Thursday, April 3, 2014

Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 7)

English: First Bank of the United States
English: First Bank of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
By Thomas James Norton

THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION WAS CREATED BY CONGRESS WITHOUT AUTHORITY GRANTED TO IT BY THE CONSTITUTION, AND ITS OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN BEYOND THE SPHERE OF GOVERNMENT
following the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, the next important venture of Congress way in creating (June 22, 1932) the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, after the panic of 1929.
It was fashioned after the War Finance Corporation of the Wilson administration. But the War Finance Corporation had been founded on the principle laid down in 1819 (4 Wheaton, 316) by Chief Justice Marshall with regard to a banking corporation. That is, to meet its own necessities: -- collecting taxes, transmitting money, issuing bonds -- the United States can create a corporation. Maryland, which was taxing the issues of the United States Bank, contended that as neither bank nor corporation is mentioned in the Constitution, it was beyond the power of Congress, to set up either.
Bank Act under Sweeping Clause sustained
The last clause in the grants of power to Congress authorizes it to make all laws which shall be "necessary and
102

103
proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested" in any department or officer of the Government. Under that language the Court held that it was for Congress to determine whether it needed the assistance of a bank in performing its governmental functions.
So it was for Congress daring World War I to determine whether a War Finance Corporation was "necessary and proper" to the war effort under the war powers.[1]
Operations of Corporation not governmental
But the Reconstruction Finance Corporation does not in any sense come within the requirements stated. It was un constitutionally created and it has pursued an unconstitutional course.
The first and most important activities of the Corporation were in reconstructing the financial status of banks, railroads, and other corporations threatened with collapse. Loans of the money of the taxpayees to banks, railroads and other big concerns ran into the billions. But thousands of individuals and businesses of small class had to suffer unaided the consequences of the panic. Whether that distinction or discrimination was warranted by a consideration of the relative importance to national stability of the
1. The argument of counsel for Maryland against the constitutionality of the act creating the Bank of the United States was very learned. The question was discussed pro and con by able men long after the decision, In Jackson's administration a recharter was refused and the validly of the decision by Marshall rejected. Senator Benton of Missouri leading the opposition. In the light of the history of banking by the National Government, with its failures, with its inflations and deflations, and with its operating as the machine for manufacturing debt, one is justified in lamenting that it did not from the first do its fiscal business with bankers, restricting its activity in the field of finance closely to its granted power, "to coin money and regulate the value thereof."


104
applicants for loans is not known. It probably was, for money enough did not exist to "bail out" all that thus became involved in the catastrophe, for which the practices of many banks were much blamable.
A dispatch from Washington in April, 1949, said that the Committee on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, headed by ex-President Hoover, had asked Congress "to put the Government out of the money-lending business and eliminate 30 Federal agencies engaged in lending, including the Reconstruction Finance Corporation." Some months later another dispatch said that the proposal had been attacked by the Corporation as an "excursion into the controversial field of political economy." Of course, no bureau will "consent to death."
Reconstruction Finance Corporation departed from purpose
After the Corporation had enabled many forms of big money to recover their financial balance, it went out through the wide world scattering the savings of the people. Loans were made in South American countries and others for the construction of highways, railroads, and public utilities.
Under the National Defense Clause it lies in the judgment of Congress, the General Manager of the United States, as to whether the preservation of small nations friendly to us and favoring the governmental philosophy for which we stand, warrants the expenditure of American money for the protection of them from subjugation by Communism, the openly avowed and aggressive enemy of capitalism.
But the use of money for the uplift of lowly countries,


