• In Praise of the Familes of the Wounded Fund

    We take this station break to plug our favorite charity, the Families of the Wounded Fund. Since 2005, the fund has been donating 100 percent of its proceeds to the families of wounded soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The all-volunteer organization spends nothing on administrative staff and overhead.

    Our soldiers get excellent medical care at McGuire Hospital, the VA hospital here in Richmond — one of six major trauma centers within the VA system, specializing in treating spinal cord and brain injuries — but there’s one thing the government can’t do for them. It can’t pay to bring their families and caregivers to Richmond and support them while they’re here. The Families of the Wounded Fund provides money to cover the costs of transportation, lodging, food and miscelleneous expenses.

    Our wounded soldiers have sacrificed so much that we can never repay them. But we can do something meaningful by ensuring that their loved ones can be with them while they recover. If others feel the same way, visit the Families of the Wounded Fund website.


  • More Disinformation from the Times-Dispatch

    It’s bad enough when the Mainstream Media imposes a simplistic meta-narrative on the transportation debate (See my column, “Transportation Abomination“), but it’s impossible for the reading public to understand the issues when a daily newspaper as important as the Richmond Times-Dispatch provides misleading coverage like the article that Michael Hardy and Jeff Schapiro wrote today.

    The thrust of the story is that support is building among the 12 Senate and House conferees for a transportation plan that looks a lot more like the House version than the Senate version. Here’s how the story starts:

    Road plan support builds
    Committee leaning toward the anti-tax House version of bill

    by Michael Hardy and Jeff E. Schapiro

    The compromise on new money for transportation might not be much of one after all.

    With most of the 12 negotiators siding with the anti-tax House on roads and rail, legislators are anticipating an up-or-down vote on a plan that relies on $2 billion in borrowing and diverts substantial tax dollars from education, law enforcement and human services.

    The anti-tax House? The supposedly anti-tax House approved a transportation funding plan that called for the following statewide fines, fees and taxes: (1) abusive driver penalties, $61 million; (2) diesel fuel tax, $20 million; overweight trucks penalties, $30 million; vehicle registration fee, $71 million. Additionally, the House approved packages of taxes that would allow Northern Virginians to increase regional taxes, levies and fees by $383 million a year and Hampton Roadsters by $209 million. My calculator says that adds up to $774 million in new fees, fines and levies. (Important caveat: Those numbers come from the bill as submitted. It may have been modified along the way. Regardless, those are numbers that the “anti-tax” House approved at least at one point.)

    Admittedly, the imposition of new taxes is smaller than what the Senate is calling for, but it’s not what any honest person would call “anti-tax.” Interestingly, Hardy and Schapiro never apply the moniker “pro-tax” to factions in the General Assembly that want to raise taxes even more, even though such a descriptor would be more in concert with the facts.

    As for the snarky comment that the compromise for transportation “might not be much of one after all,” it omits the fact that House/Senate GOP package already represents a compromise of factions that hardly see eye-to-eye.

    Hardy and Schapiro compound their “anti-tax” label with their trope that the GOP compromise plan would “divert substantial tax dollars from education, law enforcement and human services” — a characterization right out of the Democratic Party talking points. In fact, the GOP would take money from the General Fund surplus, not monies allocated to existing programs, which have been lavished with increases in the 15 to 20 percent range this biennial budget — context that also goes AWOL in their articles. Only in the sense that the surplus funds could have been spent on schools and human services programs, launching their funding into hyper-drive, instead of, oh, say, returning money to taxpayers, could it be said that the GOP tax plan would “divert” anything.

    The GOP tax plan is awful — I’ve characterized it as the Transportation Abomination — and I think it deserves to be defeated. But at least I characterize the contents of it accurately. I don’t portray the package as something that it isn’t. I also make my biases plain for all to see. The T-D newsroom still pretends to be objective.


