QUESTION:  Shall Loudoun County, Virginia, be authorized to levy a tax, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 58.1-3833(A), on food and beverages sold for human consumption by restaurants and on prepared foods sold ready for human consumption by grocery stores and convenience stores, in an amount not to exceed 4% of the amount charged for such food and beverages, to be used exclusively for school construction projects and school construction debt service?
(     )  YES

(     )  NO

The way it should read is this:

Question: Shall Loudoun County while facing a downturn in our economy, make that downturn even worse by a) making Loudoun County residents and visitors to our county pay MORE for their meal out and b) making sure that restaurants have less money in their pockets to pay their employees. This money is to be used “for the children” though, so even though there really won’t be any extra money, and could potentially make our debt even worse with the added possibilities of closing restaurants, you should feel better that we “care” enough to raise taxes on the hospitality industry in Loudoun.
( ) YES
( ) NO

Anyone that thinks that our Real Estate taxes are going to somehow be miraculously lowered by creating a meals tax is in a dream world. It doesn’t work; it’s never worked. Look at Maryland.

Vote “NO” for the love of God, and for more information please the site for Loudoun Taxpayers for Accountable Government.

Virginia’s congressional delegation was sharply divided, with six voting against the package and five in favor. Bobby Scott was the only Virginia Democrat voting against the bill. He joined Republicans Robert Wittman, Thelma Drake, Randy Forbes, Virginia Goode and Robert Goodlatte.

Voting for the legislation were Republicans Eric Cantor, Frank Wolf and Tom Davis, and Democrats Jim Moran and Rick Boucher.

If I recall correctly, Eric Cantor was one of the Republicans front and center really pushing this thing.

But since my Representative is Frank Wolf, that’s who has some explaining to do to me (OK, not me in particular, but his constituents in general).  And check THIS out.  His former primary opponent, Vern McKinley (whom Mr. Wolf trounced 9 to 1), reportedly warned about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae more than 10 years ago:

“Although Freddie and Fannie are privately owned, they are what is known as government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). GSEs don’t have to follow all the rules that true privately owned companies do: they don’t have to register their securities with the government, their securities receive special treatment for investment purposes, they don’t have to pay state and local income taxes and–most important–their government sponsorship gives them the aura of a fully guaranteed government entity. That final benefit means they save billions in borrowing costs, just as lenders are willing to offer low-interest student loans that are guaranteed by the government. That savings alone allows the GSEs to pocket about $2 billion per year, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office and the Treasury Department.”

“Allowing Congress to grant such special privileges is a bad idea. Those privileges, which are granted solely to Freddie and Fannie, crowd out other potential competitors in their market. Privately owned companies should not receive such preferred borrowing status, because it redirects investor funds into the middle- and upper-income housing market at the expense of other potential investments. Finally, the failure of either Freddie or Fannie could saddle taxpayers with a huge liability.”

“Congress should immediately revoke all the benefits of government sponsorship: clearly, Freddie and Fannie can be profitable without them. Eliminating special privileges will force mortgage markets to be truly competitive and will eliminate the possibility that the current system of government sponsorship will someday lead to yet another taxpayer-funded bailout.”

Just think what difference it would make if we had a few more Republicans in the House (and Senate) actually acting like Republicans.  Well I’ll say one thing, there were many today who did, and I thank God for them.

If you would like to actually afford the house you live in, however, you may want to consider the H-town. Houston added 100,000 jobs last year (100.001, if you include mine). There are millions of Houston haters out there, typically those that work in the media, guys like Bill Simmons from ESPN who for some reason prefers to live in Los Angeles.

Over the course of the summer I’ve seen an Astros game and wandered into a free symphony concert in the park right next to my house. There are plenty of great concerts in the summer and a ton of theater seats. To all the haters on the coasts, please don’t move here and try zone us out and flip our houses and bust our economy…stay where you are, hate on Houston, and be miserable.

Believe it or not, I’ve put a lot of thought lately (meaning about the last 4 years or so) into how important it is for us to think deeply about why we believe what we believe, and why seeing different perspectives is not only useful, but absolutely necessary to put our own views in their proper context.

With that in mind, let me reiterate what I’ve pointed out in a previous post, and this will likely become a recurring theme of mine:

Maybe the problem is that the “Conservative” three-legged stool should NOT be:

• Free Markets
• Christian Fundamentalism
• Peace through Strength.

