Tax hike on business? HoD says yes, Bolling says no.

Norm @ TQ has the gory details on the House side:

Lastly, the Lt. Gov., Bill Bolling, has offered his thoughts on all the fees and in the process, we learn that the House baked-in a tax increase:

In his Executive Budget, Governor Kaine recommended making various changes to Virginia’s tax code to conform our state tax code to the federal tax code. As a result of these changes, certain taxes on manufacturers based in Virginia would increase by $60M.

Interestingly, the Senate removed this “manufacturer’s tax” increase from their budget, but the House accepted the Governor’s recommendation, which would, in effect, increase taxes on manufacturers by $60M.

Ah, the anti-tax label. So easy to apply, even easier to remove.

Indeed.

I must confess this hits a bit closer to home than it would for most.  Here in Spotsylvania, industrial land was the only class of property that rose in value during our most recent assessment.  Thus, amidst all the proposals for new tax rate (equalization is 83 cents, the county administrator wants 86, the Board advertised 88), any rate above the curren 62 will be a tax increase for them.  Now, there about to get another tax increase slapped on them – by nearly all of the very people who were supposed to prevent this.

That said, please note, “nearly.”  For Bill Bolling himself (the words Norm cited were from the LG’s column on the budget) takes a dim view of the idea:

I would also encourage the conferees to reject Governor Kaine’s proposals that would result in higher taxes for retailers and manufacturers. I believe that these proposals would also violate our promise to avoid general tax increases.

Nicely done, Mr. Bolling.  We can only hope your fellow Republicans in the House (and the Governor’s office) will listen to you.

Oh dear

Cathy Crabill is running for Congress. Riley at VV has all the gory details. On the plus side, as a voter in the 1st, I get the enjoyable experience of voting against her without having to pull the lever for a Democrat. Woo-hoo!

Swedes smack down Phil Jones

This has to hurt (Stockholm Initiative via WUWT via SDA):

Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry

It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.

Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.

This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.

All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

Read that last line again, slowly . . . “processing.”

Beautiful.

Cross-posted to VV

Sunday is Election Day in Iraq

This Sunday, Iraq will hold its second free Parliamentary election since its liberation from Saddam Hussein.  On one level, that the election will take place at all is, as Jonah Goldberg (NRO) notes, a triumph for the United States.

However, the real turning point won’t be the election itself, but who wins.

Four years ago, in the aftermath of the 2005 elections, the unwieldy United Iraqi Alliance seemed poised for a split between it’s Iran-tainted and native wings.  The Samarra mosque bombing froze the wings in place, but since then, the Shiite split has commenced (and not in an expected way), while the Anbar Awakening has thoroughly reoriented Sunni politics.

As such, there are appear to be four main “blocs” that are competing for seats and power.  Unless I seriously miss my guess, none will be able to form a government on their own.  Here’s my quick take on them.

National Iraqi Alliance: Formerly the UIA, this was the leading Shiite group from the 2005 elections, and the one with the heaviest Iranian influence.  The big Iran-linked parties (SIIC and Sadrists) are part of this group.  This time, they have felt compelled to find some Anbar Sunnis for their ticket (the Tribes of Iraq); they also have the largely anti-Iranian Fadhilla.  Despite this, of the four groups, I’d say this is the most troublesome.  If the NIA has a major role in governing, then so does Iran.

The State of Law Coalition: This is Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s group.  I have been very critical of Maliki in the past, but he took a big risk splitting off from the UIA/NIA and going off on his own.  More dramatically, he has brought in the Anbar Salvation National Front (the main heir to the Awakening) into his coalition.

Iraqiya: This is the most secular group in the bunch.  It’s led by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who has been the most determinedly non-religious Shiite leader since the fall of Saddam.  He has a coalition that looked impressive and broad-based before the Awakening reshuffled the Sunni deck.

Kurdistan List: This is the joint coalition of the two old Kurdish parties (PUK and KDP).  They got a tremendous scare from the Movement for Change in Kurdish regional elections, meaning they could suffer badly on Sunday – and be more amenable to swallowing hard for government patronage.

Unless said Movement dramatically reorients the Kurdish contingent in Parliament (and it’s a possibility), odds are two of these four parties – at least – will establish a governing coalition.  IMHO, the best would be Iraqiya and State of Law, but so long as the NIA/UIA is on the outside, it’s a defeat for the mulllahs Iran, which means a victory for the rest of us.

It also means the danger of the President’s withdrawal plans fall dramatically, but that’s for another post – after the vote.

Cross-posted to VV

The night that Texas shrunk

Jane Ferrigno of the U.S. Geological Survey, thoroughly embarrasses herself in an interview with National Public Radio (WUWT via SDA, emphasis in original):

I think I’ll go back 20 years, and in the last 20 years, I would say at least 20,000 square kilometers of ice has been lost, and that’s comparable to an area somewhere between the state of Texas and the state of Alaska.

As the folks at WUWT, point out, 20,000 miles is less than 3% of the size of Texas.

Unless global warming alarmists are claiming that “climate change” is melting Texas now . . .

Cross-posted to VV

Bad news in Fairfax, great news in Texas

Sadly, it appears the forces of limited government went 0-for-2 in Fairfax County.

On a much more pleasant note, Rick Perry was renominated for Governor of Texas.  That he managed to win 51% of the vote despite Debra Medina was quite an achievement.  The poor showing of the establishment candidate (Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, scored only 30%) should be a loud-and-lcear signal to the rest of the party which way it needs to go.

