What's the Connection between West Virginia and the G8?

This morning's Wall Street Journal proclaims, "G8 may drop emissions targets." So what's the connection to the Mountain State?

As the Cap and Trade Bill was read and placed on the Senate calendar yesterday, our Senators should be aware of the G8's admittance that their arbitrary goals were exaggerated and unnecessary. Like the G8 is coming to realize, it's not a bad idea to strive for less energy use and more efficient expenditures of fuels and oil. However, strapping down an entire population with politicized legislation will cripple the United States with extreme taxes and debt (especially in coal-producing states like West Virginia).

When the G8 reconsiders it's position on climate change, New Yorkers are wearing sweaters in July, snow falls in the Arabian Peninsula, and the EPA censors reports that debunk global warming. This is positive news for rational proponents against the Waxman-Markey legislation that recently passed the House 291-212. Imminent Senate action will decide the fate of this very EXPENSIVE and EXAGGERATED legislation, threating American households with thousands of dollars in increased taxes.

Senators Rockefeller and Byrd should NOT tow the party line and think about the needs of West Virginia constituents. America was right to not sign the Kyoto Protocols, and we are right to oppose Waxman-Markey. If America foots the bill for global climate control initiatives, without the cooperation of the rest of the world, what progress does this make?

WVEx Original: A Study of Michael Hendryx and Flawed Reports

Link to Article HERE

Michael Jackson Funeral Bill to Taxpayers?

Outside of West Virginia news, Fox News just conducted an interview with Los Angeles Councilman Dennis Zine. He says that many plans for the Michael Jackson funeral were made by Jackson's representation, AEG, over the holiday weekend. Since city officials are scrambling catch up and be prepared for tomorrow's event, the city has notified over 2,000 police officers to ensure that the funeral goes smoothly and remains dignified. The estimated total cost to the city of Los Angeles for crowd control: $2.5 million.

L.A. city attorneys are currently negotatiating with AEG about who will pay the bills for the Staples Center funeral. Let's hope the city does not fold on this, and the Jackson family and AEG make the right decision to pay their fair share. California tax payers should not be obligated to cover this bill, especially when the state is issuing IOU promisory notes and remains billions of dollars upside down.

Effective July 1, 2009

Effective July 1, 2009, from the final Wrap-Up: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

HB 2684 "Drug Courts" - creates the framework for instituting drug courts and a benchmark evaluation system. Is this really necessary? Are Magistrate and Circuit Courts that back-loaded and inept to handle drug cases themselves? Do we really need ANOTHER branch of bureaucracy, creating and ENTIRELY new segment of the judicial branch?

I called Legislative Services at the Capitol in Charleston on Wednesday to request the fiscal note. The friendly staff there had no record of a fiscal note, because one had never been requested. Did our Legislature make this vast commitment, even without knowing how much it costs?! I disagree with this bill. It's intentions to de-regulate government oversight are good, but the magnitude of government created cannot be good.

HB 2860 "Carbon Sequestration" - emphasizes the development and use of carbon sequestration to make cleaner coal, working with the Department of Environmental Protection and a panel of experts to support the project and improve it through the 2011 legislative session.

I agree with this bill, because it emphasizes the use and utility of clean-coal technology, while investing in the technology and people to improve its cost effectiveness and efficiency.

SB 373 "PROMISE Scholarship" - caps the PROMISE scholarship at $4,750 after 2010, to manage an expensive program, while still attempting to help West Virginia students to achieve higher education and serve the state of West Virginia. Many have competing view points about this scholarship fund, which is why I will not address the issue of the scholarship here, but discuss one provision law makers slipped into this revised bill.

"The bill also adds gender, race and ethnic diversity as a requirement for the board of governors at a higher education institution." The state of West Virginia is now requiring institutions that employ PROMISE dollars to fulfill bureaucratic demands to create diversity that may not be representative of the state. Is this a public need, since it is created with public dollars?

I agree that diversity improves the education experience for everyone, and I strongly advocate for MORE diversity of all races, gender, creeds, and nationalities - but not mandated by big government! It is the ol' "protected class" argument. Again, great intentions, but not with government decree. Since I have not studied the make-up of West Virginia schools to any great length, I am willing to revisit this argument with facts and studies that point to the contrary.

HB 2771 "WV Alcohol and Drug-Free Workplace Act" - a bill to require companies to submit to state drug-testing when contracting projects over $100,000. I support Governor Manchin's veto of this bill.

Manchin points to the confusing language of the bill and its too-far reaching implications, having consequences that reach farther than the intent of the act. What is special about the $100,000 threshold? Is this a sincere problem, a chronic need for the state to address?

