Buckley Shaking Things Up On Her Way Out!

By Loudoun Insider

Susan Buckley has shaken things up big time with a move to reconsider the motion to send the Ches Bay regs back to committee (LTM and LT articles).  It’s amazing how deciding not to run for re-election can free people up to do exactly what they want to do without worrying about ticking off big donors.    Not that Buckley was ever really swayed by that tremendously before, but she’s really ticking off her nominal fellow Dems now, who have all been jealous of her and constantly badmouthing her behind her back.  Sometimes payback is a bitch, folks!  Don’t expect her to show you any respect if you don’t reciprocate.


  • G. Stone says:

    “And we are supposed to somehow respect whatever it is you say? sorry, but you are making no sense,”

    The trend continues

    “and babbling… Go to the Keep Fear Alive/America is a Joke rally–perfect for you.”

    Sally , this is what happens when you argue with people who consider Comedians a good source of information.

  • G. Stone says:

    I’ve written at length (to sally’s point, a huge waste of time in many cases) here on Obama, McCain, Iran, Rs, Ds. I enjoy some (certainly not all) of the discussions.

    Bullshit. a defending snippet here and fence sitting comment there in no way constitutes lengthy and specific debate.

    Forget ideology, isms, party politics bla bla bla. lets cut to the chase. You were and remain a cheerleader for an incompetent president. His level of incompetence has those who were casual or new hope and Change supporters realizing they screwed up and bought the BS. Some on the very far left have taken him to task for not going far enough or acting fast enough. This specific criticism is used by some ( yourself included ) that because he is getting it from both sides he must be doing something right and proof he has found another way to get things done. This of course is complete and utter BS. These folks in the end will come home and defend him because they know him to be a believer in the political model they all adore. As for you I have no earthly idea why a supposed intelligent and experience guy such as yourself continues to defend a way left of center incompetent.

  • G. Stone says:

    “Self examination is not weakness, G.”

    Save it Sigmond. Even the original said, ” Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar ”

    I might turn this around and suggest you do the same in that it was you who used all the brain cells you could muster and supported and continue to defend an incompetent as the leader of the free world.

  • BlackOut says:

    Obama campaigned with healthcare reform being a major plank. He won overwhelmingly and it should be no surprise he pressed it early in his in his term. Certainly the electorate wanted something done with healthcare. The Republican strategy early on was to stall, bitch, stomp feet, and refuse to play ball. Bunch of babies. Now the Country is left with a half cooked policy which had a great chance to becoming something both sides could live with.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “Bullshit. a defending snippet here and fence sitting comment there in no way constitutes lengthy and specific debate.”

    G, this characterizes both our styles on occasion, but during Iraq and the leadup to the election, and on the healthcare discussion, I believe many here would say I provided more than snippets (ask Cato). I have never — never — seen you participate in lengthy or specific debate. You’re much better at the following:

    “This of course is complete and utter BS.” [found in the above paragraph]

    This is an example of your marshalling of facts, insight, and specific debate?

    Your, “let’s cut to the chase” attitude dominates your discussion style and probably your world view. All this governing stuff — it’s hard. You can’t “cut to the chase” and short-arm governance.

    Here’s a buck. Nice sign.

  • sally says:

    So, Edmund, I have asked you several times your position on the CBPO, and you said you would not support the Ordinance as drafted (after you said you were on two HOA Boards that had regulations more strict than that proposed by the CBPO.)

    So what specific problems do you see, and why do you specifically not support it?

    And what do you want to see changed? specifically?

  • edmundburkenator says:

    My position? Against it.
    Why? I really have said that several times sally.

    I’ll link you to the thread later today.

  • sally says:

    No Edmund, at first you said in the two HOAs that you were in, the regulations were already more strict, and so it did not affect you and you did not see the big deal.

    Then you said you were against as written. But you never said if you are against the whole thing, or just parts of it.

    So do you support modifying it? and if so, how? or are you completely against adopting anything now? You are part of the opposition, so don’t you have an obligation, under your own rules to say how you would make this better?

  • edmundburkenator says:

    First, you are mistaken on the HOAs. One HOA is unaffected, one is indeed more strict than the proposed ordinance.

    Second, I don’t feel obligated to participate in every discussion on this blog in a full-throated way. My wife would kill me.

    Lastly, I really have answered these questions by you in the thread where we discussed Malcolm Baldwin’s position and letter. I told you then the idea likely needs to go back to the drawing board as I don’t believe it speaks to the broad goals set forth by the Board. If the site had a better search feature, I would link you. Something I didn’t say directly, but will do so now, is that many in the “opposition” feel this is a tool to slow or restrict development (restrict property rights). This is a serious matter and why I balked at the way the “advocates” dealt with the politics. It was ham-handed and stirred up a range of distrust that ranged on a scale from cautionary (me) to nut-job-conspiracy (robo call folks).

