Jim's Blog

Teachers' Retirement Ruling Provides State Opportunity to Avoid Digging a New Financial Hole

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 00:26:00 +0000

When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging. Former Senate Finance Committee Chairman Oshel Craigo, D-Putnam, was fond of saying this (or something very similar).

Two years ago, the Ruling Party had the bright idea of transferring all public school teachers who were first hired after July 1, 1991, from the Teachers' Defined Contribution Plan to the old Teachers' Retirement System (TRS), the defined benefit plan the Legislature had (in a very rare display of wisdom) closed to new enrollees in 1991 after finding the TRS had a multi-billion (that Billion with a B, folks) dollar actuarial, present-value unfunded liability.

However, fast-forward 14 years. The bleeding had been stopped, the Legislature had adopted a 40-plan to amortize the unfunded liability, and almost half of all public school teachers in West Virginia were on defined contribution retirement plans. However, there was just one problem: the teachers predominately did not receive good financial advice. Many of them were lured into buying some very poor investments by some unscrupulous investment houses who decided to employ former teachers to market these poor investments to current teachers.

In 2005, the Legislature tried (ultimately unsuccessfully) to pass a $5 billion bond to cover the unfunded liabilities in the state's pension funds, predominately the TRS. To help build political support for this measure, the Legislature offered a carrot: all teachers who were hired after the July 1, 1991, closing of the TRS to new members would, together with their defined benefit plans, be transferred to the TRS. This was contingent on a mail ballot election by defined contribution plan members; by a simple majority, plan members who voted voted to approve the merger. However, the TRS-defined contribution pln merger had a critical flaw: the transfer from the defined contribution plan to the TRS was mandatory; teachers had no way of opting out of their private accounts being transferred into the TRS. As I wrote many, many moons go, even before I began law school, this was blatantly unconstitutional.

Last month, Kanawha County Circuit Court Judge Paul Zakaib ruled in favor of more than 1,400 teachers who sued to block the confiscation of their individual retirement accounts and blocked the merger. Now, the Legislature has a fresh opportunity to reconsider this very ill-advised move.

Part of the reason the Legislature wanted to force all teachers, including those who preferred to stay in the defined contribution plan, to participate in the merger was because the merger was going to create a new unfunded liability that will likely measure in the billions of dollars if it happens in some form.

Now, the Legislature is considering a new plan to allow teachers in the defined contribution plan to transfer to the TRS on a voluntary basis. This would likely satisfy the constitutional problem with the mandatory merger. However, the financial result of this plan would be even worse for the state and the taxpayers than the original merger plan. The unfunded liability increase this plan would cause will far exceed the increase the original merger plan would have created because only those teachers who would presumptively benefit would transfer into the TRS.

Before the Legislature takes its shovel and starts digging a new hole, it needs to think through several major issues.

First, the Legislature should do no harm by not passing any bill that would add to the state's unfunded liabilities. The Legislature that has repeatedly told us taxpayers that it won't reduce our excessive tax burden because they want to do the "fiscally responsible thing" and focus on amortizing the state's unfunded liabilities first now faces a major test of its commitment to that goal; otherwise, they will expose themselves as merely wanting every tax dollar they may extract from us without us getting a bit too cranky at the next election and throwing them out of office. This means we need to stick with the defined contribution plan.

Second, the Legislature needs to provide defined contribution plan members with prudent financial advisers and regulate the types of investments that plan members may be offered and the marketing practices of investment houses that market investments to plan members.

Third, the Legislature should consider the potential alternatives available for assisting teachers who made bad investments, largely through no fault of their own. Clearly, many teachers who were first employed in West Virginia over the last 15 years will have difficulty affording retirement because of poor investment decisions, many of which were (as I am starting to become a broken record) through no fault of teachers whose expertise in in educating children, not managing investments. I do not pretend to know exactly how this should be done. However, this is the direction we need to go.

If the Legislature would properly regulate the investment of the defined contribution plan funds, West Virginia's teachers would have a decent range of sound investment choices available and sufficient freedom to choose among different alternatives. The regulation of investment options will be key to making a defined contribution plan work for most people.

So please, before we in West Virginia go down the road of digging a brand new hole for our state's finances, let's pull the emergency brake and carefully consider alternatives along the lines I have suggested above rather than add several billion dollars to our unfunded liabilities. And while we're at it, let's increase the chance the state will have the necessary revenue to support whatever "catch-up" program for teachers who had poor investments by reducing the tax burden on the private sector and grow our state's economy. There is no other way that will work.

Governor's State of the State Speech a Snoozer

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:59:00 +0000

Don't blame yourself if you fell asleep or changed the channel for the first time ever during a West Virginia state of the state speech.

Last night's speech from Governor Manchin was uncharacteristically bland & boring, not to mention devoid of big, inspiring ideas to really move West Virginia forward. Tax relief? (crickets chirping) Meaningful public employee pay raises to stem the loss of qualified teachers, state troopers, and correctional officers to other states? (crickets chirping) How about a bold initiative to

Instead of a bold tax relief initiative to transform "Open for Business" from a road sign slogan to reality by adopting broad-based tax reductions over the next decade to be competitive with Virginia (ranked #1 in the Forbes magazine state business climate index--and in which we're 49th), we got a proposal for a state income tax credit to defray the 5% of value-based vehicle privilege tax new residents must pay when registering their cars in West Virginia. Don't get me wrong, this will make becoming a new West Virginia resident a bit less expensive for the handful of people who actually move into this state each year, but it's peanuts when you look at the real picture and does noting to address the fundamental unfairness of the privilege tax. We reduced our corporate income tax from 9% to 8.75% last year, yet we got nothing last night that would have made us competitive with Virginia's 6%. Although the Legislature adopted a small reduction in the punitive business franchise tax last year, we heard nothing about either reducing it further or scheduling it for a full phase-out. Relief from the food tax will continue to drip like a leaky faucet; a reduction to 4% is scheduled for July 1, 2007, and a reduction to 3% is scheduled for July 1, 2008. Why not repeal it now and save thousands of small businesses the administrative headache of having to make at least 2 more adjustments to their accounting systems to tax groceries at a reduced rate? Of our neighboring states, only Virginia (at a reduced rate of 1.5% on the state level and 1% on the local level) still taxes groceries and they're making progress toward eliminating it. Finally, on an even larger scale, no one has even discussed long-term initiatives to reduce our sales and personal income taxes. The sales tax has gradually doubled over the last quarter-century, going from 3% to 5% in 1983 and to 6% in 1988. The 5 brackets of our personal income tax, ranging from 3% to 6.5% have gone untouched since 1987 and no one proposes addressing the marriage penalty (the brackets are identical for both single filers and married couples) or the lack of inflation indexing of the brackets. In 2007, if we had eliminated the marriage penalty and indexed the brackets for inflation since 1987, the top rate of 6.5% would begin at $110,000 for single individuals and $220,000 for married couples instead of its current $60,000 for both. Even with our state's anemic economic growth, a comprehensive tax relief package to 1) eliminate the food tax, 2) reform the privilege tax to treat motor vehicles the same as all other tangible personal property and only tax the sale one time, 3) reduce the state income tax rates by 10% percent across-the-board (1% every year)--which would mean reducing the bottom rate from 3% to 2.7% and the top rate from 6.5% to 5.85% by 2017, 4) eliminate the marriage penalty, 5) institute inflation indexing of the brackets and phase-in this indexing to expand the brackets to what they would be if we had been indexing them for inflation since 1987, and 5) reduce the state sales tax rate from 6% to 4% by 2017 can be done without adversely affecting current revenue levels because the gradual nature of each year's tax cut would both increase economic growth and, to the extent there may be revenue reductions compared to the status quo, could be covered by the small increases we already have from year to year in state revenues.

