Sensible, centrist Democrats have built in advantages over these very conservative candidates when it comes to statewide elections. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine are obviously the prototypes, and it bodes well for a candidate like Creigh Deeds in 2009 (should he be the nominee. BTW, I AM NOT looking to start a Deeds v. Moran electability debate -- I happen to mention him solely because I am more familiar with him and do not really know much about Brian Moran).

Only about 35% of the population sides with this demagoguery, while 56% oppose it. It's also interesting to note that only 29% (about equal to the number of Bush Dead Enders out there) actually want Roe v. Wade overturned.

pitiful.

PAY DAY LENDING
The Senate and House of Delegates have approved legislation to reform pay day lending in Virginia.  While there are differences in the bills approved by the Senate and the House of Delegates, both bills focus on limiting the number of pay day loans a borrower can have at any time and imposing some restriction on the amount of interest and fees a lender can charge.  The differences in the bills will have to be resolved before the end of the legislative session in March.  That will not be an easy task, so it remains to be seen if a final pay day reform bill will pass the General Assembly this year.

PROPERTY TAX RELIEF
The House of Delegates has approved a Constitutional Amendment that would authorize local governments in Virginia to exempt the first 20% of a residential property's assessed value from taxation.  The so called Homestead Exemption is intended to enable localities to provide relief from skyrocketing property assessments to taxpayers.  Unfortunately, the Senate's Committee on Finance has rejected a similar Constitutional Amendment.

I remain hopeful that the Senate will change its position and approve this proposal.  I support the Homestead Exemption and have included it in my 2008 Legislative Agenda.  I believe this is a reasonable tool the state can give local governments to enable them to provide needed tax relief to citizens.

Two other important property tax bills were also included in my 2008 Legislative Agenda.

HB 1009 would require local governments to notify taxpayers of the specific impact that property reassessments and the adoption of revised real estate tax rates will have on their individual taxes before these revised tax rates can be adopted.  I am pleased to report that HB1009 has been approved by the House of Delegates and communicated to the Senate for its consideration.

HB 602 would have shifted the burden of proving that a property assessment is accurate to the locality when an assessment exceeds 20 percent in a single year.  Under current Virginia law, the burden of proving that an assessment is inaccurate rests with the homeowner.  Unfortunately, the Committee on Finance in the House of Delegates chose to take no action on HB 602.  This was an important bill that would have helped level the playing field between property owners and local governments.  I am disappointed that it was rejected.

RIGHT TO LIFE
The House of Delegates has approved legislation that would require abortion clinics in Virginia to meet the same patient safety standards as other ambulatory surgery centers.  Currently, such clinics only have to comply with lesser standards such as those imposed on a doctors office.  Unfortunately, the Senate's Committee on Education and Health has rejected a similar legislative proposal.

Opponents of this legislation argued that it was designed to limit access to abortions, a charge that the bill's sponsor, Senator Jill Vogel, denied.  I have always supported this legislation, which is necessary to improve and assure patient safety.  Abortion is a major surgical procedure, and we should insist that adequate patient safety standards are in place to protect patients from harm.

The Committee on Education and Health has also rejected two other abortion related bills.

SB 542 would have prohibited school districts from providing abortion services, while also prohibiting any group providing abortion services from providing information or course materials on human sexuality in a public school system.

SB 762 would have created a Class 1 misdemeanor charge for anyone who coerces a woman to have an abortion and a Class 6 felony charge if the woman is less than 18 years old and is being coerced by the father of the child who is more than 18 years old.

Even before last fall's elections, the Senate's Committee on Education and Health had a reputation of routinely rejecting pro-life legislative initiatives.  However, after Democrats won a majority in the Senate in November of 2007, they stacked the Committee with a partisan super majority.  This will make it even more difficult to advance pro-life initiatives in the Senate, but we must continue the effort.