  • Transportation Abomination — the E-zine Version

    I have been much dissatisfied with the coverage that the Mainstream Media has given the transportation debate. Reporters and editorial writers alike have employed a primitive analytical framework for understanding the issues. By and large, the MSM has depicted the debate as taking place between “Democrats” and “moderate” Republicans on the one hand and “hard core”, “anti-tax”, “obstructionist” Republicans on the other.

    As I write in my latest column, “Transportation Abomination” (stealing the headline from a previous blog entry), this schema is largely useless, if not outright misleading. It is absurd to call Sen. John Chichester, R-Northumberland, a “moderate” when he has advocated tax increases that even Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and former Gov. Mark R. Warner, both Democrats, were unwilling to embrace.

    A more useful continuum, I suggest, is between the Big Government party and the Small Government party. The Big Government party consists mainly of Democrats, while the Small Government party consists mainly of Republicans, but there are plenty of exceptions in both camps. Insofar as Sen. Chichester and Sen. Russell Potts, R-Winchester, and others consistently support an expansion in the size, scope and funding of state government, they have far more in common with Democrats of like mind than most Republicans. These gentlemen may have sentimental ties to the GOP, but it is their commitment to Big Government that defines them, not their commitment to the Republican Party.

    But that’s only part of the story. When it comes to transportation, there’s another continuum that cuts across party lines: a spectrum that runs from Business As Usual (the vested interests who buttress the status quo) to the Reformers (those who insist that institutional change must be part of any comprehensive transportation solution).

    Along this continuum, Sen. Chichester has plenty of company among legislators who like things just the way they are: There’s nothing wrong with the transportation that more money won’t fix. Moving towards the middle is Gov. Kaine, who acknowledges that we can’t “build our way out of congestion,” but isn’t willing to spend much political capital in achieving institutional reform. Moving further along the spectrum is House Speaker William J. Howell, who has proposed restructuring the way the state and local governments build and maintain roads, and took considerable political risks to push his vision. At the far end of the continuum are the Smart Growth movement, free marketeers and others who, to varying degrees, call for a total overhaul Virginia’s zoning codes, land use policies and governance structures.

    There is almost no overlap whatsoever between the Reform/Business As Usual polarity and the Democratic/Republican polarity. Indeed, members of both parties include both zealous defenders of, and critics of, the status quo.

    In my column, I interpret the transportation debate as an interplay between Democrats and Republicans seeking partisan political advantage, between advocates of Big Government and Small Government in a battle over the size and scope of state government, and between various constituencies either defending or attacking the status quo.

    Frankly, I did not have the time to carry through this line of thought as thoroughly as I would have liked. But it considerably more helpful, in my humble opinion, in understanding how Virginia has gotten to where it is — with a handful of General Assembly conferees trying to cobble together a legislative package before the session expires — than you’ll read anywhere in the MSM.


  • “Smart Decline”

    For all the talk around BR about growth and planning, what does a community do when it’s in decline?

    A new piece in Governing takes a look at Youngstown, Ohio, a city that’s lost over half its population in the last 30 years. How have city leaders responded?

    Unlike the industrialists who bolted from Youngstown 30 years ago, the mayor canโ€™t simply shut off sewers or stop plowing snow just because those services arenโ€™t economical. What he can do is target city investments where they will pay the greatest return to Youngstownโ€™s quality of life. Williams hopes to entice residents to relocate out of neighborhoods that are too far gone to save. At the same time, he wants to focus on stabilizing transitional neighborhoods and keeping healthy middle-class neighborhoods from wilting. โ€œWhat it means is in many instances you have to start saying no,โ€ Williams says. โ€œThatโ€™s not easy as a public official, when it comes to people with all sorts of ideas that are well intended but not necessarily realistic.โ€

    You may not agree with everything they are doing, but it’s an interesting read.


  • Never Fear, the Rebellion Is Here!

    We’re a day late, but better late than never. You can check out the February 20, 2007, edition of the Bacon’s Rebellion e-zine here, and you make sure to never miss an issue by subscribing here.