On the other side of the equation, Governor Manchin proposed raising teacher salaries by 2.5% and correctional officers by $1,000 a year. (yawn) Unlike many states and the federal government, West Virginia has not established automatic, annual cost-of-living adjustments to public employee salaries to prevent inflation from eroding the value of their compensation. At best, the governor's proposal would compensate for inflation since last year. Although I would, in the long term, like to see additional reforms such as hosing cost allowances for the Eastern Panhandle, merit pay to reward outstanding performance and a return to the defined contribution retirement system, I also agree with the WVEA's call for a 6% across-the-board pay raise, especially after they settled for less last year for the since-broken promise of a bigger raise this year. Because of the massive turnover of corrections officers resulting from substantially higher salaries from other states and the growing number of federal prisons in this state, I believe that we should adopt the $5,000 raise desired; on a budgetary level, this raise may actually save the state money by reducing the costs associated with training large numbers of new officers to replace the officers lured to other facilities by their higher pay shortly after being trained in this state.

Finally, I was just incredulous at one of the governor's supposed big ideas: tying "economic development" (pork) funding to counties' efforts on litter control. After the resounding sound of silence after what was supposed to have been the applause line for this initiative, the governor started running through some subsequent applause lines without pausing for the not-so-guaranteed response from a friendly audience.

Byrd Swears off Earmarks? I Don't Think So; Watch for the Federal Budget Digest

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:37:00 +0000

By now, you've probably seen the report from al-AP that the incoming chairmen of the House & Senate Appropriations committees, Congressman David Obey of Wisconsin and West Virginia's very own Robert C. "Big Daddy" Byrd, both of whom chaired their respective committees prior to the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress, have announced they will strip all of this year's remaining appropriations bills of earmarks.

Lest you think the Byrd is changing his ways, fear not my fellow pork-starved West Virginians. Either this is a one-time publicity stunt by a pair of leopards who want you to think they've changed their spots or they've got an even more insidious trick up their sleeves.

The second option is that Byrd will bring to Washington a West Virginia novelty whose use in our state Legislature was abolished early this year, the budget digest.

West Virginia's budget digest was a system whereby the chairmen (later expanded tot he full committee membership) of the finance committees of our state Senate and House of Delegates promulgated a list of projects they intended to have funded from the budget bill. Under this system, our state budget had no earmarks. Although the budget digest was not legally binding, career bureaucrats knew their lives would be much easier if they strictly adhered to the digest. And, as a legally nonbinding instrument, the governor did not have line item veto or reduction powers. This system was severely abused by the leadership of the House of Delegates, leading to a series of lawsuits that eventually prompted the legislative leadership to abolish the budget digest system so they could render the pending litigation moot and prevent discovery of very embarrassing evidence of this abuse.

WV House Speaker-elect Rick Thompson Names Leadership Team

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 01:19:00 +0000

Sunday, triumphant West Virginia House Democrats overwhelmingly voted to elect trial lawyer Rick Thompson, D-Wayne, as their Speaker to succeed retiring Speaker Bob Kiss, D-Raleigh/Kanawha. With that vote, I suspected there would be grab bags of goodies for both southern machine politicians and a variety of liberal interests.

I was not wrong. Today, Speaker-elect Thompson named his new leadership team. Gambling interests drew a full house with the appointment of Mountaineer Park horse trainer Delegate Joe DeLong, D-Hancock, to be the Majority Leader. Labor unions also fared well, as United Mine Workers official Delegate Mike Caputo, D-Marion, was appointed Majority Whip. Southern coalfields politicos won a major victory with the appointment of Delegate Harry Keith White, D-Mingo, as House Finance Committee Chairman. With little surprise, teachers' unions got their choice with the appointment of Delegate Mary Poling, D-Barbour, to chair the House Education Committee.

However, the true gem of the new leadership team will be in the House Judiciary Committee. Trial lawyers, abortionists, gay marriage supporters, the Charleston Gazette, and every possible left-wing cause you could imagine except gun control will cheer tonight as they learn that Delegate Carrie Webster, D-Kanawha, will take over the gavel of the Judiciary Committee from her (comparatively) far more moderate fellow Kanawha County Delegate Jon Amores. However, thanks to the election of socialist Delegate Nancy Peoples Guthrie, D-Kanawha, and the return to office of Delegate Barbara Evans Fleischauer, D-Monongalia, Webster will have to settle for being just the third most liberal member of the House.

Dems Take Control of PA House; New Speaker to Push Table Games

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:13:00 +0000

One of the last remaining unsettled elections this year was settled yesterday, resulting in Democrats winning a 102-101 majority in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives after a recount changed the outcome of one race. At the top of the agenda of former and future Speaker Bill DeWeese is the legalization of full-service casino gambling at the state's new slot machine parlors.

The prudential question for West Virginia lawmakers, who have been told by gambling lobbyists they must enact table games legislation to stay ahead of surrounding states and keep our "gaming establishments" competitive, is to what new low will the tracks go now? As I have said before, I suspect the next move by the tracks will be to legalize prostitution so they can expand their offerings from simple casinos to casinos with full-service brothels.

UPDATE: Fast Eddie says "Not so fast" to table games; PA may also consider barroom poker machines to spawn roadside mini casinos to compete with West Virginia's poker bars.

Ouch!

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 05:14:00 +0000

A quote from the past is quite in order today:

"A freight train came through here last night ... If Santa Claus had been running on the Republican ticket, he would have been defeated."
--Gov. Arch A. Moore, Jr., November 6, 1974

That's all I have to say.

Defying the Odds: GOP Victory Tomorrow in Our Hands

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 06:38:00 +0000

We have reached the end of the journey. Tomorrow is Election Day. The stakes are high. Almost everything that can be done, has been done. Let there be no doubt: the choices we make will impact our future for better or for worse.

As I said, almost everything that can be done, has been done. The one thing that remains is to get out the vote. Despite a seeming eternity of media prognostications that the GOP is roadkill, that Karl Rove has lost his mojo, and that the arrival a new era of liberal supremacy is unstoppable, final polling of a number of key races shows the outcome is too close to call. After all, why should we doubt the apparent confidence of a journalistic establishment that, in an earlier era, went to press before the votes had been counted proclaiming: Dewey defeats Truman? At this moment, I honestly cannot predict the partisan control of either house of Congress come January 3rd.

This is the fourth general election in which I will have cast a ballot--and about the eighth I have monitored closely. (I know, I know: I am not normal, for I have closely watched every election since I was old enough to know what politics & elections were--and I come from a family where no one before me had done anything higher than working the polls.) While I have very strong beliefs regarding the best outcome, I have also developed a keen sense for predicting the likely outcome in advance.

Time will tell whether I've shifted away from a seemingly natural tendency to try to identify a winner and go with him regardless of principle. Once upon a time, when I was very young and foolish, I was a Clinton Kool-Aid drinker. In 1999, although I had already decided that I would oppose Al Gore because his radical environmental policies would destroy the coal industry, I sensed that West Virginia was ready to vote Republican, although I had no idea how consequential our 5 electoral votes would prove. In 2001, after we changed history and put President Bush over the top, I was one of few Republicans (and a new Republican at that, as I was a registered Democrat for about a year, only because I lived in one-party Logan County at the time) who sensed that West Virginia was ready to consider electing Republicans in significant numbers down the ticket; we have since moved into position to take control of the House of Delegates and have more than doubled the number of Republican state senators over the last 5 years. With that in mind, I adamantly prefer another history-defying Republican victory but can only predict that the outcome lies in the hands of those of us who share this preference and whether we vote in sufficiently strong numbers to produce this result.

My appeal today has two audiences: first, my fellow conservatives who are at a crossroads over whether to vote--and vote Republican; second, the very small handful of you who are legitimately independent swing voters.

Elections have consequences--every single one of them. The outcome tomorrow will determine whether our resolve to defeat the terrorists and their allies outweighs the desire of the terrorists to kill us. The terrorists believe that America is a paper tiger--that we are, at our core, a bunch of yellow-bellied cowards who will run from a fight. They believe that, unlike President Bush, most Americans are no longer willing to say, as President Kennedy did 45 years ago:

". . . we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

There is no doubt that the cut-and-run liberals who harken back to the days of Vietnam and Watergate lack the spine and the willingness to win this battle of wills, but are we as a country of like mind? Five years of no attacks on U.S. soil is no accident and has happened only because we have a President who has committed himself to defending our country, no matter what it takes. In 1974, American conservatives stayed home, allowing nearly 50 liberal "Watergate babies" to be swept into the House of Representatives; in 1975, Congress pulled the rug of financial support from under the South Vietnamese, leading to their defeat and the rise of the killing fields--and leaving in vain the deaths of the 58,000 American servicemen who never came home. That must not happen again as the Iraqi people put their lives on the line to establish a free society and representative government that will shine like a beacon over the entire Middle East, inspiring the oppressed to seek freedom instead of terror and futures as contributing, productive members of open societies instead of martyrs in the cause of jihad.

At home, the consequences are just as stark. For those of us on the right, perhaps no issue is more important than realigning the federal judiciary. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito would not have been confirmed to the Supreme Court under a Democratic Senate. In 1986, a Republican Senate unanimously confirmed Antonin Scalia to the Court; however, in 1987, a Democratic Senate Borked the nomination of Judge Robert Bork. In the wake of Bork's defeat, a moderate Anthony Kennedy was confirmed and President Bush the elder timidly chose David Souter as his first Supreme Court nominee instead of a known conservative. The 1986 election turned the 55-45 Republican majority into a 53-47 Democratic majority; 5 of those losses were by very narrow margins. A few thousand votes in a handful of states (most of which were conservative southern states) meant that 20 years later, a Supreme Court that could have had a reliable 6-3 conservative majority is now divided 4-4-1.

In the War on Terror, Republicans supported spying on the terrorists, tracing and blocking their money, and getting aggressive with them during interrogations at Club Gitmo when they tried not to spill the beans on their upcoming plans. Democrats did not. Their allies at the New York Times blew the cover of our NSA terrorist surveillance program and financial monitoring program. In a just society, the editorial suite of the Old Gray Lady would be marched to the gallows for treason.

We also face choices on whether the President's tax cuts that have revived an economy that was once reeling in the wake of a recession exacerbated by 9-11 and accounting scandals should continue or whether we should, by inaction, allow the largest tax increase in our history to silently take effect. Because of an unprecedented move by Senate Democrats in 2001 to filibuster the tax cuts, the tax cuts had to be enacted under arcane rules that automatically repealed them in 10 years unless renewed by a future act of Congress. So now, the clock is ticking. Over the next 5 years, the top marginal rates in each tax bracket will rise between 13% and 50%; taxes on capital gains will rise by 1/3; dividend taxes will rise 164%; the 55% Death Tax, scheduled itself to die in 2010, will rise from the dead in 2011; small businesses will lose a variety of favorable tax accounting rules that have created huge incentives for job-creating investments; and families with children will see $500 per child in new taxes just through the loss of the increased child tax credit, which will drop from $1000 per child to $500 per child, not to mention other factors that will increase their tax bills. That is, unless Congress makes the tax cuts permanent. The House of Representatives has voted every year to do so; the Senate has not because breaking a filibuster requires 60 votes and there are only 55 Republican senators, not all of whom can be counted upon all the time. House Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member (and Chairman if the Democrats take control) Charlie Rangel says there's not one of the hundreds of provisions of the tax cut package he would like to continue. House Speaker Wannabe Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, says she likes tax cuts; as the President has been saying, she must be a secret admirer, because she has not voted a single time to cut taxes when it counted.

Thanks to the President's tax cuts and resulting economic boom, unemployment in the U.S. today is 4.4%; unemployment in France is twice the U.S. rate, at 8.8%; Germany is two and a half times ours, with 10.4% unemployment; even our neighbors to the north in Canada have 40% higher unemployment, at 6.2%. U.S. stocks are trading at all-time highs; interest rates still remain near historic lows; inflation is tame at under 3%; and gas prices, while still high, are well below historic, inflation-adjusted highs (does anyone who is old enough remember the days of Jimmah Cotta? Do you really want to go back?).

Some people say we should deliberately split control of Washington; that our constitutional system of checks and balances can only work effectively if there is a real friction between the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. In a time when continuing the status quo on autopilot would leave our country strong, safe, secure, prosperous, and free, maybe you would be right. However, we deal today with a perilous status quo in which inaction leads straight to disaster. The party in opposition would gladly sit silently as taxes increase dramatically and approaches foreign policy with its head in the sand, failing to recognize that 5 years of no attacks on U.S. soil does not mean the threats we face have subsided. Liberal Democrats in Congress do not share our vision of doing whatever it takes to win the War on Terror and cutting taxes to keep our economy the envy of the world. While we certainly have our faults for failing to act to shrink government, liberal Democrats have resisted these efforts in the past at almost every turn, instead seeking to constantly enlarge the role of government far beyond anything for which we conservatives have rightfully criticized the Washington Republicans.

