Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Virginia. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Virginia. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Ba, 9 tháng 4, 2013

Yes, Virginia, there really is a way to balance the budget

President Obama is set to propose his “compromise” budget plan on Wednesday. His budget is reported to trim the deficit by $1.8 trillion over the next ten years, with nearly $600 billion in savings coming from additional revenue and $1.2 trillion coming from domestic program and entitlement cuts.

To be sure, his proposal offers Republicans more entitlement reform than before – a move that many on the left are against. But the President’s proposal still includes $580 billion in new taxes on the wealthy, a position that Republicans have consistently and unwaveringly opposed since taxes went up as a result of the fiscal cliff deal in January. It follows that we are still on the same long, hard path to a grand bargain. And this week brings yet another proposal that does little to get us there.

But new survey data, collected and financed by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC and in collaboration with the Campaign to Fix the Debt, shows a path towards a deal and how one can be reached.

There remains a solid majority willing to rein in entitlements—so long as voters believe that there will also be economic growth and job creation along with fiscal stability.

The American people are in a profoundly pessimistic and angry mood. The Republican Party’s approval ratings stand at a 20-year low, with 66 percent judging it unfavorably compared to 33 percent favorably. The Democrats are viewed in a more favorable light, but are still not in good stead (43 percent favorable to 53 percent unfavorable).

Fifty-two percent of voters believe the country is off on the wrong track, and 50 percent say the same about the economy. Close to a majority say we will not be able to balance the budget anytime soon.

Against this backdrop, Democrats and Republicans have offered up competing budget proposals—the Democrats in the Senate, the Republicans in the House—to address the nation’s mounting fiscal challenges. 

The two budgets are roughly $1 trillion apart on taxes and $750 billion apart on military spending over the next ten years. They are fundamentally at odds on Medicare and entitlement reform as well as deficit reduction: the Republican plan would balance the budget over the next 10 years, while the Democratic plan reduces the deficit to an amount equivalent to 2.2% of GDP by 2023.

With such stark differences, it’s no surprise that the plans have had a polarizing effect—we face, yet again, a seemingly intractable budget stalemate in Washington. Neither side wants to compromise. And Americans are enthusiastic about neither plan.

Our new poll shows that Americans view the Republican plan, which makes draconian spending cuts and fundamentally alters Medicare, favorably, but only by a tepid 46-37 margin. By a broader margin (56-31), they favor the Democratic plan, but neither plan inspired much confidence in our respondents. 

When we asked whether they thought that either the Democrats or Republicans had a realistic plan to reduce the deficit, just 20 percent said that the Republicans did, while 25 percent said that the Democrats did. But 49 percent believe that neither side has a realistic plan.

So what do the American people want? It’s clear. They want a bipartisan, compromise plan. By an overwhelming margin—80 percent to 8—our respondents support the new Simpson-Bowles plan, which cuts wasteful spending, reforms our outdated tax code, and makes the necessary changes to entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security in order to protect them for future generations of Americans. 

This plan would reduce our debt by $2.4 trillion.

In practice, this new version of Simpson-Bowles raises close to $1.3 trillion through tax reform including the fiscal-cliff deal. It saves $600 billion from health-care programs and generates $600 billion in new tax revenue from ending or curbing deductions and breaks. And it makes $1.3 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending.

The plan stood up to scrutiny. When we told respondents that it would cut their Medicare and Social Security, they still supported it, 56 percent to 24 percent. What’s more, when we said that cuts to Medicare and Social Security would only affect higher income retirees, including millionaires, the plan’s support increased, with 65 percent in favor and 20 percent opposed.

Our survey respondents showed a strong desire here for a broad-scale deal that will reduce the debt and deficit, cut spending, and reform the tax code. Indeed, there remains a solid majority willing to rein in entitlements—so long as voters believe that there will also be economic growth and job creation (which remains their highest priority), along with fiscal stability.

To date, very few surveys have examined this issue in any great detail, comparing the actual details of the Democratic, Republican, and compromise plan and gauging American attitudes. Our findings offer compelling evidence that, while there is a great divide between the two parties, what the public wants is a clear, bipartisan fix to our nation’s fiscal situation.

Contrary to all of the doomsaying in Washington and the pervasive message that finding a solution is impossible, there is a clear path to a balanced budget, to deficit and debt reduction, and to achieving fiscal well-being. The results of our poll unequivocally show this. But the question remains whether the nation’s political leadership will put aside their partisan differences for a chance at the real agreement that the American people strongly support.

Douglas E. Schoen has served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton and is currently working with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He has more than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. He is also a Fox News contributor and co-host of "Fox News Insiders" Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on FoxNews.com Live. He is the author of ten books including,“Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and What it Means for 2012 and Beyond” (Rowman and Littlefield 2012). Follow Doug on Twitter @DouglasESchoen.

Jessica Tarlov is a political strategist at Douglas E. Schoen, LLC.