But should instead be:

• Limited and Enumerated Government
• Community and Family Values
• National Sovereignty

…Without this perspective Conservatives look like either: 1) warmongers, 2) greedy money-grubbers, or 3) fanatic proselytes. (As opposed to Environmentalist Wackos, Feminazis, and Peaceniks)…

The above was my ranting about the quick narrowing of alternatives on the Republican side of the ticket for the Presidency, however, there are several things that I have observed over the last 6 weeks or so that has crystallized my thinking even further. Those events were these:

A trip to Richmond to the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Capitol where the most striking moment of the day (for me anyway) was reading this inscription on the statue of Robert E Lee, planted six steps into the chambers where he actually stood to say these words:

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention:

Profoundly impressed with the solemnity of the occasion, for which I must say I was not prepared, I accept the position assigned me by your partiality. I would have preferred had your choice fallen upon an abler man. Trusting in Almighty God, an approving conscience, and the aid of my fellow-citizens, I devote myself to the service of my native State, in whose behalf alone will I ever again draw my sword.

Now, I had heard that quote before, but seeing it on his statue right there in the Chambers put a huge lump in my throat. I stood speechless for a moment and tried to understand what he must have gone through. I sincerely hope I never REALLY have to understand it. If any reading this has not read a thorough history of Robert E Lee, then we will have a hard time having a conversation about what it truly means to be an American. He is in my mind one of our great Patriots. If you think that’s just crazy, well…too bad.

Another “event” was catching (sporadically) back episodes of Jericho on HD and the new season on CBS. Never has a fictional show made me think more about the role of my Federal Government. If you haven’t watched this show…please do so. Regardless of your political perspective, it’s an excellent warning about how dangerous it is for us to place so much authority and responsibility on bureaucrats hundreds and even thousands of miles away.

Add to the above (in random order): The SCOTUS taking on the DC gun ban; Newt Gingrich’s speech at CPAC; a local project I worked on titled–”Ensuring a Sense of Community in Loudoun County” (long story); of course, the unlikely successes and lack thereof, of Governor Huckabee; and lastly a few chapters into “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg…

…And I have come to the conclusion that what is really missing from the “Conservative movement,” the “Reagan Coalition,” or perhaps a NEW collective, starts with fundamental belief in the following:

• Having strong self-reliant communities where simple (dare I say “traditional”) values of that community are encouraged and supported by neighbors instead of enforced by the Government.
• A simple and direct foreign (and border) policy, which certainly respects the sovereignty of other countries, but first and foremost places our OWN sovereignty, safety, and indeed prosperity on the TOP of the priority list (as we would expect other countries to put THEIR rights and THEIR welfares on top of THEIR priority list).
• A health, education, and welfare system with a “bottom-up” approach instead of a “top-down” approach, where States, local communities, and families have ALL of the authority and all of the responsibility over the health, education, and welfare of their citizens and families. The Federal Government’s role in these areas would be limited to that of promoting “best practices” among the Republic, and would instead focus its attention on that which is in its purview, including the task of making sure that fundamental Constitutional rights of individual citizens are not infringed upon.

Am I simply in a dream world, or do these sound like universally Constitutional and classically liberal values? If not, what am I missing? Are these concepts outdated? Impossible in a “modern world”?  If they are appropriate–why is it that these values have been completely lost on the leadership of both major political parties?

And lastly? What can be done about this disconnect?

“If payment of the regional taxes and fees is to be required by a general law, it is the prerogative of the General Assembly, as provided by Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, to make this decision,” said the opinion written by Justice S. Bernard Goodwyn. Gov. Tim Kaine (D) appointed Goodwyn to the Supreme Court.
“The General Assembly has failed to adhere to the mandates of accountability and transparency that the constitution requires,” wrote Goodwyn, “We conclude that the Constitution clearly contemplates that taxes must be imposed only by a majority of the elected representatives of a legislative body.”

I can’t say I’m too terribly surprised by this. It seemed a little suspicious to me from the get-go. Mainly because one could easily see the progression that let to the NVTA:

1) Northern Virginia needs more transportation money.
2) Virginia assembly members from outside Northern Virginia didn’t want more money coming back up here from the general fund in Richmond.
3) Neither did they want to raise taxes on the State level to fund it.
4) Northern Virginia still needs transportation money.
5) Local governments didn’t have the ability to pool their resources to raise money and keep the money in Northern Virginia for transportation.
6) So they got Richmond to create a pool for them.

But that didn’t make it constitutional. I’d have to say it is indeed a victory for the taxpayers of Northern Virginia. When we currently only get 20% back of every dollar we send to Richmond, it seemed to me not too much to ask to get a little more than that without having to form another tax levying entity.

It would have been more logical for the State to levy those taxes itself and regionalize the transportation fees. So that Northern Virginia districts would get the an even higher share of new transportation funds (because they need it), as they get a lower share of the education funds (even though they need it). I’m not sure of the numbers there, and perhaps someone could educate me. But a separate tax-levying entity didn’t pass the smell test for me from the start (see here and here).