    Transportation Abomination
    Mutant offspring of a tortured political process, the transportation compromise before the General Assembly will do more harm than good. It needs to be strangled in the crib.
    by James A. Bacon

    Looking Down the Road
    Even as the General Assembly finalizes its political short-term response to transportation finance challenges, the long-term has arrived.
    by Doug Koelemay

    The Transportation Tax Panic
    The transportation package backed by House and Senate Republicans would raise taxes and create unaccountable regional governments — just to help the GOP survive the next election.
    by James Atticus Bowden

    What About the Children?
    In vilifying Walter Stosch’s tuition grants for disabled children, opponents decry the impact on schools, teachers, principals, even lawyers — but never the children.
    by Chris Braunlich

    Slippery Slope
    Virginia’s Republicans are backing higher taxes and bigger government, ostensibly to save themselves from electoral disaster. They are taking the path to minority status.
    by Phil Rodokanakis

    Falling Short
    The transportation bills before the Senate and House of Delegates conferees fall short of the fundamental reforms needed in transportation planning and priority setting.
    by Stewart Schwartz and Lisa Guthrie

    Reforming Regional Government
    Regional governments in Hampton Roads have a say in taxes, tolls and major investments in critical infrastructure, but the public is largely excluded from decision making. Here are some remedies.
    by Reid Greenmun

    Nice & Curious Questions
    Tea Leaves and Lifelines: Predicting the Future in Virginia
    by Edwin S. Clay III and Patricia Bangs


  • GOOD NEWS CONGRATS JIM

    Good news today! One of the Right WingNut e-newsletters has noted Baconsโ€™ Rebellion at the top of its list of “The โ€˜Rightโ€™ Blogs”

    We were a little concerned that this would tarnish Jim Baconโ€™s pledge to provide all sides of every issue.

    Then we heard that one of the leading Left WingNut e-newsletters was going to put Baconโ€™s Rebellion at the top of its “Best Blogs” list.

    Congratulations Jim!

    EMR


  • A Slight Delay in the Action

    Sorry, folks, I had to attend to a family medical emergency over the weekend. Not only did I have to suspend blogging, but I have to delay publication of the Bacon’s Rebellion e-zine. With luck, we’ll be back on track tomorrow.


  • Disingenuous Daily Press

    Today’s Daily Press (Sunday Feb. 18, 2007) reports the following about the Transportation plans in the General Assembly:

    “That plan also proposed a variety of fee increases and set up regional funding approaches for Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia.”

    Actually, the ‘regional approaches’ are called a ‘political sub-division of the Commonwealth’ in the bills – or in english – a regional government. Regional government not a regional funding approach.

    The fee increases and funding approaches are called taxes. Taxes. New taxes and increased taxes.

    Why would the Daily Press not use clear words – like unelected, unaccountable, unseparated powers Regional Government? Or, let the readers know the Regional Government is almost precisely the same wording as the one they rejected 2:1 across Hampton Roads in 2002? (And across the Commonwealth in rejecting a Constitutional amendment in 1998?)

    Or, mention that the projects INCREASE the congested miles across Hampton Roads?

    Or, that miles driven in Hampton Roads has flat-lined since 2003?

    Does this shaded speech, and omitted facts, have anything to do with the declining subscriptions to the Daily Press?


  • A New Conservative Path

    That some conservatives have become disillusioned with the GOP both in Virginia and nationally is no secret. The reasons are many and they seem to be growing with each passing day. But what to do about it?

    In this American Conservative piece, Paul Weyrich and William Lind say there’s a whole heap of things to do, not all of which bode well for the GOP:

    Real conservatism rejects all ideologies, recognizing them as armed cant. In their place, it offers a way of life built upon customs, traditions, and habitsโ€”themselves the products of the experiences of many generations. Because people are capable of learning over time, when they may do so in a specific, continuous cultural setting, the conservative way of life comes to reflect the prudential virtues: modesty, the dignity of labor, conservation and saving, the importance of family and community, personal duties and obligations, and caution in innovation. While these virtues tend to manifest themselves in most traditional societies, with variations conservatives usually value, they have had their happiest outcome in the traditional culture of the Christian West.

