Cathy Crabill doesn’t oppose bank bailouts

In a survey for the Prince William Family Alliance, Cathy Crabill refused to oppose bank bailouts.

You read that right, the woman who would like us all to believe that Rob Wittman isn’t conservative enough answered thusly on the PWFA survey (her elaboration is in red; h/t to Tim Watson, who emailed this to me):

9.  Authorize regulatory agencies to provide relief to banks in exchange for bank stock.

Support __________   Oppose _____________ Undecided _____X_______

Don’t know enough about this (the ramifications).

Don’t know the ramifications?  Seriously?  This woman wants to represent me in Congress?

True defenders of limited government ripped the 2008 bank bailout (a.k.a. TARP) from the start.  We knew it would fail to solve the problem, while greatly improving the power of the federal government in our economy.

Yet almost two years after it happened, Cathy Crabill can’t bring herself to oppose this.

Well, Rob Wittman could.  He understood the ramifications and opposed it not once, but twice.

If you, like me, are in the 1st District, remember this: Cathy Crabill, the supposed champion of limited government, does not oppose bank bailouts. Only one candidate on the ballot on June 8 opposes bank bailouts – Rob Wittman.

Please remember this the next time Ms. Crabill or any of her supporters claim that Congressman Wittman isn’t conservative enough, and please vote for the only candidate who opposes bailouts - Rob Wittman.

Cross-posted to VV

Did Pat Herrity vote to raise taxes?

One of the biggest issues driving the Republican primary in the 11th District is Pat Herrity’s voting record on taxes, and for good reason.  Supporting tax increases is usually problematic for any Republican; in the current environment, it can practically be the kiss of death.  Naturally, as soon as Fimian supporter Mason Conservative raised the issue, Herrity supporters are insisting that his vote to raise the tax rate was not a vote to raise taxes, because assessments on property had fallen.  Herrity’s mantra is, essentially, that average homeowners were largely spared a tax hike, so therefore, he is not a tax-hiker.  For the most part, Fimian backers call it all balderdash.

The reality is more complicated – and yet at the same time simpler – than either side is conveying.

As a former candidate for County Board of Supervisors myself (Spotsylvania, 2009), I have some knowledge of what is and is not considered a tax increase.  What matters in years where new assessments are taken (every two years in Spotsylvania, every year in Fairfax) is the equalization rate, i.e., the rate at which the change in assessment is matched by an equal and opposite change in the rate.

For example, this year in Spotsylvania, property values fell by more than 20%.  So while the old rate was 62 cents per $100, the equalization rate was at the much higher 83 cents.  That was the rate where local government was essentially getting the same amount of money from taxpayers that it got last year (of course, that wasn’t enough for my Board.  Let by my victorious opponent, they raised the rate to 86 cents – a tax increase by any definition).

The problem with Fairfax’s way of calculating the tax effect of their rates is that they focus on residential property (homes), not all property.  Since commercial, office, and industrial property usually hold their value better the residences, ignoring them in your calculation can lead to a rate above actual equalization (in plain English, when a local politician says the average homeowner won’t pay more taxes, he’s raising taxes on businesses, hoping you don’t notice).

So in order to figure out the tax effect of the now-famous 2009 Fairfax rate rise from 92 cents to $1.04, we need to calculate the actual equalization rate for that year.  As it turns out, Page 8 of the Fairfax General Fund Overview gives us the overall property value reduction.  Plug that in to the equalization calculation method (seen here on page “67″), and one finds an equalization rate of . . . $1.04.

In other words, Pat Herrity’s vote was for the equalization rate, and thus, in and of itself, was not a tax increase.

That’s the good news for Herrity.  Here’s the bad news: he cast other tax votes that can’t be explained away so easily.

In fact, mere minutes after he voted for the equalized tax rate, a new tax of one cent per $100 – for a newly created stormwater service district that included the entire county except for Fort Belvoir – came up for a vote.  In effect, this was a vote to increase the rate from $1.04 to $1.05.  This tax increase was passed 10-0, and Pat Herrity was one of the ten (see the bottom of Page 5 of the minutes).

As if that wasn’t bad enough, exactly 52 weeks before this, when the FY09 budget was being discussed, a new tax of 11 cents per $100 was imposed “on commercial and industrial property for transportation purposes” (4/28/08 minutes, page 5).  Once again, because homeowners were not mentioned, this didn’t get the attention it should, but a tax increase is a tax increase.  Once again, this tax hike passed 10-0 (page 6), among the “ayes” were two candidates for the 11th District seat in 2010: Gerry Connolly and Pat Herrity.

That’s not company I would keep.

So, to sum up . . .

Did Pat Herrity raise taxes when he voted to move the rate from 92 cents to $1.04?  No.

That aside, has Pat Herrity raised taxes?  You bet your a** he has.

