When will we find out what specifically you will do to create jobs? What will a ‘job czar’ do?

I believe you need to focus on transportation between the Southside and the rest of the region if you are to make a serious impacts on job creation in Hampton Roads. A metropolitan area of 1.5 million people cannot be left in a cul de sac forever. Our port will continue to expand and we need the infrastructure to become the transportation hub of the Mid Atlantic.

Whatever Texas has been doing is what we need to do - they created 70% of American jobs between Nov ‘07 and Nov ‘08. I know that Texas is huge, but I think that we can attract even more great companies to Virginia, and I think you’re starting off well.

I’m also interested in learning about what a jobs czar can do to encourage job growth. Obviously we need to keep Virginia attractive to companies like GD, but how do we bring more companies in and make the ones that are here keep hiring? I say Washington and Virginia need to work together to lower business’ tax burden so they can pass the savings on to the workers and consumers.

The Governor-Elect and his team will have to hit the ground running thanks to all of the mismanagement by Warner, Kaine and the Democrats who’ve been at the helm for the past 8 years in Virginia. You’ve gotta love Tim Kaine suggesting the idea of granting over 300,000 convicted felons the ability to vote once again. It’s just another trashy political move to register more Democrats pure and simple! The law in Virginia does not permit a person with a felony record to vote so why is it that our Governor no matter which party has the ability to trample on this law and do it anyhow? I can understand if it’s done on a case by case basis but not a blanket amnesty of some kind the way Kaine and Warner BOTH have done it over the past 8 years. The General Assembly should consider addressing this issue so that Virginia’s Governor doesn’t have so much broad authority over the matter. If the Governor can just thumb his nose at our laws then what’s the point in having them??

I certainly hope that our Commonwealth of Virginia has no “czars”.  What we need are experienced and skilled managers.

In the face of outrageously-expensive plans of Democrats, I recommend we pursue state sovereignty as a counter to these plans.  The States Can Stop Obama,
By Sheriff Richard Mack (Ret.) http://sheriffmack.com/

By now we have all heard the cliches and seen the posters from the “Tea Parties” espousing freedom, less government, and perhaps most of all, how the federal government had better back off trying to shove their national healthcare down our otherwise healthy throats. The truth of the matter is all the slogans of “Don’t Tread On Me” or “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death” or “We’re Mad As Hell And We’re Not Taking It Anymore,” don’t mean a thing when compared
to reality; the real and actual answer to all the protests, marches, and outrage. The answer is in our own backyards! The States can stop every bit of it!  That’s right, the individual States can stop “Obamacare” and all other forms of out-of-control federal government mandates and
“big brother” tactics. If Arizona, Hawaii, New Hamshire, Texas, Virginia, etc. want nothing to do with National Healthcare as proposed by Barack Obama or Congress, then all they have to do is say “No!”

For you skeptics who think the States could no more do this than fly to the moon, let’s look at the law. First, the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate and supreme law of the land. More specifically, the Bill of Rights was established, because some of our Founding Fathers, feared
that the Constitution did not go far enough in restricting or limiting the central government. Hamilton was one of a select few who wanted a bigger and powerful federal government.  However, several key states and powerful delegates such as Patrick Henry, said they would not support the formation of a new government if the Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights, a supreme law to establish basic and fundamental human rights that could never, for all future American generations, be violated, altered or encroached upon by government. So
the Framers of our Constitution came up with ten; ten God-given freedoms that would forever be held inviolable by our own governments.

The last of these basic foundational principles was the one to protect the power, sovereignty, and the autonomy of the States; the Tenth Amendment. This amendment and law
underscores the entire purpose of the Constitution to limit government and forbids the federal government from becoming more powerful than the “creator.” Let’s be very clear here; the States in this case were the creator. They formed the federal government, not the other way around. Does anyone believe rationally that the States intended to form a new central government to control and command the States at will? Nothing could be further from the truth. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution details what duties the federal government will be responsible for under our new system of “balanced power.” Anything not mentioned in Article 1, Sec. 8, is “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Tenth Amendment). Hence, the federal government was not allowed creativity or carte blanche to expand or assume power wherever and whenever they felt like it. The feds had only discrete and enumerated and very limited powers. Omnipotency was the last thing the Founding Fathers intended to award the newly formed federal government. They had just fought the Revolutionary War to stop such from Britain and their main concern was to prevent a recurrence here in America.

In perhaps the most recent and powerful Tenth Amendment decision in modern history, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mack/Printz v U.S(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States) that “States are not subject to federal direction.” But today’s federal Tories argue that the “supremecy clause” of the U.S. Constitution says that the federal government is supreme and thus, trumps the States in all matters. Wrong! The supremacy clause is dealt with in Mack/Printz, in which the Supreme Court stated once and for all that the only thing “supreme” is the constitution itself. Our
constitutional system of checks and balances certainly did not make the federal government king over the states, counties, and cities. Justice Scalia opined for the majority in Mack/Printz, that “Our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each
protected from incursion by the other.” So yes, it is the duty of the State to stop the Obamacare “incursion.” To emphasize this principle Scalia quotes James Madison, “The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the Supremacy, no more
subject within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The point to remember here is; where do we define the “sphere” of the federal government? That’s right; in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution
and anything not found within this section belongs to the States or to the People. So where does health care belong? The last place it belongs is with the President or Congress. It is NOT their responsiblity and the States need to make sure that Obama does not overstep his authority.

Just in case there is any doubt as to what the Supreme Court meant, let’s take one more look at Mack/Printz. “This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different
governments will control each other…”  What? The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, has as a “structural protection of liberty” that States will keep the federal government in check? No wonder it was called a system of “checks and balances.” The States (and
Counties) are to maintain the balance of power by keeping the feds within their proper sphere. So do the States have to take the bullying of the federal government? Not hardly! The States do not have to take or support or pay for Obamacare or anything else from Washington DC. The States are not subject to federal direction. They are sovereign and “The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions.” (Mack/Printz)  Which means the States can tell
national healthcare proposals or laws to take a flying leap off the Washington monument. We are not subject to federal direction!

In the final order pursuant to the Mack/Printz ruling Scalia warned, “The federal government may neither, issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce
a federal regulatory program. Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”  It is rather obvious that nationalized healthcare definitely qualifies as a “federal regulatory program.”
Thus, the marching on Washington and pleas and protests to our DC politicians are misdirected. Such actions are “pie in the sky” dreaming that somehow expects the tyrants
who created the tyranny, will miraculously put a stop to it. Throughout the history of the world such has never been the case. Tyrants have never stopped their own corrupt ways. However, in our system of “dual sovereignty,” the States can do it. If we are to take back America and
keep this process peaceful, then state and local officials will have to step up to the plate. Doing so is what States’ Rights and State Sovereignty are all about.

I hope your jobs task force looks at buying from manufacturers in Virginia.  Both the state and federal (i.e. DOD) have major contruction and renovation projects on going.  Why can’t some of the funding go to manufacturers here in Virgina?  For example green programs or hospital construction.  I know of several projects where the state and federal government is going outside of Virginia to acquire materials.  When there are several manufacturers in Hampton Roads that beat their prices and quality.  When is this going to be a priority?  The more we buy from ourselves, the more jobs we save or create.

Let’s make sure that creating jobs means creating jobs that can sustain families and launch careers - not more part-time minimum wage jobs.

Patrick, I agree about preferring Virginia manufacturers when they are the best bidder - but if we hire only Virginians and they can’t offer the bets prices, that’s a bad deal for the taxpayers. Protectionism isn’t right. We should encourage Virginia manufacturers to provide the best quality and lowest cost.

Casey,
  I agree with the pricing comment but if the Virginian manufacturers can meet or beat the price, they should have priority for purchase.  I know of several state construction projects where the fixtures are being purchased outside of the state and they are higher and the quality is low.  On military bases around the country they have a mandate to conserve on water usage but instead of buying metered faucet from Virginia they purchase them outside of the state.  In both cases, the Virginian products have better prices and quality of work.

We read the article in December 9 Examiner, “McDonnell warns fellow Republicans over “purity tests,” and whole heartedly agree. We are both registered Republicans, but consider ourselves more moderate, and left out of the Republican Party. We would flunk much of the espoused “litmus test” being considered by the RNC, and we have been abandoned by the GOP. When is the GOP going to recognize that ultra-conservative is just as bad as ultra-liberal? That’s why there are so many people are claiming to be Independents, not represented by either party. We couldn’t vote for you because we live in DC, and probably wouldn’t have voted for you, because we thought you were too far to the right. However, we would applaud you now if you could help bring the GOP back to right of center, and stop being the party of “NO.”

Bob and Kay,

I understand completely. I am fairly moderate (though I voted for Bob with no hesitation), and I sometimes feel the Rush Limbaugh type are very condescending to the centrists and moderates in the party. I’ve come to realize, though, that just because they get more publicity doesn’t make them more representative. Imagine if the entire Democratic party was made up of Code Pink crazies.