|
Del.
Chap Petersen, D-Fairfax, and former state senator
Leslie Byrne, both mounting candidacies for the
Democratic nomination to run for lieutenant governor in
the fall, recently interviewed with the Blue Dog about
their prospective campaigns.
Byrne,
on her campaign Web
site, wrote, "Governing isn't about finding
fault, it is about finding solutions. Whether you are
concerned about the challenges we face in
transportation, education or protecting our communities
from sprawl, I know I can be an effective voice for
Virginia's families."
Byrne
is pushing aside the social issues for the '05 campaign
and concentrating on legislative issues dealing with
transportation and growth.
In
the pages of Del. Petersen's newsletter, he wrote,
"Every important endeavor in life must have a
purpose. Each year in public life, I have the same
mission: to make a positive difference."
But
the bloggers are sending out negative vibes to Virginia
Democrats to stay clear of Petersen due to his
inverted-Democratic voting record, warning, among other
things, that Petersen voted against Gov. Mark Warner's
budget and for the ban on gay marriage. Most simply
state they will be voting for someone else come primary
time.
But
his legislative assistant, William Blake, said,
"Not so, it's misinformation." Blake
said his boss did indeed vote in favor of the joint
budget bill, which included the state tax increase.
Let's not wrestle with that issue, because it's a
stone-cold fact.
While
Petersen did vote in favor of the ban on gay marriages
in 2004, he is supporting an amendment to the bill to
ensure the contractual rights of gays and lesbians, much
like the Warner-proposed gay-marriage ban compromise in
the 2004 session.
I'm
confused about Petersen's stand on the issue of gay
marriage, I have to admit. Maybe the Blue Dog should
have asked, "Is this like the meaning of is?"
That's
reminiscent of House member and Republican
attorney-general nomination candidate Bob McDonnell's
response when questioned if he had ever broken the
sodomy law in committee discussing Virginia's crimes
against nature statute. He responded, memorably,
"Not that I recall."
An
up-and-coming politician in the General Assembly with
wide support from Northern Virginia moderate Republicans
and Democrats, Petersen has already begun campaigning
extensively in rural Virginia for a statewide office.
Sources
say Petersen is coming to Staunton for a fund-raising
event this spring. That's a good idea to get in touch
with us Valley folks, but a word of advice ... The city
of Staunton is an old-money town - with political
allegiances to conservative Republican and Byrd
Democrats. Staunton does not tolerate Northern Virginia
liberalism.
As
far as Byrne is concerned, she supported Warner's budget
initiatives, but has not served in the General Assembly
since being redistricted out in advance of the 2003
session. But Byrne has a vigorous and distinctive record
of public service in Virginia, as a delegate and state
senator, along with her tenure as a congresswoman from
the Northern Virginia region.
Byrne
is well known and admired for her proactive legislative
abilities in those capacities.
A
spokesperson for the Byrne campaign said, "Gay
marriages have been against state law since 1999, so let
move on to issues that really matter with
Virginians."
There's
no sense in running on empty issues. Silence on the gay
issue will ultimately hurt Virginia Democratic
candidates. If you believe in reactionary
politics, that is the correct assumption. But
for the time being, I'll agree with Byrne - let's talk
about Virginia's economic future.
Pothole
in the road
On
Nov. 18, Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine told The Augusta
Free Press, "My position is that
there are people saying that Virginia's gas tax is 41st
in the nation, and that we ought to take a look at that
as far as providing more money for the transportation
trust fund, but until we do something to close the hole
in the fund, I would not support raising that tax or
doing anything to provide more money for that trust
fund.
"Transportation
projects should be supported by stable, dedicated
revenues, not one-time surpluses. Otherwise, the
state will enter commitments that it cannot keep once
the revenues dry up, " Petersen said, commenting on
Virginia's transportation funding challenges.
Byrne
said: "The 'hole in the Fund' that Lt. Gov. Kaine
referred to is the practice of taking money out of the
transportation trust fund for other purposes. At the
beginning of his term, Gov. Warner exposed the huge gap
in funding former Gov. Gilmore had created when he
borrowed against Virginia's federal highway money to get
lump-sum payments to hide his shortfalls. Lt. Gov. Kaine
is absolutely correct, until the trust fund is put into,
dare I say it, a lock box, there will be no guarantee
that transportation money will go to transportation.
