Bacon's Rebellion

  • Meet the New Bottleneck, Same as the Old Bottleneck

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Controversy is brewing over a $75.6 million project that would expand westbound Interstate 66 in Arlington from two lanes to three over a 10-mile stretch. The main foe of the project: Arlington County.

    As Eric M. Weiss reports for the Washington Post, project supporters say the roadway has become a regional chokepoint. Widening the road would improve traffic for commuters heading west in the evening, as well as reverse commuters heading for the Dulles corridor in the morning. But Arlington County leaders, who have opposed widening the Interstate inside the Beltway since it opened in 1982, argue that the project would simply replace existing chokepoints with others — at great expense.

    Says Chris Zimmerman, a member of the Arlington County board of supervisors: “We’ve called for years for a multi-modal study to see what alternatives would be most effective in improving mobility in the I-66 corridor. All of that is being bypassed.”

    I don’t know the particulars of Interstate 66, so I can’t comment on it. But the project reminds me of the clamor to build the Third Crossing in Hampton Roads. That crossing would tie into the existing Monitor-Merrimac bridge-tunnel just before it touches ashore in Newport News. The traffic from the two bridges then would funnel onto Interstate 64, which is already so congested that traffic routinely backs up for miles. From what I can tell, all the multi-billion dollar Third Crossing would do is move the chokepoint from the two existing bridge-tunnels to a point a few miles west on I-64.

    Traffic projects must be evaluated in the context of the larger transportation system. When spot improvements can eliminate a bottleneck and restore free-flowing traffic, they may warrant funding. But when projects simply shift the location of bottlenecks from one location to another, they would seem to be an utter waste of money.

  • The Curtain Drops on Act One of the Transportation Debate

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Except for the mutual backslapping, the lawmaking is over. HB 3202, the Comprehensive Transportation Funding and Reform Act of 2007, is now law.

    House Speaker William J. Howell is touting the bill, not without reason, as the most significant legislative initiative on transportation introduced since 1986. The Republican caucus came into the session desperately needing a political victory. Howell got a big one. Between the transportation act and other legislation — expansion of the death penalty, protection of property rights, reregulation of the electric power industry — Howell can plausibly claim that “the 2007 Session of the General Assembly will be remembered for being one of the most productive in Virginia history.”

    Gov. Timothy M. Kaine expressed satisfaction as well: “The bipartisan compromise legislation will allow us to make significant and responsible investments in our transportation system. This compromise offers new tools to officials in traffic-clogged Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads to address their regional transportation challenges. The compromise makes significant investments in bus and rail operations statewide, will generate long-needed new revenue for our overworked infrastructure, and protects transportation dollars in a ‘lockbox’ so Virginians can be assured these new revenues will not be diverted to other purposes.”

    So, everybody’s happy. But the story’s not over. Better to say that the curtain has dropped on Act One and that it will soon rise for Act Two. The scene now shifts to the Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads regions, to local governments and to the Virginia Department of Transportation. There are three major sets of issues.

    First, NoVa and Hampton Roads must empower regional transportation authorities to spend about half the new money to be raised. However, a majority of local governments must go along first, which guarantees debate in each locality over what it has to gain and lose from participating. Before that’s even possible, the legislation may have to survive challenges to its constitutionality. Leesburg Today reports that Supervisor Mick Staton, chairman of Loudoun’s Transportation/Land Use Committee, questions whether the regional transportation authority’s taxing powers are legal. “It’s something that needs to be taken seriously,” he said, adding that the board of supervisors “needs to be prepared to defend its citizens, in court if need be.”

    Second, about half the localities in the state will be required to establish Urban Development Areas, where growth, road improvements and infrastructure will be concentrated. That may require extensive changes to local comprehensive plans. Additionally, boards and councils of qualifying jurisdictions will have to consider the desirability of imposing transportation impact fees. That guarantees yet more debate.

    Third, VDOT has a new set of marching orders. More outsourcing, new metrics for rating road projects, reclassification of roads and possibly in some instances, devolution of responsibility for secondary roads to local governments.

    The transportation issue is far from over. Indeed, it’s about to ratchet up to a higher level intensity. Snap on your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen, it’s going to be a wild ride.

  • Get Up, Stand Up

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    National Review’s Jonah Goldberg takes to the pages of USA Today and asks where, oh where, the real conservative is in the GOP presidential field.

