Bacon's Rebellion

It didn’t take long for the finger pointing to begin. Richard Viguerie, the Northern Virginia direct-mail guru who bills himself as “the funding father” of the conservative movement, maintains that Republicans lost eight General Assembly seats this week because its leaders had failed to stay true to their core values. Writes Viguerie in an e-mail missive today:

The present Republican team in Richmond has failed, especially in the Senate. Grassroots activists and donors should demand these leaders be replaced for their failures. “No one should be surprised at the election results. This is a direct result of the Republican in Name Only (RINO) legislative leadership. These RINO legislators have openly collaborated with the liberals in the General Assembly and with Democratic governors Mark Warner and Tim Kaine to massively increase spending and taxes.

“As a result, the Virginia Republican Party—like the national Republican Party—has lost its brand as the party of fiscal responsibility. And the predictable election results have been the same on both the state and national levels. Liberal voters who want higher spending and higher taxes predominantly vote Democratic, while conservatives, having been betrayed by Republicans, lose heart and interest in voting.”

There are elements of truth here. The Republican Party has lost its brand as the party of fiscal responsibility. But there’s more to the story. People want low taxes and sound finances, but they also want government to fulfill certain responsibilities in the realms of education, transportation, the environment, the social safety net and other core obligations. Voters look for a package of low (or moderate) taxes, efficient government and creative solutions to society’s challenges.

From my vantage point, the now-retiring state Senate stood for the “take-your-fish oil” brand of fiscal conservatism, which translated into raising taxes in lock step with rising demand for government services. In the five years I have been covering politics closely in Virginia, I saw little original, creative or innovative legislation emanating from the senate. The House of Delegates, by contrast, has been a fount of ideas — some good, some bad. For the most part, those ideas — including the most sweeping structural reforms to transportation and land use in 70 years — were ignored by the media. (I’m not accusing the media of bias, just noting that the biggest business-of-government story of this generation went largely unreported.) The failure of the House has not been a failure to think creatively about Virginia’s challenges but to bypass traditional media channels to reach the public.

Democratic Party leaders — first Gov. Mark Warner, then Gov. Timothy M. Kaine — projected an image as men who could “get things done.” Senate and House Republicans, by contrast, warred with each other, projecting an image of fractiousness. Now that key polarizing figures are departing — John Chichester and Russell Potts foremost among them — Senate Rs may mend fences with their House counterparts. That could solve the “fractiousness” problem.

But the Rs have to convince voters that they’re both serious about fighting tax hikes and capable of addressing Virginia’s very real challenges. If what we hear from the Rs in 2008 is more politics of symbolism — flag burning amendments, prayer in schools, etc. — they will fail miserably. If they can advance an agenda that solves real problems and keeps spending/taxes in check, they can re-emerge as winners.

I never got emotionally involved in this year’s General Assembly campaign, but I did my civic duty yesterday and voted. Last night, I didn’t bother to turn on the television and watch the returns. It wasn’t until this morning that I checked the Internet that I discovered that the Democrats have taken control of the state Senate and gained ground in the House of Delegates. Congratulations to them. Otherwise, big whoop.

As I’ve argued before, both parties support Business As Usual in the sphere of business and economics. The main issues where party control really makes a difference are the culture-war issues. I consider myself a centrist in most of those, distrustful of both extremes, so a marginal shift to the left really doesn’t bother me.

The Dems tend to be more expansionist in their view of government, which means that they are even more willing to reach into my pocket than most Republicans, but the old GOP-dominated Senate, dominated by John Chichester, had been so eager to hike spending and increase taxes that I really don’t expect to see much difference. Virginia will remain on the same steep growth curve in the size and scope of government that it has been on for several years now.

The new man to watch is Richard Saslaw, D-Fairfax, who replaces Chichester as the power broker in the state Senate. As the new Senate Majority Leader and chairman of the Commerce and Labor committee, Saslaw will set the agenda on business-related issues. According to my contacts in the conservation community, his ascendancy looks like a victory for Business As Usual. They are very worried.

As far as individual candidates, I’m disappointed to see that Albert Pollard lost in the race for Chichester’s old Fredericksburg-area seat. He was one of the few genuine environmentalists running for a Senate seat.