105
and for the other purposes mentioned, is without constitutional authority.
From time to time it was reported that a bank or a railroad or some other borrower had paid its loan, but there were many that never settled. In the report of the Corporation for 1948, the 17th year of operation, it is shown that $85,000,000 was held to meet "estimated losses in collection." If that estimate was calculated on the record of previous years, then its losses of the money of the taxpayers have been colossal.
The spender going stronger than ever
The United States News of October 7, 1949, reported from Washington that, instead of going out of action, as the Hoover Committee believed it should do, the Corporation disclosed that "its loans to business have reached an all-time high, and applications still are being received in increasing number." It reported, on October 21, loans to business -- not to aid Government in its functioning -- as $416,000,000 to 5,400 borrowers, with 1,200 new applications a month.
"The trend is sharply upward," says the report, because the commercial banks are becoming "choosey." That is, they are backing out of the field which they should have fought from the beginning to hold, and leaving it to the unconstitutional occupancy of Government.
The Associated Press reported on November 9, 1949, that Senator Fulbright of Arkansas, chairman of a subcommittee of the Senate on Banking, investigating policies of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, said in a conference with the applicant for a loan of $44,000,000 that such a transaction would not be "in accord with RFC ob-


106
jectives." To newsmen after the conference he said that he did not think it "proper to hand out public money to private industry." He named three companies which had borrowed of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and "now are being run by the Government."
That is what the corporation of Fascism is for -- to take over private business.
Another press report said that the applicant had already borrowed from the Corporation $197,000,000.
In May, 1950, the Associated Press reported from Houston, Texas, that Jesse Jones, who had for many years managed the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, said in his newspaper:
"If you have any old loans that you would like to get rid of, you may sell them to the RFC -- that is, if they are big enough and not sound enough."
And in the next month a corporation to which RFC had loaned $37,500,000 defaulted, was put in receivership by a Federal court in Columbus, Ohio, and at the receiver's sale the RFC made a bid of $6,000,000 more of the money of the taxpayers to get control of the assets of the borrower.
At the same time a committee of the Senate was looking into the loan record of the RFC, basing its action on reports of lendings "to new ventures speculative in character." It is for banks, not government, to lend money. Every youth coming out of school, and every graduate from the assembly lines of the universities, must be made to comprehend that the grant of power to Congress by the Constitution "to lay and collect taxes ... to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" does not authorize (1) the creation of


107
a corporation or ( 2) the lending of the money of the taxpayer.
Government out of bounds will not return
Thus, when Government has once fixed its foot in the door, it does not withdraw. That is a fact to cause grief in the mind of the constitutionalist. But greater grief comes from beholding the complete lack of understanding in the man of business of what is being done to him and to his country! The Government at Washington, having multiplied by bureaus the number of its feet until it is a centipede, now has a foot in the door of many commercial and industrial concerns; of agriculture, of banking, of building, of housing, of relief, of the schools, and of many other interests not within its constitutional field.
Will their ignorance entitle men of business to pardon for having contributed to the wreck of the Republic?
The 80th Congress, after lopping off some of the activities of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, continued it "to aid in financing agriculture, commerce, and industry" -- which are not of any constitutional concern of the National Government.
How one Bank grew to thousands
It has been a long progress -- or descent -- from that first bank for the needs of Government to all sorts of commercial banks in competition with citizens in the banking fields -- to 7,000 National Banks, to the Farm Loan Banks, the Home Loan Banks, the twelve Federal Reserve Banks, the Export-Import Bank, the World Bank, and others.
From what has been shown, it is dear that the Recon-


108
struction Finance Corporation has not been engaged in helping to carry "into execution the foregoing powers" of the Government, as the bank was held to be doing in the case decided by Marshall.
As statesmen and scholars and citizens long ago ceased to question whether any act of Government is "in pursuance" of the Constitution, the validity of the Act of 1932 creating this Corporation never was tested.
Irrigation by money of the taxpayers
In 1946 Federal aid was poured out in a flood to States and individuals; 50 million for milk and luncheons to schools; over 10 million for vocational rehabilitation; 57 million for soil conservation (the cover of aid to agriculture); 20 million for cooperative agricultural extension; over 10 million for general public health; over 9 million to control venereal diseases; and 5 million to control tuberculosis.
Those subjects are under the police power of the States, no part of which they yielded to the National Government, as they gave over coinage, treaty making, and some other nonlocal subjects by section 10 of Article I. As elsewhere shown by authority, the police power cannot be abdicated by the States nor usurped by the Nation. In the instances just before given, the course taken by Washington was usurpation and therefore unconstitutional.
Following the Reconstruction Finance Corporation came the Tennessee Valley Authority, the first step in "the electrification of America," a string of loan banks and credit corporations, and many other corporations having not the remotest relation to the constitutional functioning of the Government of the United States.