    It’s worth reading, if you’re curious. But he touches on another matter that is really far more important:

    The 2000 GOP convention’s theme was “Prosperity with a Purpose,” and in Bush’s acceptance speech he insisted that “American government was made for great purposes.” In some ways, Bush was ripping off Sen. John McCain of Arizona, whose campaign was a homage to Teddy Roosevelt and the need for Americans to unite in a “cause greater than themselves.”

    And while the war gets most of the attention, it has hardly escaped notice that the president is a proud “big government conservative” championing everything from government-funded marriage counseling to a new prescription drug entitlement to the federal government’s intrusion into education.

    In 2003, Bush declared that “when somebody hurts, government has to move.” More recently, he explicitly rejected William F. Buckley’s dictum that conservatives should yell “Stop” to ever-expanding government, saying instead that he believes conservatives must “lead.” This makes for an interesting prologue to the 2008 election.

    Yes it does. More than the war, I think, the 2008 race will (or ought to be) a referendum on oxymoronic big government conservatism. In some ways, the seeds of that referendum are already sprouting. Some of the right are looking to bolt the GOP and focus their resources on changing the culture (good luck with that). The economic conservatives (and libertarians), too, are discontented. The explosive growth of the entitlement state under Bush, his surrender on the “Ownership Society” and the logrolling, pork barreling habits of the congressional wing of the party are making it more and more difficult for some of them to continue to lend their time, money and votes to the edifice George has built. Not a small portion of the GOP’s congressional losses could be placed on the doorsteps of these disillusioned factions.

    So far, the top tier choices in 2008 are, as Jim would say, a dog’s breakfast of would-be authoritarians, wing nuts (Tom Tancredo, call your office), and horses so dark they don’t even show up on radar.

    Some say the bold choice, the “dangerous” choice, is Newt. Yes, yes it would be dangerous. But the nation has probably had its fill of cads in the Oval Office, so he’s not exactly a wise choice.

    Fred Thompson? Okay, sure, he’d be a telegenic candidate. But is there anything inside that suit? I don’t know.

    My preferred candidate is South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. But he’s not running. That leaves…just about no one.

    Maybe it’s time to go fishing.

  • In Virginia, Medicaid HMOs Are Working

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    A rare piece of good news on the budgetary front. It looks like payments to Medicaid HMOs will plateau next year — a welcome respite from the 4-percent to 7-percent annual increases that have been typical in recent years.

    As David Ress reports for the Richmond Times-Dispatch, an outside consultant is crunching numbers to set the rates the state will pay next year to its Medicaid HMOs, who administer the taxpayer-funded program for the poor and disabled. Said Patrick W. Finnerty, director of the Department of Medical Assistance Services: “It’s not looking like we’re going to see the kind of increases we had been seeing; it looks like that is flattening.” Indeed, HMO profits are hefty enough that the state actually could order a cut in Medicaid HMO rates.

    The HMOs have cut expenses while improving quality by introducing programs such as preventative care for newborns, diabetes and asthma.

    What the story doesn’t tell us is what percentage of the total Medicaid budget the HMOs account for. If it’s a large percentage, Virginia can look forward to a slowdown in the increase in total Medicaid spending, one of the state’s main budget busters. If it’s a small percentage, then the Kaine administration should seek to extend the HMO concept to a broader cross-section of the population.

  • The Greening of Fairfax County

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Gerald E. Connolly, chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, wants to make Fairfax County more green. In the “Cool Counties” initiative he launched two weeks ago, Connolly aims to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that result from automobile emissions and coal-fired power plants that generate electricity. He has taken on a formidable task.

    Fairfax County has an embedded infrastructure of buildings, roads and utilities — an investment worth hundreds of billions of dollars — built to serve automobility. Much of the development in th ecounty is scattered, disconnected, low density and energy inefficient. In describing Connolly’s challenge, Amy Gardner with the Washington Post hones in on the Fairfax County government complex as a monument to dysfunctional land use.

    The 670,000-square-foot government center, built in the early 1990s when energy prices were low and environmental consciousness even lower, could have anchored a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented community of homes, shops and jobs. “But,” Gardner writes, “the five-story mass of granite and glass, which rises squatly from an isolated, 86-acre sea of asphalt and lawn near Fair Oaks Mall, is suited to nothing of the sort. For years, critics have said the government center is an emblem of sprawl: far from Metrorail, sequestered by divided highways, intimidating to walkers and bicycle riders.”

