Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Legislative and Line Item Budgeting
Posted by: Jon Henke on Tuesday, December 20, 2005

There's a bit of a fuss here in Virginia over something Governor Mark Warner has slipped into the State Budget. He "amended an executive order that for the first time explicitly bans Virginia state agencies from discriminating against gays in hiring and promotions", but he also went further than that, adding...
"sexual orientation" to nondiscrimination language in the $72 billion budget that he delivered to lawmakers Friday. Passage of the budget with that language would codify the change in state law, making it more permanent, Qualls said.
In general, opposing State discrimination based on sexual orientation is fairly uncontroversial. But, Republicans argue, the way Warner is doing this is problematic...
"There is a general sense that you shouldn't legislate through the budget," said Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Prince William, another conservative. ... Del. M. Kirkland Cox, R-Colonial Heights, also on the appropriations committee, said, "I saw it for the first time in The Times-Dispatch. It certainly merits discussion. I don't know what this has to do with the budget."

This highlights the broader problem of earmarks, riders and policy budgeting that I referenced a couple months back. Like Courts, the budget can easily become an instrument of new policy creation rather than extant policy implementation.

I'm going to extend this post shortly. In the meantime, I wonder where readers come down on Governor Warner's budgetary legislation. Is it appropriate or not, and what steps should be taken going forward?

UPDATE: Wulf mentioned ANWR, which is exactly where I was going with this. Instead of extending this entry, I've created a new post here.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

I think it’s interesting that he should try to slip this in only 3 weeks before leaving office. That sure looks like he knows it shouldn’t be done this way, but he thinks it is important to get it in on his watch for some reason. I really don’t like the way this is done at any level of government. In fact, this is the kind of political move that makes the average citizen hate politics - it’s just not straightforward and honest.
Written By: Wulf
I wonder where readers come down on Governor Warner’s budgetary legislation. Is it appropriate or not, and what steps should be taken going forward?
I don’t think it’s appropriate at all.
But as far as the Republican’s bitching,

Well, people in glass houses you understand…
WASHINGTON—With billions in federal money at stake, a spirited debate unfolded yesterday at the Supreme Court over the government’s contention that it can withhold funding from colleges that turn away military recruiters to protest the Pentagon’s ’’don’t ask, don’t tell" rule for gays and lesbians.
I think all of it sucks.
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
What Pogue said. It’s wrong no matter who does it, but I don’t see either party cutting it out willingly any time soon. In this particular instance though, isn’w what Warren just did expressly forbidden in VA’s constitution?
No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title. Nor shall any law be revived or amended with reference to its title, but the act revived or the section amended shall be reenacted and published at length.
Written By: Matt McIntosh
Well, people in glass houses

Pardon me, but I’m being a little dense today. What the fuck does one have to do with the other? Other than homosexuals being involved in some fashion?

Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
What the fuck does one have to do with the other?

Well, I agree that they are two different situations. And I thought of that before I posted.
However, I believe that they are both under the same premise. Both situations involve using money to influence policy. It’s a stretch, I admit, but not a long one in my opinion.

The merits of any particular policy should not involve jack.
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
I’m going to have to disagree with Pogue. The recruitment issue is not just different, it is very different - enough that they really aren’t under the same premise.

But if your glass houses comment had been followed with an ANWR reference, I would have been right on board with you.
Written By: Wulf
Completely inappropriate. At the very least it makes it exceptionally difficult to track legislation and see what the jerks are trying to cram down our throats this week. Policians are completely out of control. They behave like monarchs.
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
I’m going to have to disagree with Pogue.

Fair enough. I did say it was a stretch.

How about a Aids/Africa/Bush/abstinence-only thingie,
Religious conservatives intent on hijacking global AIDS prevention funds are putting heavy pressure on legislators and the Bush administration to strip funding from established public-health organizations like PSI in favor of faith-based groups that promote a moralistic agenda.
Too much?

I give.
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
PM -

1. Switching funding from group A to B in order to solve the problem the funding was intended for in the first place is hardly a good example of the topic of this post.

2. The same source you quoted illuminates why it may be a good idea to divert some funding:
And much of the money Bush has provided is being derailed into moralistic and unproven programs that make abstinence the centerpiece of HIV prevention.
Right, it is completely unsupported that abstinence has any chance of preventing the spread of AIDS via sexual intercourse. Why, abstinence may even increase the spread of AIDS! How can we be so damn dumb?

Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
Sorry, this is off topic, but I can’t help myself...

Holy shit PM, that article contains some of the stupidist crap I’ve ever read.
Nowhere is the effort by conservative Republicans to turn back the clock on sex education more pronounced than in Uganda. By aggressively promoting condom use and sex education, Uganda has managed to cut its HIV rate from 15 percent of the population to barely 6 percent during the past decade, making it Africa’s biggest success story. [this is a problem?!] Social conservatives argue that an emphasis on abstinence and monogamy drove down Uganda’s HIV prevalence—and if only other African nations could adopt such rigid moral standards, they would see similar success. While it’s true that partner reduction may [may?!!!] well have helped lower Uganda’s HIV rates, the role of abstinence has been distorted and overblown by evangelicals seeking to control U.S. AIDS funds.

Under pressure from the Bush administration, Uganda has taken a dangerous turn toward an abstinence-only approach. [Is she serious!? She is an idiot!]"
Sealey presents in her own article the evidence that proves her silliness wrong, yet she contradicts herself anyway! To quote Bugs Bunny, "What a Maroon!"

Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
lighten up, Unknown.

It was farce.
As should’ve been evident with, "Okay, I give"

Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
To be clear, I’m criticizing the inane article, not you.

Don’t presume anything is evident.
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
To be clear, I’m criticizing the inane article, not you.

Fair enough.

PM -

1. Switching funding from group A to B in order to solve the problem the funding was intended for in the first place is hardly a good example of the topic of this post.
Don’t presume anything is evident.

Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Okay, that was a criticism of your example. You, however, are probably a swell guy. So Merry Christmas.

Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
I think Warner’s method was wrong, as was McCain’s use of the Defense Appropriations Bill, as was the Honorable Senator From Alaska’s finagling on ANWR. Even though I agree with one, disagree with another, and have no real position on the remaining.

I hate omnibus bills, riders, amendments that have nothing to do with the topic of the bill, all that stuff.
Written By: Dave
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks