|
Politics
hinges upon who can tell the most convincing lies
or maybe just shout the loudest – Ian Stewart
Sean
Connaughton, chairman of the Prince William County
Board of Supervisors (BOS) and a candidate for the
Republican nomination for Lt. Governor, apparently
didn’t take very kindly to my earlier column,
“The
Politics of Lies.”
In
a written
reply the Connaughton campaign followed the
path I said they had been following all along—crossing
the threshold into the politics of
personal destruction.
It
is often said that the best defense is an offense,
and the Connaughton camp certainly knows a lot
about offensive tackling. It would be nice,
however, if they tackled the issues instead of
taking the path of character assassination—but
perhaps that’s too much to expect from a
campaign that has repeatedly gone out of its way
to obfuscate and confound the record.
When
one cannot defend the indefensible, one simply
changes the subject. And change the subject they
did.
Instead
of answering the points raised in my earlier
column—namely, that Connaughton increased
spending, increased taxes, took credit for a bogus
agreement to cap future tax increases, and has
been on the wrong side of every tax debate
in recent years—Connaughton’s lackeys focus on
the record of Connaughton’s opponent, Sen. Bill
Bolling, R-Mechanicsville.
Tackling
their claims required writing a separate column.
Accordingly, I am happy to oblige the Connaughton
campaign with the second chapter to my earlier
column.”
Here
are some of Connaughton’s accusations. The first
three pertain to Bolling’s voting record while a
member of the Hanover BOS, some 10 years ago:
Conaughton
claims that Bolling voted for a “budget plan
calling for a 13 cent increase in the real estate
tax rate.”
This
is an outright fabrication. Bolling cast a vote
only to amend Hanover County’s five-year
financial plan to reflect
the outcome of bond referenda that were
being considered by Hanover voters.
Only
after the voters approved the general obligation
bonds did the amended financial plan go into
effect. By the time the new tax rates went into
effect, however, Bill Bolling was no longer on the
Hanover BOS.
Here's
the point, Bolling was voting for open government.
Amending the financial plan would inform voters of
the impact the general obligation bonds had on
real estate tax rates.
It
boggles the mind that voting for open government
and letting citizens vote on the bond referenda
could be construed as casting a vote for higher
taxes. But then again, this is a campaign
determined to propagate the politics of lies.
Connaughton
claims that Bolling voted to “double the utility
taxes” while a member of the Hanover BOS.
Every
locality in Virginia has imposed a consumer
utility tax. More importantly, the utility tax
imposed on the residents of Prince William County
is higher than the tax imposed on Hanover County
residents.
Connaughton
claims that while on the Hanover BOS, Bolling’s
votes “led to a stunning 66 percent increase in
average real estate tax bills.”
This
also appears to be another fabrication. The
Bolling campaign states that real estate tax
collections increased 2.25 percent per year during
Bolling’s tenure, a factor considerably lower
than the growth of population plus inflation. Bill
Bolling also points out that during the same
period a number of taxes were reduced in Hanover
County, such as certain personal property taxes on
business, the merchant’s capital tax, etc.
Connaughton
says that since 1996 Bolling has “voted for
every state budget but one,” and “voted to
spend the state surplus created by the 2004
massive tax increase.”
It’s
indeed ironic that Connaughton is accusing Bolling
for spending the state surplus—indirectly
linking him to the 2004 tax increase—when in
fact, Connaughton was in favor of the huge tax
increase that was imposed on Virginians in 2004 by
an out-of-control state Senate. Bill Bolling voted
against this massive tax increase.
Yes,
it’s true that Bolling voted for the final 2005
budget but so did 39 out of 40 state senators
(with one senator not voting for adopting the
Conference Committee report). Are we to surmise
that had he been in the state senate, Connaughton
would have been able to charge the windmill and
single-handedly stop the will of every other state
senator?
As
to voting for every state budget, so did the
majority of the General Assembly. It’s important
to know that even though spending went up, these
earlier budgets did not result in tax increases.
Contrast that to Prince William County where
spending continues growing out of control, while
taxes have gone up year-after-year under
Connaughton’s tenure.
The
best response I have heard to date about
Connaughton’s ludicrous attempts to paint Sen.
Bolling an out of control tax-and-spend liberal
comes from a Bolling supporter who replied:
“Connaughton would have a better chance
convincing people that Arnold Schwarzenegger is
one of the girly men.”
I
am certain that the Connaughton campaign will
again renounce my column or claim that I am acting
as a mere mouthpiece for the Bolling campaign. I
readily admit that I have known Sen. Bolling for a
number of years now and that I am philosophically
attuned to his political initiatives.
On
the other hand, I hope that we haven’t reached
the point when one is automatically disqualified
from the political forum just because one is
sympathetic towards a particular candidate. If
that were the case, all of the mainstream media
would be outright disqualified from the political
process.
In
ancient Greece, the philosopher Diogenes was said
to have roamed the streets in broad
daylight, holding a lantern and looking for an
honest man. When it comes to Virginia politics,
one doesn’t need a lantern to surmise that
honesty in most political campaigns has indeed
become a rare commodity.
So
the debate on the politics of lies will
undoubtedly continue. But as I said before, if
this practice is allowed to continue, more and
more voters will end up dropping out of the
political process.
--
April 11, 2005
|