On the other hand, it looks like Ken Cuccinelli will hang on to his Northern Virginia seat by a whisker. While I don’t share his views on the culture war, I find him refreshingly articulate and aggressive on size-and-scope-of-government issues. He doesn’t kow-tow to the power structure. If he survives the count of absentee ballots and the inevitable recount, he could help re-shape Senate Republicans into a faction that stands for more than defense of the status quo.

The donkey clan is clearly in the ascendancy in Virginia now. It controls the governor’s mansion and a U.S. Senate seat, it has won the state Senate and eroded the GOP majority in the House, and it is the odds-on favorite to win a second Senate seat next year. It is time for some serious soul-searching over in the Grand Old Party. Elephants in Virginia are increasingly looking like an endangered species.

I haven’t voted yet, but will after work. In the meantime, here’s a few things I’m going to be paying attention to in tonight’s returns:

1. Chesterfield County. The local races for the Board of Supervisors has been particulary heated and the main issue is growth. The Roanoke Times has taken a look at absentee ballot requests across the state and finds that Chesterfield has seen absentee requests double over the 2003 races. Money from developers has been an issue here and it’s possible that supporters of slow- and no-growth candidates could be sufficiently motivated to overcome the gloom of a Central VA day to head to the polls in substantial numbers.

2. The Waddell/Loupassi race in the 68th. Waddell won a squeaker last year over the unlamented Brad Marrs. She was supposed to be a goner when former Richmond city council president Manoli Loupoassi moved into the district and took up the challenge. But Waddell has refused to fade under Manoli’s well-financed campaign and has even hit back with real vigor. She had cable television ads up early, but Loupassi has responded with network ads. It will be close and events in the local Chesterfield races could have a huge impact on the final results.

3. Ralph Smith v. Mike Breiner in Roanoke. Smith spent very little to upset incumbent Brandon Bell in the primary. But Breiner has raised a truckload of money and run an aggressive campaign. LTG Bill Bolling was in the area recently to give the Smith campaign a big check and local GOP activists a tongue-lashing over the closeness of this race.

4. Stuart v. Pollard. You can’t vote for either canduideate in Richmond, but their ads have been all over the local airwaves. Both men come across as entirely likeable in their spots, but there’s a lot of backstory here that will finally play itself out at the polls. Angry (or perhaps merely bitter) conservatives distrust Stuart and a few big name Republican donors have actually been writing checks to Pollard — just as they have in the Peterson/Devolites-Davis race in Fairfax County. Outgoing incumbent John Chichester has been writing checks to Democrats…it’s a cats and dogs, sleeping together, kind of situation that looks and sounds like it came right out of the kindergarden playground.

There are plenty more worth watching tonight, and the fate of the universe stands in the balance!

Well, not really. The deck chairs will get shuffled, but the ship of state will plod on through the waves just the same.

Which is depressing…except when you consider the possibility that the next General Assembly could feature both disbarred lawyer/amatuer boxer Joe Morrisey in the House and “get the government out of education” Trish Stall in the Senate.

It just might be like the old days of the Richmond city council — colorful, bombastic, and utterly embarassing.

As Virginians head to the polls today, traffic congestion is the number one issue on the minds of Northern Virginia voters, according to a recent poll conducted by the Dulles Corridor Rail Association. Illegal immigration is number two. Presumably those concerns will be motivating voters in key battleground districts up for grabs in today’s election for the state Senate and the House of Delegates.

The poll, conducted by iQ Research & Consulting, included a sample of 400 Northern Virginians. One of the questions asked: “From the following list of issues, which ONE do you see as the most important one to be addressed?”

1. Increase in home foreclosures……………………. 8%
2. Crime and drugs………………………………….. 9%
3. Traffic congestion ……………………………… 38%
4. Education ……………………………………….. 8%
5. Illegal immigration ………………………………22%
6. Property taxes …………………………………… 5%
7. Unemployment…………………………………… 2%
8. Other ……………………………………………. 2%
9. None …………………………………………….. 1%
10. Combination ……………………………………. 6%

As a Richmonder, I have absolute no feel for the public sentiment in Northern Virginia. But I would suggest that this list of priorities would tend to favor the elephant clan. Traffic congestion is clearly the number one issue. Call that a toss-up. Nobody’s really happy with the legislation passed this year, but at least the Rs can claim they passed something.