  • sally says:

    Sorry, the link that you provided does not provide any specifics on what you would suggest.

    When you say “go back to the drawing board” what does that mean? you do not support the CBPA? that it should take a different form? can it be changed at all to be acceptable?

    What specifics do you suggest to resolve this county issue?

  • edmundburkenator says:

    No CBPA.

    Back to the drawing board means taking the lessons learned from this, looking at the stated goals, better defining the goals (better water quality is too broad) and first evaluating what is in place currently that could advance the goals (given that everyone — Delgaudio too — agrees with the goals).

    The CBPA is a bad poker hand and the board is drawing dead. Stop putting money in the pot. Muck the cards.

    Resolve the issue by voting no.

    Now, given that I know your penchant for detail, if this thing gets killed and two years there is something before the board that has 20 or 30 percent CBPA in it, I will not characterize that — as some will likely characterize it — as a “rehash of a failed ordinance that will hurt Loudoun’s economy”. It will be a better way to achieve a water quality goal that has broader buy-in and is better — perhaps fairer — than the tools we currently have in place.

  • sally says:

    I am surprised at your response. I agree, but mostly because I think the process taken and ignoring the specifics of the enabling legislation doom any CBPO. They will be sued, and this will be too easy to overturn.

    I think if they want to do buffers they need to start over with a zoning overlay, do all the hard work up front, get a good map, and advertise it/process it as a zoning amendment, not this “quickie” codified ordinance process..

    I guess where I am coming from is that I think this is a waste of time and precious resources, because the end product cannot be defended in court, and it just makes me crazy to see all this waste… we have people who don’t have enough to eat, a homelessness issue (many camping on the banks of the Potomac), people who really cannot afford to pay the ever rising property taxes, and we flush our time and money down the toilet like this, just so discouraging to me…

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Well, it could well be (I don’t know the inner workings of staff on this) that they tried to respond to the stated goals by pulling this Act “off the rack” and trying to make it fit because of staff capacity issues.

  • sally says:

    NO, they said they did it because 84 other jurisdictions (mandated, under a different enabling legislation–which allows a codified ordinance under the police powers granted for these other jurisdictions) have done it, and the way the others have done it, with a truncated process, their reasoning went, would make it harder to sue. The county has lost three lawsuits on not properly advertising zoning changes, which rules are strict.

    So they don’t want to get sued again for improper advertising, so they try to avoid the advertising requirement. Listen to what staff has told the Board, listen to what Scott York said in the Business meeting just this week. They are trying to shortcut the process so they won’t get sued!

    One of their big problems is they do not have a map! surprisingly even the “mapped” green RPA is full of imprecision, as demonstrated in a staff exhibit to the board package for Sept 21st. That exhibit studied a very little bit of the county, one small area where people complained their property was green and should not be. The county went and looked, and found, for one small area, that more than 1000 people were in the green who should not be, and that there were over 1000 people who were not in green, who should be mapped green. They are going with the CBPA because it only requires a general map, and provides that streams may change course, and individuals can be required to study their properties to keep maps up to date. So they think they can fudge the map, with CBPA. But even the map they have is not good enough for CBPA. The “mapped” RPA is bogus.

    And not nearly precise enough to make a zoning change.

    Burton said this week that he wanted to do as Fairfax County has done, and this is the only way to do it to adopt anything that can stand up in court. You cannot just make the whole county RMA and look for perennial streams, and then surprise property owners when they apply… you have to have a basically good map, or the Code allows you to use the USGS map–which many localities in Tidewater have done. But that map only maps streams that drain 340 acres or more, and Loudoun has pushed for the untenable mapping of all streams, even if they drain 1/10th of an acre, and all wetlands– a proposition that would cost tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars just to map–with very little extra benefit.


    I don’t understand how you can be so critical of the opponents of say healthcare, who feel that the mechanism of Obamacare was completely wrong, with mandates instead of incentives, and government control instead of free market competition– how can you criticize them for saying No this is not the way to go, when even you, on this issue understand that sometimes saying no is the right way to go, and starting over is the better choice?

  • sally says:

    Edmund, were you watching the presentation on Tuesday before the Board where the county health care folks informed the Board that they were not going to insure part time workers any more… because of Obamacare?


    Just like over a million other part time workers were going to be dropped by McDonalds, etc?