That when you stack up Virginia with all of the other States from a “tax burden” standpoint, that Virginia is 47th out of 50.  This means that there are only 3 states that are more “tax-friendly.”  Isn’t that great?  My being a fiscal conservative lends me to believe that’s a good thing.  So I would call that a number 4 ranking not a 47.

There’s only one problem:  It isn’t true.  We do have a RELATIVELY friendly state for taxes, especially business taxes.  But 4th ranked we are not.  On individual taxes we usually rank (rank as in most “tax-friendly”) somewhere among the top 15-20, and on business taxes we were ranked number 8 for 2006.   We’re in the top half, but one thing strike me as odd:  Why would someone tout this statistic as a rationalization for RAISING taxes without any acknowledgment or analysis of whether there is indeed a connection between a higher tax burden and “better” government.

A few links on the subject:

http://money.cnn.com/ga….friendliest/8.html

http://www.taxfoundation…./show/335.html

http://www.taxfoundation…./show/1369.html

The real good news for business owners:  I did hear (from another public official) that we were the HIGHEST ranked State (according to Forbes) from an overall “Business Friendliness” standpoint.  Guess what?  That one was true:

http://www.forbes.com…bizstates-table.html

“We’re in a situation where we’ve increased in population such that we’re not the rural county we once were,” York said. “Our surrounding jurisdictions, Prince William, Fairfax, Arlington, all have police forces, but they also have a sheriff’s office for the courts.”

…Sheriff Stephen O. Simpson (I) strongly opposes the move to a police force. During last year’s three-way race for sheriff, both the Democrat and Republican candidates endorsed the switch. Starting his fourth term, Simpson says a police force is unnecessary because all of the services a police department would give are already being provide by the sheriff’s office and its almost 500 deputies.

“We’re the largest full-service sheriff’s office in Virginia,” he said. “A police department would not change anything we do. Some of the largest law enforcement units in the U.S. are sheriff’s offices.”

Simpson also challenges the claim that the sheriff’s office does not provide job security and does not hold him accountable enough to the county.

“I think there’s more accountability this way,” he said. “I am accountable to every citizen in the county. If you hire a police chief he’s only accountable to nine people.”

It’s an interesting question what the real change would be and what the practical differences are between an elected Sheriff and an appointed Chief of Police. And wouldn’t it mean that there would be no reason for an election for Sheriff at all? Why would we even bother to elect a constitutional officer whose only responsibility would be to run the county jail and guard the courthouse?

This guy just gets it…pure and simple…he’s wrong about a few things, but not on this one.

If Mark Davis were to follow his market analogy, then he would agree that competition breeds quality improvement.

There is a plethora of evidence that:

a) McCain indeed could conceivably go into the convention without 1191 delegates.
b) The other candidates (all that currently have delegates–Huckabee, Romney, and Paul) will as a result have influence at that convention.
c) All four of these Republicans add to the discourse, and as a result improve the party and hold it to its principles of National Security, Free-markets, and Traditionalism.
d) Governor Huckabee and Congressman Paul will have a debate with John McCain at least once before the very important March 4th Primaries. This helps the Republican party in a plethora of very obvious ways.

There is no such thing as a perfect candidate with a perfect history. Reagan wasn’t perfect either, but he communicated the Conservative vision extremely well. Huckabee does that better than McCain and that’s why he is doing so well in “Middle America.” That doesn’t make him perfect, and it doesn’t make him Ronald Reagan, but why is a candidate having MORE success in core Republican States make him LESS of a player than someone having LESS success there (like Romney).

If we are concerned about the future of the party (or more  importantly the Conservative Movement), you need to look no further than the Youth Vote on the Republican side. In competitive Primary states (Missouri, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Georgia) Republican voters between 18-29 vote pretty largely in favor of Huckabee…there’s a reason for that, and it’s mainly because the guy makes sense, he doesn’t “golly” too much and he doesn’t speak down to people, he relates and he connects.

Another odd thing about the “Middle America” voter:  the “three legs of the Conservative stool” are not represented so clear cut by the candidates’ supporters.  For instance, Mitt Romney supporters are more confident of his foreign policy abilities than they are his economic abilities, and McCain supporters are more confident in his economic abilities than in his foreign policy abilities.  Seems odd doesn’t it?  It’s not odd; it means that most people don’t vote like mindless drones based on ONE issue.  If they’re voting for some guy, they either a) like him because they like him, or b) believe he is the right man for the job…period.

The reason why a John McCain fan feels John McCain can handle the economy better is because they trust him…they respect his military leadership experience to the point where they think he would MAKES BETTER DECISIONS about the economy.  An avid Romney fan trusts Romney to run our Military the same way he run his businesses: efficiently, intelligently, calling on other experts for advise, and MAKING GOOD DECISIONS.

