McEachin disappointed by McDonnell veto

From State Senator Donald McEachin:

Senator McEachin Expresses Disappointment
with Governor’s Veto of Landfill Management Act

Richmond – State Senator A. Donald McEachin (D-Henrico) today expressed his disappointment and concern that the governor has vetoed his Landfill Management Act, SB1119. This bill would have simply ensured a smooth process for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to fine landfills that are in violation of Virginia law and to help ensure that landfills meet the standards that exist.

Senator McEachin said, “I cannot imagine any good reason to veto this bill which passed the General Assembly with strong bipartisan support, including a unanimous vote in the State Senate. Democrats and Republicans voted for this legislation because they appreciate that landfills must be safe, must comply with regulations and must meet certain standards so that neighborhoods and communities are secure.

“For Governor McDonnell to undermine the legitimate concerns of communities as well as undermine his own state agency’s ability to monitor and regulate landfills is absurd and incomprehensible. The landfill regulations exist for the protection of the community, while allowing the landfill to serve a necessary purpose. Now, it will be even more difficult to ensure that any landfill, even one located right next to a residential community, follows procedures and rules.

“I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in both the House of Delegates and the State Senate, will join me in protecting Virginians and preserving our Commonwealth by overturning the governor’s veto.”

###

McEachin: "Compromises strengthened the state budget"

From State Senator Donald McEachin:

Compromises strengthened the state budget

The budget — proposed by the governor and revised, amended and approved by the General Assembly — frequently seems like an arcane process with incomprehensibly large numbers, accompanied by the usual partisan squabbling. In other words, all too often, it seems impossible to know what is happening, let alone what the real impacts of the budgetary decisions are.

This General Assembly session, in which the House of Delegates and the state Senate had very different proposals, was only the most recent example of this phenomenon. As each side fought for their priorities, I believe that most Virginians had no idea what was actually at stake and what the impact of the various decisions would be.

For the first time in several years, the state had a modest revenue increase. This allowed the legislature to not make additional draconian cuts, and even to augment certain areas. Nevertheless, while perhaps less heart-wrenching, deciding what to do with the additional income was one of the sources of strife.

The initial proposals from the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic majority in the Senate were very different. The House focused on increased funding cuts and on helping business by ending the accelerated sales tax for most retailers. The Senate, on the other hand, wanted to use the increased revenue to restore resources to K-12 education, public safety needs and health care.

Compromise created the final product, improving it because of the input from both sides. By forcing the House and Senate to work together to craft a final budget, priorities were reviewed and reassessed, forming a budget that took the best from both drafts.

The budget that was approved unanimously at the end of the General Assembly session restores some funding from the massive cuts that were made to public education and helps to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens — the elderly, the poor, children and those who are sick or disabled — receive some necessary services. At the same time, the budget puts millions into the "rainy day" fund, demonstrating fiscal responsibility and foresight and returns funds that were borrowed during the recent difficult years to the pension fund.

Specifically, how do these decisions impact Virginia families and where will most of us see the differences? Although the House had recommend decreasing funding for education, the final version, with the Senate having taken a strong stand, adds significant funds to the public school system. These funds, desperately needed by public schools and the localities that help fund them, can help keep teachers in classrooms so the student-teacher ratio does not need to increase.

The resources will help schools purchase needed materials, including technology. Finally, they can help make sure that specific programs, such as drop-out prevention, are funded. The strength and vitality of our public schools matter to all of us, whether or not we have students in them.

A well-educated society will create a strong and skilled workforce, allowing the commonwealth to continue to excel and to be "the best place for business." When youth drop out of school and don’t receive the skills and education they need to succeed, they not only cannot contribute their fair share, eventually they become a burden to all of us. Keeping kids in school and ensuring they graduate with real skills makes sense for everyone.

As part of our drive to have Virginians excel and to have our commonwealth be a leader, the final budget augments the funding for higher education. This funding includes more resources for workforce development programs at Virginia’s community colleges, additional dollars to help students transfer from community college to a four-year school and more funding for the Virginia Military Survivor and Dependents Program.

However, some of the money going to higher education will have a double impact by increasing funding for cancer research at U.Va. and VCU. Investments such as these provide opportunities for studentsand also can have a significant impact on health care as new discoveries help us to eliminate this scourge.

The budget contains other small, but necessary, assists for health care. It restores some money to Medicaid providers, ensuring that those citizens on Medicaid will have access to health care. Without this small boost in dollars, many providers would have not been able to serve Medicaid patients, creating a public health crisis that, in the long run, would have cost Virginians even more. The budget also provides desperately needed resources for the Behavioral Health and Developmental Service Trust Fund.

Finally, this budget adds resources for localities to pay police officers to ensure public safety in our communities while also augmenting funding for juvenile diversion programs and crime control plans.

By working together, the General Assembly created a fiscally responsible budget that addresses core services and needs while still putting dollars away in case of a fiscal crisis — and accomplished all these important goals without raising taxes on Virginians.

Sometimes, in the long hours of heated debate, filled with hyperbole and rhetoric, it becomes difficult to see solutions. However, we, as Virginians, can be proud of this final document and know that, after all the exaggerated verbiage, the General Assembly made reasonable choices and priorities that will benefit the commonwealth for a long time.

"Why Obamacare will survive in the Supreme Court"

From Senator Donald McEachin: "Interesting reading. I went to UVA law school and can assure anyone who read this article that Professor Bonnie is NOT a flaming liberal.

Two federal district court judges have ruled that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority under the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause when it included the so-called individual mandate in the recent health-care act.

That makes the score on this issue among district court judges 3-2 in favor of the mandate. Given the widespread expectation that Supreme Court justices will vote according to party affiliation, the American public probably expects a 5-4 decision, with Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Republican appointee, casting the swing vote in a close case.

However, most constitutional experts do not expect this to be a close case.

The individual mandate admittedly presents what lawyers call a case of first impression — meaning that Congress has never done anything quite like this before. However, if the justices adhere to well-established constitutional principles and do not disavow their previous rulings, a firm majority of the court will rule that the individual mandate is within Congress' constitutional authority.

The majority of at least six justices will include both Kennedy and one of the court's most predictably conservative votes, Antonin Scalia.

Read the rest of this provocative piece at the Richmond Times Dispatch.