Kaine’s Parting Gift To Gays
By Greg L | 1 December 2009 | Virginia Politics | 25 Comments
Yeah, we’ve got an enormous budget shortfall that the General Assembly is going to grapple with, rest stops are closed and localities are challenged with dramatically less support from Richmond in their upcoming budgets. That’s not stopping DNC Chairman/Virginia Governor Tim Kaine from adding health coverage for adult non-dependents to the state employee health plan. We might not be able to afford some of the core services of state government, but we sure can make it easier for unrecognized “domestic partners” to get supported with your taxpayer dollars. How nice.
The proposed regulatory change to 1VAC 55 320(E) opens a huge door that qualifies essentially anyone living with an employee of the Commonwealth for taxpayer-provided health care. The current regulation limits coverage to spouses, children, and adult children who are incapacitated, along the same lines as what private employers provide. That leaves out the homosexual partners of state employees, and Kaine and the Democratic National Committee that he heads up can’t stand for that. So even if it’s not legal for Virginia to recognize “domestic partners”, Kaine can open the door of taxpayer-provided largesse so that they’d manage to qualify for health benefits, along with extended family members and even renters. This is fiscal responsibility?
It is utterly insane to think Virginia can afford this. If this regulatory change is approved, it will go into effect right when the Commonwealth and a number of municipalities will be slashing public safety positions, deferring transportation improvements, and cutting just about anything they can in order to make it through the next budget cycle. Instead of maintaining the same number of police officers we now have, we’re going to be shelling out taxpayer dollars to provide insurance coverage to the homosexual partners of state employees. It’s as if Obama has started calling the shots in the Governor’s mansion, as no one ever thought Tim Kaine would be this utterly and fatally stupid.
I suppose Kaine was hoping no one would notice this little change. He thought wrong.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
25 Comments
Leave a Reply
Views: 820
Loading ...
He should give them something… as you said, he closed down the Rest Stops… their home of orgies
Since when have Democrats *ever* let fiscal considerations stand in the way of their endless desire to punish us with their “tolerance?”
Regards,
Brian
Read the various rationales they give in the statement. It is a joke. The lone alternative they list to their proposed action is “national healthcare.” Cute, but stupid. How about reforming laws to make health insurance cost less by injecting more free market principles into the system?
Sweet. So this will cover your parents if they happen to be living with you. Hello unintended consequences!
I always knew there was something funny about that guy.
Just an underhanded route to supporting universal health care. Kaine will get his little jab in, pathetic as it is. In reality, I see nothing wrong with extending health care benefits to a designee not realated to you. As long as the premiums are being paid, it’s not really an issue. It becomes an issue when homosexuals SCREAM it into an issue. Should an unmarried couple be able to extend benefits to each other? Certainly.
Does it matter if they’re gay? Not really. It’s the insurance companies, who will be required to provide coverage, and those who are offended by homosexuals that truly oppose insurance coverage for non married couples. Why do you think they’re pushing the gay marriage issue? FOR THE BENEFITS!!! It’s all one big scam.
Ooops! “related”.
What you’re missing here Johnson is that YOU will pay for this. Not the employee, THE TAXPAYER. This is about a change in the employee health plan for all state employees. It doesn’t affect private insurance at all.
Why should unmarried people be able to extend benefits to each other?? This only leads to people taking advantage of the system when it suits them.
he is only following that disgusting bitch, Hilary. She has decided, by fiat, that homo state employees can follow them abroad.
Nice, very nice.
I understand the economic argument against spending more state money in a recessionary budget crisis - for any reason. However, I have always found the conservative zeal against gays a bit strange. If conservatives believe that there should be less government intrusion into people’s personal lives then why should the government ban same sex marriages? Isn’t the ban an intrusion into people’s personal lives? I feel the same way about capital punishment. If you believe that the legal system is corrupt and convoluted, why would you let that system put anybody to death?
Susan -
That was the funniest comment I’ve read in a year.
I get a kick out of “progressives” who think gays are entitled to marriage and other benefits. To them, there is no “line”. To allow the line to be moved without definition, the line just continues to move. Simply put, if gays are allowed to have benefits afforded to married couples, what is the final answer? What is the new “line”? What is the ultimate goal? Do we stop at gays, at marriage or do we just continue ad nausem?
That is the same with the death penalty that Groveton mentions. Why arm the police if death can be in the hands of an Officer, not a judge, a jury and no defense attorney? Basically, it is the same thing. Why not employ only “non-lethal force” methods? Should a home owner, a citizen be justified in use of “deadly force”?
As a conservative (I was once a big liberal democrat until I got mugged by reality), I oppose extending marriage to gays, to extending benefits to unmarried partners or whomever, to curtailing the death penalty or the right of the people (at least who chose to do so) to defend themselves. Life is something that is most personal and once lost is absolutely never obtained again - at least on this earth. Now does this make me a poor excuse of a human being? Some would say yes but again, I ask those who oppose my views, what is the new line? Where do you stop? Are you willing to spend everything we have to prove a point?
It’s always easy to take a stand, but when reality mugs you with the cost, the crying and the demanding for more (or less depending on the issue) and the reality of what was really done hits home or the pocketbook, then it just wasn’t that important anymore except to the few progressives who see this world as a bad place run by evil people.
rw&b - your views are your views and you are, of course, welcome to them. But the “As a conservative . . .” clause doesn’t explain anything. Conservatives can also question why the State should favor persons of one sexual orientation with a special legal estate, but deny that estate to another orientation, be confounded as to why the State should take lives in retribution for the taking of lives (on moral, policy, and economic grounds), and question whether self-defense and constitutional arms-bearing are really the same thing.
Sorry about your mugging. It happens to many more than the crime statistics indicate.
RWB
If I thought the justice system was fair, if I thought the vast, vast majority of lawyers and judges were honest I’d support the death penalty. But I don’t think those things. I watched OJ Simpson’s first trial. I’ll never really trust the US criminal justice system again. So, why would I support that same corrupt system when it comes time to kill a supposedly guilty man? Plenty of death row inmates awaiting execution have been completely exonerated of the murder by DNA tests performed after the verdict. These people would have been executed before DNA testing. They were innocent. The system failed. You can’t pardon a corpse. It’s not a moral issue to me - I just don’t have sufficient faith in the system to endorse it killing people. It’s not a good enough system. Shame on Congress, shame on the Supreme Court, shame on the ABA. But most of all - shame on us for supporting a systems that has certainly executed innocent people in the past.
Cops and homeowners should be able to use deadly force when their lives or lives of other, innocent people are at stake. No problem there with me. There must be some rules. If you catch a teenager raiding the beer out of your garage refrigerator, you can’t just ventilate him. But some crack head comes busting through the front door with a pistol a-pointing - you can drain your clip into the druggie. Court trials are not kill or be killed situations. There is no immediate life threatening situation. THere is no basis for rash, violent action. Instead, it’s the cold, chaotic criminal injustice system.
Gay marriage. Nobody asks me what I do with my wife in our bedroom. It’s none of their business. I don’t want to know what one gay person does with their “partner” in their bedroom. It’s none of my business. I don’t endorse my elected officials making it their business on my behalf.
Abortion is a different matter. Fetus is alive. Has the right to be protected by the government (We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.). Clear enough for me - no abortion.
Guns. Maybe there was some ambiguity with the whole militia phrase. But, the Supreme Court did the job (for once) and interpreted the law. Private gun ownership is a right. Good by me.
Deficits. Deficits are debts we incur on our children’s behalf. We have no right to incur debt on the behalf of others. Immoral. Either raise taxes or cut spending.
Kane giveth, why can’t McDonnel take it away after he is installed?
If the entire issue is affordability and fiscal soundness the answer should be obvious. Take away all health coverage from all state employees. That would be fair to all and would save far more money than simply overturning Kaine’s proposal.
Someone mentioned that benefits should only be offered to married partners. Since we have chosen to ban same sex marriage this precludes equity for homosexuals in state benefits.
The only answer that is both fair and fiscally prudent is to eliminate health benefits for state employees all together.
With all due repect, Greg, I’m not missing a thing. I’m expressing my opinion. I’ve struggled with this issue and stated my position. I understand that this is a very emotional issue and it has a huge financial impact. If Kaine giveth, I don’t see why McDonnell can’t take away. Once again, I believe this is a grandstand by Timmie as he exits the Governor’s Mansion. Has he been in to work lately, or is he just checking his messages from the road?
The regulatory change is being made by his administration, and goes through a lengthly public comment and rule-making process. If McDonnell wanted to change the regulation back to the way it was, it would take at least six months to change the regulation and at minimum another six months to terminate the coverage for non-qualified dependents, since insurance contracts typically run for a year. It could be as much as 18 months to turn this around.
Another problem with this that I discovered after talking to several legislators is that the administration doesn’t have the constitutional authority to obligate the funds needed to expand state employee health coverage like this. Kaine’s hacks in Richmond clearly wanted to fly this under the radar because not only is it bad policy, it can’t be implemented solely through the regulatory process as has been attempted, and stands a zero chance of making it through the General Assembly.
But since when did Democrats care about little things like constitutional authority when expanding the scope of government was at stake?
Groveton: Excellent points and you clearly define your positions. That is exactly what needs to be done. My argument centers on those who want to forward a basic demand on some isues and wants to make me feel bad about myself if I question or oppose. However, many who want changes, no matter what it may be, really have a deeper agenda - aka - the line does not stop with the particular but is only a step or extension of further ideology.