109
How invalid legislation infects the courts
"For the purposes of this case," said Justice Stone, writing the decision of the Supreme Court (306 U. S. 466) on a question whether the salaries of employees of the Home Owners Loan Corporation were taxable by the State of New York, "we may assume [italics inserted] that the creation of the Home Owners Loan Corporation was a constitutional exercise of the powers of the Federal Government." A text writer has already taken that decision as settling the proposition that all those corporations were constitutionally set up!
In creating the Home Owners Loan Corporation, Congress declared that it "shall be an instrumentality of the United States." But it could not be made so by a declaration if its functions were not to be governmental, as the functions of the banking corporation were in the case arising in Maryland. Congress gets power, not from its own declarations, but from the Constitution only. Nor can its proclamation of an "emergency," like that in the National Labor Relations Act, endow it with power not specified in the Constitution.

This brief account of the origin and works of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation shows the great danger of any break in the levee of the Constitution. The flood will go beyond control. The damage to taxpayers and the Republic by that Corporation is beyond estimate.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/  Thanks to the fine folks over at Barefoot's world.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Anti Federalist Papers No. 41-43B – Powers of The Constitution Continued

. . . In the present state of mankind, and of conducting war, the government of every nation must have power to raise and keep up regular troops. The question is, how shall this power be lodged? In an entire government, as in Great Britain, where the people assemble by their representatives in one legislature, there is no difficulty; it is of course properly lodged in that legislature. But in a confederated republic, where the organization consists of a federal head, and local governments, there is no one part in which it can be solely, and safely lodged. By Art. 1. , Sect. 8. , "congress shall have power to raise and support armies," etc. By Art. I. , Sect. 10. , "no state, without the consent of congress, shall keep troops, or ships of war, in time of peace. " It seems fit the union should direct the raising of troops, and the union may do it in two ways: by requisitions on the states, or by direct taxes. The first is most conformable to the federal plan, and safest; and it may be improved, by giving the union power, by its own laws and officers, to raise the state's quota that may neglect, and to charge it with the expense; and by giving a fixed quorum of the state legislatures power to disapprove the requisition. There would be less danger in this power to raise troops, could the state governments keep a proper control over the purse and over the militia.

But after all the precautions we can take, without evidently fettering the union too much, we must give a large accumulation of powers to it, in these and other respects. There is one check, which, I think may be added with great propriety - that is, no land forces shall be kept up, but by legislative acts annually passed by congress, and no appropriation of monies for their support shall be for a longer term than one year. This is the constitutional practice in Great Britain, and the reasons for such checks in the United States appear to be much stronger. We may also require that these acts be passed by a special majority, as before mentioned. There is another mode still more guarded, and which seems to be founded in the true spirit of a federal system: it seems proper to divide those powers we can with safety, lodge them in no one member of the government alone; yet substantially to preserve their use, and to insure duration to the government by modifying the exercise of them - it is to empower congress to raise troops by direct levies, not exceeding a given number, say 2000 in time of peace, and 12,000 in a time of war, and for such further troops as may be wanted, to raise them by requisitions qualified ,as before mentioned.

By the above recited clause no state shall keep troops, etc. , in time of peace - this clearly implies it may do it in time of war. This must be on the principle that the union cannot defend all parts of the republic, and suggests an idea very repugnant to the general tendency of the system proposed, which is to disarm the state governments. A state in a long war may collect forces sufficient to take the field against the neighboring states. This clause was copied from the confederation, in which it was of more importance than in the plan proposed, because under this the separate states, probably, will have but small revenues.

