Bacon's Rebellion

Defeating the Axis of Taxes

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Well, folks, I’ve returned from a pleasant, week-long vacation to find that the General Assembly has not come to any agreement on the transportation budget. It looks like we’re facing a special session of the General Assembly.

As I’ve written before, the Axis of Taxes strategy will be to portray the tax-averse GOP in the House of Delegates as obstructionist and uncompromising. I would argue that that pro-tax forces are the unbending ones, utterly committing to a strategy of tax-and-build and totally uninterested in exploring alternative strategies to addressing traffic congestion. (Weak nods to land use “reform” will not bring about meaningful change.)

The House could strengthen its hand in the upcoming public-relations battle if it showed itself willing to entertain alternative approaches to coping with traffic congestion — approaches that the Axis of Taxes will dismiss out of hand. Over the past year, Bacon’s Rebellion and the Road to Ruin project have systematically explored these alternative strategies.

In yesterday’s edition of the Bacon’s Rebellion e-zine, I touched upon the potential to reignite mass transit ridership by giving the private sector a greater role. Municipal transit monopolies and taxicab franchises dampen the ability of the private sector to adapt to changing settlement patterns, implement new technologies and introduce innovations into the marketplace. By re-thinking the way we approach shared ridership, we could reinvigorate this alternative to One-Man-One-Car. (See “Liberate Mass Transit.”)

In a similar vein, we’ve written about NuRide, an Internet-based service that allows commuters to identify other carpoolers traveling the same route at the same time — a technology that offers the potential to revive the declining practice of carpooling. (See “Carpool Comeback.”)

We’ve explored the potential for telecommuting (working from home) and telework (working outside the main office and staying connected through cell phones, BlackBerries and laptops). (See “Rush Hour Will Never Be the Same.”)

We’ve shown how local governments can work with developers to create real estate projects with a smaller “traffic footprint” through better urban design and creative use of shared ridership. (See “Traffic Buster.”)

We’ve shown how new zoning codes and new templates for urban design can reduce the length and number of car trips and reduce traffic on congested thoroughfares. (See “Albemarle Place,” and “Street Cars and Zoning Codes.”)

We’ve shown how it’s possible, with modest investments, to significantly increase the capacity of existing thoroughfares without expensive widening projects. (See “Seeing the (Traffic) Light” and “Aroused about Roundabouts.”)

We’ve argued in favor of congestion-pricing tolls as a way of rationing scarce peak-highway capacity and encouraging commuters to change their driving behavior, whether carpooling more, riding buses, or resorting to telecommuting and telework. (See “Congestion Pricing” and “Roads and Reason.”)

There is no “silver bullet” for addressing Virginia’s congestion woes. But there are many narrow-bore policies, each of which can address a piece of the problem and all of which together can make a huge difference. Sadly, we have seen another session of the General Assembly come and go with none of these ideas being discussed seriously. The House has not embraced any of the ideas I’ve been pushing but, unlike the Senate, it has at least been willing to think outside the box, aggressively exploring ideas such as privatization.

In the PR battle to come, the House suffers a big disadvantage. The Governor has the power of the bully pulpit, the working journalists have defined the transportation debate as a tax-and-spend issue, and editorial writers across the state are salivating at the prospect of another big tax increase. But it will be difficult to portray House Republicans as the obstructionists if they are the ones embracing new ideas and their pro-tax foes are the ones nixing everything but big spending plans and tax increases.

That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

Comments

10 responses to “Defeating the Axis of Taxes”

  1. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    That is Jim’s story and he is sticking with it.

    Jim is right on each of these contributing factors, but…

    All of them together will not make a perceptable change in mobility and or the Shelter Crisis at the Alpha Community, subregional or New Urban Region scales.

    On the other hand if we move toward Balanced Communities in sustainable New Urban Regions all these ideas can make important contributions.

    That is my story and why Jim and I work together.

    EMR

  2. GOPHokie Avatar
    GOPHokie

    As long as the Senate Republicans want to do what the governor wants, the House GOP will always be seen as the obstructionists.
    It will be almost impossible to convince the public that 4 groups (governor, house and senate dems and senate GOP) are all wrong and they all need to listen to the House GOP.
    Only in a dream world, where we control the media.