You are correct on the court system but the death penalty needs to be on the table. Once it is gone, we have narrowed the options. Does it deter, I think not. Bad people have never carried about law, any law. That is one of my issues. We seem to be hell bent on making laws on the citizens while the criminals simply use that against us. In fairness, I have not walked one inch in the shoes of a cop, a prosecutor or a defense attorney so while it is easy to judge, it might be different once the vail is lifted and reality is exposed. We do live in an imperfect world. I do not use this as an excuse, just a fact.
NoVA Scout: I really am not sure what you were trying to express but “As a conservative” I believe in the Constitution first, which is lacking in both parties. I believe that the gay marriage issue will lead to those who desire much more. The line is not defined. You failed to address my question - What is the ultimate goal of these folks? What more to people want? What price to pay? Free speech allows a person to wear a T-shirt that can have very explicit words that are offensive to most people. I do not have a choice to “turn it off”, I am forced to accept it. We have pornography with just a key strokes - for anyone to view, regardless of age. This is what I mean - when is the line? Where to stop? As a conservative, I would like an answer vs. being questioned of my views. Truthfully I could care less if gays marry but I do object to coverage extending to non-married folks. At that point it will probably start costing me and I believe I have a say in that.
I was not mugged by a criminal but by the realities of the world around me and the fact that after years of being lead around by others and told how to vote, how to think and how to oppose those against “the agendas”, I began to question their direction. As it turned out, the very people who were on our side were the very ones that helped bury me (and many others) when it came time to stand up. It took me years to come to grips with and realized that I need to get off my butt and join in discussions like we are having here. I refuse to be lead without consideration and question. I have voted for democrats and republicans and Ross Perot. Ross Perot was a moving factor for me because he was willing to stand up and face the fire- right or wrong - and question what the two parties were doing.
I thank both of you for your contribtions to this blog. It is great to be a part of it and I thank the Founding Fathers for giving me that right.
(I also apoligize for any clerical/ grammatical errors. I don’t have time to review this tonight)
red white and blue said on 1 Dec 2009 at 9:44 pm:
“I get a kick out of “progressives” who think gays are entitled to marriage and other benefits. To them, there is no “line”. To allow the line to be moved without definition, the line just continues to move. Simply put, if gays are allowed to have benefits afforded to married couples, what is the final answer? What is the new “line”? What is the ultimate goal? Do we stop at gays, at marriage or do we just continue ad nausem?”
******
Now wouldn’t you think that SUPPOSEDLY educated, SUPPOSEDLY intelligent people, ones who SUPPOSEDLY have some common sense, who are able to get themselves ELECTED, would understand that EVERY TIME you lower the standard for “normal” you do EXACTLY THAT! Lower the standard for “normal.”
Where DOES it end?
If “normal” is altered/lowered by the number of people involved in a previously NOT normal activity, what happens when, say, ALL the people who have ever been arrested for committing a crime start saying, “Hey, look at us! Shouldn’t OUR behavior be declared ‘normal’ by the mere fact that there are SO MANY of us out here COMMITTING CRIMES?”
If 20 million QUEERS make being QUEER normal, what happens when the number of CHILD MOLESTORS reaches 20 million? Are we supposed to LOOK THE OTHER WAY? Maybe we’ll have to declare child molestation NORMAL?
Where does it all end?
Once again, you CANNOT continue to lower the standard for normal without causing some VERY SERIOUS side/after affects!
We (also) cannot continue to elect people who are OBLIVIOUS to the destruction they are causing by continuing to lower the standard for NORMAL!
Its’ GOT TO STOP and WE’ve got to STOP IT!!!!
Anonymous said on 2 Dec 2009 at 12:59 am;
“Kane giveth, why can’t McDonnel take it away after he is installed?”
I think you’re on to something there. They KNOW McDonnell will take it out…..along with some other progressive, social engineering pork they’ve put in there. They already have their lefty-progressive screams ready…”see, he’s no moderate…he IS the gay hating, working woman hating, right-wing Robertson worshipping nut we all tried to tell you he was.” They’ll do it for no other reason than to pump up their demoralized, crazy base and to try and get their footing back in places like Fairfax County.
The left-wing nut progressives just haven’t learned from their mistakes in the last election yet.
This policy should be attacked squarely as being fiscally unsound. Additional beneficiaries would, while premiums are paid for them by the stateworker on whose policy they would be, still be subsidized by the Commonwealth. Take a look at any employer-based health coverage. Employees only pay part of the cost while the employer picks up the rest.
There is a reason why health benefits are typically limited to spouses and children of employees — cost control. I don’t care if the person is gay, straight or just a roommate living under the same roof — this is bad fiscal policy.
Thank you, Greg.With a better understanding of the processes involved, I would have to nix Kaine’s proposal. The state budget is suffering already. We don’t need to add anything to it at this point. If Dems are so enamored of these expensive programs, why don’t they pay extra taxes? Wait, I know the answer to that one…they’d have to get a job!
“He should give them something… as you said, he closed down the Rest Stops… their home of orgies”
McDonnel is opening them back up. What does that say about him?
Another “wide stance’ Republican?