Bacon's Rebellion

  • Kaine to Unveil Scaled Down Pre-K Initiative

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Gov. Timothy M. Kaine will roll out his pre-K education program at an education summit today. Instead of making it universal, a proposal that could cost $300 million a year (or way more, depending on whom you believe; see “Universal Pre-K: $300 Million a Year or $850 Million a Year?”), he will settle for an expansion of the Virginia Preschool Initiative, reports Christina Nuckols with the Virginian-Pilot.

    Kaine’s revised proposal would increase the number of children from low-income households eligible for the program from 17,500 to 30,000, at a cost of roughly $75 million a year by 2012.

    Kaine’s move is a shrewd one. First, by downscaling his plan, the Governor shows that he is cognizant of the budget difficulties Virginia will face in the next two-year budget; $75 million looks like chump change compared to the $300 million that he had been talking about. Second, the money will be concentrated on children — low-income, at risk — whom studies show will get the most benefit from pre-schooling. In other words, he’s focusing funds where he can get the most bang for the buck.

    Dueling experts will debate the efficacy of pre-K. Kaine will roll out his experts, including a Nobel prize-winning economist, to argue that the money will be well spent. Opponents will roll out their experts showing that the positive effects last only a few years. In all likelihood, the debate will be inconclusive. The outcome will be decided by politics, not the evidence.

    I’d ask only one thing: If the General Assembly passes this legislation, set up a mechanism to track the performance of children enrolled in the program through high school, at the very least. Let’s demonstrate definitively that the program either does or does not generate the positive Return on Investment — higher academic performance, lower drop-out rates, fewer kids convicted of crimes, less welfare dependency, etc. — that proponents claim it will. Let’s not come back in 15 years and have the same debate in the absence of authoritative data to settle it.

  • Propagating the Big Lie

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    As reported in today’s Washington Times (“GOP hit hard on road plan“), House Majority Leader Morgan Griffith (R-Salem) had this to say about the constitutionality of HB3202:

    “The facts are that some of us raised the question and we were assured by the [attorney general’s] staff that it was constitutional”

    This claim has often been repeated by the likes of Speaker Howell, Delegates Albo, Rust and a bunch of other legislators who are now trying to justify their vote in favor of HB 3202, in the face of a mounting statewide voter revolt.

    Unfortunately, this is nothing more than an often repeated Big Lie. As shown in the email received by one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against HB 3202, AG Bob McDonnell responded to the Robert Dean’s inquiry by stating that his office has issued no such formal opinion.

    From: [email protected]
    Subject: RE: Constitutionality of transportation plan…
    Date: May 2, 2007 12:41:31 PM EDT
    To: robertkdean@XXXXXX.XXX

    Robert, thanks for your inquiry. No formal opinion of the Attorney general has been issued on constitutional questions relating to HB 3202. Formal opinions are the ones that are public and used to clarify the law. These are all available on our website at http://www.blogger.com/%3Chttp://www.vaag.com%3E. There has been informal advice rendered to several clients of this office upon request, which as you know I am bound by the attorney client privilege to keep confidential. I am unsure what opinion copy was being referred to last night. Thank You for your interest. (emphasis added)

    Given this fact, how can anyone vote for politicians who continue to propagate lies and misinformation?

    Powered by ScribeFire.

  • The Conservative Backlash Grows

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Senior Republican legislators justified the funding provisions of the Comprehensive Transportation Funding and Reform act of 2007 on the grounds that they had to show voters that they were “doing something” to tackle traffic congestion. Otherwise, they said, they were at risk of losing several Northern Virginia seats in the General Assembly. After the uproar over Abuser Fees, challenges to the constitutionality of several aspects of the legislation and, now, an overt revolt of fiscal conservatives, Northern Virginia Republicans could still be at risk.

    At a Tuesday press conference, a group of conservative activists chastised the GOP’s legislative leadership and vowed to withhold their support in the fall elections, even if it meant electing Democrats.