  3. kingfish Avatar
    kingfish

    GOP Hokie- but you do control the most important media. The Richmond Times Dispatch is still teh most influentila newspaper in the state- and has an editorial page that could be written by teh House Republican caucus. And, of course, teh flat-earthers control this blog, which is the most influential in cyberspace.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    All that electronic ink and nobody has figured out how to deal with the simple problems — paving dirt roads, replacing 80 year old bridges….still need m o n e y. And the House would be in a better PR position if they had done what they talked about, actually used more of the multi-billion surplus or diverted some of the GF revenue sources producing the surplus. Instead they spent 99.5 percent of what the Senate did on all the non-transportation categories, borrowed some money from the capital account to pump up a one-time cash transportation payment (almost all earmarked a la Congress) and then projected $180 million in income from new traffic fines. They do that last one with a straight face.

    Not credible. It might get them past the next election, but then 2008 will be 2006 all over again.

  5. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Anonymous, I (the supposed flat earther) have admitted the need to raise taxes for transportation at some point. I can see your side of the story. Here’s what gets me. I rarely hear from pro-tax advocates that raising taxes and spending more money is less than a complete solution. (I would say that Philip Shucet is a rare exception.) I never hear you guys concede that spending more money in the absence of other reforms will mean that you’ll all be back in 5, 10 or 15 years crying for more money. I never hear you guys conceding that things could be done differently or more efficiently. It’s all spend-spend, tax-tax, as if that were the one and only solution.

  6. kingfish Avatar
    kingfish

    Jim- I, for one, admit that government could be more efficient and that things could be done better. I think you have made several good suggestions. I think they are long term suggestions which should be pursued. I only wish the House majority could break free of the grip of the development lobby to do so. In the short term, however, we need pavement and bridges. They must be paid for. By aligning yourself with those who dogmatically oppose any tax increase, you fall in with the flat earthers.

  7. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Kingfish, Here’s the sad reality: If we increase taxes, political pressure will dissipate to undertake any reform. Nothing else will happen. Legislators will move on to the next issue, patting themselves on the back that they’ve addressed transportation. That’s what happened after the 1986 Baliles-era tax increase, and there’s every reason — given the obdurate refusal of the Axis of Taxes crowd to concede that any other remedy is called for — to think it will happen again. The only leverage we have to enact needed reform is to withhold the tax money until we get it.

    As for “flat earther,” I think that label applies more appropriately to anyone who thinks that raising taxes and building more road and rail projects — the dogma of the past — will by itself solve anything.

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Bacon, thank’s for at least admitting that you are engaged in blackmail. But I’m dog tired of you complaining that none of us who see the need for higher taxes also sees the value in reform, better planning, and a more multimodal approach. I actually believe that higher gas prices are the best possible motivation for change, and frankly I’d rather see the tax go up a buck than a dime. But since you assume all of us are motivated by greed, I’ll continue to assume all of you are just Luddites hoping to return to the Virginia of the past and determined to wreck our modern economy. Fair’s fair.

  9. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    The Commonwealth can pour a lot of concrete and build many bridges without raising taxes. Set priorities and spend the extra money the GA took from the folks last session.

  10. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Each of those contributing factors might mean that we have to spend a little less money on roads, if we do them all and do them right. But none of them are proven, and most of them have costs of their own.

    We are still going to need more money for roads, and we will need to raise taxes to get the money. And no, by itself that won’t “solve” anything. We will still be behind the power curve and we will never have enough to meet all the priorities. What it will do is help keep it from getting worse. The texas transportation study figures show that very clearly.

    No, I don’t think you have shown that any of your ideas will work, only that they might help. Money might help, too.

    I’m with anonymous, another buck on the gas tax would work miracles, in auto use and sprawl: the question is, are we willing to pay the price? If we are not willing to pay for what we want then we should shut up and put up with what we have.

Leave a Reply

ADVERTISEMENT