View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 7 tháng 4, 2013

Virginia woman fights for ownership of Renoir painting she allegedly purchased for $7 at flea market

  • 4713_renoir1.jpg

    This image released by Potomack Company shows an apparently original painting by French impressionist Pierre-Auguste Renoir that was acquired by a woman from Virginia who stopped at a flea market in West Virginia and paid $7 for a box of trinkets that included the painting.AP/Potomack Company

  • 4713_renoir2.jpg

    In this June 24, 2010 photo, Marcia 'Martha' Fuqua learns how to become a blackjack dealer in Washington. Fuqua says she bought a painting by French impressionist Pierre-Auguste Renoir at a flea market in late 2009 for $7 and stored it in a plastic trash bag for two years before having it authenticated as a genuine Renoir.AP/The Washington Post

A federal judge will seek to unravel an art mystery and determine the rightful owner of a napkin-sized painting by French impressionist Pierre-Auguste Renoir that a Virginia woman says she bought at a flea market for $7.

The ownership is in dispute after documents were uncovered showing a Baltimore museum reported the painting stolen more than 60 years ago.

The painting has been seized by the FBI, and the federal government filed an action last month in U.S. District Court in Alexandria asking a judge to determine who should keep the painting.

Among the contenders is a Lovettsville woman, Marcia "Martha" Fuqua, who has told the FBI that she bought the painting at a West Virginia flea market in late 2009 for $7 and stored it in a plastic trash bag for two years before having it authenticated as a genuine Renoir.

Last year, Fuqua planned to have the painting sold at auction, where it was expected to fetch at least $75,000. But the auction was postponed after it was learned that the Baltimore Museum of Art reported the painting stolen in 1951. Records show an insurer, the Fireman's Fund, paid a $2,500 claim on the theft.

The insurer says it is now the rightful owner, based on payment of that claim.

According to an appraisal commissioned by the FBI, Renoir painted "Paysage bords de Seine," or On the Shore of the Seine, on a linen napkin in 1879 on the spot at a riverside restaurant for his mistress.

The appraiser says the Renoir's value is about $22,000, much less than the auction house estimated, because Renoir's paintings have fallen out of favor with some art collectors who consider them old fashioned and because questions about the painting's ownership and possible theft diminish its value to collectors.

Fuqua, who had managed to remain anonymous until the court case was filed, told the FBI under penalty of perjury that she bought the painting at a flea market in Harpers Ferry, W. Va., never believing the painting to be a true Renoir, even though a plate reading "RENOIR" is attached to the frame. She describes herself as an "innocent buyer" and questions the FBI's authority to seize the painting.

"Because I am not an art historian, collector, appraiser, or dealer, I lacked the expertise to identify the Renoir Painting's authenticity, origins or previous ownership history," she wrote.

On Friday, The Washington Post reported that Fuqua's 84-year-old mother, who operated an art school for decades in Fairfax County under the name Marcia Fouquet, is an artist who specialized in reproducing paintings from Renoir and other masters. The Post said Fouquet had artistic links to Baltimore in the 1950s, when the painting was stolen, and graduated from Goucher College with a fine arts degree in 1952.

A man who identified himself as Fuqua's brother, Owen M. Fuqua, told the Post that the painting had been in the family for 50 or 60 years and that "all I know is my sister didn't just go buy it at a flea market."

The man later retracted his story, and ultimately said it was another person using his name who gave the initial interview.

Efforts by the AP Friday to reach Martha and Owen Fuqua Friday were unsuccessful. Martha Fuqua's lawyer did not return a call Friday seeking comment.

The FBI has an ongoing investigation, according to spokeswoman Lindsay Godwin.

Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ordered all parties seeking to claim ownership of the painting to make their case in written pleadings later this month.


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 3 tháng 4, 2013

Virginia lawmakers approve measure to bar abortion coverage

By a single Senate vote, Virginia's General Assembly on Wednesday prohibited abortion coverage from being offered in insurance policies that would be sold through a federally funded health insurance exchange in the state.

Capping a day of passionate rhetoric and dramatic delays over the emotional issue, the Senate voted 20-19 to accept Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell's amendment to legislation defining how health exchanges -- forums through which people who don't qualify for Medicaid can purchase low-cost coverage -- would function.

Earlier in the day, the House, by a 55-37 vote, approved the amendment. Its real test was destined to be the Senate where Democrats and Republicans each control 20 seats.

Opponents -- including the lone Republican to oppose the amendment, Sen. John Watkins -- said McDonnell's measure was so extreme that it will not only interfere with a woman's reproductive rights decisions, it takes the unusual step of dictating to private insurers' policies what they can't cover.

Federal law for more than 35 years has prohibited the use of taxpayer funds for abortion services. But, Democrats noted, McDonnell's amendment even denies firms selling policies through the exchange the opportunity to sell separate riders to cover abortions to customers who don't use government subsidies.

"We've told insurance companies what kind of mandates you have to cover, but we've never told an insurance company that you can't cover something even if you want to cover it," an incredulous Sen. Richard L. Saslaw, a Democrat from Fairfax County, said.