    From this it follows that the next conservatismโ€™s foremost task is defending and restoring Western, Judeo-Christian culture. Not only does this mean the next conservatism is cultural conservatism, it also tells us we must look beyond politics.

    In looking “beyond politics,” takes Weyrich and Lind to culture, where they believe the true battle for a conservative future will be fought (though not, they say, coercively, but by example).

    That many people, and not just conservatives, believe modern culture is a cesspool of corruption, the authors believe that countering its influence effectively means to turn ones back upon it. Who hasn’t had the inclination to toss the television off the roof (as they note Russell Kirk did)? Who hasn’t rolled their eyes over the wall-to-wall coverage of Anna Nicole’s death, or the latest L.A. car chase? I certainly have. Modern culture’s banality can be maddening and suffocating. But it’s also a reflection of who and what we are, or at least who and what the ratings tell the programmers we are. Does this mean we should march back, as Weyrich and Lind suggest, to a 1950s world, where communities were simpler, progress slower, and everyone’s children above average?

    No. Such a world never really existed, at least not for the mass. If anything, this gentle age was golden only for some — while others suffered mightily and needlessly.

    However much their yearning for the past strikes me as unreal, some of the ideas they put forward for a new conservative agenda are worth pondering — including an embrace of New Urbanism, a distancing from the automobile culture and a profound reshaping of the political culture. Are the authors skeptical of the political class? Oh yes:

    Restoring the Republic requires breaking the monopoly of professional politicians and two parties that are for the most part one partyโ€”the Party of Iโ€™ve Got Mine. The next conservatism should promote increased use of ballot initiatives and referenda, term limits, putting โ€œnone of the aboveโ€ on the ballot and requiring a new election with new candidates if it wins, and ending legalized bribery under the name of campaign contributions. Yes, they sell their votes. The two-party monopoly has generated a vast culture of corruption in Washington, and corruption is any republicโ€™s deadliest enemy.

    I can relate to much of this, having pursued (with assistance from Weyrich) the issue of term limits. There is a rot in the political class today. They are, as a group, profoundly shallow and unserious about the nature of the challenges and threats the nation faces. They are also, as a group, lacking in self-awareness, or even something as basic as common sense. None of this behaviour is new. And, to give them credit an ounce of credit, politicians no longer beat one-another senseless on the floor of the House or Senate (though the occasional weapons discharge behind office doors is still not unknown).

    While this is just a part of the Weyrich/Lind thesis, it is representative of what is a much larger and far deeper disconnect between some conservatives and the world around them. For politicians, not just in Virginia, but nationwide, the possibility of these ideas gaining broad acceptance ought to be immediately troubling.

    But I suspect they are not. We have to regulate teen cellphone use first. Then we’ll get to the big stuff. Just so long as it isn’t an election year.


  • Lawyers Need Ethics Rules? Next, You’ll Be Telling Me that Used Car Dealers Do, Too

    The Virginia State Bar, the body that regulates state attorneys, wants to erase an ethics rule “that for a half-century has prohibited the state’s legislators from being employed alongside lobbyists at the commonwealth’s largest law firms,” reports Michael Shear at the Washington Post. Virginia’s rule is stronger than that of many other states, where lawmakers and lobbyists do work for the same law firm.

    But the idea is opposed by some within the General Assembly, such as Del. Clark N. Hogan, R-Charlotte, who say it could create conflicts of interest for lawmakers and lobbyists employed by the same firm, and would accentuate the perception of the legislature as a good old boy’s club “where deals are cut behind closed doors instead of in public committee rooms.”