RAISING THE GAS TAX
The Senate has approved legislation to enact a 5 cent per gallon increase in the state gas tax over the next five years.  The bill, introduced by Senator Richard Saslaw (D-Fairfax), was approved on a 25-15 vote.

Supporters of the gas tax increase argued that it was needed to provide $260M in additional funding for highway maintenance.  Opponents argued that the General Assembly's focus should be on reducing spending and redirecting existing revenues to important priorities like highway maintenance, not increasing taxes.

I was very pleased that most Republican Senators opposed the gas tax increase.  Of the 19 Republicans in the Senate, only four supported higher gas taxes.

Even though it was approved by the Senate, it is unlikely that this legislation will be approved by the House of Delegates.  The House has already rejected several similar tax increase proposals.

BONDS AND DEBT
The Senate has approved a major bond package that would authorize $2.6B in new state debt for capitol projects at Virginia's colleges and universities, state parks, prisons, mental hospitals and other government facilities.  The bonds would be repaid with interest by Virginia taxpayers with annual debt service of about $200M.

Supporters of the bond package argued that it is the only way to pursue needed capitol projects at a time when they cannot be financed with cash, and that the bond package would help jump start Virginia's economy.  Opponents argued that the bond package was too large and the annual debt service could not be supported at a time when revenue collections are lagging.

The vote on the bond package was 22-18, largely along party lines.  Democrats supported the proposal, while a more conservative $1.3B bond package was preferred by Senate Republicans. Only one Republican joined the Democrats in supporting the larger bond package.

Many of the projects included in this bond package are very worthwhile initiatives and some debt can be supported in the state's upcoming budget.  However, I believe that the Democrats bond package is too large, and it should be scaled back considerably before final passage.  We must be certain that we can afford the additional debt service, and we should not run the risk of exhausting our limited debt capacity.

I am also concerned that Senate Democrats chose to pursue certain types of public educational and facilities bonds that do not require voter approval and carry a higher interest rate.  If we are going to incur this much debt at one time, I believe we should use General Obligation bonds, which carry a lower interest rate and give taxpayers an opportunity to approve the proposed debt.

The House of Delegates has approved a somewhat smaller bond package totaling $1.8B.  The differences between these competing approaches will have to be resolved before the end of the legislative session.

SECOND AMENDMENT
In last week's edition of The Bolling Report, I incorrectly reported that the Senate had given approval to SB 529, which would protect the names, addresses and other personal information of carriers of concealed weapons permits from being broadly disseminated.  SB 529 was in fact returned to committee for further consideration after it had advanced to the floor of the Senate.

However, similar legislation has been approved by the House of Delegates and communicated to the Senate.  I remain hopeful that the General Assembly will approve this legislation.  The personal information of concealed carry permit holders should be held in strict confidence, and not subject to public disclosure.

In other Second Amendment news, the Senate has given approval to SB 476, which would repeal the so-called restaurant ban in Virginia.

Currently, a person possessing a concealed carry permit cannot carry a concealed firearm into any restaurant where alcohol is served, but anyone can carry a firearm into the same restaurant as long as the firearm is visible.  Under the terms of SB 476, a concealed carry permit holder would be allowed to carry a concealed firearm into such an establishment as long as they do not consume alcohol.

I support passage of SB 476.  The current restaurant ban is illogical and should be repealed.  Persons who have concealed carry permits have been carefully reviewed by the court and determined to have the ability to safely carry a concealed firearm.  They should not be prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm into a restaurant just because it serves alcohol, as long as they are not consuming alcohol.

Finally, the Senate has approved SB 436, which allows any person who may lawfully possess a firearm to carry that firearm in a concealed manner in a private motor vehicle or boat as long as the firearm is locked in a secured container or compartment.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
The Senate and House of Delegates have taken very different approaches on dealing with the issue of illegal immigrants attending Virginia's public colleges and universities.