There goes another one

Following Bart Stupak, Minnesota Democrat James Oberstar says he “will not vote for a health care bill that doesn’t have the House abortion language in it.”

Trouble is, according to Senator Kent Conrad, the Senate can’t put the Stupak language into the bill (Weekly Standard blog).

So . . . with Murtha, Abercrombie, and Wexler gone, and Stupak, Cao, and Oberstar now in opposition, Obama-Reidcare has 214 votes.  It needs 216 until all the vacancies are filled.

Cross-posted to VV

Special session on transportation coming?

Governor McDonnell made it abundantly clear he wants the transportation issue fixed this year (Richmond Times-Dispatch).

Here’s the bad news: he also wants “a fairly significant consensus” – which is a real problem when one ponders our State Senate.

So either McDonnell sets his mandate on fire and agrees to a tax increase, or he takes bolder steps (say, downloading secondary roads to localities or taking subdivision roads off the government maintenance grid altogether) and establishes his legacy right from the get go.

I’m cautiously optimistic (to see why I maintain said caution, read this guy).

Cross-posted to VV

McDonnell saves $80,000 on transition

Sure, the number is far too small to be anything but a symbol, but symbols matter, and this one shows an Administration that is very serious about our predicament (Richmond Times-Dispatch via Weekly Standard):

The grungy office space, used supplies and limited freshening of the official gubernatorial quarters paid off.

Gov. Bob McDonnell’s transition team has saved at least double its $40,000 goal during the switch from campaigning to governing.

Early estimates indicate McDonnell conserved about $80,000 of a $353,600 transition budget.

That’s a savings of over 20%, by the way.  Attorney General Cuccinelli save $40,000 himself, as did Lieutenant-Governor Bolling (although that was largely due to the fact that the would-be transition office wound down quickly due to his re-election).

Here’s how important the symbolism can be: when yours truly began the transition from Jersey-born Yankee to, um, regional refugee (yeah, that works), it was just after Doug Wilder had taken office.  I heard complaints about Wilder’s transition and inauguration spending for months afterward, even as he heroically stared down his own party on spending and refused to raise taxes.

By contrast, McDonnell has shown voters he’s serious about cutting spending, including his own when necessary.  That will go a long way to winnning support for getting us through this budget cycles without a tax increase.

Cross-posted to VV

As the ground shifts . . .

There are moments in history that will resonate with us forever: November 9, 1989; December 25, 1991; September 11, 2001; November 4, 2008, etc.  Those are easy to see, and note.

However, there are other moments in history that are tougher perceive when they happen.  Only with hindsight do we even know they existed, let alone their impact.  Many will consider December 2007 such a moment (the beginning of the Great Recession).  I, however, have at least one other – possibly two – that could be far more important: the moment(s) when America’s oil import market shifted.

Throughout any and all discussion of the Wahhabist-Ba’athist-Khomeinist War, one economic angle has managed to pierce through the military issues: the predominance of oil imports from the Middle East, in particular Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf nations.  As the global-warming alarmism begins to fade into history, those who did the most to promulgate it are shifting gears and trotting out the Middle Eastern oil angle, led by none other than Mr. Man-Bear-Pig himself, Al Gore (New York Times – get your own link – via Ann Althouse):

Of course, we would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil.

This, in a nutshell, is the harbor for global warming alarmism.  It is easily the anti-crude argument with the most punch and broadest reach across the political spectrum.

There’s only one problem: it’s all wrong.

Odds are Gore doesn’t realize this, few people actually do.  However, the Energy Information Administration (stat-keeper for the Department of Energy) has been tracking delineated oil imports since the early 1990s.  Here’s the stunning fact: since 2004, the largest exporter of oil to the United States is not Saudi Arabia; it’s Canada.

The Saudis aren’t even the second largest exporter of oil to America anymore; Mexico passed them in 2009.  Moreover (and here’s the second moment): in 2009, for the first time ever, Canada exported more oil to the U.S. than all Persian Gulf nations put together.

How dramatic is this?  Well, for one, it makes Gore’s seemingly slam-dunk comment about hundreds (plural) of billions of dollars going “overseas” to be completely wrong.  When one takes North America out of the picture, only once has America paid over $200 billion for oil: last year, during the speculative boom when the price topped $140 a barrel.  It has since fallen below that figure, meaning we don’t pay “hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas.”

More importantly, though, it means something that hasn’t even been contemplated, let alone processed into policy: America is far less dependent upon Gulf oil in general – and Saudi oil in particular – than we were in the past, and less dependent than we believe we are at present.

Think about it this way: in 1990, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and the oil markets were roiled, the Saudis stepped into the breach to minimize the disruption (that it meant they would gain a nice chunk of market share didn’t hurt, of course).  Canada can now play the same role if the entire Gulf is disrupted (say, in response to a military action against the Iranian mullahcracy’s nuclear weapons operation).

It may take such a dramatic moment for Americans (to say nothing of Canadians) to figure out what’s happening.  In any event, the trend points to this: America’s appetite for oil is enriching Gulf emirates less, in favor of the democratic neighbor to the north who just happens to be our largest trading partner (and thus, much of the money we’re sending north for oil will come back south for our goods and services – including health care).

In the 1970s the ground shifted as America became a net oil importer, but the full impact of this wasn’t understood until the Arab oil boycott of 1973.  Today, the ground has shifted once again; this time, however, the realization will be far better for Americans – and far more shocking for the Gulf.

Cross-posted to VV