Illegal immigration, the number two issue, should cut decisively in favor of the Rs, or it would if so many Ds hadn’t started talking tough on illegal immigration. For example, Albert Pollard, a Democrat campaigning in a tight race for a Fredericksburg-area senate seat, is running TV ads in the Richmond media market that proclaim him a staunch foe of illegal immigration. Still, the Dems are Johnny-come-latelies to this issue. Advantage: Rs.

Crime & drugs traditionally favors the Rs, while education traditionally favors the Ds. Both are garnering about the same intensity of interest among NoVa voters, thus canceling each other out. The “increase in home foreclosures” doesn’t cut one way or the other, as it is not affected by state-level political decisions.

The only other issue that registers on the voter radar is property taxes, which I boldly predicted last year would be a major factor in this election and clearly has not. (So much for my prognostications!) The tax issue generally tilts toward the Rs, though, so this might add a sliver of support to elephant clan candidates.

Unemployment — a concern in Northern Virginia? Surely you gest.

All told, I don’t see the state/local issues matrix hurting the Rs at all. If general disillusionment with President Bush spills over into local politics, we could see a Republican rout. Otherwise, the Rs are likely to outperform their miserable expectations…. For whatever that’s worth.

Which is not much. As noted in previous blog postings, no election result is likely to dislodge the rule of special interests. The forces of Business As Usual, also known as the Axis of Taxes, have covered their bets through giant campaign contributions, and they will remain in power behind the scenes no matter which political tribe wins today.

Former Mexican President Vincente Fox opened his address to the Richmond Forum last night with an encomium to the Juans, the Marias, the Joses and all the other brave Mexicans who have immigrated to the United States to work hard and build a better life for themselves and their families. It was a heart-felt and effective gesture (and one that he probably has used all over the United States, wherever he has plugged his book, “Revolution of Hope: The Life, Faith and Dreams of a Mexican President.”) Though speaking in English and not his native language, Fox was engaging and charismatic. It was easy to see how he became the first Mexican politican to break the political monopoly of the Institutional Revolutionary Party.

For Americans, Fox is an especially effective advocate for the Marios and Marias in the United States because, unlike many Latin politicians, he loves the U.S. and he holds this country up to its own ideals. His grandfather was an Irish-German who sought his fortune in Mexico during the second half of the 19th century, worked hard and became a large landowner before a revolutionary government expropriated 90 percent of his property. A successful corporate executive who rose to the head of Coca-Cola Mexico before his entry into politics, Fox also is an unabashed champion of free markets and free trade, which he regards as the tonic to the authoritarianism and economic nationalism that prevented Latin America from sharing in global economic progress for most of the 20th century.

Fox speaks of the “American Dream,” which is shared by all peoples of the Americas, not just the United States of America. “Immigrants are people that come here to work, come here to contribute to this economy and to this great nation. Immigrants are loyal to the land that opened their arms to them,” he said, as reported by the Times-Dispatch. (Bizarrely, the T-D devoted its lede and half the article to the fact that Fox thinks the U.S. should pull out of Iraq, a point that was utterly tangential to his discussion of free trade and immigration.)

Far from throwing up walls between Mexico and the U.S., Fox wants to see the two countries grow closer together. He would like to build upon the North American Free Trade Agreement by negotiating common customs agreements between Mexico, the U.S., and Canada, much as the European Union has done. He would like to see all North Americans share a common passport. Ultimately, he suggests, they could share a common currency.

Mexico has made tremendous economic progress since a massive devaluation of the peso in the 1990s caused massive economic suffering, Fox said. The key has been a stable currency and open borders that ended the country’s economic isolation and forced Mexican enterprises to adapt to global competition. Mexican standards of living have risen dramatically since then, he said.

Fox acknowledges that the United States has a legitimate issue with people who enter the country illegally, but he says the answer isn’t building walls. Congress needs to develop mechanisms, like guest worker programs, that allow Mexicans (and other Hispanics) to work and reside legally in the U.S., and then return home.

In sum, Fox appealed to the best part of the (U.S.) American character in asking for more sympathy for his fellow countrymen. He did not label the anti-illegal movement as xenophobic or racist. As such, he was a far more effective ambassador for his people than he would have been had he embraced the hostile, don’t-give-an-inch rhetoric so widespread in the pro-illegal movement.