    “This bill is a dramatic policy failure,” said John Taylor, president of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy at a press conference Tuesday. “We believe it is unconstitutional and demonstrated a political ineptness that is stunning in an election year. The Republican grass roots needs to ask their leadership, ‘What were you thinking?’ “

    Taylor was joined by other foes of higher taxes, including Paul Jost, chairman of the Virginia Club for Growth. The Mainstream Media doesn’t normally pay much attention to the public policy prescriptions of Taylor and his friends, whom they typically write off as fringe radicals, but it’s big news any time anybody bashes the General Assembly’s GOP leadership, so the press attended the press conference in force.

    Washington Post
    Richmond Times-Dispatch
    Norfolk Virginian-Pilot
    Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star
    Washington Times
    Associated Press

    J. Scott Leake, a spokesman for the Senate Republican leadership, defended the legislators. “It’s very easy to be against things,” he said. “It’s a lot harder to come up with your own solutions. Replacing who wields the gavel in the legislature is not going to build any more roads or ease any congestion.”

    Fair point. But that’s no excuse for violating a fundamental precepts of fiscal conservatism: making taxes transparent to taxpayers. What I find particularly disturbing about the actions of GOP leaders this year was their willingness to raise revenues as long as they could avoid calling it a “statewide tax hike.” Fees are OK, penalties are OK, a welter of regional tax hikes are OK. In other words, the GOP leaders wanted to have their cake and eat it, too. They wanted to say that they managed to raise revenues without anyone really noticing.

    I’m sorry, but that’s just a farce. Not only is it bad policy, it insults the voters — especially fiscal conservatives. Conservatives, the backbone of the Republican Party, are incredibly dispirited today. A decade of GOP control over the General Assembly has seen nothing but steady increases in spending and taxes. Former Republicans, like myself, are deserting the Party in droves. We would rather call ourselves independents than align ourselves with the Republican brand of Business As Usual, tax-and-spend politics. What separates Republicans from Democrats is not the principle of fiscal conservatism — both parties give lip service to that principle only to violate it. What separates them is their differing constituencies — the demographic and interest groups to whom they pay their boodle.

    Sorry, but that’s not what we’re looking for in our elected leaders.

  • Universal Pre-K: $300 Million a Year or $850 Million a Year?

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Chris Braunlich, a vice president of the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, a regular contributor to the Bacon’s Rebellion e-zine and a candidate for the Fairfax County School board, recently issued the following statement about Gov. Timothy M. Kaine’s universal pre-k initiative. I cannot improve upon it, so I reproduce it here nearly in full.

    As Governor Tim Kaine prepares to launch his program for universal preschool, it is worthwhile to underscore some of the statistics coming from a recent study by economist Robert Lynch for the Economic Policy Institute – an organization advocating universal preschool.

    In his study, Dr. Lynch examined the costs and benefits of high quality preschool programs and their positive impact over time on federal and state budgets, crime costs, and earnings. Among his findings specifically for Virginia:

  • Quality universal pre-k will cost $6,000 per child. This is 20 percent higher than Governor Kaine’s estimate of $5,000, but is in line with most costs around the country. The “Start Strong Council” notes a current cost of $7,820 per child for full-time licensed child care.

  • The annual cost of a fully-phased in universal pre-k program in 2008 will be $847 million. This exceeds Governor Kaine’s projections by more than a half billion dollars.

  • It will take 11 years for the program to start paying for itself in societal benefits. These benefits include reduced crime costs, increased earnings of participating children and adults, and a greater commitment to marriage.

  • It will take 24 years for the program to pay for itself in budget benefits alone.

    • Advocates for universal preschool base their claims for a “business case” on three long-term longitudinal studies. But each of those studies involved only highly at-risk students who were massively economically disadvantaged and at risk for retarded intellectual functioning. The programs involved frequently began at four months of age and included free medical care, home visitations, health screening, speech therapy and other social services.

    To extrapolate those students and those services to the general population and assume the same benefits as justification for a universal program is disingenuous at best.

    Before the Virginia General Assembly commits to a new state entitlement program, it should carefully consider the real costs and the questionable benefits — including those costs likely to be imposed on local governments as part of the shared cost.