Debate was visceral and sometimes explosive in both chambers.

In the House, the General Assembly's most ardent abortion opponent, Republican Del. Robert G. Marshall, provoked gasps and grimaces within the House chamber when he said the amendment didn't go far enough because it allows what he considers an overly broad exception allowing abortions when a pregnant woman's life is in peril.

Marshall said he would abstain to voice his displeasure, and a fellow anti-abortion legislator, Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, sought to change Marshall's mind by arguing that McDonnell's amendment does more harm than good.

"If he truly believes this amendment would not save one life, then I certainly understand that that is a valid argument, but if he believes it will save any lives, why then would he not attempt to do that?" Gilbert asked.

"Mr. Speaker, anybody here could go out in front of an abortion clinic and blow it up and probably slow down the number of abortions for a week. I'm not willing to use any means to achieve even a good end," Marshall shot back.

In the Senate, Republican Thomas A. Garrett of Louisa rebutted the Democrats' claim that McDonnell -- a social conservative -- and the GOP were restricting private individuals from using their own money.

"We talk about private contracts, but these private contracts, by the language of the bill, are administered with public funds, therefore it's not a private transaction," he reasoned. "And we talk about this bill as if it's demeaning. It is hard for me to conceive of something more demeaning than a human life tossed into a refuse bin, a garbage can."

The amendment was identical to a provision passed two years ago as part of a law that would have governed the operation of a state-run and state-funded insurance exchange as required under the Affordable Care Act that Congress enacted in 2010.

But McDonnell decided against a state-run exchange, leaving the federal government to operate and fund the exchange in Virginia.


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 21 tháng 2, 2013

Virginia community braces for impact of defense cuts

Hampton Roads, like so many communities in Virginia, has an economy that centers around the military -- in their case, the Navy.

And with eight days left for Congress to act to halt looming budget cuts known as the sequester, residents are increasingly worried that Naval Station Norfolk -- the lifeblood of the community -- will be hard hit.

Tom Taylor, who runs MF&B Marine Warehouse in Hampton Roads, is already watching contracts with the Navy dry up at his small ship-repair business.

"It's not like turning on a spigot. You don't turn it on and turn it off," Taylor said in an interview with Fox News. "These (contracts) are months or years in the planning stage, so if they are canceled, you know, they don't come right back. ... So that's pretty alarming."

Like many small business owners in Virginia, Taylor will be directly impacted by the freeze in defense spending. Seventeen percent of the sequester defense cuts will come from Virginia's Hampton Roads area. Estimates show that the entire state, factoring in major defense contractors in Northern Virginia, could lose as many as 200,000 jobs.  

Most of the nation's naval fleet is maintained from ports in Norfolk and San Diego. The Pentagon has already canceled the deployment of the carrier fleet USS Harry S. Truman to the Persian Gulf citing fiscal constraints. Pentagon officials say ship maintenance is one of the first items on the chopping block come March 1, the day the sequester takes effect.  

Taylor says that every day Congress stalls puts added stress on him and his community.

"It does keep you up at night," Taylor said. "When you have a small business, it's more of a personal nature. People become your friends. You know them, you've been with them through ups and downs, birth of children, weddings, graduations -- whatever it may be. And it's not like a big company, when they lay people off they have an outside firm do it, or the HR department does it. ... I have to look these people in the eye."

Meanwhile, on Wednesday the Pentagon also announced that by late April it will have to furlough more than half of its 800,000 civilian employee staff.  

And on Thursday the deputy defense secretary warned that by the end of the year "two-thirds of all Army units will not be ready to fight other wars."

Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott told a community forum in Hampton Roads that he wants Congress to cancel the sequester. "Our nation is facing a serious, self-inflicted crisis that could cost our economy millions of jobs across the nation, and hundreds of thousands of jobs here in Virginia, if sequestration takes effect on March 1st."  Until then, Scott said, "we have total confusion, and no one knows exactly what's going to happen."

Randy Windley, who owns Doumar's diner near the naval station, says everyone in the area is at risk. "I think it's going to have a trickle-down effect," Windley said. "We're a small business and the military is so tied to this area that it's going to hurt the economy and the surrounding cities."

Steve Jackson, a local resident and truck driver, spoke to Fox News after the community forum with Scott and said he's frustrated by the whole process. "I want to know, when am I ... getting laid off in March, or in April. And I think that's what a lot of people want to know, and the answer to that, tonight, is -- we don't know from the higher ups."

"A lot of people on the outside of the military and the government will lose their jobs all the businesses around here will be affected restaurants, car lots, grocery stores -- everyone's going to be affected by this," said Phil Swain, a retired Pentagon civilian employee who lives the Hampton Roads area with his wife Jeanee, also a retired DoD civilian.

"I think we're all worried about it," Jeanne said.  "The military supports us either indirectly or directly.  It affects all the businesses, the real estate, our tax base -- it's our lifeline."


View the original article here