Therefore, for whom should low-tax, limited-government conservatives in the 11th District vote on June 8 and November 2?  Keith Fimian.

Cross-posted to Bearing Drift

Not sure we can read too much into Game 5

Orlando did what it had to do, and then some.

However, I’m not entirely sure this makes it a different series yet.  While Orlando deserves credit from pushing the series to 3-2 from 3-0.  There are some things to keep in mind about last night:

• Kendrick Perkins was tossed in the first half on two very weak technical-foul calls.  In theory, this means he’s triggered the 7-T rule and will stay out of Game 6.  In practice, the league will rescind at least one of the T’s and Perkins will play in Boston
• Glen Davis suffered a freak concussion, and insisted he’ll be back for Game 6, too (we’ll see; it was a concussion, after all).
• The game was in Orlando, not Boston.

There have only been three blown 3-0 leads in all of American sports.  I observed one up close (the 2004 ALCS), and one not-so-close (the recent NHL Flyers-Bruins playoff series), but in both cases, it was Game 6 that redefined the series, not Game 5.

If Orlando can win another one in Boston tomorrow night, then it’s a different series.  Until then, Boston is still the favorites – especially if Perkins plays (as I expect he will).

Cross-posted to VV

Poor, poor Louisiana

Two presidents.  Two disasters.  Each perfectly suited to their talents and experience.

Wouldn’t you know it: the oilman gets the hurricane and the blowhard gets the oil spill.

Cross-posted to VV

The latest Republican to embarrass himself in the WaPo: Bob Bennett

You would think a Republican politician would know better than to put an op-ed column in the Washington Post.   Sadly, Bob Bennett didn’t.

In his latest attempt to turn his re-election lost into a teachble moment, Bennett tries to give the limited-government rebels who bounced him the worst possible label for right-of-center folks: Carterite.

It’s really embarrassing, not the least of which because Bennett still doesn’t get what happened to him.  Check out his description of what’s making voters angry today:

Like those who voted for Carter because they were fed up with Nixon, the Tea Party is made up of people who are fed up with Washington profligacy. The combination of the Obama stimulus package, a bloated budget, stubbornly high unemployment and an expensive new health-care entitlement program has fueled their anger, convincing them that the federal government is out of touch and not listening. To a large extent, they’re right.

Notice a couple of things missing from his list?  Like, say TARP? Or the health-care mandate?

What do these two things have in common?  Well, first, they are far and away the two items that has stirs up the Tea Party more than any other (yeah, that was pun, and your point is?).

Secondly, Bob Bennett backed them both.  Yet, somehow, neither make his list.

No wonder Dan Proft tweeted on this column thusly: “UT Sen. Bob Bennett inadvertently explains why he got shown the door–and deserved his fate.”  I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Oh, one more thing.  If Bennett doesn’t understand how important TARP is, he should read this blog, and how it’s author viewed his member of Congress before TARP and after TARP.

Cross-posted to VV

Well, at least I was half-right

I was two-for-four in my predictions, which isn’t bad, considering my recent history.

Predictions

It should be a fun night, but not that much fun . . .

Pennsylvania U.S. Senate primary: By a whisker, Arlen Specter.  Sestak is surging, but the “second-look effect” will knock him back.

Pennsylvania 12th House special: Burns – unlike Sestak, he’s not facing an incumbent, so no second-look problem here.

Arkansas Senate primary: Lincoln will come in first, but be forced into a runoff

Kentucky Senate primary: Rand Paul.

Cross-posted to VV

Maliki reveals his true colors

So . . . my instincts about Nouri al-Maliki – instincts I had slowly repressed after watching his State of Law Party go eye to eye with the Iranian-tinged elements in Iraq – were right after all.

While my head was turned towards the post-election fun in London, Maliki essentially tells all the people who voted for him as the religious alternative to the Iranians, “never mind” (New York Times):

(Maliki) formed a post-election alliance with another Shiite bloc, making it the largest coalition in Parliament . . . most politicians believe that the new, broader Shiite alliance will take the lead in naming a prime minister. The new Shiite bloc is just four seats short of a majority in the 325-member Parliament.

The “other Shiite bloc” is the Tehran-linked Iraqi National Alliance.  In effect, the new post-election bloc is the some old United Iraqi Alliance that was best known for driving the country into the ground and helplessly watching Iran and al Qaeda carve up the country until President Bush reversed course in 2007 and began focusing on the mullahcracy’s meddling.

If anything, the new NIA is even worse -  a majorirty of its 70 seats went to Sadrists.

Keep in mind, Maliki’s entire campaign was based on the fact that he had changed from those dark, terrible days; his old allies were supposedly his biggest rivals.

Now, it’s all revealed to be a joke.

The Sunnis will be furious; Iyad Allawi already is.  They have every right to be.

The only benefit to come from this is that everyone now knows who Maliki really is.  He already tried to fool us once.  He won’t be able to do it again.  Moreover, Allawi – if he can’t be Prime Minister – has a chance to be the most dynamic opposition leader Iraq has ever had.