  • A Stumbling Start

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    There have been two big stories surrounding the first meetings of the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority (HRTA). The Mainstream Media did a good job of covering one of the big stories: the vociferous protestations of citizens opposed to tax increases for roads they may never use. But Peter Galuszka, writing for Bacon’s Rebellion’s Road to Ruin project, is the only reporter to fully flesh out other one: The HRTA has gotten off to a stumbling start.

    The HRTA has no director, no staff, and no office to put a staff if it had one. The organization is not remotely prepared to execute the job it was tasked to do.

    While the HRTA approved last week a batch of taxes and fees capable of raising an estimated $168 million a year, it delayed the date the levies go into effect until April 2008, ostensibly to give the General Assembly an opportunity to fix the tax mix that local residents found so unfair. Until the money starts rolling in, nearly a year after the legislation was passed, the HRTA will have to limp along with staff and administrative leadership contributed by the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, which has not been relieved of its normal duties.

    While planning district staff may be able to keep HRTA meetings running on schedule, they have neither the time nor the expertise to do the HRTA’s job. That job, as Galuszka points out in “Fizzled Launch,” entails a lot more than collecting tax monies and paying contractors to build roads. All six of the mega-projects to be constructed will be financed most likely by means of public-private partnerships, using a mixture of public funding and toll financing. Someone has to define the scope of the projects, negotiate complex contracts with the private-sector partners, and make sure the private-sector partners are doing what they promised.

    For purposes of comparison, look at the difficulty the Commonwealth has had negotiating a contract to build the Rail-to-Dulles project — a contract that outside observers say may leave the state liable for significant cost overruns. (See “The Phase 1 Contract: Read It and Weep.”)

    The HRTA launch has already fizzled. Let us pray that the organization does not compound its problems by trying to negotiate complex public-private partnership deals on the cheap just to show the public that someone is “doing something.”

    I dispute the value of several of the mega-projects that the HTRA is tasked with building. (More on that later.) But the fix is in. If we’re going to build them, let’s do the best job we can. The transportation authority needs to build a team with the skill sets to craft and administer public-private partnerships, and it needs to do so quickly. If construction costs continue escalating at the rate of six percent per year, every year of delay on $9 billion in projects will cost Hampton Roads taxpayers and toll payers some $50 million a year.

  • Addressing the Irrational Fear of Density

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    The biggest obstacle to the re-development of decaying “inner suburbs” built in the 1950s, ’60s and and ’70s is the irrational fear of density. Any developer asking to re-zone land at greater density will run into a buzz saw of neighborhood opposition. The inevitable complaint: Density = congestion.

    Sometimes poorly planned re-development at higher densities can aggravate traffic conditions. But well-executed projects can reduce the number and distance of automobile trips. And well-executed projects in localities served by mass transit can accommodate growth with very little increase in the number of cars on the road at all. A case in point: Arlington County.

    Arlington is one of the few urban-core jurisdictions in Virginia to be gaining population and increasing employment. Since 1970, the square footage of office space in the Ballston-Rosslyn corridor alone has increased from 5.5 million square feet to 20.5 million, the number of jobs from 22,000 to 90,000 and the number of residential units from 7,000 to 26,200.

    According to the conventional thinking, that density should have translated into more congestion. But it hasn’t. The key, as I explain in this week’s column, “Vanquishing the Density Demon,” is the three-fold set of policies that Arlington has pursued consistently over more than three decades: (1) Invest in mass transit, both rail and buses, (2) encourage walkable, high-density, mixed-use projects around transportation nodes, and (3) market the “one-car lifestyle” to residents.

    The Arlington model works. It’s not inexpensive, costing roughly $120 per resident per year. But compare that to the Business As Usual alternative, which, according to proponents, will only slow the rate at which congestion gets worse. The Northern Virginia Transportation Authority has just approved regional tax increases of $400 million a year — or $200 for each of the region’s two million inhabitants.

    Density is not the problem. Poor planning is the problem. Re-developing decaying neighborhoods at higher density, with detailed attention to limiting transportation demand, is part of the solution.