The House of Delegates has approved legislation that would prohibit illegal immigrants from attending public colleges and universities in Virginia.  Supporters of the legislation argue that illegal immigrants should not be allowed to attend a college or university that is supported by tax dollars and take up limited admissions slots that should be reserved for Virginia citizens.

However, the Senate has approved legislation that would not only continue to permit illegals to attend public colleges and universities, but carve out certain circumstances under which they can continue to pay in state tuition.

Under the provisions of SB 652 an illegal immigrant could attend a public college or university in Virginia and pay in state tuition if they have 1) resided with their parent or legal guardian in the Commonwealth for at least three years, 2) graduated from high school in Virginia or received a GED certificate in Virginia, 3) submitted evidence that their parent or legal guardian has paid incomes taxes in Virginia for the past three years and 4) submitted evidence that they are actively pursuing permanent resident status.

I support the position taken by the House of Delegates.  I do not believe that illegal immigrants should be allowed to attend Virginia's public colleges or universities, and I certainly do not believe that they should be entitled to the benefit of taxpayer subsidized in state tuition.  If we are ever going to deal with the problem of illegal immigration, we have to stop providing the benefits of citizenship to people who are in our country illegally.

And by the way Lowell in term of the Bolling and abortion views, remember Barrack Obama when given the opportunity to cast a vote on prohibiting funds for groups performing abortions in 2007 (his vote was NO VOTE) so my guess is the issue is not a clear cut as some would have us believe even on the national level. I for one am a firm believer in the right of a women to make her own determination but that it should not be funded by tax payer dollars within any state program in any manner whatsoever.

This year's Presidential race is hypercharged (because any Progressive or Democrat so strongly wants to make sure our country is not burdened with another complete Republican failure) and you are seeing a result of that in terms of the level of support for the candidate many of us feel is the best choice for the future of the country.

Bottom line to your question is simply to refer to what happened last year.  If you've been reading for a long time you probably have a good idea of how it'll work.  If not, I recommend looking into the posts from last year's primary season.  

One of my objections to RK has been the "me-too" sentiment that seems to be common to all political blogs.  However, I love to challenge it whenever appropriate.

As to your specific comments about abortion, I have always wondered why Democrats can support "a woman's right to choose" while opposing the execution of convicted serial rapists and murderers.  That does not compute.  Life is life; at least, that is my Roman Catholic up-bringing.  Of course, every time that I think that I could reconcile myself to an abolition of the death penalty, along comes a death penalty poster child like Tim McVeigh and I lose all sympathy.  

It's obvious why many don't support the death penalty.  And something that is not always obvious -- have you ever checked the "error rate" of those on death row?  Sometimes we convict and sentence to death the WRONG people.

A better question is why do such a vast majority of pro-lifer's who are opposed to ending early stages of embryonic development, support sending our troops, who have families and existing loved ones, to die, or become maimed, or suffer a lifetime of mental health issues to fight in a war based on lies?  

And why does it seem like so many young republicans are in college - as opposed to fighting in this war that they vote to continue?

Remember, however, that every time a woman chooses to end an "embryonic life" an innocent person is killed.  The "error rate" there is 100%.

I could not agree more with you about the chickenhawk Republicans.  I spent 25 years in uniform on active duty and have nothing but contempt for those who profess to support a strong national defense but who have never served a day in any capacity.  Well, perhaps contempt is too strong a word.  But, I do doubt that they have the courage of their convictions.

Thanks for the response.

You see, college students, whether liberal or conservative, are first and foremost rebels.  They want to shake up "the system."  That's the way we were in the 70's and that's the way they are today.

I for one am a firm believer in the right of a women to make her own determination but that it should not be funded by tax payer dollars within any state program in any manner whatsoever.

Even leaving aside the practical reasons why this is a bad idea, the philosophical problem with your position is that is essentially denies poor women a medical procedure that you they agree they should have access to as a matter of Constitutional right.

That's enough to keep us all up nights.