In summary, my fellow conservatives: whatever grievances you may have with the Washington Republican establishment will pale in comparison to what a Democratic Congress--even a Congress of split control--will do. The time for action is in primary elections, especially in solidly Republican states and congressional districts where we do not need to nominate RINOs to win, not by staying home during the general election when the polls are tighter than the rusted lugnuts on a '55 Ford and whether we vote will decide the balance of power and the outcome of numerous issues far beyond those I have mentioned here.

To those of you who are honestly and truly independent, swing voters, I offer you much the same as to why I hope you will stick with the tried and tested leadership of the last few years. Everyone encounters their stumbling blocks when in power. The Democrats have their scoundrels and we have ours; we try to dispose of ours more so than they do theirs. However, the leadership of President Bush and Congressional Republicans has produced a safer, more prosperous America that, despite all the naysaying of the doom-and-gloom crowd, offers more opportunities to more people than any country at any time in the history of our world. While I believe nothing in our history has been inevitable, I believe that the right decisions will mean that, as Ronald Reagan said in his final public message in 1994, America's best days are ahead. That hangs in the balance tomorrow.

A lot rides on the outcome of the election tomorrow. Vote, vote early, only vote once, but vote Republican and let's keep moving forward toward that safer, more prosperous, more hopeful America that lies ahead.

Out-of-State Gambling Interests, Trial Lawyers Fund Last-Minute Attack on Incumbent GOP Delegates

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 00:14:00 +0000

Yesterday and today, numerous radio stations began running political ads targeting several incumbent Republican delegates funded by a group called West Virginians for a Brighter Future.

WVBF is a creation of former state Democratic Chairman Chuck Smith, who is listed with the Secretary of State as the group's treasurer, and has been funded primarily by out-of-state gambling interests and trial lawyers.

Today's electioneering communication disclosure shows numerous $1,000 donations, including 3 from 3 different women who are all listed as homemakers with an address of 40 Fountain Plaza, Buffalo, New York. Boston Bruins (NHL) Executive Vice President Charles Jacbos also lists this address. My research shows this is the address of the law firm of Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, which is listed in the Martindale-Hubbell directory as focusing on employment law. Another donor to WVBF was Herbert Tyner, President of the Hazel Park Harness Raceway in Michigan.

Because of the urgency of disseminating this information, details about other donors to WVBF is unavailable at this time.

So apparently, West Virginia is for sale as long as the buyer is an out-of-state plaintiff's lawyer or gambling operator.

State Supreme Court Blocks Starcher from Becoming Chief Justice

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 06:19:00 +0000

This morning's Charleston Gazette reports that the state Supreme Court voted 3-2 last week to interrupt its 25-year-old tradition of annually rotating among its members the position of chief justice and retain Chief Justice Robin Davis in her current position next year.

Davis, the Court's most senior member, has been a justice since 1996 and would have been replaced next year by controversial Justice Larry Starcher, a former chief justice, had the existing rotation plan been preserved. The justices voted unanimously to resume the annual rotation of the chief justice in 2008, when former Chief Justice Elliott "Spike" Maynard will again become the chief justice.

Starcher has been a lingering source of controversy on the bench in recent years. In 2004, Starcher heckled Greenbrier County Circuit Judge Jim Rowe at a debate between Rowe and former Justice Warren McGraw. McGraw narrowly defeated Judge Rowe in the Democratic primary but lost to Justice Brent Benjamin in the general election following a very heated campaign and the Rant at Racine. Judge Rowe remains a circuit judge in Greenbrier County and is subject to administrative oversight by the chief justice.

Justice Starcher's unprecedented, flagrant violation of the canons of judicial ethics in this incident and his comments to the New York Times that Justice Benjamin "was bought by Don Blankenship" may have been contributing factors in the Court's decision to block Starcher's scheduled turn as chief justice in 2007.

Voting in the majority were Chief Justice Davis, Justice Maynard, and Justice Benjamin; dissenting were Justice Starcher and Justice Joe Albright.

I'm sure my law professors are not happy. Too bad.

8 Days before Election, Governor to Announce Tax Reform Plan

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 04:32:00 +0000

Tomorrow morning, Governor Joe Manchin will unveil his proposal for reforming West Virginia’s tax system. Given the timing of tomorrow’s announcement, one thing is certain: this plan will be long on politics and very short on meaningful policy.

Moreover, news reports over the weekend have indicated the governor will call the Legislature into special session immediately after the election and before new legislators may be sworn in. The state constitution (W.Va. Const. Art. IV, §7) provides that the term of office of the Legislature begins on December 1 in even-numbered years. Usually, legislators are sworn in on the first day of the regular session in January; however, if the Legislature is in session at any time between December 1 and the regular sessions, the swearing-in is held earlier.

While rare, lame-duck special sessions of the West Virginia Legislature are not without precedent. Twice, the Legislature has met in special session during the lame-duck period: November 20-28, 1916. and November 27, 1964. The 1916 special session is of special note because outgoing governor Henry Hatfield (R) convened a Republican-controlled Legislature after the election of Democratic Governor John Cornwell and a Democratic House of Delegates. The 1964 session was a one-day session following the election of a Democratic governor, Hulett Smith, to replace a fellow Democrat, Wally Barron, and an election of a Legislature more heavily Democratic than its predecessor. On several other occasions, newly-elected legislatures were convened after the December 1 beginning of the term of office but before the regular session on the second Wednesday of January.

The timing of tomorrow’s announcement, coupled with the governor’s planned mini-tour of the state to promote his plan, strikes almost every political observer as a pre-election political maneuver designed to benefit members of the Ruling Party. I see it as a desperate ploy to distract attention from the fact that a lifetime of one party-rule in the Legislature has produced only a lifetime of listlessness for our state. As I wrote last week, Open for Business remains a slogan on the road signs West Virginia expatriates see when they return home to visit their parents and grandparents a few times a year because our next-to-last ranking in state business climates has caused most noncaptive businesses (meaning those businesses that can choose where to locate as opposed to captive industries like coal, oil, gas, timber, and other extractive industries that have no such choice) to avoid West Virginia.

If my hectic schedule at law school permits, I will try to write more tomorrow about the substance of the governor’s proposal and whether its politics meet my current expectations.

Let's really make West Virginia "Open for Business" by putting our state "Under New Management"

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 04:00:00 +0000

In January, Governor Joe Manchin began his campaign to make West Virginia open for business by erecting new "West Virginia: Open for Business" welcome signs along our highways at the state line.

Most West Virginians are not pleased, preferring a return to the "Wild, Wonderful West Virginia" that has prevailed since Arch Moore was Governor. An online petition for reverting to the old signs currently has over 20,000 signatures and triggered a phone call from the governor to the petition's sponsor, fellow WVU student Logan Wheatcraft, presumably an attempt to persuade him to drop his effort.

