Bacon's Rebellion

Yesterday, and elsewhere I speculated on a few threads that seemed to have emerged from the primary elections.

After chewing things over with some more folks last night, a few things seem to be coming together. And one of them is that George Allen may have stepped in a steaming pile of trouble.

My sources, and the sources they’ve spoken with, are almost incandescent with rage over Allen’s endorsements and active work on behalf of incumbents like Walter Stosch. Between the direct mail and the radio ads that provided a bit of right-wing cover for Stosch, the sense is that Allen has jilted them (a feeling that’s shared by Benny Lambert — “Lambert said his support of Allen probably cost him his job. ‘I thought the Allen folks would have helped me more, but it didn’t work out that way.’” Welcome to the club, Mr. Lambert).

Whether these hard feelings will remain in place long enough to do Allen any serious, long-term harm is debatable. But they are real enough right now that Allen might have a hard time beating “Other” in a two-way race for dog catcher.

Another very interesting picture emerging is the role and future of VCAP. The organization played no role in the Bell/Smith or Williams/Stall races. Where they did play, the record was, to be charitable, mixed. Some have called VCAP a paper tiger and others wonder if it’s involvement is a liability or a help. Given its resources, the organization is no paper tiger. But its role in future races will be a subject of debate in conservative circles for some time.

There were a few humorous pictures that came out of Tuesday’s results, as well, including the victory of Joe Morrissey in the 74th district. Morrissey is…colorful. Disbarred from the practice of law, noted for his fightin’ manner (literally) and so much more, he managed to win over the former incumbent, Floyd Miles, and one-time Richmond city council member Jackie Jackson. Morrissey had former Doug Wilder advisor Paul Goldman in his corner, which makes it logical to wonder whether Joe isn’t Wilder’s (unspoken) choice for the seat. When you add that Wilder (quietly) helped Reva Trammell oust Jackson in their in their council race in 2006, it makes for even more entertaining speculation.

But on a happy note, my Sorensen classmate Margie Vanderhye won the 34th district Democratic primary. I may disagree with her policy ideas, but there’s far more to life than politics. She’s just good people, and the HOD could use more folks like her.

“Moderates Defeated in VA Primary: GOP Ideological Struggle at Heart of VA Races” shouts WaPo‘s front page.

Do not hyperventilate about the Primary results regardless of clan identity.

The following is based on the expertise that comes from being an Independent who supported some candidates that won and chatted up the political insiders who gathered at last night’s victory parties.

There were half a dozen prime RINOs in the hunt.

Two retired. The RINO-in-chief’s hand picked candidate won in a pre-Primary political process.

While Donkey clan members might rather run in November against the anti-RINO candidate that was indicted on 11 counts of election fraud during the primary campaign (See our post “I Am Not Making This Up”), they should settle for someone from Hunt Country when most of the votes are in the Valley where Potts was popular.

Of the other four, two won and two were defeated. All the margins were narrow, in light turnouts.

It is hard to believe there were not 758 Donkey Clan members in the First Senate District who like to get out on election day and who would rather see a new someone WaPo says signed a petition to end “government involvement in education” rather than an entrenched incumbent.

RINO hunters did not do that well — plus there is an ideological vs personality / incompetence spin that can be put on every race — in the contests which we know the participants.

It may sell papers but seems just plain silly to feature a quote from a RINO hunter such as “The people have spoken, and it is time for a change. It is time to stop raising taxes in Virginia.”

True conservatives would do better to urge their supporters to start saving more and consuming less and buying a lot of insurance.

Governance of contemporary society is expensive. Effective government that addresses pressing issues of Mobility and Access, Affordable and Accessible Housing, Food Security Air Quality, Water Supply and Adequate Health Care will be spending a lot more money.

What this election said to many we spoke to was that the political process is broken, badly broken.

It is to easy, however, to see the glass half full when your candidate won.

EMR

So long, folks, I’m off to another vacation — a week in Wyoming to visit my daughter in Jackson and to take a side trip to Yellowstone National park. I’ve set aside some time for some half-day hikes, a white-water rafting ride and consumption of excess calories at a variety of Jackson restaurants. (I’m hoping to dine upon my first buffalo steak.) In my spare time, I’ll be reading Jim Bowden’s newly published book, “Rosetta 6.2.”

I’ll pack my laptop, but I don’t expect to spend much time blogging. I’ll check in on Bacon’s Rebellion to see who’s saying what, and I may have something to contribute if something profound strikes me about human settlement patterns in Wyoming. Otherwise, I’m counting on Ed Risse, who has been saving a couple of posts for my absence, to keep things lively. If we’re lucky, maybe Jim Bowden or Norm Leahy will weigh in on the meaning of tomorrow’s primaries.

“Dear Fellow Citizen:”

“I started this race with integrity, dignity and an honest pledge to run a positive campaign, and I intend to maintain that pledge to the end.

“Honoring that commitment, I have avoided comment on my opponent’s 11 felony count indictment. ….”

from full page 6 June ad in Fauquier Times-Democrat for Jill Holtzman Vogel titled “An Open Letter to the People of the 27th District.”