  • The Summer Just Got Hotter: Bacon’s Rebellion Online!

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Global warming and the August doldrums ain’t got nothing on Bacon’s Rebellion when it comes to spewing hot air! Jim Bacon and his band of pundits have struck again with the publication of the August 13, 2007, edition of the Bacon’s Rebellion e-zine. (Newcomers, don’t miss a single issue of the e-zine. Click here to sign up for a free subscription.)

    Here is this week’s helping of rebellious rhetoric:

    Vanquishing the Density Demon
    There’s no reason that higher density has to mean worse traffic congestion. In the face of population growth and commercial development, Arlington County has kept its streets gridlock-free.
    by James A. Bacon

    A Haunted Peace
    A new academic year will bring a measure of tranquility, if not quiet, to Virginia Tech.
    by Doug Koelemay

    GLOSSARY: The Online Edition
    The first step in creating a sustainable society is to use words that precisely describe the world as it is. Today, we update the glossary of those words.
    by EM Risse

    Enough, Already!
    Abuser fees are getting all the attention during this year’s election cycle, crowding out discussion of more important issues such as impending budget deficits and out-of-control state spending.
    by Mike Thompson

    Nice & Curious Questions
    Where There’s Smoke… Fighting Fires in Virginia
    by Edwin S. Clay III and Patricia Bangs

  • New Math: The Albo/Rust Method

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Del. Dave Albo (R-Fairfax) and Tom Rust (R-Herndon), the sponsors of the traffic abuser bill have repeatedly told us that the high add-on traffic abuser penalties are about safety.

    They also assured us repeatedly that “no one can get an Abuser Fee for a traffic ticket” (this is a direct quote from a recent letter these two sent to their constituents).

    Albo has gone even further. In a recent interview on CNN he said that you couldn’t get a $3,000 add-on penalty unless you killed someone in a traffic accident. In the same letter to their constituents, Albo and Rust state that “since 1997, 9,600 people have died in traffic collisions in Virginia.”

    At the same time, they claim that “the abuser fee raises $65 million per year,” a critical funding source of the 2007 Transportation Act, which will be used to help pay for transportation projects in our area.

    So given these often repeated “facts”—which have also been parroted by the likes of Gov. Tim Kaine (D), Speaker Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg) and Majority Leader Morgan Griffith (R-Roanoke)—let’s us do a little math using the Albo/Rust method.

    For argument’s sake, let us assume that every person killed was not the bad driver causing the accident, but universally the innocent victim. Let’s also assume that all of the drivers who caused the accidents lived long enough to pay the add-on penalty. The above assumptions are obviously unrealistic, but stay with me for a moment in order to give the maximum benefit of doubt to the Albo/Rust argument.

    Following these assumptions, had HR3202 been in place over the past 10 years, it could have raised $28.8 million or on average slightly less than $3 million per year. This is based on a $3000 fine per death—not per accident!

    Yet, the Albo/Rust duo tells us that this bill will raise $65 million per year. In other words, these $3000 add-on penalties will account for less than 5% of the projected revenue.

    To put it another way, more than 95% of the traffic abuser revenues will come from smaller fines. If most of these traffic infractions fall under the $1,050 level, one can only assume that they are going to have to collect a lot more abuser penalties from smaller traffic violations to make up the $62 million shortfall.

    So when Albo and Rust—and the echoing chorus of mindless legislators—tell you that the add-on penalties only apply to the worse of the worst, don’t believe them one minute. On the contrary, this bill was designed to extract money from generally law abiding citizens who are caught in a momentary lapse committing a traffic infraction.

    If you have any doubts about this, check out the recent report in the Washington Times, where a Navy reservist with a clean driving record going to his monthly training drill was cited for reckless driving while driving 20 MPH over the speed limit on I-395 on a Sunday morning. He now faces a $1,050 add-on penalty for the reckless driving charge, which he is contesting on constitutional grounds under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, since these penalties only apply to Virginians and exclude out-of-state drivers.