By Article I. , section 8. , congress shall have power to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States. It is to be observed, that the separate states have ever been in possession of the power, and in the use of it, of making bankrupt-laws, militia laws, and laws in some other cases, respecting which, the new constitution, when adopted, will give the union power to legislate, etc. But no words are used by the constitution to exclude the jurisdiction of the several states, and whether they will be excluded or not, or whether they and the union will have concurrent jurisdiction or not, must be determined by inference, and from the nature of the subject. If the power, for instance, to make uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, is in its nature indivisible, or incapable of being exercised by two legislatures independently, or by one in aid of the other, then the states are excluded, and cannot legislate at all on the subject, even though the union should neglect or find it impracticable to establish uniform bankrupt laws. How far the union will find it practicable to do this, time only can fully determine.

When we consider the extent of the country, and the very different ideas of the different parts in it, respecting credit, and the mode of making men's property liable for paying their debts, we may, I think with some degree of certainty, conclude that the union never will be able to establish such laws. But if practicable, it does not appear to me, on further reflection, that the union ought to have the power. It does not appear to me to be a power properly incidental to a federal head, and, I believe, no one ever possessed it. It is a power that will immediately and extensively interfere with the internal police of the separate states, especially with their administering justice among their own citizens. By giving this power to the union, we greatly extend the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, as all questions arising on bankrupt laws, being laws of the union . . . [indeed], almost all civil causes may be drawn into those courts. We must be sensible how cautious we ought to be in extending unnecessarily the jurisdiction of those courts for reasons I need not repeat.

This article of power too, will considerably increase, in the hands of the union, an accumulation of powers, some of a federal and some of an un-federal nature, [already] too large without it. The constitution provides that congress shall have the sole and exclusive government of what is called the federal city, a place not exceeding ten miles square, and of all places ceded for forts, dock-yards, etc. I believe this is a novel kind of provision in a federal republic; it is repugnant to the spirit of such a government, and must be founded in an apprehension of a hostile disposition between the federal head and the state governments. And it is not improbable that the sudden retreat of congress from Philadelphia first gave rise to it. With this apprehension, we provide, the government of the union shall have secluded places, cities, and castles of defense, which no state laws whatever shall invade. When we attentively examine this provision in all its consequences, it opens to view scenes almost without bounds.

A federal, or rather a national city, ten miles square, containing a hundred square miles, is about four times as large as London; and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings, congress may possess a number of places or towns in each state. It is true, congress cannot have them unless the state legislatures cede them; but when once ceded, they never can be recovered. And though the general temper of the legislatures may be averse to such cessions, yet many opportunities and advantages may be taken of particular times and circumstances of complying assemblies, and of particular parties, to obtain them. It is not improbable, that some considerable towns or places, in some intemperate moments, or influenced by anti-republican principles, will petition to be ceded for the purposes mentioned in the provision. There are men, and even towns, in the best republics, which are often fond of withdrawing from the government of them, whenever occasion shall present. The case is still stronger. If the provision in question holds out allurements to attempt to withdraw, the people of a state must ever be subject to state as well as federal taxes; but the federal city and places will be subject only to the latter, and to them by no fixed proportion. Nor of the taxes raised in them, can the separate states demand any account of congress. These doors opened for withdrawing from the state governments entirely, may, on other accounts, be very alluring and pleasing to those anti-republican men who prefer a place under the wings of courts.

If a federal town be necessary for the residence of congress and the public officers, it ought to be a small one, and the government of it fixed on republican and common law principles, carefully enumerated and established by the constitution. it is true, the states, when they shall cede places, may stipulate that the laws and government of congress in them shall always be formed on such principles. But it is easy to discern, that the stipulations of a state, or of the inhabitants of the place ceded, can be of but little avail against the power and gradual encroachments of the union. The principles ought to be established by the federal constitution, to which all states are parties; but in no event can there be any need of so large a city and places for forts, etc. , totally exempted from the laws and jurisdictions of the state governments.

