WV Library Commission Looks at Benefits of Coal

As I was flipping through the channels last night, I found a great, low-budget show that the WV Library Commission sponsors: "Coal Seam". On this edition of Coal Seam, guests from the Logan County Commission and West Virginia Citizens for Coal explained the benefits of coal for West Virginia and the United States. The following benefits are just some of the highlights:

The coal severance tax benefits all of West Virginia. Though there are 55 counties in WV that accept these taxes, twenty-some of them actually produce the coal... and just 7-8 extract a vast majority of the state's gross production. The taxes, according to Art Kirkendoll-Logan County Commissioner, are split according to 75-25. 75% of the taxes benefit the county from which the minerals were extracted, and 25% of the taxes are exported to support programs throughout the state- many counties receiving dollars without extracting a single piece of coal.

Also, in Logan County for example, residents have access to an elaborate fire, ambulance, and police service to support ALL residents within the county, and in surrounding counties if needed. The funding for these services come from a levy, of which 80% is funded by the corporations of Logan County. So there are two options, if these mining companies cease to exist because of Cap and Trade, etc.

First, homeowners will be forced to pay more property taxes to support the levy- including lower income families.

Or second, these emergency services lose funding and provide sub-standard services at best.

This leads into the next point, in emergency services and coal companies assist with drastic flooding that all West Virginians in the Southern coal fields are all to familiar with. Many coal companies offer their machinery to assist with clean-up, and Commissioner Kirkendoll said counties assist each other: machinery, man-power, and support.

Further, the show emphasized the need for the passage of more extensive mine reclamation economic planning- taking advantage of the manpower, machines, and engineers to move the land in such a way that allows an easy transition to economic post-mining development. This would save many tax payer dollars, and perhaps make projects that seem too expensive more feasible. Let's not forget that some of West Virginia's most beautiful tourist destinations are built upon reclaimed mine sites, including the Pete Dye Golf Club in Bridgeport, WV (home of a professional golf tournament annually).

Let's understand the benefits, and drawbacks, of heavy coal production in order to have a thorough debate in the future.

Quote of the Day

"We are going to re-arrange some of the dollars on the deck, so we can provide health care to America." - Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-PA) = RE-DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH for a health care plan that will only cost Americans more, in troubled times, that will inevitably be inferior to private competition between health care companies and providers.

Justice is Blind, but 'I Know it When I See It'

State Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin is forced to recuse himself from a very controversial case. On June 8, the United States’ Supreme Court issued a ruling in Harman v. Massey that limits Benjamin’s First Amendment right of free speech, citing the appearance of impropriety because of Don Blankenship’s $3 million donation to defeat former Justice Darryl McGraw. This mandate carries far-reaching consequences and will complicate an already complex court system, limiting the abilities of judges to rule efficiently and effectively. Recusal is a necessary tool for the courts to uphold due process, but only required with actual bias to limit judicial manipulation.

In either an elective or appointive selection process, a judge is determined by his or her qualifications for the position, including a moral obligation to uphold the values of the legal practice. Therefore, a judge should be able to determine his ability to afford an unbiased ruling, or not. Relying on cheerleaders and naysayers to uphold our esteemed court system is risky and irresponsible. Limiting judicial insulation weakens the power of bench strengthens the power of manipulative interests. Chief Justice John Roberts, dissenting, “I, of course, share the majority’s sincere concerns about the need to maintain a fair, independent, and impartial judiciary—and one that appears to be such. But I fear that the Court’s decision will undermine rather than promote these values.”

Not only do judges have the obligation and ability to determine the need for recusal, many judges and justices have operated ethically throughout history. Dating back to Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816), Chief Justice John Marshall appropriately recused himself because he had an active financial interest in the case could not rule appropriately. On the other hand, judges and justices have appropriately decided not to recuse themselves based upon the appearance of impropriety. For example, Bracy v. Gramley(1997) held that states are free to implement more rigorous recusal standards such as religious affiliation and prior speech, if they choose. Judicial equilibrium is supreme, but forced recusal under these circumstance is inconsistent with West Virginia’s lesser recusal standard.

Therefore, the United States Supreme Court stepped too far in mandating Benjamin’s recusal, and wrongfully interjected into West Virginia affairs. The United States Code (Title 28> Part I> Chapter 21> §455) outlines the recusal requirements for all judges and justices in the United States. Last amended in 1940, this portion of the U.S. Code is filled with subjective terms such as “substantial interest” and explicitly says that a judge “shall recuse himself.” Also, the language of the code was amended in 1940 to loosen the constraints upon judges, substituting “in which he has a substantial interest” in place of “concerned in interest in any suit”. The federal statute increased a judge’s discretionary recusal ability within reason, but apparently, the High Court feels no obligation to abide by these rules.

The high court’s majority sympathized with Caperton’s defense, trading judicial discretion for an “objective recusal standard” that establishes a concrete separation between honesty and impropriety. However, our standard burden of proof requires the accuser to prove actual bias; no one in the American legal system is expected to prove themselves innocent, but only to be proven guilty. Chief Justice Roberts says this protects against court manipulation, and limits mandatory recusals to specific Constitutional requirements: a judge’s financial interest in the outcome, or the judge as a defendant. Where can the line ever be drawn?

James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech, filed an amicus brief supporting Benjamin’s right to adjudicate without proof of any actual bias. "If someone wants to manipulate justice, mandatory recusal based on campaign spending makes it easy to do so. All a party has to do is donate to judges they don’t think are favorable to them, and they can ensure that judge will never hear their case. Effectively, this is little more than an attempt to second guess the voters’ decision and undermine the existence of judicial elections."