A road sign proclaiming West Virginia to be open for business will not change the fact that West Virginia is not open for business. Forbes magazine just rated West Virginia 49th (meaning next to last for those of you in Rio Linda) in its annual ranking of "The Best States for Business." Neighboring Virginia, which does not need road signs to tell incoming motorists they're open for business, is number one.

In just over two weeks, West Virginians can turn "West Virginia: Open for Business" from an empty slogan on road signs too visually cluttered to read while driving at highway speeds to reality by putting the West Virginia Legislature under new management and unseating a corrupt congressman whose efforts to bring federal funds to northern West Virginia have predominately benefited a network of 5 nonprofit organizations established by this congressman, whose officers and directors are longtime friends, associates, and real estate investment partners of the congressman.

Lest you think I've been drinking too much of the GOP Kool-Aid, I predict most West Virginians love our Big Daddy (see post below from Oct. 19 click here to open video of speech in new window click here for Raese radio ad) enough to reelect him by almost a party-line vote. Thanks to his new TV ads featuring Governor Manchin, Joe's MoJo should rub off enough to guarantee an easy ride, paving the way for John Raese to follow in the steps of two-time losing North Carolina U.S. Senate candidate Erskine "Irksome" Bowles and seek the open presidency of West Virginia University. Our next best hope for new blood in our U.S. Senate delegation lies with SMC '08.

The people of northern West Virginia should elect Chris Wakim to Congress. Incumbent Congressman Alan Mollohan is neck-deep in scandal surrounding shady land deals in which he partnered with and/or received loans from the officers and directors of several nonprofit organizations to which he has steered over $250 million of federal earmarks over the last 5 years and filed false personal financial disclosure statements with the House of Representatives. In that time, Mollohan's net worth has skyrocketed from just a few hundred thousand dollars in 2000 to between $6 million and $11 million today. Dividing the increase in his net worth by the total amount of earmarks to these organizations shows that Mollohan's net worth has climbed by an amount equal to almost 4% of the total earmarks. Longtime West Virginia political observers may see some significance in that figure.

Polling shows this to be a very tight race, with both candidates now in the 40s. Wakim has recently pulled ahead of Mollohan in cash on hand, although that may change as Mollohan just sold a piece of property in Tucker County on which he made a profit of almost $250,000. The TV ad war has been intense, with both candidates calling each other crooked liars. Wakim has hit Mollohan hard on the earmarks and Mollohan, seeming to forget his party's joinder at the hip with gambling interests, has attacked Wakim over his operation of "gray" poker machines at his bar before video poker was legalized in 2001.

Now, we get to the races that promise us our best opportunity to bring real, meaningful, positive change to our state: the races for the state Senate and House of Delegates. Seventeen of the 34 state senators and all 100 delegates will be elected in two weeks. With enough exceptions to count on one hand, the Ruling Party has consistently supported policies that have held West Virginia back and run counter to the values of most West Virginians.

Whether the issue is eliminating the abominable tax on food, closing loopholes in our laws that let minor girls have secret abortions without notifying their parents or let convicted drunk drivers keep their driver's licenses, following the lead of more than 20 other states and amending our state constitution to prevent activist judges in the future from redefining marriage a la Massachusetts, or protecting women and children from sexual predators, the Ruling Party has been wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong (until they flip-flopped for a change).

Ruling Party leaders like retiring House Speaker Bob Kiss caterwaul about needing to reduce business taxes first, yet never allow any legislation to reduce job-killing taxes like our business franchise tax or high corporate income taxes to see the light of day. As I pointed our in several columns last year (see sidebar to the right), the Ruling Party's leadership wants no part in reducing the state's intrusiveness into our wallets or truly unleashing the kidn of real economic growth our state woudl have if the Legislature passed a bill enacting in duplicate the Code of Virginia with substitutions of "West Virginia" for "Virginia" in all petinent places.

With the exception of a few independent thinkers like Delegates Eustace Frederick, D-Mercer; Tim Miley, D-Harrison; and Tom Louisos, D-Fayette, who was sadly defeated in the primary election, the current members of the Legislature in the Ruling Party have uniformly followed the dictates of their leadership and failed to move West Virginia forward. West Virginia can take a great leap forward by electing Republican majorities to both houses of the Legislature on November 7.

For the sake of the kids, let's finally make West Virginia open for business by putting our state under new management.

Senator Byrd's "Big Daddy" Speech

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 04:46:00 +0000

Click here to open it in a new window.

Manchin Endangers Every West Virginian with Decision to Relax Rules on DUI Hearings

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:48:00 +0000

Today's Charleston Gazette reported that the DMV, at the direction of Governor Manchin, has reversed course and is now granting administrative hearings to hear appeals of driver's license revocations of people who were convicted of DUI after pleading no contest.

This decision comes after the Legislature almost passed HB 4308 during this year's legislative session, but thankfully failed to give the bill the final passage it needed to go to the governor's desk. HB 4308 would have amended the DUI license revocation statute to allow those convicted of DUI after pleading no contest to have administrative hearings before the DMV to appeal their license revocations and potentially keep their driver's licenses. The most frequent cause of convicted drunk drivers prevailing at these hearings is the failure of the arresting officer to appear.

This issue is among several targeted by Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship in his ...And for the Sake of the Kids campaign against numerous incumbent state legislators. Until the governor intervened, the DMV had been following its policy of automatically revoking driver's licenses of drunk drivers who were convicted after no contest pleas in the wake of a 2004 state Supreme Court decision upholding the practice. The 2004 ruling was a hard-fought win and has now been negated by the governor's intervention.

Allow me to take a few minutes to refresh you of the facts of this issue.

Under West Virginia law, when a person is arrested for DUI, the defendant is subject to both criminal proceedings in court and administrative proceedings through the DMV. The criminal proceedings will determine guilt under the criminal statute in which the burden of proof is for the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If convicted, the defendant will go to jail and pay a fine. The DMV administrative process will determine whether the defendant's driver's license will be revoked; here, however, the burden of proof is lower: a preponderance of the evidence (the side whose case is even slightly more likely than the other's will win) rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since at least 1981, this two-track system has existed in West Virginia. The Legislature created this system because, in the past, many drunk drivers had been able to keep their driver's licenses by plea bargaining the DUI charges and keeping their driver's licenses in the absence of a DUI conviction. Following standards of due process protections that have passed judicial muster, the Legislature established the administrative license revocation system that permits a license to be revoked for DUI without the need for a criminal conviction. Today, there are about 2.5 times as many license revocations for DUI in West Virginia as there are DUI convictions.

A defendant in a DUI case may request a hearing to challenge the revocation unless he or she has been convicted of the criminal charge. The Legislature wisely decided to include this provision in the administrative revocation law because a criminal conviction requires the same facts to be proven in a venue with a tougher burden of proof. However, this difference in the burden of proof means a person may be acquitted of a criminal charge of DUI but still lose his or her driver's license at the DMV hearing.