If I understand the constitution, the laws of congress, constitutionally made, will have complete and supreme jurisdiction to all federal purposes, on every inch of ground in the United States, and exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas, and this by the highest authority, the consent of the people. Suppose ten acres at West Point shall be used as a fort of the union, or a sea port town as a dockyard: the laws of the union, in those places, respecting the navy, forces of the union, and all federal objects, must prevail, be noticed by all judges and officers, and executed accordingly. And I can discern no one reason for excluding from these places, the operation of state laws, as to mere state purpose for instance, for the collection of state taxes in them; recovering debts; deciding questions of property arising within them on state laws; punishing, by state laws, theft, trespasses, and offenses committed in them by mere citizens against the state law.

The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head, and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United States. The inhabitants of the federal city and places, will be as much exempt from the laws and control of the state governments, as the people of Canada or Nova Scotia will be. Neither the laws of the states respecting taxes, the militia, crimes of property, will extend to them; nor is there a single stipulation in the constitution, that the inhabitants of this city, and these places, shall be governed by laws founded on principles of freedom. All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. A contract made in Georgia may be supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction. . . . Every suit in which an inhabitant of a federal district may be a party, of course may be instituted in the federal courts; also, every suit in which it may be alleged and not denied, that a party in it is an inhabitant of such a district; also, every suit to which a foreign state or subject, the union, a state, citizens of different states in fact, or by reasonable legal fictions, may be a party or parties. And thus, by means of bankrupt laws, federal districts, etc. , almost all judicial business, I apprehend may be carried into the federal courts, without essentially departing from the usual course of judicial proceedings. The courts in Great Britain have acquired their powers, and extended very greatly their jurisdictions by such fiction and suppositions as I have mentioned. The constitution, in these points, certainly involves in it principles, and almost hidden cases, which may unfold and in time exhibit consequences we hardly think of. The power of naturalization, when viewed in connection with the judicial powers and cases, is, in my mind, of very doubtful extent. By the constitution itself, the citizens of each state will be naturalized citizens of every state, to the general purposes of instituting suits, claiming the benefits of the laws, etc.

And in order to give the federal courts jurisdiction of an action, between citizens of the same state, in common acceptation - may not a court allow the plaintiff to say, he is a citizen of one state, and the defendant a citizen of another without carrying legal fictions so far, by any means, as they have been carried by the courts of King's Bench and Exchequer, in order to bring causes within their cognizance? Further, the federal city and districts, will be totally distinct from any state, and a citizen of a state will not of course be subject of any of them. And to avail himself of the privileges and immunities of them, must he not be naturalized by congress in them? And may not congress make any proportion of the citizens of the states naturalized subjects of the federal city and districts, and thereby entitle them to sue or defend, in all cases, in the federal courts? I have my doubts, and many sensible men, I find, have their doubts, on these points. And we ought to observe, they must be settled in the courts of law, by their rules, distinctions, and fictions. To avoid many of these intricacies and difficulties, and to avoid the undue and unnecessary extension of the federal judicial powers, it appears to me that no federal districts ought to be allowed, and no federal city or town - except perhaps a small town, in which the government shall be republican, but in which congress shall have no jurisdiction over the inhabitants of the states. Can the union want, in such a town, any thing more than a right to the soil to which it may set its buildings, and extensive jurisdiction over the federal buildings, and property, its own members, officers, and servants in it? As to all federal objects, the union will have complete jurisdiction over them of course any where, and every where. I still think that no actions ought to be allowed to be brought in the federal courts, between citizens of different states; at least, unless the cause be of very considerable importance. And that no action against a state government, by any citizen or foreigner, ought to be allowed; and no action, in which a foreign subject is party, at least, unless it be of very considerable importance, ought to be instituted in federal courts. I confess, I can see no reason whatever, for a foreigner, or for citizens of different states, carrying sixpenny causes into the federal courts. I think the state courts will be found by experience, to be bottomed on better principles, and to administer justice better than the federal courts. The difficulties and dangers I have supposed will result from so large a federal city, and federal districts, from the extension of the federal judicial powers, etc. are not, I conceive, merely possible, but probable. I think pernicious political consequences will follow from them, and from the federal city especially, for very obvious reasons, a few of which I will mention.