    Writes Shear:

    Pressure to eliminate the rule in Virginia was sparked in part by Sen. R. Creigh Deeds, D-Bath, who recently joined the law firm of Hirschler Fleischer P.C., a Richmond-based firm with a small lobbying presence. Without the proposed change, Deeds would be violating state ethics rules.

    Deeds, who describes himself as a small-town rural lawyer, said his losing bid for attorney general in 2005 made it nearly impossible to keep his small practice alive. His plans to run for governor in 2009 will require a more stable income, he said. But he said there will be a firewall between himself and the firm’s lobbyists.

    The initiative comes at the same time that Roanoke attorney David Nixon has accused two state senators — Thomas K. Norment, R-Williamsburg and Kenneth W. Stolle, R-Virginia Beach — employed by Kaufman and Canoles, Norfolk’s leading law firm, of conflicts of interest relating to their influence over eminent domain legislation.

  • “Will Growth Shape You, or Will You Shape It?”

    Stafford County, a locality that epitomizes the phrase “dysfunctional human settlement patterns,” is inviting fresh ways of looking at growth as it works on a new comprehensive plan. In a public hearing Monday, a 12-member committee entertained such notions as walkable communities, town centers and mixed-use development.

    Jennifer Buske with the Stafford County Sun reported a number of spot-on comments during a public hearing Monday. Said Lee Quill of Cunningham-Quill Architects:

    “Stafford’s screaming for a sense of place. … The courthouse area has amazing resources and there is tremendous opportunity there to create a town center. … Stafford is growing, I don’t have to tell you that. … So the question is, will growth shape you or will you shape it?”

    “You will be surprised how little land is actually needed to create a great community,” said Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. Stafford has all the parts of a community – civic institutions, subdivisions, strip shopping, roadways and offices – yet they are so spread out that people must get into their cars to complete daily tasks. Mixed-use communities can place stores, schools, parks and other facilities within walking distance of homes.

    “Three-fourths of trips under one mile are made by car and it’s these trips that clog all the roads,” said Ted Smart of Maryland Development Company. “Small neighborhood centers can keep people off arterial roads.”

    Schwartz and Quill also sang the praises of grid street systems: “With a grid, you would be able to shut off a portion of Route 1 in your ‘downtown’ to hold multiple functions – like a parade,” Lee said. “The grid system allows the traffic to disperse.”

    Currently, such smart growth concepts are, in a word, illegal. Stafford planner James Stepowany told the committee that county ordinances and zoning definitions — setback and buffer requirements, height restrictions and other rules — might need to be changed to allow a town center to take shape.

    Moral of the story: Contemporary suburbia does not give consumers what they are looking for. It delivers what developers are allowed to build within the constraints of county codes. There is no free market in land development. There are regulations and subsidies but no free market.


  • Missing in Action

    At last, someone else in the Mainstream Media is asking the same question I’ve been asking: Where is Tim Kaine? The Governor has gone largely missing in action from the transportation debate during the 2007 session even though he has (a) the bully pulpit, (b) veto power, and (c) the allegiance of Democrats in the Senate and House of Delegates who, though they’re a minority, could tip the balance of power between warring Republican factions. Other than urging General Assembly members not to give up on a compromise, Kaine has contributed remarkably little to the debate himself — at least nothing that’s been reported by the press.

    Now comes the Washington Times with an interesting angle you won’t read anywhere else:

    “Virginia Republicans say Gov. Timothy M. Kaine should play a bigger role in helping lawmakers reach a compromise on the transportation budget.” Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, a Republican, said Mr. Kaine has been “missing in action” and thinks he and fellow Democrats would rather see talks fail so they can rip Republicans this fall when all 140 seats of the General Assembly are up for election.

    “I’m not sure what role he has played,” Mr. Bolling said. “When you look at it, the only thing he has done has been counterproductive.” Mr. Bolling said Mr. Kaine offered a transportation proposal last month that was almost identical to a plan rejected last year.