    Of about 11,000 county employees, only 135 are known to use bus, rail or vanpools to get to work. The ratio is even smaller at the 2,900-parking-spot government center, where about 1,700 county workers are based. Gardner paints a word picture of an empty transit bus “creeping from shelter to shelter in a vain search for a rider. Not a single pedestrian was in view on the sidewalks and trails leading away from the building.”

    The “Cool Counties” initiative is designed to decrease government emissions of greenhouse gases by increasing the use of wind power, clean-burning vehicles and environmentally friendly building techniques. But Connolly concedes that it will take more than carbon fluorescent lightbulbs and hybrid cars to transform a government whose physical form, as Gardner puts it, “mirrors the expansive suburb it serves.”

    Connolly envisions a future in which the government center is surrounded by a more urban feel: affordable housing for county workers, more commerce and jobs — and even an extension of Metrorail along Interstate 66.

    Reading between the lines: The Greening of Fairfax County will require a built environment more hospitable to pedestrians and mass transit. And that will require the demolition and rebuilding of half the roads, buildings and utility infrastructure in the county. Even in the absence of political resistance and bureaucratic lethargy, that will take decades to complete. Connolly will not live long enough to see his vision fulfilled. But it’s accomplishment enough if he can get the process started.

  • Studying Illegal Immigration and Crime

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    People have a lot of opinions about illegal immigration, but there’s precious little data to back up their views. That’s about to change in Virginia. The Virginia State Crime Commission, according to the Associated Press, is establishing a task force to study the effect of illegal immigration on the state’s criminal justice system.

    State lawmakers, frustrated with the federal government’s inaction on immigration reform, are taking on the issue. About 50 immigration-related bills were introduced during the 2007 General Assembly. “And each year, we still have almost no facts to base our decision upon,” said [Commission Chairman Kenneth Stolle, R-Virginia Beach].

    Virginia is home to an estimated 250,000 to 300,000 illegal immigrants. The crime commission will will examine crimes by and against those immigrants and tabulate the financial impact of those crimes.

  • Train a Grande Vitesse

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    It’s not often that I give the French credit for anything other than their wine, but this is too good to ignore: A new train with a 250,000- horsepower engine and special wheels has broken the world speed record for conventional trains. Reaching 357.2 miles per hour on a 125-mile run between Paris and Strasbourg, the bullet train is exceeded in speed only by Japan’s magnetic levitating train. (Read the AP story.)

    Maybe the romance of the rails is suspending my capacity for critical thinking, but I think it would be surpassingly cool to link major East Coast cities in the United States with rail like this — even if it means importing the technology from one of the most anti-American countries on the planet. The speeds would be competitive with short airplane trips — and they could drop off passengers in city centers rather than airports on the metropolitan periphery. Think about it — from downtown Richmond to downtown Washington, downtown Norfolk or downtown Raleigh in less than an hour!

    Of course, I have absolutely no idea what it would cost to upgrade the rail lines to accommodate such a train — the number is probably frighteningly high. But it might make a good long-term investment if we consider the projected rates of increase in electricity vs. aviation fuel. Electricity has its drawbacks, as I’ve blogged here frequently, but I’ll take a home-grown coal- and nuclear-powered energy source over an imported fuel dependent upon the vagaries of international politics any day. The usual caveat applies: All such projects must offer a competitive Return on Investment compared to other potential transportation projects.

  • Kaine Backs Green Measures in Electric Rereg Bill

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    On the subject of electric reregulation (see previous post), it’s going to happen whether we like it or not. Last week Gov. Timothy M. Kaine implicitly endorsed the framework of the electric reregulation bill passed by the General Assembly, although he did amend it to promote conservation and renewable fuels. According to the Governor’s website, his amendments would:

    • Give the State Corporation Commission more authority to consider keeping Virginia’s electricity costs competitive with other southeastern states when setting rates
    • Double the conservation and efficiency goal for Virginia’s electric utilities
    • Continue green-power tariffs for Virginia’s consumers and strengthen provisions for renewable energy use
    • Create more incentives for clean electricity generation
    • Provide faster refunds to utility customers
    • Provide additional flexibility for industrial and commercial consumers to use competitive electricity providers.

    Said Kaine: “My primary goals in amending this bill were to ensure that appropriate consumer protection measures were in place to keep Virginians’ electric rates among the lowest in the country, and to ensure that electric companies have incentives to conserve energy, produce cleaner energy, and take other steps to protect the environment.”

    I agree with Kaine’s big themes and priorities. But, frankly, I haven’t had a chance to delve into the details of how he proposes to achieve them. I’m crossing my fingers and hoping these amendments constitute a genuine improvement to the original bill.