We must observe that the citizens of a state will be subject to state as well as federal taxes, and the inhabitants of the federal city and districts only to such taxes as congress may lay. We are not to suppose all our people are attached to free government, and the principles of the common law, but that many thousands of them will prefer a city governed not on republican principles.

This city, and the government of it, must indubitably take their tone from the characters of the men, who from the nature of its situation and institution must collect there. This city will not be established for productive labor, for mercantile, or mechanic industry; but for the residence of government, its officers and attendants. If hereafter it should ever become a place of trade and industry, [yet] in the early periods of its existence, when its laws and government must receive their fixed tone, it must be a mere court, with its appendages - the executive, congress, the law courts, gentlemen of fortune and pleasure, with all the officers, attendants, suitors, expectants and dependents on the whole. However brilliant and honorable this collection may be, if we expect it will have any sincere attachments to simple and frugal republicanism, to that liberty and mild government, which is dear to the laborious part of a free people, we must assuredly deceive ourselves. This early collection will draw to it men from all parts of the country, of a like political description. We see them looking towards the place already.

Such a city, or town, containing a hundred square miles, must soon be the great, the visible, and dazzling centre, the mistress of fashions, and the fountain of politics. There may be a free or shackled press in this city, and the streams which may issue from it may over flow the country, and they will be poisonous or pure, as the fountain may be corrupt or not. But not to dwell on a subject that must give pain to the virtuous friends of freedom, I will only add, can a free and enlightened people create a common head so extensive, so prone to corruption and slavery, as this city probably will be, when they have it in their power to form one pure and chaste, frugal and republican?

THE FEDERAL FARMER

Learn more about American History:  Visit Jamestown, Yorktown and Colonial Williamsburg living history museums in Virginia.
Enhanced by Zemanta

GOVERNOR MCAULIFFE SIGNS INTO LAW THE HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION ACCOUNTABILITY COMMISSION

I-64 on the Hampton Roads Beltway, north of I-264
I-64 on the Hampton Roads Beltway, north of I-264 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Elected officials representing the Hampton Roads region to make transportation decision and be held accountable for them
Governor Terry McAuliffe signed into law today the establishment of the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commissioner (HTAC).  Comprised of locally elected officials, the commission will have the organizational structure and leadership in place to determine how new regional money - $200 million annually - will be invested in transportation projects.  The new funding is part of the transportation funding package passed by the General Assembly last year.
“Decisions on how transportation projects are financed and delivered must represent the best interests of the residents and communities of the Hampton Roads region,” said McAuliffe.  “In working with Senator Louise Lucas, Senator Frank Wagner and Delegate Chris Jones, we had a common vision for critical transportation decisions to be made at a regional level.  We turned our vision into action by passing a new law that gives local governments the ambitious charge to deliver a transportation system that will benefit the region’s mobility, economy and quality of life. Locally elected officials will now have the challenge to determine what is best for the region.  They will have authority to make important transportation decisions and be held accountable for them.”
The 23-member commission will consist of mayors from local governments, state legislators from the region and area Commonwealth Transportation Board members. Decisions will be based on a two-thirds majority vote of elected officials on the commission, representing at least two-thirds of the region’s population. 