    Kevin Hall, Kaine’s spokesman, insists that Kaine has “worked closely with leaders from both parties in both chambers” to reach a consensus. If so, his labors have been very quiet, behind the scenes and fruitless. Furthermore, whatever he has said, it has done very little to moderate the partisan rhetoric of Democratic legislators.

    I have no inside knowledge. I am merely imputing motives to Kaine based on actions, and I will happily retract my speculations should I hear convincing evidence to the contrary. But I really do have to agree with Bolling. I don’t think that Democrats do want to be part of a legislative solution (unless it’s entirely on terms they find agreeable). They do want to see Republicans fail because they do think they can control the spin (thanks to a compliant MSM) and ride charges of a “do nothing” GOP-dominated assembly to electoral victories this fall.

    While urging compromise in public pronouncements, Kaine does nothing to advance that compromise. He offers no new proposals. He twists no arms. He does nothing to create a dialogue between combatants.

    Don’t mistake my observations about Kaine as a defense of the Republican transportation plan. As far as I’m concerned, the GOP has already compromised itself into incoherence. Their Transportation Abomination is a public policy horror whose financing mechanisms would do more harm than its VDOT/land use reform elements would do good. I agree with those who believe it was cobbled together out of pure political expediency in a desperate bid to stave off electoral disaster this fall. Should the senate-house conferees compromise yet again with the Chichester/Democratic wing of the Senate, it would succeed only in raising taxes, not addressing traffic congestion.

    We can only hope that the GOP conferees have the courage of their convictions, abandon further compromise, and take their case to the voters this fall. Voters rejected increased regional taxes for transportation earlier in the decade. Since then, multiple opinion polls have shown that Virginians do not favor higher taxes as a way to address transportation congestion. It’s time for legislators to stand firm for their principles — and then defend their actions with the voters. If they’re not willing to do that, they might as well go home.


  • How Governments Waste Our Money On Transportation

    A million dollar waste of your tax money ends March 1st in Newport News (Daily Press Feb 13, 2007). The โ€˜Jump Over Jeffโ€™ bus service ends. A Federal grant and some city money paid for service between two new urban shopping/living districts, Port Warwick and City Center which are maybe a mile apart โ€“ โ€˜jumping over Jeffersonโ€™ Avenue. The tax money paid for two buses and drivers. It cost a quarter to ride. The buses averaged 12 riders a day. Twelve. One Dozen.

    Thereโ€™s $1.5m left on the grant, so Newport News bureaucrats will start up a new bus route connecting Christopher Newport University , the centers and a shopping mall until that money runs out.

    Itโ€™s wrong that the Federal government has so much money to throw away in boondoogles. A million here and a million there and soon you are talking about real money (to paraphrase Everett Dirksen). A million dollars more in Medicaid would mean what to Virginia? Or in Social Security?

    Itโ€™s wrong that Newport News would employ a grant writer and covet the money โ€“ just because it is there.

    Itโ€™s wrong for both governments to waste money on a less than brilliant transportation โ€˜solutionโ€™. If there was a economic need for the service a commercial enterprise could provide it. The governments would do well to make sure there are no barriers to bus/taxi/jeepney/rickshaw service โ€“ because if it is needed so much, then the citizens will pay for it.

    This genius for wasting money is the same thinking for the big six projects for Hampton Roads in the Transportation bills in conference committee โ€“ that actually INCREASE the congested miles after 20 years.

    This genius for wasting money is found in the same people who will be running the new level of government โ€“ the same unelected, unaccountable, unseparated powers Regional Government in the same Transportation abortion bills.

    Thanks tax and spend Republicans. Thanks a lot.