And a Huckabee fan trusts Huckabee with Foreign Policy AND the Economy, not because they hope he’ll sweep into the White House, change all our textbooks to teach only Creationism, hang all the gay people and hand out guns to first graders.  They trust him because they trust his ability to MAKE DECISIONS based on his Faith, his Principles, and his Values, and like the idea of his getting on his knees every once in a while and asking the Good Lord for guidance.  Thus the often maligned and often denigrated “Evangelical Right” wants a leader that makes major decisions much like they do.  (And by the way, did anyone notice that the more educated voters in these States tend to vote for Huckabee…hmm.)

All that to say that “the third leg of the stool” is the one that is missing from the Conservative conversation…and Huckabee embodies that even more than the current President does, because he talks about ECONOMIC and NATIONAL SECURITY issues from the SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE point of view.  Reagan did it…A LOT!…just listen to his speeches.  It’s perfectly reasonable (even recommended) for someone’s foreign policy and economic ideals to be firmly rooted in their “SOCIAL” principles.

Liberals do it easily.  Every argument they make stems from a social core:  Respect for human dignity, the plight of the poor, equality, “universal health care”, privacy…

Name an argument–foreign policy, economics, or social–from the left’s point of view that doesn’t stem from this core.  It’s impossible to think of one.  Simple economics, historical truths, science…all can be ignored at the drop of the hat because of what they feel is the “Right” thing to do.  And their logic still comes out looking consistent and sound.

The Conservative view has the ability to do the same thing, but it gets lost in semantics:  “I’m a FISCAL conservative so I think those dumb redneck christians should just shut up about their stupid “social” issues. ”  or “That Romney guy is a good business person, but I just don’t think he has what it takes to fight the ‘War on Terror’” or “That McCain guy thought stemcell research was a good idea so he should definitely ROT IN HELL.”

I’ve often said that the thinking Conservative view is harder to sell because it requires logic to defend it, whereas the Liberal point of view doesn’t require it at all.  The problem with that is, obviously, thinking Liberals feel the same way about the Conservative view.  Thus logical conversations are often impossible between even the most intelligent political thinkers.

Maybe the problem is that the Conservative three-legged stool is not really Free Markets, Christian Fundamentalism, and Peace through Strength.  Instead, maybe it’s:  Limited and enumerated Government, Community and Family Values, and National Sovereignty.   Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee represent those ideas better than ANYONE in the race and thus need to continue to be heard.  Without this perspective Conservatives  look like either: 1) warmongers, 2) greedy money-grubbers, or 3) fanatic proselytes.  (As opposed to Environmentalist Wackos, Feminazis, and Peaceniks).  None of these images were attractive to “Reagan Democrats.”

I believe my point is, if we can’t have a reasonable, logical, and productive conversation with each other through the Republican primaries–regardless of the damn delegate count, how in the hell are we supposed to change the hearts and minds of Liberals and “Moderates?” 

Right Smart

Personally, I think it would be a mistake…once again…to count this man out. At the VERY LEAST, he’s a serious factor at the convention for pulling together the party. Especially given a) Dobson’s endorsement, b) the demographic makeup of the majority of the States left, and c) the fact that there’s another GOP debate scheduled toward the end of February.

It is absolutely impossible for McCain to have the needed 471 delegates between now and the next debate at the end of February, because there are only 308 up for grabs between now and then…which Huckabee will undoubtedly win many of…conceivable a majority.

And thank you to Chuck Todd…who is actually paying attention to the Huckabee factor and not simply ignoring it to start writing about the general election. Considering the Obama factor, if Huckabee were to pull off winner-take-all Virginia (maybe a long shot, but with my Loudoun “Bully Pullpit”, and the millions of hits I get a day…) then this gets REALLY interesting.

Here’s my comment on Chuck Todd’s site:

Here’s the deal…Huckabee is NOT going to exit the race whether or not he loses Virginia…He’s going to stay in and gather up at least as many delegates as Romney has. Why in God’s name wouldn’t he do that?

He will DEFINITELY win more total delegates than Romney if he stays in…therefore he will DEFINITELY have significant clout at the convention.

McCain CANNOT win more than the needed 471 before March 4th…period. He will have to debate Huckabee (and Paul) later this month…period. There is good reason for this to happen because if Huckabee is GOING to concede, then the two can have a little GOP love-fest to unite the party around McCain’s Iraq agenda (while pissing off Ron Paul). Everybody wins.

But if Huckabee makes (yet another) comeback…(and winning Virginia would probably be required) then who knows?

Mr. Huber seems to think that the fat lady is clearing her throat, but the question is: Who is she voting for?