EMR

I feel churlish for making this post. With the best of intentions, Lieutentant Governor Bill Bolling is traversing the state, meeting with people in “town hall idea raisers” to generate new ideas for dealing with education, transportation, health care, the environment and other pressing issues. His goal is a worthy one: to make the Republican Party “the party of issues and ideas,” and to “offer a positive vision for the future of our state.” But, judging by the ideas highlighted in the Lt. Gov.’s snazzy new website, the future of the Virginia looks pretty dim.

There are depressingly few new ideas in the bunch. A distressing number call for launching new government programs and spending new money. Not every idea calls for mo’ money, but most of those that don’t either have been around a long time and have gotten absolutely nowhere, or are so vague as to be meaningless.

A sampling from just the ideas about education:

• Higher academic standards – more opportunities for AP, IB and dual enrollment courses to better prepare college-bound students. Translation: Mo’ money.
• Increase opportunities for vocational education. Translation: Mo’ money.
• Raise teacher pay to the national average. Translation: Mo’ money.
• More money for colleges and universities. The title says it all: Mo’ money.
• Freeze tuition for in-state students. Translation: Mo’ money.

Then there are the ideas that sound good but are actually meaningless or based on false premises.

• Limit the number of out-of-state students. A false economy. Out-of-state students pay their own way through higher tuitions.
• More accountability in higher ed. Demand performance standards and accountability in higher ed. Sounds good, but it’s vapid. What kinds of performance do we measure? What do we hold universities accountable for?

In fairness, contributors did proffer some ideas for making schools work more effectively.

• More money in the classroom/less in the central office. Only 60 percent of Virginia’s educational dollars end up in the classroom – raise the bar to 65 percent. At least we’re talking about spending existing dollars more efficiently.
• Discipline in the classroom. Specific suggestions include removing disruptive students from the classroom, expanding alternative schools for students with recurrent disciplinary problems, requiring students to wear school uniforms, reinstituting corporal punishment, and increasing the number of “school resource officers.” Mostly good ideas, but let’s see how far they get before they’re shredded in the courts.
• School Choice. Provide tax credits or vouchers for parents who send their kids to private schools. I’m a huge believer in creating a true educational marketplace. But let’s see the details. How do we overcome massive institutional resistance to this idea?
• Competency testing for teachers and repeal of teacher tenure laws. Now we’re talking about real change — subjecting teachers to the same performance expectations as employees in the private sector. But just try to get this past the Virginia Education Association.

Other than school choice and repeal of teacher tenure, most of these ideas would fine-tune the status quo. What they don’t acknowledge is that the public education system is an artifact of the 19th-century industrial era and needs to be reinvented for a 21st-century knowledge-based economy. We won’t achieve that aim by throwing more money at the system, and we won’t even achieve it by removing a handful of disruptive students, putting pupils in uniforms or moving a few thousand kids from public schools to private.

Almost across topics covered, the ideas are mostly superficial, reflecting a superficial understanding of the nature of the problems we confront. Not one of the ideas about transportation touches upon the relationships between traffic congestion and land use. Not one of the ideas about health care acknowledges how state laws impede the efficient working of the medical marketplace. Instead of soliciting the same warmed-over ideas from an inadequately informed public, Bolling needs to study the issues himself, devise his own bold solutions, and then go out and sell them.

Postscript: Has anyone heard a peep out of the Attorney General’s office regarding the initiative to cut government rules and regulations?

The Rockefeller Institute of Government has a new report on the effects of state-level tax and spending limit laws. It’s worth a read, considering the issue has been brought forth a couple of times in the General Assembly but, as with so many ideas, died a silent death in the Senate Finance committee.

Here’s a sample:

We also found that TELs may have different effects on different areas of spending. For instance, when the stringency and restrictiveness of state-level TELs are taken into account, state-level TELs have significant negative effects on the level of state and local public safety spending. Also, when the stringency and restrictiveness of state-level TELs are accounted for, state-level TELs have significant positive effects on the share of transportation spending in total spending (though not its actual level). Our study found no statistically significant impact of state-level TELs on spending in four other functional areas: education, health and hospitals, quality-of-life and amenities, and public welfare.

The analyses also found that state-level TELs have different distributional effects across revenue sources. Not unexpectedly, after the adoption of state-level TELs, state and local governments become less dependent, in terms of revenue share, on property, individual income, and corporate income taxes. Interestingly, they become more dependent for their revenues on fees and charges, such as sewerage charges and lotteries. TELs do not appear to have a significant impact on sales taxes. Finally, they appear to reduce federal intergovernmental transfers to states, perhaps because states are less able to put up state matching funds in order to draw down additional federal dollars (as is the case for Medicaid).

Interesting to note toward the end is the author’s statement that TELs shift revenue sources from the “progressive,” like income taxes, to the “regressive,” meaning fees.

Fees, while they can be regressive for some, may be more rational for the whole, based on the idea of “users pay.” It is somewhat disturbing to see governments become more reliant upon lotteries for funds, as lotteries are perhaps the most regressive, though purely voluntary, forms of taxation (and here is an item on a legal case in North Carolina regarding whether lotteries are actually taxes).

Virginia’s political class has been less than warm to the idea of a TEL in any form. But, as the authors of the study note, most TELs on the books were passed during fiscal downturns, though few have been adopted in recent years. If Virginia follows its pattern, a fiscal bust may happen sooner than people think. Will a Virginia TEL find new life, or any life at all, if that happens?