    Obama said no one would lose their coverage, but working folks with coverage, have lost it….and are losing it…

  • Cato the Elder says:

    “BPM, you do know the WSJ/McDonald’s thing was in error, right?”


    Uh huh.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    From wink and nod Marxists to CBPA to Obamacare… this thread needs treatment for ADS (if covered by Obamacare).

    I read the 3M announcement. It seems they are dropping it because there are better options for people out the in the marketplace.

    There is a difference between “losing” your healthcare and moving to another provider.

    Is that not where we should be heading? Tying insurance to your employer limits mobility and puts businesses (and government) in the business of doing something apart from their core mission.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Cato, are you trading derivatives?

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Sally, do you think incentives work generally?

  • sally says:

    Part time County employees were dropped from County insurance because of the new national health care standards, that is what the county’s health insurance folks told the board on Tuesday. There is nothing set up until 2014 for the national health care–so these people lost their health insurance and will either go uninsured, or have to pay for their own…

    They were dropped because of Obamacare’s strict requirements about how much an employer must pay in and how much a policy must be valued– for part time employees, too expensive…

  • sally says:

    WE have a health care savings account, that we have loved– paid for three sets of braces, some uncovered Lyme testing and treatment, glasses, other uncovered expenses and co-pays…

    That one pretax savings account, saved us about 40% on those costs… which we would have had to pay for with post tax income…

    Lots of incentives, especially for health care providers could be put into place. I go to one doctor who charges about 50% less than other practitioners, but she takes no insurance, no paper work. You have to pay cash. (I pay with my health care savings acccount.)

    If we could work on lowering malpractice premiums or have the gov’t insure doctors, many more would go into practice. I understand it is really hard these days to find a doctor to deliver babies, the malpractice premiums are so high…

    Tort reform is high on the list…

    What specifics do you think should be in healthcare, if it is repealed and we start over? as the Republicans want…

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “Part time County employees were dropped from County insurance because of the new national health care standards.”

    Be careful here sally with this characterization.

    Sally, this thread is going to move off the home page soon and I’ll bookmark it if you really want to discuss this. I think it’s just pretty much us right now. Of course, Cato is alway lurking around.

    I will say quickly, since it was mentioned above, how many votes do you think Boehner would have needed to produce from the Rs to get tort reform? I say 10 to 15 (because that is what many Hill insiders say). But he and Cantor decided to keep their guys in line, so we get a worse bill. This could be said for quite a few things in the bill. R leadership punted.

  • sally says:

    Why would anybody agree to make the Obamacare legislation “better”, when it was 2000 plus pages of socialism? We need to start over on that one.

    That’s like saying, you should agree to work on CPBO, when it is fatally flawed….

    I gave you specifics, I would like to hear your specifics on what you think is so good about Obamacare, and what if anything else, it needs.

    And I repeat, staff said the part time employees were dropped from the County program because of the requirements of the new national health care legislation (Obamacare.)

    Don’t need to be “careful” that is what they said, and that is what they recommended, and that is what was done.

  • sally says:

    The waivers are “selective”: only special people who support Obama and bow down need apply…


  • edmundburkenator says:

    Sally, how about you tell us what kind of Health Care Reform you would have supported — if any. The stage is yours.

    No obligation though.

  • Leej says:

    The best health care reform and drug is called exercise 😉

    And if I was very sick, I, and Dalyn knows it, no treatment and then pull the plug. Although she might pull the plug before I get sick ha ha And our friends say it would be justified 😉

  • sally says:

    You asked me about incentives and I answered.

    You have no answers, Edmund– you only ask questions. All you can say about the CBPO is start over, no specifics about what you would like to see in any water quality ordinance. I have been way out front with what I think, specific ideas, but you give none, only caution me from saying that the county said they had to drop people. Oh, and the County also said that if two people were employed by the County, they could no longer split the insurance, that Obamacare required all employees to be treated equally so one spouse would have to be dropped, or both would have to pay the full going rate….

    I wonder if my brother’s small business will get a waiver from Obama? doubtful, will just put small business employees out of private insurance and into government care….

  • sally says:

    You go first Edmund, give me a substantive start and I will reciprocate.

  • Cato the Elder says:

    “Cato, are you trading derivatives?”


  • Cato the Elder says:

    Mostly to hedge around core positions, generating cash and managing risk, as opposed to straight up gambling.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    You have no answers, Edmund– you only ask questions.

    Really sally. Do two people post under this name? At times you are a reasonable person having a discussion. Then you are a this angry 13-year old.