HTAC’s job is to deliver an actionable transportation plan this fall, with construction beginning on the first of the projects in 2016.  High priority projects include Patriots Crossing, Monitor Merrimac Bridge and Tunnel expansion, High-Rise Bridge replacement, Route 460/58/13 Connector, I-64/I-264 Interchange and I-64 widening.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Governor McAuliffe, Mayor Sessoms Offer Bipartisan Support for Closing the Coverage Gap

McAuliffe
McAuliffe (Photo credit: mou-ikkai)
Governor Terry McAuliffe, Virginia Beach Mayor Will Sessoms, and Cox Communications Vice President of General Operations in Virginia Gary McCollum on Thursday urged members of both parties in the General Assembly to work together to negotiate a budget that closes the health care coverage gap. The bipartisan group – McAuliffe a Democrat and Sessoms and McCollum Republicans – said it is smart business for Virginia to bring its own taxpayer dollars back to the Commonwealth to provide healthcare coverage to up to 400,000 Virginians and lower insurance premiums on Virginia businesses.

“If we close the coverage gap, we can save Virginia taxpayers $1 billion over the next eight years, provide 400,000 Virginians with access to quality health insurance, and create as many as 30,000 jobs,” said Governor McAuliffe. “I put forth a proposal last week that protects Virginia by closing the coverage gap in the form of a pilot program, where we accept federal funds for two years, while the money is 100% paid for, and then we evaluate if we want to continue with the program.

“I believe this plan sets forth a pathway for the House and Senate to come to a compromise and pass a budget that funds our core priorities and brings our federal money home to close the coverage gap. As you can see at this press conference today, this is not about Republican or Democratic politics – it’s about doing the right thing for Virginia families and for our economy.”

Mayor Sessoms continued, “If the General Assembly acts to close the coverage gap, over 14,000 people in Virginia Beach would be eligible for coverage. The business case has been made – now is the time to act. Virginia needs to move forward with a plan to close the coverage gap. Our leaders in Richmond have forged bi-partisan consensus on difficult issues in the past and I know they can do the same now.”

McCollum added, “As a large employer in Virginia, Cox Communications understands that a healthy workforce is our most important asset. Having a strong healthcare provider network in a community is critical to economic development. In the Hampton Roads region, some of the largest employers – outside of the military and other federally funded operations – are Sentara, Riverside and Bon Secours. It is time for our representatives in Richmond to come together, in a non-partisan manner, and find a way to “yes”, a way to a solution that protects taxpayers, draws down federal funds and closes the coverage gap in Virginia.”

Governor McAuliffe last week released a budget that includes a two year pilot program to close the coverage gap and offers Republicans and Democrats in the General Assembly a platform for negotiations about how best to structure a plan to use Virginians’ federal tax dollars to cover hundreds of thousands of people and create as many as 30,000 jobs. The McAuliffe budget includes $225 million in savings over the biennium from closing the coverage gap and invests those funds in long-term healthcare spending reserves, a 2% raise for all full-time state employees, and the increased funding for the Virginia Retirement System. 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Governor McAuliffe Signs SB381 Transferring Homeland Security Responsibilities to the Secretary of Public Safety

English: Seal of the United States Department ...
English: Seal of the United States Department of Homeland Security. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Today at the Virginia Department of Emergency Management’s Emergency Operations Center, Governor McAuliffe signed SB381, which transfers the responsibility for overseeing and coordinating efforts to strengthen homeland security from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security to the Secretary of Public Safety. The legislation renames the secretariats the Secretary of Veterans and Defense Affairs and the Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security, and enables Virginia to better prepare for, evaluate, and respond to emergencies and disasters.

The Governor’s office, Secretary of Public Safety Brian Moran, and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Admiral John Harvey worked closely with a bipartisan coalition in the General Assembly to develop this legislation, which originated from recommendations from the Joint Legislative and Review Committee (JLARC). The bill, patroned by Senators Lynwood Lewis and Bryce Reeves, and its companion bill, HB730, patroned by Delegate Scott Lingamfelter, passed with unanimous support through both chambers of the General Assembly.

“This legislation streamlines Virginia’s ability to keep our communities safe by putting our homeland security planning and preparedness functions in the same place as our emergency and disaster response functions,” said Governor McAuliffe as he signed the bill. “This important shift also adds new homeland security duties to strengthen the critical preparedness work you all perform here, and is in line with my commitment to making Virginia government work better for the people of the Commonwealth.”  