    So don’t buy into their propaganda folks! If Joseph Goebbels were still alive, our legislators could teach him a trick or two…

    Powered by ScribeFire.

  • Dudes, the General Assembly Won’t Make It Any Better the Second Time Around

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    The Hampton Roads Transportation Authority approved yesterday an array of new regional taxes designed to raise some $175 million a year, but delayed implementation to give the General Assembly time to come up with a financing package that, in the words of James City County Board Chairman John J. McGlennon, “is spread more evenly among a broader section of the public.”

    “The mix of fees was not right and we hope to rationalize them,” McGlennon said at the Authority meeting in Chesapeake, reports Tom Holden with the Virginian-Pilot.

    Good luck. The General Assembly isn’t going to do any better a second time around. The one logical solution — devise a system in which the people who pay for transportation improvements are the same as those who use and/or benefit from them — is the one solution that politicians and citizen activists of all stripes seem to avoid at all costs. People want the road improvements, they just want someone else to pay for them. However, it is impossible for the General Assembly to tax people to the tune of $175 million a year without anyone noticing.

    The most promising development to come out of the HRTA meeting yesterday — and one totally overlooked by the accounts in the Virginian-Pilot, Daily-Press and Associated Press — is that the Authority may adopt a congestion-pricing strategy. Unfortunately, I have no details — know no more than what Reid Greenbaum reported in his comments in yesterday’s post, “Here, Take My Lint” — so I cannot elaborate at this time.

    But speaking in generalities, as long as the Authority is imposing new tolls to pay for projects, it might as well utilize supply-and-demand principles to ration scarce highway capacity. A willingness to consider congestion pricing represents a huge step forward in regional thinking.

  • ROI — Letters that Should be Tattooed on Every Politician’s Forehead

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Traffic congestion in the United States cost Americans roughly 3.5 billion hours a day of delay in 2000, and the number gets worse every year. The knee-jerk reaction of politicians in Virginia, as it is elsewhere in the country, is to build more roads. Fortunately for them, politicians are accountable only to voters and journalists, who are ignoramuses for the most part, and not to shareholders, bankers or money managers who might ask the tough question: What Return on Investment are you generating on your capital spending for road and highway improvements?

    In a 2006 paper, “The effect of government highway spending on road users’ congestion costs,” two Brookings Institution scholars, Clifford Winston and Ashley Langer, tried to answer that question. Here’s what they found: A dollar spent on highways in a given year generates only 11 cents in reduced congestion costs to motorists.

    The issues raised by the paper cannot be ignored. Governments have finite resources. They need to invest those resources where they generate the greatest social benefit. Failure to measure social Return on Investment means that billions of dollars are wasted on marginal programs while critical needs go unmet.

    Why is the ROI on highway spending so low? The authors proffer the following:

    Highway spending is compromised by inefficiencies related to pork barrel politics, by slow and inappropriate responses to demographic changes, by excessive maintenance expenditures caused by poor road design, and by inflated labor costs attributable to the Davis Bacon Act.

    But the most fundamental obstacle to effective highway spending is that the US intracity road system is largely complete and the nation’s urbanized areas have little available land to expand their infrastructure. … In most congested cities, it is extremely difficult or prohibitively expensive to widen major freeways and arterials to reduce congestion or for such construction to keep up with traffic growth.

    It is important to remember that 11 percent is an average number, and the return on investment varies widely from project to project. Additionally, one can quarrel with aspects of the Winston/Langer methodology. But the larger implications of their study cannot be wished away: The social Return on Investment for highway spending (and transit spending, for that matter) varies widely from project to project, and many projects could never be justified if gauged on a Return on Investment basis.

    Lessons for Virginia: All projects should be ranked and funded according to a Return on Investment basis. Projects should provide a minimal rate of return — otherwise they represent no more than a wealth transfer from citizens to the special interest groups who make the case for them.

    (Hat tip: Quintin Kendall.)

  • Here, Take My Lint

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Emotions were flaring in Hampton Roads yesterday in advance of today’s meeting of the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority, which is expected to approve an estimated $175 million in regional taxes to fund long lobbied-for transportation projects. It seems that some citizens are tired of getting taxed.