I have a question for those who profess so much concern for the plight of Hispanics: Why don’t they support an extension of the NAFTA free trade agreements to Central America, the Caribbean and Latin America, as Fox advocates? Why shouldn’t the United States help other countries to follow the path of Mexico, reform their economies and create a sustainable prosperity — so people don’t have to leave their homelands in the first place?

Don’t white, liberal elites feel compassion toward Hispanics when they’re stuck in their home countries, victims of self-defeating government policies and U.S. trade barriers? Or is it only when Hispanics come to the United States, where they can be herded onto the liberal plantation and help Democrats lock up electoral dominance for the next 50 years, that they are worthy of sympathy?

Joining the Hispanic-bashing craze, Chesterfield County officials will hold a public hearing Nov. 14 to get public comment on “illegal immigrants” whom county officials claim cost more than $2 million annually in local services.

This expense to local taxpayers is apparently so profound that county officials are considering a variety of punitive measures to stop the barbarians at the gate. Under consideration are requiring Chesterfield business owners to certify that they do not hire illegal immigrants before they can obtain business licenses and zoning strictures to prevent illegals from living chock-a-block in houses or apartments.

The point of the hearing seems to be to provide a venue for public outcry on illegal aliens, whether informed or not, so that county supervisors can proceed with the anti-alien crusade. Chesterfield is predominately white and Republican so it may be no surprise that it is a member of the 20 city and county informal vigilante association designed to blunt to invasion of illegals. It doesn’t matter if the onslaught is real or imagined.

The basis of the Nov. 14 hearing is a report sent to the Board of Supervisors on Aug. 16 by County Administrator James J.L. Stegmaier outlining the cost estimates of the illegal alien burden and what can be done. As a Chesterfield resident and a small business owner (albeit without any employees), I take special interest in the matter. So, I studied Stegmaier’s report, found some holes, and called Don Kapel, the county’s press spokesman. “It is amorphous,” he admitted. “Nobody knows how many illegal immigrants might be here.”

He referred me to Rebecca Dixson, an assistant county administrator who played a key role in assembling the report. I called her about four times and never got called back. So, dear readers please know I tried to get a response from the county, but was unsuccessful.

Let’s get down to brass tacks:

· The report says that, based on 2006 figures, illegal immigrants cost the county about $1.3 million in direct costs plus another $737,000 in indirect costs. “Staff has estimated the potential local cost of providing selected services to those individuals deemed to be in the county illegally. These figures are estimates only, determined by each department using reasonable assumptions,” the report says. I could not get an explanation from the county about what “reasonable assumptions” are.

· The biggest single costs are health ($310,000), but the report provided no explanation of how this figure was obtained. In addition, about $409,000 in expenses supposedly came from poor illegal immigrants who used emergency room services in the county. The county contacted the Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services and learned that total indigent emergency room use in the county was $629,500. Although the report admits, “data is not kept on this,” the county, nonetheless, attributed up to 70 percent of the indigent use of emergency care by illegal aliens resulting in the $409,000 figure. This is a “staff” estimate but no information was given on how it is based. Did someone check the patients’ passports and visas or were the patients simply dark-skinned and spoke Spanish?

· Illegal immigrants are apparently bad drivers who don’t pay their fines. Aliens here without documents racked up unpaid fines worth $336,840, the study says. This is based on another “staff estimate” that 31 percent of the total outstanding fines are the result of illegal immigrants. I could not learn where the 31 percent number came from and the report did not say.

· Illegal immigrants were said to be responsible for $230,000 in Local Jail expenses. No explanations were given. However, the jail does get reimbursed for illegals picked up while their documents are reviewed or for deportation by the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement Bureau, which is the sole government agency that is really tasked with cracking down on illegal aliens. Since 2003, the county has received $145,000 from ICE for this. “Staff estimates that six to 10 illegal aliens are now being picked up monthly” as a result of the joint ICE program, the report says. A couple of points here: Is that a tremendous number given the county’s size of about 300,000? Also, the jail has been stuffed with as many as 400 inmates at any time. Ten aliens isn’t a lot. What’s more if presumably illegal aliens are already in jail, why do we need extra measures like having business owners certify they don’t hire illegals?

So it goes. Dear readers, do you see a major epidemic here? Or do you see a politically-charged report with a lot of squishy “staff estimates?” I tend to see the latter.

