats or Independents are involved. I dispute whether it believes this with other republicans.
No sane person can say that our wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and on terror have been waged with efficiency. bush-cheney have tried to give control of our ports to our enemies, refused to secure our own borders, and invaded 2 countries with battle plans so pathetic that we are in 2 unending quagmires that are bankrupting America.
bush-cheney have --
*broken our laws (illegal wiretapping, illegally spying on Americans)
*refused to inforce our laws (immigration)
*sold out the very values on which our civilization is based (our whole civilization is based on the radical notion that a person is innocent until proven guilty. bush-cheney claim them can declare anyone a terrorist and imprison him/her without any trial or legal proceeding as long as they want to)
republicans have refused to support our American value system and support our troops, instead blindly following bush-cheney as they bring our country closer and closer to the brink.
**We think the individual should be trusted and is better able to handle situations than the government**
This is a nice philosophy for a dream world. However in the real world, this philosophy actually can be called the survival and prosperity of the luckiest and fittest. I argue that this philosophy does not work in extreme circumstances. Katrin would certainly be an example. In these situations the government is needed to step in and help out. Also in situations such as Worldcom and Enron in which folks in authority are lying and gaming the individual. Also when you have the government with policies so extreme that they essentially screw the weak (bringing in cheap labor for rich companies, moving much work overseas), the government has a responsiblity to help those it has screwed.
I was talking about Virginia voters
Lowell did you miss your naptime again today
I will continue to debate with adults and ignore or offer similar tone rhetoric to the hyperpartisans and children
I broke the rule of not posting while you are mad
Lowell really gets my buttons pushed