    During a three-hour hearing at the Virginia Beach Civic Center, reports the Daily Press, business interests defended the tax increases. Rob Goodwin, president of Virginia Beach Vision, a group of civic and business leaders, argued that traffic delays are raising the costs of doing business in the region, which increases the prices of all goods and services.”We need to be able to move in, out and about the community,” Goodwin said. “You’re paying for these delays one way or the other.”

    The Road Gang contended that traffic bottlenecks would hamper emergency evacuations of Hampton Roads in the event of hurricanes, make the ports less competitive, and routinely slow the response times of ambulances, fire trucks and police cars.

    But those arguments didn’t carry much weight with ordinary citizen George Donley: “I don’t have any more to give you. I’m at wit’s end. I’ve got lint left. I’ll give you that.”

    Suffolk resident Roger Leonard spoke a profound truth when urging the Authority to turn the plan back to the General Assembly. He asked business leaders if they would be so supportive if the package included a commercial real estate tax or a levy on shipping containers. “That’s not happening,” Leonard said, “because they have better lawyers and lobbyists than the rest of us.”

    Here’s the way I’m reading the situation: Hampton Roads politicians used citizen frustration with traffic congestion to mobilize support for creation of the HRTA and the increase in taxes. But the lawyers, lobbyists and their political buddies will have disproportionate influence over how those monies are spent. Go back and read our blog post, “Millions for Transportation, Pennies for Congestion Relief,” where we cited the arguments of Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. Several of the mega-projects on the drawing boards are geared to economic development, he said, and will do as much to promote congestion as to relieve it.

    Here’s the Suffolk News Herald coverage. And the Virginian Pilot’s.

    Addendum: Here, from the Pilot, is the dog’s breakfast of “revenue enhancements” through which the citizenry will pay for improvements advocated by the business community:

    • $10 increase in the annual vehicle registration fee, raising it to $49.5 for cars. Would raise $13.3 million annually by 2009.
    • A new titling fee equal to 1 percent of a vehicle’s value would be charged when the ownership changes. Would raise $41.2 million.
    • $10 increase in the annual vehicle safety inspection fee, raising it to $26. Would raise $12.3 million.
    • 5 percent tax on automotive repair labor bills. Would raise $18.9 million.
    • An increase in grantor’s tax from 10 cents per $100 of a sold house’s value to 50 cents per $100. Would raise $49.1 million.
    • 2 percent sales tax on motor fuel. Would raise $30.2 million.
    • 2 percent tax on vehicle rentals. Would raise $3.5 million

    As Fredric Bastiat said, “Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”

    • My Open E-mail Letter to Del. Tom Rust (R-Herndon)

      Posted on

      by

      James A. Bacon

      Dear Tom:

      I was surprised to get your letter the other day, where you complain that there is a lot of misinformation about the traffic abusers fees. If there is an orchestrated misinformation campaign, it originates with members of our State Legislature who continue to make misleading and obfuscating statements about the many unconstitutional provisions in HB 3202.

      For example, in your letter you claim that the abuser fees are only applied against the worse of the worst–those drivers who habitually violate our traffic laws. Well, how about telling that to Mr. Charles Mason, who as reported by the Washington Post and repeated on the Raising Kaine blog is facing a $1,050 abuser fee for driving 20 miles over the speed limit?

      In all honesty Tom, can you, Dave Albo or Speaker Howell raise your right hand and take an oath in the presence of your constituents that you have never driven 75 MPH in a 55 MPH zone? If you all can’t say that with a straight face, it’s time that you set a good example, by making a series of voluntary abuser-fee payments to the DMV for each time you drove over the speed limit.

      Let’s face it Tom, our State Supreme Court, in the guidance issued to the lower courts on how to implement the new abuser fees, lists in excess of 120 traffic infractions that qualify for an elevated abuser penalty. Contrary to all the assurances coming out of the General Assembly, it is now becoming clear that first time offenders–drivers with clean driving records–are being caught in the web that our overzealous legislators have cast against the citizens of our Commonwealth.