Here is where we arrive at the controversy over how defendants who plead no contest to the criminal charge and found guilty by the court are treated. A well-established principle of American law (and the laws of every other country that follows the English legal tradition) is that when a person pleads no contest to a criminal charge, that plea cannot be used as an admission of the defendant's conduct in any other proceeding, including a civil case (such as a DMV license revocation hearing). However, when the no contest plea is entered, the judge has a duty to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the crime charged. In almost all cases--since the no contest plea is usually only entered when the defendant knows he is guilty and has no chance of prevailing--the judge finds the defendant guilty.

In 2004, the state Supreme Court found that when the Legislature enacted the two-track system for revoking driver's licenses for DUI, the statute's definition of conviction encompassed convictions entered by a court following no contest pleas. When the Legislature adopted this definition, it relied upon the judge's finding of guilt and not the defendant's no contest plea as the basis for binding the court's adjudication of guilt upon the DMV's administrative process. Therefore, we are not dealing with a breach of centuries of legal tradition regarding the effect of no contest pleas to criminal charges.

Now, since West Virginia's system of driver's license revocations for DUI obviously involves far more cases of people losing their licenses without a conviction than no revocations following no contest plea-based convictions, what is the problem? Well, just as the system can be abused to drop valid criminal charges of DUI for no good reason, so too can the system be abused to keep a few convicted drunk drivers who pleaded no contest on the roads.

A dirty little secret few are willing to admit is that in certain cases, especially involving powerful and/or wealthy defendants and/or their lawyers, arrangements can be made to plead no contest, allow the prosecutors to credit themselves with a conviction, and arrange to "lose" or "misplace" the arresting cop's subpoena to the DMV hearing. When the cop fails to appear, the DMV must dismiss the revocation action and the defendant gets to keep his driver's license. In a few cases, hearings may be rescheduled, but this is not likely in the wake of a state Supreme Court decision this year requiring the DMV to pay the defendant's costs associated with the rescheduled hearing if the DMV chooses to proceed with the revocation action.

09-11-01, We Must Never Forget

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 05:03:00 +0000

Today I repost in its entirety my post from this day one year ago below the line. As I write the brief comments I offer today, I feel the same feeling as I did on that day 5 years ago; I am engulfed by the same "eerie chill" about which I wrote a year ago.

In addition to my post from last year, I commend for your reading the article by Peggy Noonan.

Audio part 1

Audio Part 2

Audio Part 3--This part is not contained in the text below.

It was a sunny September morning. In one sense, it seems like it was a lifetime ago; in another, it's hard to believe four years have already passed. September 11, 2001, saw the arrival on U.S. soil the long-brewing war between civilized free societies and a radical Islamofascism seeking to return the world to the Dark Ages.

There are certain events in our lives that are burned so deeply into our memories that we will never forget where we were or what we were doing. I was on my way to class that day, comparative politics and political theory. I had stayed up late the night before to finish a short paper for the comparative politics class. I had only enough time for a quick shower before I left my apartment, so no breakfast or quick check of the morning news.

I got in the car, started my usual 15 minute drive to campus, and turned on the radio. It was 9:49 AM. Instead of the usual music, I heard the very somber voice of Peter Jennings broadcasting. Instantly, before hearing what exactly was happening, I knew something very, very terrible had happened. Within those 15 minutes, I would learn that jets had crashed into the Pentagon, both towers of the World Trade Center and somewhere in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, not far from Morgantown. Instantly, I knew: America was under attack and the world in which we live will change forever.

Normally, the only eerie thoughts accompanying my morning commutes to class were those I had as I walked by the ruins of the house at 723 College Avenue--directly across the street from my dorm room the prior year--that was torched a few weeks before along with one of its occupants and the Fire Marshal's Arson Hotline posters posted along the street. However, that day a chill pulsated from head to toe and stood straight every hair on my body--a chill that returns every time I think of what happened that day.

At 11:30 my second and final class of the day, political theory began. Dr. Whisker walked into the room and broke the news that the Twin Towers had both collapsed. The class had a discussion about moments that define a generation. Then we left early. Getting ahead of the curve, I stopped and topped off my gas tank on the way home, fearing what thankfully did not follow.

The images of that day were burned into our minds forever, though they have largely disappeared from the mainstream media as if they've been placed under seal. We're reminded daily of the 1,800 or so brave American soldiers who have given the ultimate sacrifice in the Iraqi theater of the War on Terror that we officially entered that day. The Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and that field in Somerset County--where over 3,000 civilians became the first casualties on U.S. soil--have all disappeared from our televisions and most newspapers.

On September 11, 2001, we finally saw that we were at war--a war that began long ago but which we saw only as a series of crimes rather than a war. For a time, we were sure the politics would be cast aside for the national interest. From many on the other side of aisle, we heard: Thank God George W. Bush is our President. We were determined to engage the enemy on their soil and defeat them so the likes of what happened on that sunny September morning four years ago would never again visit American soil. The terrorists can be effective only when they have a safe haven and plentiful support. The war we now fight ensures those evildoers who wish to wage their war on our way of life spend their time on the run rather than in comfort planning their next attacks from within a country like Taliban Afghanistan. While our attackers on that day were al Qaeda terrorists who received their safe haven from the Taliban, our war against these forces of evil must extend to every international terrorist group who wishes us ill and those who give them aid & comfort.

We will always remember and must never forget what we saw and what we felt. The lack of a subsequent terrorist attack on U.S. soil has not been by accident. We must remain vigilant and must keep taking the war to those who seek to wage war on us. As Winston Churchill said in England's darkest hours of World War II, "Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never--in nothing, great or small, large or petty--never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."

Poll Shows Wakim Within Striking Distance

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 22:28:00 +0000

A new poll in the congressional race between embattled Congressman Alan Mollohan, D-Fairmont, and Delegate Chris Wakim, R-Wheeling, shows Wakim within striking distance, trailing by just 10 points, 52-42. Additional data in the polling results show that among likely voters who are firmly committed to a candidate, Wakim & Mollohan are in a virtual dead heat, with Mollohan leading this group by only 4 points, 46-42.

Detailed polling results are available here (PDF). Additional polling by Constituent Dynamics is available here.

Does Mollohan Have a Protege?

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 22:25:00 +0000

New York TV station WNBC reports today that federal prosecutors in New Jersey have opened a criminal probe of the financial relationship between U.S. Senator Bob Menendez, D-NJ, and a nonprofit organization to which he steered millions of dollars of federal funds. Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Menendez, a former congressman who was appointed to the Senate earlier this year by Governor Jon Corzine, who previously held the Senate seat until he bought the governorship last year, is locked in a tight battle for reelection this fall with state Senator Tom Kean, Jr., son of former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean. Recent polls on this race have been trending in favor of Kean; click here for polling data on the NJ Senate race.