With this recent ruling of the United States Supreme Court, a slippery slope has formed that is sure to yield more power to manipulative parties that argue technical process rather than the facts of the case. Opening the door for such manipulation, something must have disrupted the system to arrive at this conclusion. If the problem is Blankenship’s active interest in elected officials, he has a right to donate to and advocate issues freely. If this problem highlights a rogue court Justice, Benjamin previously issued a solid opinion, defending his right to rule based upon the absence of actual bias.

In this highly charged legal battle, the overarching dilemma rests between merit-based judicial appointments and elective means of selecting judicial candidates – and how we hold our judges and justices accountable. Without proposing massive policy changes toward non-partisan elections, the citizens of West Virginia must demand more dialogue before judicial elections to ask the tough questions of candidates and his or her opinions on specific issues. Moving forward, residents of the Mountain State must know whom they are selecting before seemingly hypothetical issues face subjective appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The questions are not: whether Blankenship is a crook, Benjamin is unethical, or whether the system is broken because politics reign over justice. The questions should be: whom are we electing, what does he or she stand for, and will they represent the interests of West Virginia within the law? Since many issues are determined subjectively with the “I know it when I see it” test, it is wise to know who is judging our fate and if they are qualified to assume the powers and responsibilities of a judge. If we elect judges through the political process, let them judge. If politics are the problem, let’s talk about how we select them.

Stimulus Money Goes Blue

Commentary: USA Today

By Brad Heath, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Billions of dollars in federal aid delivered directly to the local level to help revive the economy have gone overwhelmingly to places that supported President Obama in last year's presidential election.

That aid — about $17 billion — is the first piece of the administration's massive stimulus package that can be tracked locally. Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation.

"There's no politics at work when it comes to spending for the recovery," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says.

Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows. That money includes aid to repair military bases, improve public housing and help students pay for college.

The reports show the 872 counties that supported Obama received about $69 per person, on average. The 2,234 that supported McCain received about $34.

Investigators who track the stimulus are skeptical that political considerations could be at work. The imbalance is so pronounced — and the aid so far from complete — that it would be almost inconceivable for it to be the result of political tinkering, says Adam Hughes, the director of federal fiscal policy for the non-profit OMB Watch. "Even if they wanted to, I don't think the administration has enough people in place yet to actually do that," he says.

"Most of what they're doing at this point is just stamping the checks and sending them out," Hughes says.

The stimulus package Obama signed in February includes about $499 billion in new spending, and to date, the Obama administration has allocated about $158 billion to specific projects and programs. Most of that money has gone directly to state governments, which then disperse the money to prevent school layoffs, repair roads and fund social services. That contrasts with the $17 billion that Washington distributes directly to local communities.

Including the larger chunk of money given to state governments, the aid favors states that voted for Obama, which have received about 20% more per person

Not all of the money favors places that supported Obama. About a third of the $17 billion, or $5.5 billion, in contracts that the federal government has signed for projects ranging from repaving runways to cleaning up nuclear waste has gone overwhelmingly to counties that supported McCain.

Jake Wiens, an investigator with the non-profit Project on Government Oversight, says it's too soon to draw meaningful conclusions about whether the type of aid in the stimulus favors Obama's constituents.

But, he says, "it will be important to pay close attention as the data come in to ensure that political favoritism plays no role."

The imbalance didn't start with the stimulus. From 2005 through 2007, the counties that later voted for Obama collected about 50% more government aid than those that supported McCain, according to spending reports from the U.S. Census Bureau. USA TODAY's review did not include Alaska, which does not report its election results by county.

West Virginia More Responsible Than Most

Updating a previous entry, "No 'Free Lunch'":

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released its second analysis of the $787 billion federal stimulus program. It's conclusion: less than satisfied.

GAO analysts concluded that $29 billion of the $49 billion of state-directed stimulus funds has been distributed thus far. The problem is that 90% of this $29 billion was allocated by the states to stabilize state budgets and supplement Medicaid programs. No new jobs, few "shovel ready" infrastructure projects, and increased size of government. So far, $1.3 billion of the total $1.8 billion for West Virginia has been reported.

The GAO made no specific study of West Virginia, but the numbers don't lie. According to the state's recovery website, West Virginia is doing a fairly good job providing transparency of stimulus expenditures. Regardless of feelings about the federal spending, West Virginia lawmakers are pretty close to their mission statement: "to jumpstart the nation’s economy, create or save millions of jobs, and provide a monumental investment in our future." Here's the result:

Nationally: 63% of funding to date has been allocated to Medicaid FMAP spending
WV State: 27% of funding to date has been allocated to Medicaid FMAP spending

Nationally: 13% of funding to date has been allocated to the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund to supplement education programs
WV State: 16% of funding to date has been allocated to the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund to supplement education programs

Nationally: 6% of funding to date has been allocated to "shovel ready" Highway Infrastructure fund to create and preserve jobs immediately
WV State: 18% of funding to date has been allocated to "shovel ready" Highway Infrastructure fund to create and preserve jobs immediately

Quote of the Day

"I don't think 'reform' comes in the form of increased taxes and billion or trillion expenditures. Instead, reform should come in the form of cutting red tape and government bureaucracy."
- Karen Hanretty, Republican strategist on the $1 trillion health care "reform" bill

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?