      Speaker Howell is also quoted saying that the Attorney General had cleared HB 3202. I have asked you for the AG’s legal opinion and Del. Bob Marshall has asked the same of the Speaker–but contrary to your assurances, we have yet to be provided with the AG’s opinion.

      Let’s face it, the AG did not issued a legally binding opinion on the constitutionality of HB 3202. So when members of the General Assembly try to hide behind a non-existing opinion, you’re simply adding to the misinformation regarding this bill.

      Furthermore, all members of the General Assembly are sworn to uphold our Constitution. So how can you all have voted in good conscience on a controversial bill that appears to have violated many provisions of the Constitution and which has already been found to violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, by two separate state courts?

      Sounds to me that everyone who voted for this bill has apparently violated their oath of office. What’s the penalty for a legislator who has knowingly violated his oath of office? At a minimum, I would think that any self-respecting elected official would choose to resign rather than subject our state through additional turmoil.

      So when you complain about all the misinformation surrounding the traffic abusers bill, don’t point fingers Tom–just look at your colleagues in the General Assembly who continue to go out of their way to mislead and misinform the public.

      Best Regards, Phil
      ________________________
      Phillip Rodokanakis
      President
      Virginia Club for Growth
      Email: [email protected]
      Web: www.virginiaclubforgrowth.org

      Powered by ScribeFire.

    • Now Everybody’s Got a Blog!

      Posted on

      by

      James A. Bacon

      Holy mackerel. I see from Not Larry Sabato that former Sen. George Allen now publishes a blog, paid for and authorized by the Good Government Action Fund PAC. He’s off to a good start, posting content daily. Recent posts detail his thoughts on energy independence and the resignation of Poquoson Mayor Gordon Helsel from the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority. It will be interesting to see how long he keeps it up.

      (Friendly advice: Allen might be well advised to have a copy editor read behind him.)

    • Where’s the “Anti-Spending” Party?

      Posted on

      by

      James A. Bacon

      Virginia has no “anti-tax” political party. The “anti-tax” label routinely applied in the Mainstream Media to Republican factions in the General Assembly is patently ludicrous. A Republican legislature has presided over a 30 percent increase in state government expenditures adjusted for inflation and population growth over the past 10 years. (See “Fiscal Crisis Pending: Quick, Raise Taxes!”)

      What we have in Virginia are two political parties, or, in the case of the Republican party, two factions, that haggle over the rate of growth of government spending. The main difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats are forthright about calling for tax increases while the so-called “anti-tax” faction of the Republican Party will do anything to avoid calling a tax by its name.

      Republicans suffer from crippling political disadvantages in this ongoing struggle. First is the clear preference of the Mainstream Media for Big Government. You can deduce all you need to know about the prejudices of the press from the fact that journalists and editorial writers routinely label certain legislative factions “anti-tax,” which is a laughable misnomer, but never label their pro-tax opponents as what they so very clearly are: “pro-tax.”

      The other disadvantage, self-inflicted, of what might more properly be called the “slower tax growth” crowd, is the lack of a set of coherent principles undergirding their positions. The “slower tax growth” faction is caught between a rock and a hard place: a perceived need to increase revenue while simultaneously placating a middle-class constituency that is sick and tired of its ever-escalating tax burden. The solution this spring was to raise $1 billion in new revenue for transportation while proclaiming none of it constituted a “statewide tax increase.”

      The authors of the the Comprehensive Transportation Funding and Reform act of 2007 instituted a half billion dollars of regional tax hikes in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, but those didn’t count because they weren’t “statewide.” They imposed assorted statewide fees, such as the controversial Abuser Fees, but those didn’t count because they weren’t “taxes.” They borrowed money, which they would pay off with General Fund revenues, and they tapped General Fund surpluses instead of rebating it to taxpayers, but none of that counted either because no taxes were raised.

      The result is a revenue-raising scheme that is spread among so many different sources, and is so disconnected from how far people drive, when they drive, or the demands they place on the transportation system, that it arguably will do more harm than good.