"Fiscal
responsibility would indicate that tax money raised for
one purpose should be spent for that purpose."
Granted,
both potential parties and the prospective party
gubernatorial nominees, Attorney General Jerry Kilgore
and Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine, seem to agree that portions of
the state surplus should be dedicated to
transportation-improvement projects statewide.
But
Gov. Warner led the charge, co-opting every
transportation issue known to mankind, with his proposed
legislation. The Governor conveniently appropriated Mr.
Kaine's thunder and lighting approach of linkage for
Virginia's transportation woes with land planning.
Warner's
transportation initiative is a whopping $824 million
initiative.
The
Blue Dog had to laugh when I saw Gov. Mollycoddle's
commitment to rails and intermodal transportation in
Virginia was a measly $20 million - that is a drop in
the pothole when compared to the $20 million
Southeastern Bypass Study (Harrisonburg-
Rockingham
Loop Road) allocation in the fiscal-year 2000
Transportation Bill.
Basically,
the governor threw a few dollars here and there to make
it look good.
The
Red Dog said, "Warner put out a weak proposal that
offends no one. Go figure."
Playing
Southern gentleman for the day, another local GOP
legislator told me that Warner's transportation plan was
nothing more than project seed money.
Yes,
I'm a dumbstruck farm boy writing about state politics,
but I know what a road hog look likes when I see it. The
governor's proposal is looking more and more like pork
barrel for road-construction interests in my backcountry
mind. It's a political fix, not a long-term
transportation fix.
But
like first-time Avis rental-car employees, our eager
beaver, spend-thrifty House Republicans tried harder to
outdo the biggest tax-and-spend governor of our time
with a huge transportation package, costing more and
more dollars. The GOP House transportation package is a
super-sized $938 million legislative proposal that
shares many of the Warner initiatives, but includes
road-completion payoffs.
So
far, the Senate with its merry band of tax-and-spend
politicians has not set forth a transportation package -
but their record-high '04 tax package was held back
until the last minute. So don't count them out yet.
According
to a recent Virginia Republican Party press release,
"Over the course of the state's six-year master
transportation plan, the Republican House plan would
provide an additional $1.8 billion, according to the
summary."
The
House plan is an aggressive package when state-revenue
pennies are falling from heaven.
But
will state revenue keep up the pace of transportation
spending? And will the Senate seek another
revenue-increasing compromise for transportation?
Surplus
... what surplus?
Not
all statewide politicians agree on spending the
additional state surplus.
Del.
Ben Cline, R-Rockbridge, and Richmond Mayor Doug Wilder,
the Democratic former governor, have both endorsed the
return of the billion-dollar state surplus to the
taxpayers with a tax rebate.
Cline
told the August Free Press, "Once again, we
see the difference between the House and the Senate and
the governor on the issues of taxes and spending.
Hopefully the House will be able to convince the Senate
and Gov. Warner that we're overcharging the taxpayers
and that they deserve a refund."
Cline
has submitted legislation, House Bill 2607, to return
the surplus.
As
reported in the AFP last week, under the measure,
"the state would be required to refund to taxpayers
in equal amounts the revenues as of June 30 each fiscal
year left in excess of the amount appropriated in the
appropriations act for said fiscal year."
But
that copycat Cline bill is nothing more than a duplicate
of previous failed legislation proposed by fiscally
conservative members of the General Assembly, such as
Sen. Ken Cuccinelli. The legislation mimics the Colorado
TABOR initiative that mandated the return of state
surpluses to the taxpayers.
But
it's been refreshing to see Cline's advocacy for fiscal
conservatism in the form of a mandated return of revenue
surplus to the taxpayers.
With
Mr. Cline's appointment to the House Finance Committee,
it's now time to watch, listen and see what the
Rockbridge legislator does for his district.
Will
it be a helping hand with economic-renewal legislation
for his impoverished district, or another state
government handout for the so-called fat cats and
elitists residing in the city of Lexington?