The situation reminds me of what life was like in the Communist Soviet Union where I worked as a U.S. news correspondent in the 1980s. In that police state, Soviet citizens were required to carry internal passports at all times and these had the notorious “Line Five” which listed “nationality.” Being “Jewish” or “Uzbek” was considered a nationality but having it so listed meant one was more likely to be refused work or a university position.

The Kremlin had another trick to keep the unwashed from the predominately Slavic (read “white”) and desirable cities such as Moscow or Leningrad. To live legally in those places, one had to have a “propiska” or living permit. It was nearly impossible to get one by yourself. So, there were literally millions of phony marriages set up, whereby, for a covert fee, a couple would marry. Since one of the couple had the desired “propiska,” that meant that the other partner could get one too. When they married, bingo, they divorced, but both kept their desired propiskas.

Of course, Chesterfield County isn’t the Soviet Union, at least not yet. It may be some time before the Board of Supervisors considers internal county passports and living permits. But what is sad is that a lot of emotion will be vented Nov. 14 without much factual basis. And the Chesterfield supervisors likely will proceed with measures that are throwbacks to some ugly parts of Virginia’s history when the color of one’s skin was an obsession.

On Wednesday, I posted a blog questioning the commitment of Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to a “green” agenda in areas where it comes into hard conflict with the backers of Business As Usual. (See “The Greenwashing of the Kaine Administration.”) I wasn’t entirely fair. I need to set the record straight, at least regarding the issue of conservation and electricity re-regulation.

I noted that Kaine had signed a re-regulation bill that was highly favorable to the electric utilities. I asked, “Will he accede to a Big Grid electric power infrastructure, or will he back meaningful efforts to evolve Virginia’s power grid into a more decentralized system with small-scale and renewable power producers?”

Well, the fact is — and I should have remembered because I covered it in this blog — the conservation and renewable-energy elements contained in the bill, modest though they may be, were inserted at Kaine’s behest. As we are reminded in an article, “Virginia’s Energy Policy,” published under the governor’s name in Virginia Tech’s “Issues & Answers,” Kaine added the following amendments to the re-regulation bill:

• Place a greater emphasis on electric-generating plant performance, customer service, and utility operating efficiency when calculating allowable return on equity for utilities.

• Provide a greater incentive for nuclear, carbon capture-compatible clean coal, and renewable energy plants (lower-carbon technologies).

• Increase the energy efficiency goal to 10 percent from 5 percent.

• Strengthen requirements for use of renewable sources in electricity generation.

Kaine also issued Executive Order 48, which contained a number of conservation initiatives in state government, and he signed a four-day tax holiday for Energy Star appliances.

I still stand by my other observations in the post, but I was unfair to suggest that Gov. Kaine was less than dedicated to the cause of energy conservation. My apologies.

Clayton Roberts, with the Virginia Foundation for Research and Economic Education, provides as concise a summary of the 2007 elections as anything I’ve read in the newspapers. I can add little insight, so I reproduce verbatim some of his comments made in an e-mail distribution today.

Partisan control of the state Senate is up for grabs with at least eight races now polling within the margin of error. Democrats need a net gain of four seats to take control of the Senate for the first time since 1995. Privately, some Republicans concede they would do well to manage a 20-20 tie in the 40-member Senate, although the GOP has gained recent momentum in several races, largely on the strength of the immigration issue. One thing seems certain: control of the Senate will be by the narrowest of margins. Given a tie, Republican Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling would probably give his party the organizational edge to control committees and the floor.

Republicans will retain control of the House, although stalwarts on both sides of the aisle agree it’s likely the Democrats will pick up a few seats. Estimates vary from a net gain of two to six seats for House Democrats, who hope to come within striking distance of a majority in two years. Substantive gains by the minority party could have some in the House leadership looking over their shoulders and counting votes to secure their posts when the new Assembly convenes in January.

Campaign spending in this election cycle is spiraling upward. Candidates are spending nearly twice as much as they did four years ago and total legislative campaign war chests now exceed $55 million. That is a staggering sum of money when you consider that no more than 30 seats are really in play.

At least a dozen candidates will raise more than $1 million each for their efforts. In at least two marquee Senate races, total spending will approach $3 million, far surpassing all previous records.

In the final days, candidates are battling as if in hand-to-hand combat, marshalling their precinct captains and voter turnout troops in the final push to the finish line. In the end, the key races likely will be decided by which candidates do a better job of getting their voters to the polls on November 6.