  • On to the Conferees…

    Now the Transportation Abomination will be considered by the House and Senate conferees. Reconciling the House and Senate bills will be up to the following individuals:

    House of Delegates:
    Kirk Cox (R-Colonial Heights)
    Morgan Griffin (R- Salem)
    Algie Howell, Jr. (D-Norfolk)
    Tim Hugo (R- Fairfax)
    Chris Jones (R- Suffolk)
    Terry Kilgore (R-Scott)

    Senate:
    Thomas Norment (R- James City)
    Philip Puckett (D-Russell)
    Ken Stolle (R- Virginia Beach)
    Frank Wagner (R-Virginia Beach)
    Martin Williams (R-Newport News)

    This comes from the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance:

    Given that four of five Senate Conferees and all six House members voted for the House version, itโ€™s probably fair to say odds favor the House version. Yet the fact that the full Senate rejected the House version means work remains to be done if a bill is to pass this year.

    Also of note is the fact that architects of the Hampton Roads regional package are on the panel. Northern Virginia was not accorded similar representation.

    And this from Garren Shipley at the NV Daily: Sen. Thomas Norment, R-Williamsburg, an architect of the compromise, is still predicting that the Senate could still support the GOP package.

    Supporting Chichester’s version of the bill is just another way of saying “let me poke my finger in your eye one more time” to the House of Delegates, Norment said. “This vote is easy, man. This is pancakes here. … Voting on the committee report will be the real gut check โ€” because that will be the absolute, last chance to do anything for transportation for the year. When it’s the conference committee or nothing, that’s when you really need to search your souls.


  • Transportation Abomination

    Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has publicly cast his lot with Sen. John H. Chichester and his allies in the state Senate who would burden Virginians with $150 vehicle registration fees on top of all the new fees and taxes contained in the GOP transportation compromise. I’ve lost track of the total tax take, but I suspect that the Senate/Kaine proposal would raise about $1 billion a year in new taxes and fees, if regional levies in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads are included.

    (Read accounts in the Virginian-Pilot, Times-Dispatch, Daily Press and Free Lance-Star.)

    The Axis of Taxes continues to maintain that transportation shouldn’t compete with programs for the widows and orphans who rely upon the General Fund for their sustenance. This is such a bogus argument, yet the Mainstream Media parrots it uncritically. (Brawwk! Polly want a cracker?)

    If anyone in the MSM has noted the statistics cited by Attorney General Bob McDonnell in a statement he released Feb. 4, I have yet to see them.

    State spending has increased at an average of 6% a year over the past decade; a whopping 3% above the growth in population and inflation combined. The argument that core functions of government will suffer because of the Republican compromise plan is absolutely wrong and irresponsible. During the most recent two-year budget cycle alone, the General Assembly increased funding for K-12 education by 19%, funding for higher education by 22%, funding for public safety by 15%, funding for mental health by 21%, and funding for the Chesapeake Bay by a record 38%. Despite misleading sound bites to the contrary, Virginians know that spending for every core function of government has increased dramatically and is now at record levels.

    I am not shilling for the GOP compromise, which would draw upon the General Fund instead of rebate money to taxpayers. But I am calling B.S. on the Kaine/Chichester faction. A 19 percent increase of K-12 education isn’t enough? These guys need more money? How much will it take to satisfy these guys?

    At least when Mark Warner raised our taxes, he also found costs to cut and tried to hold bureaucrats accountable for performance. Kaine and Chichester have largely abandoned the cost-cutting/accountability piece of Warner’s formula and embraced the second. Nary a word from either of them about restructuring the way roads are built and maintained, and only lip service for land use reform. Open the money sluices, baby, it’s spend, spend, spend!

    Update: The Senate version of the Transportation Abomination is even worse than I realized. An e-mail summary from the Home Builders Association of Virginia reports that all the land use components but one, the Urban Growth Area requirement, as well as the prohibitions from accepting new subdivision roads into the state system, have been stripped from the bill — a minor fact overlooked in the newspaper accounts. Bottom line: The Senate bills represents a resounding victory for Business As Usual in every conceivable way. It… must… be… destroyed!