S244 "Politician Salary/ Pension Double Dipping" - a bill to prevent unopposed legislators from retiring before the election and then resuming office after the election, collecting pension funds along with legislative pay. I support this bill and its mission to end government waste and corruption, while holding elected officials accountable. It does not say that legislators must forfeit all duties, but it does cap the amount of pay one can receive.

HB 2335 "G.I. Education Enhancement Program" - a bill to ensure G.I. education within West Virginia, in conjunction with a similar initiative taking place nationwide. Increased education benefits equal in-state tuition at the state's most expensive public college or university. The federal government matches any expenditure above the cost of in-state tuition for fees and expenses.

American citizens are indebted to the brave men and women who sacrifice for this country. This bill supports those men and women with an education, while supporting a similar initiative as the indoctrinated PROMISE scholarship to educate West Virginians. Further, if the state chooses to offer supplemental funds, the federal government will match the state's burden. The cost will not be large, and our soldiers deserve it.

S507 "WV Clean Coal Council" - this bill was vetoed by Governor Manchin, but only because it duplicates the enrolled committee substitute for HB2860, which establishes a working group on carbon capture and sequestration. Manchin also returned the bill because it engages the WV Clean Coal Technology Council, which became defunct in June 2005. Therefore, to eliminate government inefficiency, Manchin vetoed this bill, while ensuring its mission is carried out in the enrolled committee substitute for HB2860.

HB3197 "Litter Prevention Officers" - a bill to appoint special litter officers to patrol within municipalities, vested with powers to issue citations, summons, and sign complaints. Special officers to catch you throwing that candy bar wrapper!

Governor Manchin rightly vetoed this bill - but due to technical reasons, not because it is completely unneccessary. Municipalities would be able to train and disperse these litter prevention officers on a whim, and send them out on patrol looking for those habitual litterers! Don't get me wrong, I love the state of West Virginia and its immense beauty. However, is the cost-benefit really there, and is this a job that current officers are incapable or unwilling to do?

Recent Events Could Affect Campaign Dollars

In a recent Supreme Court ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion about campaign finance reform and restriction, “Enough is enough.” On June 25, the High Court seemingly reversed large precedent, reversing the restrictions of McCain-Feingold (2002), as wells as the McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) ruling that upheld McCain-Feingold. Implemented to regulate donations and expenditures of “soft money,” along with issue advocacy electioneering, these former standards now contend with the recent 5-4 conservative majority.

Coupled with this, the High Court also issued another heavy-handed ruling in early May 2009. In regards to West Virginia state Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin, the SCOTUS held that Benjamin must recuse himself from a very contentious case involving a party that donated over $3 million to his campaign efforts. Did the contributor have a right to donate, regardless of intent? Did Benjamin have a right to accept the funds, and could he control their allocation? Did the United States Supreme Court have a right to censor Benjamin and remand the case, mandating his recusal? In the span of one month, the issue of campaign finance emerged vigorously and caused much debate about who donates, how much, to whom, and when contribution should take place.

Several forces are at play during this debate, which generate much interest. As the executive and legislative branches slide farther to the left, and a liberal appointee waits for the nod for her spot on the bench, the Supreme Court’s conservative wing is causing some uncertainty as to future rulings by the Supreme Court. Second, campaign finance laws could change drastically for all political races, on state and federal levels. Third, the historical right to free speech in America through campaign contribution seems to be under fire from an “almost-majority” on the Supreme Court, and certainly in other branches of government. Successful reversal of said campaign finance restrictions, and implementation of campaign contribution freedoms, would certainly spill into other arenas and promote “right sizing” government through sweeping de-regulation in other areas. Our goal should be to evaluate these current events, site applicable legislation and case law, and propose efficient, effective reforms to protect the liberties of contributors and campaigners in the American election system.

For West Virginia judicial selection, the issue is even more applicable. In The Rule of Law, writers discuss possible reforms for the current elective system that remains highly partisan. Many of these writers argue that the current system, as it stands, hurts the business climate within West Virginia, because employers have little trust in the stability of the state's legal system (especially with a rogue Attorney General). Possible reforms include non-partisan elections or merit-based appointments, similar to the federal selection process. Additionally, public financing proposals are put forth as probable ingredients for a more transparent selection process. Whatever the solution, candidate dialogue must be protected and expanded through the selection processes for all offices. This will ensure that voters have to opportunity to ask questions and receive quality answers in pursuit of finding the truth about the individuals seeking office.

July 4 Tea Party- Wheeling