  • Is Virginia Dumping Electric Deregulation When It Can Finally Do Some Good?

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    I’m less than impressed with the quality of thinking brought to bear on the issue of electric deregulation and reregulation in Virginia. Deregulation of the electric power industry in Virginia, almost everyone has concluded, was a failure. The question that no one deems worthy of asking is this: Why was deregulation a failure?

    Could it be that “deregulation” is a misnomer? Consider the fact that when Dominion, the state’s largest power company, “deregulated” in 1999, it did so on the condition that its rates remain frozen for 10 years, with some exceptions for fuel costs. Is it possible that potential competitors were scared off by the knowledge that Virginia’s electric rates, already lower than the national average to begin with, would not increase for 10 years? Who would want to compete under those conditions?

    Here’s what else proponents of reregulation are not considering: “Deregulation” coincided with a period of time when Dominion did not need to build any new base-line power plants. The utility was able to import cheaper electricity over electric transmission lines from the Midwest. But that source of power can no longer be counted upon to accommodate future demand growth in Virginia. Dominion plans to embark upon a multi-billion dollar construction program to build its own power plants. “Reregulation” will ensure that Dominion has the field to itself: It doesn’t have to compete with outsiders to add that capacity.

    Another baneful effect of regulation, argues Jerry Ellig, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, is that it will inhibit innovative pricing policies that could promote conservation. Writes Ellig in the Times-Dispatch today:

    Competition could facilitate dynamic pricing options that would vary retail electricity prices as the cost of producing electricity changes over the course of the day. Like cell-phone plans that offer free night and weekend minutes, dynamic electricity pricing would let consumers save money by moving some of their electricity use to times when electricity is cheap to produce, such as late at night.

    With less electricity demanded at “peak” times, fewer new power plants would be needed, and prices would be lower.”

    “Transparent price signals that better reflect the actual cost of power give consumers incentives to seek out novel products and services that better enable them to manage their own energy choices,” notes Lynne Kiesling, a lecturer in economics at Northwestern University who has studied dynamic pricing experiments around the nation.

    Don’t expect that kind of innovative proposal from monopoly utilities. Forced to charge the same price all day, regardless of cost, they can increase their profits only by selling more electricity and building more power plants.

    Electricity markets have changed in unanticipated ways since Virginia passed its restructuring legislation, so some regulatory changes may be necessary. But with higher prices all but certain, it makes little sense to abort consumers’ right to choose.

  • Party Poopers

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    So my first BR column is up. And of course, there’s a lot more I’d like to add to it.

    Like a different photo of me. One where I don’t look like Garrison Keillor’s bastard son.

    But more to the point, after doing some additional reading on conservatives and their discontents, I stumbled across this passage in Ryan Sager’s “The Elephant in the Room.” It adds some additional, and not entirely complimentary, light on the various and several pouts of Richard Vigeurie:

    In the years before the organization of the Evangelicals, a related group of conservatives, known as the New Right, had been seeking political fortune. Led in part by direct-mail pioneer Richard Vigeurie, this band became extremely dissatisfied with the Republican Party after Nixon’s resignation and Ford’s choice of Nelson Rockefeller as his vice president. They were so mad, in fact, that they agitated openly for a social-conservative alliance with the Democratic Party, or for conservative Democrats to join conservative Republicans in starting a third party.

    Their agitation fell apart when Ronald Reagan said “no.”

    So the latest Vigeurie, et al, stirring is in many ways just a 30 year old retread. But there are some critical differences this time, the most glaring of which is someone of Reagan’s stature to talk people off the ledge. For all their other attributes, Rudy, John, Mitt and the rest just don’t have the same hold on the conservative imagination. And folks like Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and, yes, our own Jim Gilmore may have “it” to a very small degree. But the chances of any of them becoming the GOP nominee — let alone one that galvanizes conservatives nationwide — are on the wrong side of none.

    Who could be that shining, Reaganite knight? George Allen was supposed to be the one, but instead of the Gipper, we got Bill Buckner. Fred Thompson? Well, he’s pretty smooth with a teleprompter. But he’s not in (yet). And what of (libertarian) internet darling Ron Paul?

    Not going to happen.

    Until that magic someone appears who can calm the angry conservative beast, unite its warring factions under a single banner and sound an optimistic message for the future, conservatives will either become more disconnected from the GOP and thus eager to form a long-threatened “third force” or…they may simply back away from politics entirely.