Whoa,
Nelly! It's time for the state legislator to stop
horsing around the center - because you can't have it
both ways, Big Ben. The fiscal conservatives of the
district are watching closely.
It's
time to turn to the right or to the political left.
But
back to our surplus-rebate check.
In
a fall press release, Wilder said, "The tax imposed
on the backs of those least able to pay shouldn't be
something that we would be proud of, and I'm quite
certain no one is proud of it, to the extent that we
have that $1 billion surplus. Shouldn't we give money
back?"
Taking
a cue from anti-tax advocates, Petersen said, "Yes,
and we can do it by accelerating the tax relief that we
passed last year, including the marriage-
penalty
reform and repeal of tax of groceries and medicine. We
can also take another step on the car tax
elimination."
But
nary a word about returning the state surplus. I'm
guessing it's already spent.
Byrne's
views were more wide-ranging in scope and long-term
concerning government responsibilities. She said,
"I believe no level of government should take more
money from taxpayers beyond that which is absolutely
necessary to fulfill its obligations. It is for that
reason in the late 1980s that I sponsored and passed a
tax rebate for Virginians based on a one-time windfall
from the federal government. It was the right thing to
do then because we had met our financial
responsibilities, and I believed the surplus would have
gone to extras rather than to essentials. Unfortunately
that is not the case today. Our economic future is tied
to education and transportation. "These
are the investments the commonwealth makes for all of us
to prosper."
Additionally,
Byrne said, "Currently our outstanding universities
built to serve all of us are asking to be privatized
because Virginia has failed to meet its obligations. In
addition our transportation system is broken and
seriously under-funded. Suggesting individuals would
receive a tax rebate when in fact this would be more
than offset by higher tuition, lost productivity due to
transportation congestion and higher property taxes
is more political hype. It is political trickery. We
must not continue to force localities to raise property
taxes to wrestle with unfunded mandates from the
Commonwealth. Instead we need elected officials who will
tell us the truth and are accountable."
Billion-dollar
charade
According
to a highly reliable General Assembly source, the Blue
Dog has been told, the billion-dollar state surplus has
already been dedicated to Medicaid, K-12 education needs
and ending accelerated-tax collections.
And
not surprisingly, to assist with the funding of Gov.
Gilmore-initiated and Gov. Warner-supported (and
campaign-promised) 100 percent completion of the state
car-tax relief.
At
the time of the interview, Petersen said, "I have
not yet seen the numbers on K-12 education and Medicaid.
Therefore, it is premature to comment."
But
Petersen is on record for being committed to ending the
car tax. Petersen's
home-base supporters in Fairfax and Northern Virginia
will benefit significantly from the 100 percent refund,
while rural Virginia will suffer.
But
can you tell me why on Earth most Virginians still
believe Warner managed the financial crisis? It's a
fact, Warner created most of it with his continued
support of the car-tax refund - and Warner is the
governor who cut funding for education, transportation,
etc., and placed state government in a squeeze on the
system.
This
indeed was calculated, and political - the Richmond
insiders know that to be true. Byrne
said, "Virginia should just abolish the car tax and
allow local jurisdictions to replace it with a piggyback
portion of the state income tax. This charade, about the
car-tax reduction, has gone on long enough. Let's get
rid of the local bureaucracies required to enforce it,
the complex rules, the decals we don’t need and the
hassle our taxpayers go through. I believe people will
look back on this scheme as the most ill conceived,
half-baked idea ever tried."
I
agree. The Blue Dog says the car-tax refund was a
half-baked idea, and that the current law and delivery
of those refunds is not working, especially for rural
Virginia.
Our
Commonwealth has become a state of personal wealth for
the affluent residing in the densely urban and regions
of the state with higher standard of living.
Lowering
the car tax was good idea, but total elimination of the
tax would have been better and ensured fairer results.
Both Gilmore and Warner, and the current crop of
statewide candidates, have used the issue for political
campaign mileage for votes.
True
fiscal conservatives support the end of taxes, the
lowering of taxes and the elimination of government
programs that perpetuate those taxes.
Tax
trade-offs and tax neutrality are simply myths in the
modern political theater.
--
January 31, 2005
|