Under the new law, the Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security is charged with:

  • Assigning planning responsibilities among state agencies and local jurisdictions to elevate the state of readiness in Virginia;
  • Integrating the state homeland security strategy into the Secure Commonwealth Plan;
  • Developing the annual Commonwealth Threat Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Report;
  • Ensuring development and implementation of plans for protecting public critical infrastructure;
  • Directing the Va. Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) to assist localities and state agencies to develop top quality, realistic disaster plans; and
Directing VDEM to oversee all shelter, evacuation, traffic, and refuge of last resort plans to ensure they will work when our citizens need them.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Virginia Partners with National Foundation for Governors’ Fitness Councils to Bring Multi-Million Dollar Youth Fitness Campaign to Virginia

English: Former DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe spea...
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Governor Terry McAuliffe, First lady Dorothy McAuliffe, and Fitness Icon Jake Steinfeld Open National Fitness Challenge Nominations for Elementary and Middle Schools in Virginia

Richmond, VA –Governor Terry McAuliffe, First Lady Dorothy McAuliffe, and Jake Steinfeld, Chair of the National Foundation for Governors’ Fitness Councils announced today their collaboration to combat childhood obesity in Virginia. Steinfeld, who has been a national leader in promoting health and wellness among children, is partnering with Virginia to bring the National Champion Schoolscampaign to the Commonwealth, which encourages innovation in the field of youth fitness by awarding fitness centers to elementary and middle schools. The nomination process opens today atwww.natgovfit.org and will run through the end of May.  Three Virginia schools, selected by the National Foundation, will be deemed National Champion Schools and will each be awarded a $100,000 state-of-the-art Live PositivelyTM Fitness Centers for their efforts. 

“The First Lady and I are honored to partner with Jake Steinfeld to bring the National Champion Schools campaign to Virginia,” said Governor Terry McAuliffe. “Childhood obesity is a pressing problem in Virginia as well as the rest of the country, it affects the health of our communities, and can impact our state’s economic future. This opportunity will provide our elementary and middle schools with the additional tools that they need to create innovative fitness programs.  By working together, we can prevent chronic disease, improve the lives of our young people, and ensure that our economy and communities remain strong.”

“This is a wonderful opportunity for our children here in Virginia,” added Mrs. McAuliffe.  “They will learn about the importance of leading a healthy lifestyle in an environment of fun and fitness.  Our students need exercise to grow and develop, to achieve academically, and to thrive in the workforce.  Through this campaign, we hope to give them the opportunities they need to succeed and achieve their dreams.”

The National Foundation for Governors’ Fitness Councils program will make its way into all 50 states in the coming years.  What sets it apart from other initiatives is that it does not rely on taxpayer dollars or state funding.  Each fitness center is financed through a public/private sector partnership with companies like The Coca-Cola Company.  The National Foundation’s goal is to build a nation of the fittest, healthiest kids in the world.

“Our National Champion Schools campaign has been well received all around the country and I’m looking forward to working with Governor and Mrs. McAuliffe to make this campaign a great success in Virginia,” said Jake Steinfeld. “I’ve always said that academics and fitness go hand in hand and by giving schools the tools, we can build strong bodies and minds while boosting confidence, self-esteem, and focus in the classroom. Our children are our most precious resource and by providing them with a strong foundation in health and fitness, we can feel confident that they’ll excel beyond their wildest dreams.”

Physical education, physical activity and exercise are shown to help prevent and treat more than 40 chronic diseases, enhance individual health and quality of life and reduce health care costs.  In schools, studies show that physical activity and fitness improves academic achievement, increases confidence and self-esteem, reduces discipline problems, cuts absenteeism and fosters better interpersonal relationships.

For more information about the National Foundation or to download a nomination form, visitwww.natgovfit.org.
Enhanced by Zemanta