    I’m not writing legislation today for you. I did outline what I consider to be a better way to write legislation above (among all of my “questions” By the way, what is the matter with asking questions?).

    You know what? I would probably spend the time to do this long conversation about health care if I didn’t think it would just end with you shouting some bromide at me. At times you confirm my worst fears: your are well represented by the current crop of Rs.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Cato, what if derivatives went away? Bad or good?

  • sally says:

    Not even a short outline? I gave you some of my thoughts on incentives? YOU have never outlined the “better way to write legislation” you just called names!

    In fact, in opposing the CBPO you have done what you criticize, you have stated it would be better to just say no to this particular idea/mechanism and start over!

    I find it very interesting how you resort to name calling and twist the facts, to then pivot…

    Are you a politician! such skill in not answering questions, and pivots? demonizing anyone who dares to engage you in some sort of substantive debate, as not worth your time or a “13 year old” —

    Either a politician, or someone with no real ideas, just talking points… that’s what I think of you…

  • Leej says:

    derivatives are just another form of gambling. I have friends that lost millions fooling around with them. They always say how well they are doing and how much they are making, then all of a sudden they don’t fool around with them anymore and then later it comes out how much they lost.

    Another story I had a older friend back in Houston that was one of the partners in Circus Circus in Vegas. Well many years ago as a young adult the home builders show was going to be in Vegas. I told my friend I was going and he said a little lesson here. Take 300 dollars and when you lose it stop. Or he said just give me the 300 right now. Either way I will end up with it if you gamble in my casino. ha ha He said very smart people gamble and they always think they have some sort of system.
    Dr Rogers my older friend then said we would not be building billion dollar casinos if people are winning. He also said we love it when people do win such winning a million dollars at the slots. Because then people in the casino go crazy and start gambling even more. He said normal people go into insanity. 😉

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Well sally, I’m sorry you think that.

    I can assure you I am not a politician. It seems the advice Ravi Oli once provided should have been heeded by me.

    Conflating the CBPA with Obamacare is a bit odd. Months and months of committee work went into the ACA with many hearings and many Republican amendments.

    “What specifics do you think should be in healthcare, if it is repealed and we start over? as the Republicans want…”

    I don’t think the Rs want it repealed. I think they SAY they want it repealed, but we’ll see if they really act on it after November.

    Thank you for the reasonable parts of our discussion. I’m sure this blog will provide the opportunity to discuss health care in greater detail in the future.

  • Cato the Elder says:

    Bad. Anyone who lost millions either was playing a lottery ticket or had no business messing with them to begin with. I use derivatives on a daily basis to protect against losses and define risk. Airlines use them to hedge against higher fuel prices so they can keep their costs in line. Institutions that buy Treasuries use them to insure their holdings against possible inflation. Without derivatives to allow for management of risk the system would seize up. If you think people are sitting in cash now, take derivatives away and see what happens.

    The key question is are you exposed to the underlying instrument. If yes, you’re hedging. If no, you’re gambling.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Thanks Cato.

  • Leej says:

    Cato then you are the exception to the rule 😉

    I know stock brokers that would not touch derivatives with a ten foot pole for their clients. Personally they should be outlawed and the stock market needs to go back to basics. The stock market was meant to help build solid companies in the good old days. Today much of it has become nothing more then a gambling casino. Many people in stocks especially the day trader just suck off real investment to their own selfish gains. Not helping the real economy in the long run. All about short term gains. Sad what has happened to the financial markets over the last years. And you wonder why the housing collapsed.

  • Cato the Elder says:

    “Cato then you are the exception to the rule ”

    No Lee. All due respect, but I am the rule. I provide capital to solid companies. There’s substantial risk involved in providing capital. Derivatives allow me to define that risk and protect against unlimited losses. Most investors who use derivatives are in exactly the same boat I am in.

    Saying all derivatives are bad is exactly like saying all firearms are bad. In the hands of and honorable man and a skilled marksman a firearm is a good thing. In the hands of someone less-than-honorable and an incompetent the same device is quite destructive.

  • Leej says:

    Cato I respectfully disagree. Just like when wall street bought all those packaged home loans. Wall Street should go back to what it was intended for and now it has turned into a circus. 😉 America needs to going back to making real products not funny money. I have always built and designed real products custom homes. Now companies like Toll sell and build homes like buying soup. Here are our few products and the few changes or options you can make. Nothing wrong with that, but it is amazing how people but these not so cheap homes and think they have something special compared to a truly custom designed home that would be extra special like the good old days. No big deal, I like I said before will morph into the national pizza business which I will be producing a real product not the funny money. 😉

Leave Comment