    They should pack along a copy of “Waiting for Godot,” just in case.

  • Brain Games

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    In past posts, I’ve highlighted the systemic problems in Virginia’s educational system — an industrial-era model laboring to keep pace with a knowledge-era economy. The problems run deeper than the bureaucratic, top-down funding and administration of our public schools, which answer to masters at three levels of government: local, state and federal. The problems run deeper than anything that giving poor kids vouchers to attend to private schools can solve. At its root, our educational system, public and private, pushes children through standardized curricula in age cohorts, regardless of the pace that individuals are capable of progressing.

    There’s another problem facing American education today: the corrosive influence of our popular culture. I’m not talking about the usual suspects such as entertainment media drenched in sex, violence and vulgarity — as bad as that is. I’m talking about terrible nutrition, inadequate sleep and the debilitating effects of electronic media upon brain development. I explore these cultural epidemics in today’s column, “Brain Games,” based on an interview with Dr. Susan Hardwicke, founder of kSero Corporation, which operates a cognitive development center in western Henrico County.

    The context of the article is Gov. Timothy M. Kaine’s push for universal pre-K education. The logic behind the program, estimated to cost $300 million a year, is that ensuring children a year of quality pre-K education will improve their academic performance in later years, reduce the number of high school drop-outs, and yield financial rewards in the out years through a lower incidence of welfare, crime, drug abuse and other costly social pathologies.

    I don’t have a problem with applying life cycle analysis to public policy, although I have yet to see numbers demonstrating a financial pay-off of pre-K to taxpayers, much less an analysis that takes into account the time value of money and the 10- to 20-year delay in generating a financial return.

    What I suggest is that Virginia’s school children — and I’m not just talking about “at risk” kids — are facing more immediate problems. Nutrition is a disgrace. Childhood obesity, with an accompanying risk of diabetes, is becoming routine. The same nutritional regime that causes obesity also impairs brain development, and it increases behavioral problems — sugar rushes followed by sugar crashes — that make it difficult for children to concentrate and apply themselves in class.

    Likewise, many children aren’t getting enough sleep. The temptations are omnipresent: for pre-teens, logging long hours on the computer, interacting with friends through instant messaging; for teens, partying into the night. Parents are increasingly unable or unwilling to enforce sleep discipline among their children. Yet sleep is necessary for the brain to consolidate learning. Lack of sleep also makes kids tired and less alert at school.

    Finally, kids are overdosing on television, computer games and other electronic media, which are especially harmful to brain development in young children.

    Here’s my question: If our concern is cognitive development, could $300 million be more effectively spent on educating children and parents about nutrition, sleep and electronic stimuli? Wouldn’t changing the self-destructive aspects of popular culture have a greater, and more immediate impact than teaching pre-schoolers to recite their A,B,Cs, which they’ll be learning in Kindergarten anyway?

    (Disclaimer: I serve on the board of directors of kSero Corporation.)

  • Rebellion Lite

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    The April 2, 2007, edition of Bacon’s Rebellion has been published. You can view it online here. Never miss an issue — sign up for a free subscription here.

    The Rebellion has fallen into temporary torpor, as several regular columnists were unable for a variety of personal and professional reasons, to deliver a column this edition. All the more reason, though, to focus on those who could contribute this week!

    Brain Games
    Want Virginia children to excel in school? Spending $300 million a year on universal pre-K may not be the best solution. Try teaching kids to eat right, get enough sleep and stay away from the television.
    by James A. Bacon

    Twilight Zone Politics
    The Reading First program has boosted children’s reading performance in schools across Virginia, but it may fall victim to the surreal politics of No Child Left Behind.
    by Chris Braunlich

    The Party’s Over?
    Some conservatives are looking for a way out of the Grand Old Party.
    by Norman Leahy

    Green is Good
    Virginia needs a comprehensive plan to encourage conservation and renewable energy. Here’s what it should look like.
    by Margi Vanderhye

    Nice & Curious Questions
    Connecting with the Earth: Organic Farms in Virginia
    by Edwin S. Clay III and Patricia Bangs

  • The Emerging Debate over Impact Fees

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    The Washington Post is the first Virginia newspaper to explore the significance of the impact-fee amendments that Gov. Timothy M. Kaine inserted into the transportation bill likely to be approved tomorrow by the General Assembly.

    The measures would allow local governments to raise money not only from developers requesting rezoning for their projects but by-right development where no rezoning is needed. At $20,000 per lot, the measure could provide up to $520 million for a county like Prince William, which has about 26,000 lots available for development.

