Thoughts on This Year's Session of the Virginia General Assembly
Print this Article | Send to Colleague
With two weeks to go for this short, 30 day session of the General Assembly, I thought I might share some thoughts, observations and concerns about this particular session. I am writing this on February 2, so I could very well be proven wrong on my current expectation: I believe the legislators will finish their “business” of the General Assembly, but I don’t see how they can complete their budget work. That may require the Governor calling for a special session.
Regardless of your political leanings, it certainly seems that the pendulum swings abruptly from the far right to the far left on many key political issues, leaving those in the middle with whip-lash. For example, all businesses are not bad. HB 2174 – VirginiaSaves Program is a classic case in point. Various iterations of this bill have been pushed by AARP at least three previous sessions. Okay, people don’t save for retirement. So the answer is to develop a HUGE governmental program that would MANDATE employer participation where ultimately the employee could opt out? Why not convene the industry and public policy professionals together to tackle this public policy problem? Putting together a bad idea and throwing money at it isn’t going to fix the problem.
We’ve all seen in the newspapers the proposals to legalize marijuana in Virginia. But did you know the primary bill for this proposal is over 175 pages long, with over 10,000 lines. Sort of reminds me of the “we have to pass it to see what’s in it” comment. There’s “only” 1,329 bills in this session so they have PLENTY of time to read a 175 page bill that incorporates hundreds of code references. That said, besides the budget bill, this one wins the award for the longest introduced bill.
Then you hear some disturbing things during the session. During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing the other day, Senator Obenshain cautioned his associates to never present a claim — or draft a bill — that would preclude insurance company recovery, for example in a police action, that the police “intended” to do something. Because, he asserts, insurance policies preclude intentional acts.
Then last night, IIAV was the only insurance industry interest arguing in support of keeping the med mal cap — an agreement that the medical/insurance/trial lawyer groups agreed to years ago, that presently caps med mal judgements this year at $2.5 million with incremental increases each year. Nothing like getting scolded by a trial lawyer legislator about the “massive profits” that med mal carriers enjoy and “how can rates be lower in Texas without a cap?” I'm kicking myself now, but that might have been a good time to discuss the 40% of settlements that lawyers generally “enjoy” while they “advocate on the behalf of the public.” I understand some states have sliding scales on awards; I wonder if the VTLA would support such legislation.
I will say that the medical community was well-prepared for the med mal proposal. While several testified, they rarely said the same thing as one another, and for the most part each built on the testimony of the others. Of course, there were also outliers.
That said, and we’ve heard this a lot this year, we hear a lot of complaints to legislators that their legislation “is especially bad and if it could only be introduced when the economy gets stronger and we have the pandemic behind us.” My question — and that of some legislators — has been "So you would support this bill if it’s introduced at a later time?" If not, and it’s simply bad public policy, then say that! Legislators can put a delayed effectiveness date on a bad bill ... and it’s still a bad bill.
And finally, while there have been a wide range of challenges with video lobbying, it has been interesting to see the wide range of what some people’s houses and offices are like, and how very casual some people feel they can be when they are not testifying in person. And yes, there have been the interruptions in testimony from children and pets in the background.
So in short, it’s sad to see that the prevailing perception this year is that businesses have bottomless pockets and can provide endless benefits for their employees and endless time off regardless of the disruption it may cause. I’m not saying that there are no bad actors, but it’s certainly not universal. That said, now more than ever, it’s important to get involved.
We thank you for the attention you’ve given to our legislative alerts and announcements. You’ll notice that we give you the background on the issue and not specifically what to say. Legislators — and more to the point, their staff — know when they are being spammed and many of the responses are discounted. As long as you contact your legislator, letting them know you are a constituent and that you’re concerned about a particular piece of legislation goes a long way.
Stay tuned, more to come.
Bob Bradshaw, Jr.
IIAV President & CEO