UPDATE: With hat tip to Don Surber, Senator Menendez argues in his defense that his arrangement with North Hudson Community Action had received the blessing of the House ethics committee--at the same time Congressman Mollohan was the top Democrat on the ethics committee, the only House committee evenly divided between the two parties.

Mollohan Goes Negative in Early TV Ads

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 05:33:00 +0000

The TV ad war officially began this week in the race for congressman from the first congressional district.

Embattled Congressman Alan Mollohan, D-Fairmont, began his campaign with a negative attack ad against Delegate Chris Wakim, R-Wheeling, alleging Wakim to be an illegal gambling operator and a dishonest campaigner. An ad by a n independent organization (whose name I will list here when I see the ad again) highlighted Mollohan's extensive earmarks and financial relations with a network of 5 nonprofits. As of this morning, I have not yet seen an official Wakim TV ad.

That Mollohan, a 12-term incumbent, would open his TV campaign with a negative attack on his opponent speaks volumes about his own assessment of his chances in November. While incumbents ordinarily begin their advertising with reminders of their votes and accomplishments in office, Mollohan is woefully short on any accomplishments other than the earmarks whose propriety have been called into question. While no polls on this race have been made public, a poll early this summer by West Virginia Media showed that over 2/3 of respondents said they believed Mollohan was somewhat or very likely to face criminal charges as a result of the ongoing probe of his earmarks and personal finances by the National Legal and Policy Center and the Justice Department.

Added to the RedState.org Blog Project

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:00:00 +0000

This page has become a part of the RedState.org Blog Project, a directory of right-of-center state and local political blogs.

To those who found this page from the RSBP, welcome! I primarily cover state and major local political events in West Virginia when I am not buried to my eyeballs in law school readings. I try to post a few times each week, and more often if required by the news of the day. While tremendous anxiety persists about the national political scene this fall, West Virginia Republicans are excited and very optimistic about our chances of continuing the progress we have made at the state level to begin realigning West Virginia from a solidly Democratic state to a Republican-leaning state.

In 2000, West Virginia shocked the country and gave George W. Bush the 5 electoral votes that put him in the White House--5 electoral votes that, if received by Al Gore, would have made Florida irrelevant and elected the first Republican, Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito, to Congress in a generation.

In 2002, we reelected Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito by a 20-point margin over self-financing multimillionaire trial lawyer Jim Humphreys in a rematch of the 2000. Additionally, we gained 7 seats in the House of Delegates and 4 in the state Senate, defeating the chairmen of the Senate's two most powerful committees.

In 2004, we carried the state for President Bush by a 13-point margin (and carried all 3 congressional districts and 46 of the 55 counties, including 9 of the state's 10 most populous counties), elected 3 more Republican state senators (giving us the largest number of Republican senators, 13 of 34, at any time since the Democrats took control of the Senate in 1932), elected a Republican, Betty Ireland, as Secretary of State, and defeated the first Democratic incumbent for a statewide office in more than 80 years as Brent Benjamin defeated controversial state Supreme Court Justice Warren McGraw.

West Virginia Ranks 49th Again

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 20:37:00 +0000

To the shock of no one, a national ranking of state business climates by Forbes magazine finds that West Virginia is the 49th best state for business. Only Louisiana ranked worse; Mississippi ranked 48th. Neighboring Virginia ranked number one; the rankings of other surrounding states included Maryland at 11, Kentucky at 33, Ohio at 34, and Pennsylvania at 41.

The Forbes index rated states on business costs, labor, regulatory environment, economic climate, growth prospects, and quality of life. West Virginia ranked dead last in the growth prospects subranking.

Sadly, the fact West Virginia remains not open for business, notwithstanding the message of the governor's beautiful new road signs, has been long evident to residents of most border counties who often commute to neighboring states for work, shopping, and entertainment.

Back from the Beach; Back to School

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:59:00 +0000

It seems like just yesterday, I was leaving for a quick beach weekend before law school starts. Well, I guess it was really almost yesterday. Now I'm back and about to start law school next week--actually, the 3-day orientation session for first-year law students starts tomorrow.

Although I was only gone for 3 days, there was plenty of the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The good: While it was a rather short trip, I did get a chance to unwind & relax at Nags Head and Virginia Beach, as well as just get out of Dodge for a while. Temperatures on the coast held at a nice 80 degrees all day each day I was there and the rain stayed away.

The bad: In one word, traffic. Mapquest said my trip would take just over 6 hours. While I usually take only 80% of the time it estimates, I figured that just by having to drive a bit slower in Virginia, I might take a bit longer. My drive took over 8 hours. Almost every highway I drove in Virginia was clogged, from I-81 near Winchester to I-66 between I-81 and Manassas to I-95 from Woodbridge to Richmond to I-64 from Richmond to the beach. The only relief would be found on US 522 northwest of Winchester, the PW Parkway between I-66 and I-95 in Prince William County.

While one of the things I love about my ancestral (and maybe future personal) home of the Commonwealth of Virginia is their lower taxes, the extension of this policy to gas taxes and road funding has resulted in no major widening of most of Virginia's interstates since they were built over 40 years ago; some small progress is being made in the most congested parts of Northern Virginia and the Hampton Roads area, but it, like the existing traffic, has been moving at a snail's pace. I can understand how Virginia Republicans have lost almost two-thirds of the 12 seats they gained in the House of Delegates 5 years ago--all of which have come from those two traffic-clogged urban regions. If I had to deal with it daily, I too would be ready to bite the bullet and take another dime of gas taxes to unclog Virginia's major highways.

Receiving a honorable mention on the bad side are (1) almost being denied check-in at my hotel, (2) the fire alarm while I was in the shower, (3) the near-disaster I had with some personal electronics while at the beach, and (4) the brevity of this trip. When I got to my hotel Friday night (after making reservations only the night before), I found that someone else had checked in under that reservation. After managing to work into my conversation with the desk clerk that I was a law student, this problem was quickly resolved. The next morning, the fire alarm went off while I was in the shower; I was not amused to say the least. When I got to Nags Head, I decided to just take a very long walk in the surf; within a few minutes, after most waves coming just above ankle-high, one came to my waist and soaked the cell phone, Ipod, camera, et al, in my pockets; everything would eventually dry and survive except the memory card in the camera. Of course, my greatest lament was that I did not get the 4 or so days I originally planned to do & see all I wanted to and instead had just two days to do everything because of some things that came up last week that I had to handle before leaving.

The ugly: I-95. While I covered traffic in the above section, I-95 wins the gold medal. Since I traveled it in the afternoon, I got to wait and wait and wait just south of Woodbridge as the 2 reversible HOV lanes (northbound to Washington in the morning; southbound in the evening) ended and merged with the 3 regular lanes. When traffic did finally unclog itself south of Fredericksburg, someone apparently did not notice--or at least I hope that's what happened--as one vehicle in the center lane was going about 70 as everyone else in every lane was approaching 80; when I passed this vehicle, I looked over and noticed the driver working on some spreadsheet with both hands and steering with his knees. However, I was glad to see that at least he was not talking on his cell phone; that could have caused an accident.