Still, there is a slim chance Allawi can end up PM.  Watch Fadhila.  They only have six seats within NIA, but if they split off, it will be a sign of division that Allawi could exploit.  Every little bit helps.

Cross-posted to VV

Why the Administration’s policy toward Communist China is so dangerous

The president sent his Assistant Secretary of State to Beijing to discuss human rights, and in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s labor camps, one-child policy, and indiscriminate imprisonment of political prisoners, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner . . . apologized for an Arizona state law on immigration.

The Obama Administration has entered new territory in regards to its policy towards the Chinese Communist Party.  The new way of doing things is mind-boggling, sickening, and outrageous (and lest anyone think I’m being partisan, Obama’s Ambassador to the CCP – Jon Huntsman, who according to Posner’s comments on Politico was in on the self-hate fest – was formerly the Republican Governor of Utah; if he’s representative of the Utah GOP elite, then that’s one more reason Senator Bob Bennett’s campaign bit the dust).  However, it is also very, very dangerous for several reasons.  They are as follows.

It risks further harm on the political prisoners themselves: One comment I will always carry with me is from a speech Richard Gephardt gave when he declared his opposition to permanent free trade with the CCP.  He talked about how sensitive the cadres were to outside criticism, so much so that the prisoners themselves could gauge how much flak the Party was getting – the more critics chirped, the nicer the guards were.  Nonsense like this makes the cadres think they have a free hand to do whatever they’d like to their opponents behind bars – and when Chinese Communist hands are that free, they usually end up very bloody.

It demoralizes and confuses current dissidents: Does anyone think Hu Jia would be that upset over Arizona’s attempt to battle illegal immigration?  Think about it, an Arizona cop might ask Hu to show his green card if he’s pulled over while driving within the state. Cadres in Henan province let as many as one million people die of AIDS and had Hu arrested for trying to expose them.  How about Chen Guangcheng?  The regime imprisoned and beat him for helping women violently abused by cadres enforcing the “one child” policy.  Don’t get me started on Falun Gong, independent Christians, or Hanyuan County.

What this nonsense out of Washington does is make these victims feel completely ignored by the one nation that should remember their plight.  This will make it much harder for them to help the Chinese people take their country back.

It gives the CCP international prestige that it will use to enslave more people.  After all, if the Chinese Communist Party is the same as the Arizona legislature, what’s the big deal about the erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong?  Or the invasion of Taiwan, should it happen (and I am increasingly convinced that it will)?

My last point doesn’t deal with Arizona, but rather the larger context (which, as Jay Nordlinger ruefully notes, included American apologies about “crime, poverty, homelessness, and racial discrimination.”

These comments reveal an appalling ignorance of reality in Communist China.  Lest anyone forget, the Chinese Communist Party Member card is a license to steal.  Outside of the Potemkin cities (Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Shenzhen), China is mired in a poverty unimaginable in the United States.  Millions are “relocated” due to land seizures by corrupt cadres.  As for “racial discrimination,” try being a Korean in Communist China – actually, on second thought, don’t.

In the end, it all points to one thing: the Chinese Communist Party no longer has any reason to take America seriously.  This will have catastrophic repercussions, be it with Taiwan (as mentioned), our enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq (who have been past receivers of Communist support), the mullahcracy in Iran (long the CCP’s best friend in the Middle East), North Korea, or anywhere else.

Meanwhile, there was no mention of the long arm of lawlessness interfering with Chinese-Americans trying to exercise their political rights in this country, although this dangerous combination of repression and espionage has been unchallenged by Administrations in both political parties.

CCP-watchers have long since gotten used to dissapointments in Washington.  No one who remembers the Clinton or Bush Administration were completely shocked when Obama went the “engagement” route.  However, this president has been far more obsequious to Beijing than any other, and given the Ambassador, Obama’s political opposition is hardly without blame.

There will come a time when the American people will demand a bona fide anti-Communist president, and (s)he will help bring down the CCP, but that future looks more expensive and, quite frankly, much bloodier today than it did even last week.

Cross-posted to the China e-Lobby and Virginia Virtucon

What was that?!

Cleveland coach Mike Brown on his players: “They fought to the end.”

I’m sorry Mike, but the hell they did.

If they “fought to the end,” they would have fouled from 1:36 on.  They didn’t.  No sense of urgency.

If I’m LeBron, I see that, and I run away from this team.

And no, I’m not just saying that as a Knicks fan (although it sure helps).  Mark Jackson was right, that team gave up.  There was no “heart of a champion” there.

Now we’ll see how good Orlando is.  They were (and are) my pick to win it all, and they feasted on the Bobcats and the Hawks.  We’ll see if they’re really that good, or if those two teams were just that bad.

It should be a great series.

Cross-posted to VV