    The predictable issue is the fairness of financing road improvements on the backs of newcomers. The advantage for local politicians is that people who will buy houses some time in the future, by definition, haven’t bought them yet and, in many cases, may not even live in the locality in question. Non-residents don’t vote. Residents do.

    But the home builders lobby argues, rightly, I think, that impact fees will drive up the cost of new housing. And, because new housing prices set the benchmark for old houses, impact fees will drive up the cost of housing stock generally. Of course, that, too, is likely to be a crowd pleaser among existing voters, most of whom are home owners. Not only will existing residents not pay for the transportation improvements, impact fees on new houses will make their houses more valuable in the bargain.

    What we don’t know yet is the extent to which higher housing prices in fast-growth counties will encourage developers to leap-frog to farther-out jurisdictions that haven’t imposed impact fees. What will the consequences be as citizens wind up driving even further to work and clogging more miles of Interstate and arterials? At this point, that’s anybody’s guess.

    The impact fees strike me as a blunt instrument. They treat all forms of development on the same basis. But some forms of development are more transportation-efficient than others. Mixed use development is preferable to traditional segregated land uses. Grid streets provide more connectivity than cul de sacs. Compact, pedestrian-friendly development along bus and rail lines provide a mass transit option that low-density development does not.

    By varying the impact fees based on the anticipated transportation impact of the new development — charging less for transportation-efficient development and more for scattered, disconnected, low-density development — local governments could stimulate the building of more sustainable human settlement patterns. Combine variable impact fees with Urban Development Areas and the devolution of responsibility for secondary roads to local governments, and we could see major changes in the built landscape. In theory, at least. In actual practice, we have to brace ourselves for the law of unintended consequences as people act in all sorts of perverse and unpredictable ways.

    In any case, Virginia politics is entering a new phase. After four or five years intense debate on the state level over transportation, the discussion will shift to local governments as they begin implement Urban Development Areas and decide whether or not to impose impact fees.

  • Save Money, Conserve Energy, Protect the Environment — Buy a CFL Today

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    I’m so proud of myself. I finally did it: I installed my first two energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs. Talk about a great Return on Investment! The CFLs I purchased at Wal-Mart (note to Ed Risse: This was a neighborhood Wal-Mart, I didn’t have to drive across town to get there!) cost about twice as much as a regular light bulb — about a buck or two more. But the bulb lasts 10 times longer, and it is touted to save $30 over the life-time of the bulb.

    Installing CFLs comes as close to a no-brainer as it’s possible to get. When viewed as a consumer expenditure, anyone who doesn’t buy CFLs is a fool. When you also consider the social benefits — less electricity consumed, reduced need for power plants and intrusive transmission lines, less pollution from coal-fired power plants — then it becomes a moral imperative as well.
    People: Get out there right now and stock up on CFLs!

  • Republican GA Integrity Test

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Have your Republican member of the General Assembly take this test.

    1. Fill out this form for Hampton Roads.

    Year $millions of taxes and fees Total Miles of Congestion Reduced (from 2007)
    2008
    2009
    2010
    2011
    2012
    2013
    2014
    2015
    2016
    2017
    2018
    2019
    2020
    2021
    2022
    2023
    2024
    2025
    2026
    2027
    2028

    What is the url for this source of information?

    2.The difference between a tax and a user fee to the taxpaying citizen is?
    a. Taxes come from the left pocket and fees come from the right pocket.
    b. Taxes soak the rich and fees just punish folks on fixed incomes.
    c. Taxes are what politicians pledge not to raise and fees are what politicians increase.
    d. Democrats raise Taxes. Some Republicans will raise taxes more than Democrats. Some Republicans will raise taxes, but not as much as Democrats. But, only Cong. Tom Davis calls a user fee – a tax.

    3. The Republican Creed of Virginia principle of limiting government means?
    a. Creating a new level of government at the Regional level without amending the Constitution (because the Voters will reject it again).
    b. Creating an extra level of government where appointed officials are elected to other offices – and saying that is an ‘elected’ government with a straight face. Also, saying ‘no taxation without representation’ without being struck by lightening.
    c. Creating a new level of government so as to not put bonds before the voters – as the Virginia Constitution requires – and hide the legal debt of the Commonwealt, cities or counties legally in a shell game.
    d. Creating a new level of government without checks and balances, no separation of powers, no oversight – except a book balancing audit – as a jobs and cash program for friends of elected politicians.

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