I did get to take a few pictures at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnels with another camera after the little mishap at the beach:

Ships passing over the Thimble Shoal Channel Tunnel 4 miles north of Virginia Beach, looking northeast.

The north shore of Virginia Beach, 4 miles to the south.

The Thimble Shoal Channel, facing north. The northern portal of the Thimble Shoal Channel Tunnel lies one mile to the north.

Another view.

The fishing pier at the Thimble Shoal overlook, looking southwest.

From the same location, looking at the water's edge of this man-made island.

This photo was taken at the overlook at the north end of the CBBT in Northampton County about 30 minutes before sunset.

Looking south from the same location; the northern leg of the CBBT is in the far background.

Returning south, I arrived at the Thimble Shoal overlook just in time to capture this sunset photo; unfortunately, the auto-focus on the camera didn't work properly for this one.

Just a few seconds later, the last light of day slips below the horizon.

At the Thimble Shoal overlook is this map of the CBBT. While the bridges carry 4-lane traffic, US 13 narrows to 2 lanes in each tunnel.

Looking north into the southern portal of the Thimble Shoal Channel Tunnel.

Looking south from the same location.

Mollohan Raises Only $20,000 at Charleston Fundraiser

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 05:47:00 +0000

The reelection campaign of embattled Congressman Alan Mollohan, D-Fairmont, could not have found worse news than this morning's report in Phil Kabler's political column in the Charleston Gazette that a recent fundraiser for Mollohan at the home of former state Democratic Chairman Pat Maroney raised only about $20,000.

Yes folks, that's twenty thousand dollars. I did not make a typo.

Among those in attendance at the fundraiser were Maroney, former state senators Jim Humphreys and Oshel Craigo, West Virginia Democratic National Committeewoman Marie Prezioso (sister of state Senator Roman Prezioso, D-Fairmont), former state Democratic Chairman Chuck Smith, Kanawha County Commission President Kent Carper, Charleston City Councilman Harry Deitzler (who is a partner in Carper's law firm), and former West Virginia Trial Lawyers Association President Marvin Masters.

Most incumbent state senators would not want news of raising only $20,000 at a Charleston fundraiser reported in the news, much less a United States congressman. The Gazette would surely have withheld this news if the Mollohan campaign had requested it. Having done this on the heels of last week's ridiculous, baseless charges of Delegate Chris Wakim, R-Wheeling, falsifying his resume, it's clear the Mollohan campaign is floundering and has lower odds of recovery than Fidel Castro.

Mollohan Goes Negative, Launches Desperate Attack on Wakim

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 23:43:00 +0000

More than three months before the general election, embattled Congressman Alan Mollohan, D-Fairmont, yesterday launched a baseless attack on the character and integrity of his opponent, Delegate Chris Wakim, R-Wheeling.

Yesterday, Congressman Mollohan alleged that Wakim severely embellished his military and academic credentials on his resume. Mollohan alleged that Wakim was not truly a veteran of the first Gulf War and misstated the master's degree he earned from Harvard University.

In his response, Wakim noted that his claim of Persian Gulf War veteran status is correct based on federal law governing veteran classifications, that he truthfully stated the nature of his master's degree and that Mollohan is simply trying to fabricate a smoke screen to divert attention from his mushrooming scandals involving Mollohan obtaaining hundreds of millions of dollars of federal earmarks for a network of nonprofit groups founded by Mollohan and whose officers and directors are generous Mollohan campaign contributors and investment partners.

Mollohan's attacks are simply without merit. Delegate Wakim has consistently represented his military and academic credentials as clearly and accurately as possible. Most interesting to note is that while serving our nation in the military following his graduation from West Point, Wakim earned a master's degree from Harvard. Wakim's worst grade at Harvard was a B- in contemporary moral issues. I would dare not speculate how Beach House Al would fare in a course on contemporary moral issues. Maybe he would get lucky and not have a segment on financial relationships between congressmen and the recipients of federal funds earmarked by the congressman.

McKinney for Chairman

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:19:00 +0000

This Saturday, the West Virginia Republican State Executive Committee will meet at the Charleston Marriott. The primary business to be conducted at this meeting will be the seating of members elected at the primary election in May and the election of a new chairman to replace departing Chairman Rob Capehart.

The race for chairman features two major candidates: Mark Scott and Dr. Doug McKinney. Scott is an Elkins insurance agent and Randolph County Republican Chairman. McKinney is a Clarksburg physician, has been an elected member of the state committee for the last 4 years, ran for Governor in 2004, and is a past president of the West Virginia State Medical Association.

Dr. McKinney is the better of the two candidates to lead our party to the majority in the Legislature and our federal delegation. He has experience with fundraising, lobbying, and campaigning. As the president of the State Medical Association, Dr. McKinney led the successful fight to defeat liberal trial lawyers like former Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Bill Wooton and enact substantial medical malpractice liability reform.

Dr. McKinney has suffered two major attacks during this campaign: one from West Virginians for Life concerning reservations McKinney publicly aired about the informed consent bill in his capacity as WVSMA President and the second from individuals critical of some campaign contributions McKinney made prior to his election to the state committee.

Gary Abernathy has already tackled both of these issues on his blog (Links: abortion contributions). I encourage you to read those two posts and hope you will agree with my position that these two attacks are without merit.

Finally, I hope everyone, including those who may have strayed, will adhere in this race to Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment and not speak ill of their fellow Republican, especially on the public stage. West Virginia Republicans need to emerge 100% united (okay, maybe 110% united since we're facing a Ruling Party that has up to 110% voter registration in some counties) Saturday afternoon and focus our full attention on victory in November.

Dean Compares GOP Congresswoman to Stalin, Calls for End to Divisiveness

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:41:00 +0000

DNC Chairbeing Howard Dean today told a Democratic rally in West Palm Beach, Florida, that U.S. Senate candidate and current Congresswoman Katherine Harris is a crook and compared her to Soviet dictator Stalin and then told a gathering of local business leaders that we need to bring an end to divisiveness in politics.

Someone forgot to take all his meds this morning. Or is he simply being as two-faced as any other Democratic leader who tells everyone what they want to hear?

Manchin Sets 3:30 Kickoff for Friends of Coal Bowl

nospamjim@mullinslawoffices.com (Jim) — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:31:00 +0000

Don Surber says the kickoff the September 2 match between WVU and Marshall, officially the Friends of Coal Bowl, was set at 3:30 PM to acccommodate Governor Manchin.

On behalf of my fellow Mountaineers, can we restore the traditional 3:30 kickoff that prevailed until Mace Hardesty instituted noon kickoffs as the norm?