      Here’s the ugly truth that the politicians of all parties and factions refuse to tell the voters: Virginia can never solve its transportation crisis without moving to a user pays system. (That’s only the first step toward a genuine solution, but it’s a critical first step.) Virginia cannot build its way out of traffic congestion by subsidizing construction of new roads and transit programs through revenue streams disconnected from the use of those roads and transit facilities. When the cost is free, the quantity demanded is potentially limitless. That’s Economics 101. The only way to moderate demand is to make those who use the system pay for their use.

      The only way to restrain spending on roads and transit in the long run is to establish market discipline upon the transportation system. If that means, among other things, imposing a “gas tax” user fee in place of the opaque mix of taxes, fees, penalties, bonds and revenue surpluses that we have now, then so be it. But that’s something the Republicans, who once believed in market principles, have steadfastly refused to do. If the Republicans find themselves in trouble with the electorate this fall, it’s because opposing “statewide” increases in “taxes” while simultaneously abetting ever-growing spending is not a formula that most Virginians will buy into.

    • Fairfax Taxes: Feel the Pain

      Posted on

      by

      James A. Bacon

      I never cease to be amazed at the passivity shown by the million-plus citizens of Fairfax County in the face of higher taxes. But as onerous as the tax burden is now, it will, in all likelihood, get even worse.

      A couple of straws in the wind… First, this from the Times-Community newspapers:

      Fairfax County is anticipating an even tougher 2009 budget year than previously expected, after revised housing market analyses and fiscal forecasts show a potential shortfall of $120 million because of flat revenue growth. …

      Long said county planners anticipate a 4-percent drop in value for residential properties and, as better numbers are available, that figure may even worsen. …

      To make up the combined county and school deficits – which planners estimate to be around $250 million – an increase of 10 cents would be required on the real estate tax rate.

      “I can assure you, we ain’t gonna do that,” board chairman Gerry Connolly told the newspaper. So he says. But the pressure for a combination of spending cuts and higher taxes of lesser magnitude will be intense.

      Meanwhile, there’s this news from the Washington Post:

      The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors is planning to vote next month on a proposal to raise the tax rate on retail, office and warehouse properties to pay for up to $110 million a year in transportation improvements.

      It looks like we have the makings of a perfect storm in commercial real estate. According to the Times-Community acrticle cited above, the commercial real estate sector is way overbuilt. Only 13 percent of the seven million square feet of new office space has been leased. In the Dulles corridor alone, 97 percent of office space under construction has no future occupant. Add to that, the slowdown in federal spending on defense, intelligence and homeland security means businesses won’t be expanding as fast as they have been since 9/11.

      A lot of people are feeling a lot of pain. A couple hundred million dollars in higher taxes will only make it only worse.

      • Now Available

      Book cover of 'Dust Mites: A Second American Revolution' by James A. Bacon, featuring astronauts planting a flag with a blue and white emblem on a lunar landscape, with Earth visible in the background.
      For sale on Amazon.com

      The year: 2075. The American colonies on the Moon are getting restless under Washington’s tyrannical rule….

      This second edition of “Dust Mites” has a snazzy new cover, includes helpful lunar maps, and is 5,000 words tighter than the original. The sequel, “Trogs,” is scheduled for publication this summer.

      Advertisement

      Advertisement

      Advertisement

      Advertisement

      About

      Bacon’s Rebellion is Virginia’s leading politically non-aligned portal for news, opinions and analysis about state, regional and local public policy. Read more about us here.

      Fund the Rebellion

      Shake up the status quo! Your contributions will be used to pay for faster download speeds and grow readership. Make a one-time donation by credit card or contribute a small sum monthly.

      Can’t wait until tomorrow

      For your Bacon’s Rebellion fix?

      Enter your email address to receive immediate notifications of new posts by email.

      SUBSCRIBE

      Search Bacon’s Rebellion

      Categories

      Archives

      The Jefferson Council

      Protecting Thomas Jefferson’s Legacy at the University of Virginia

      Forgot Your Password?

      Shoot me an email and I’ll generate a new password for you.

      Latest