Bacon's Rebellion

Michael Shear with the Washington Post tells the story of the behind-the-scenes maneuvering of Republican leaders in the General Assembly to overcome their differences and cobble together a compromise transportation “solution.” What comes through very clearly: Fear of retribution at the polls drove the compromise. Writes Shear:

Shocked by George Allen’s loss in last year’s U.S. Senate race and fearful of losing their majority in the elections this fall, the top lieutenants in the House of Delegates and Senate put aside years of philosophical differences and personal hostilities during closed-door meetings arranged and hosted by Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell (R).

The resulting legislative package, as outlined in this blog, was a bastardized hybrid of incompatible philosophies. The only good thing I can think to say about the financing piece of the compromise is that it avoids a statewide general tax increase. But if the regional components in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads are enacted, the deal would pump about $1.1 billion a year, plus $2 billion in bond proceeds, into a broken transportation system. Most of that money would be wasted, and the impetus for fundamental reform would be lost.

Legislators can respond that other pieces of the package will “fix” the system and ensure that the money is well spent. The land use reforms are a useful step in the right direction, but they are woefully incomplete. The VDOT reforms also are useful, especially the requirements for performance standards, which would prioritize transportation projects that actually mitigate congestion. But so many aspects of the transportation crisis remain unaddressed, as I’ve enumerated in previous posts, that the “fix” will go only skin deep.

The question now is how Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and his fellow Democrats will respond. There is much in the compromise they don’t like. It won’t take much opposition for the entire contrivance to collapse. But there is political risk: They won’t have much leverage in the 2007 elections if they torpedo the compromise. In a podcast analysis of the compromise on the Bearing Drift blog, J.R. Hoeft and Brian Kirwin suggest that the Dems have no choice but to go along.

I suspect that they’re right. Gov. Kaine is enough of a realist that he will hold his nose and go along, especially if he can get concessions on two things. One is a measure that would empower local governments to reject rezoning requests that would overload local transportation networks. Second is a measure that would create a fund for smart road projects.

But passage of the package is far from inevitable. It is the nature of compromises, that there is something in the package for everyone to dislike. It could unravel quickly if a powerful lobby like the home builders digs in its heels. I’m tempted to say that would be the best thing.

Jim Bacon will be staying on top of the “transportation / land use” issue with blow by blow postings. The MainStream Media and those standing for election in November call this “solving Virginia’s road crisis.” Others call it “the mobility and access crisis” which, along with “the affordable and accessible housing crisis,” have the potential, if not intelligently addressed, to continue the Commonwealth’s citizen on the path to economic, social and environmental Collapse.

The scope and details of the proposed “road” solutions will change from day to day during the current “short” legislative session. So will the arguments for and against each part of the ghastly omnibus / compromise package. Perhaps what is most useful at this point is a fresh way to present the true nature of the current “solution.”

Lets try this:

Suppose everyone in the Commonwealth depends on the Big Barn to shelter their resources and to provide for continued economic prosperity, social stability and environmental sustainability.

Lets us further assume that everyone agrees the Big Barn is in grave disrepair and if the political leadership of the Commonwealth does not do something they will be thrown out of office come November.

Upon careful review it is determined that just making the Big Barn bigger will not solve the problem. The Big Barn needs to be better and more resource efficient, not just bigger. The Big Barn needs a new foundation, better structural components and there must be a way to reduce the amount of stuff the Big Barn is expected to shelter for citizens, their enterprises and their institutions.

The reasons that these Fundamental Changes are necessary are based on the physical laws of barn construction / capacity, the economic laws of cost / availability of resources and democratic reality:

In a democracy with a market economy it is not sustainable for the Big Barn to only shelter the resources of those at the top of the economic food chain.

It turns out that the deterioration of the Big Barn has gone unaddressed because fixing it will gore the ox of those who make a big profit from Business-As-Usual. Anyone who puts forward a proposal for Fundamental Change in Big Barn management faces opposition from the special interests that pay for the political process. (See PROOF POSTIVE posting)

Any Fundamental Change proposals, and the those who make them, are doomed because education of the voters about the realities of the Big Barn have been thwarted by the Business-As-Usual interests.

In this context we can see how the legislative compromise to solve the mobility and access crisis looks a lot like a wonder cure for the Big Barn.

The grand compromise package for fixing the Big Barn is:

Charge all citizens a lot more money regardless of how much stuff they put in the Big Barn – a pure case of the tragedy of the commons.

Use taxes, fines and borrowed money to make the Big Barn bigger, using the same materials and the same designs that are now failing.

Paint the Big Barn a high tech color so it will look really good in November.

Add a new roof fabricated by the mobile home industry and paid for with the naming rights acquired by a smokeless tobacco product – in other words, a real public / private partnership.

Who will profit from the Big Barn repair job? The ones who have been kind enough to provide the bull for fund raising bull roasts.

Who will get hosed by the Big Barn repair job? In the long term every citizen of the Commonwealth.

It is very clear that without fixing the underlying problems and addressing the need to cut demand the whole New Big Barn will collapse. But not to worry, it will happen after the November election.

EMR

The funding mechanisms in the GOP transportation package are a Frankenstein monster of ill-fitting body parts hideously stitched together. They are atrociously, terrifyingly bad.

If enacted, the funding package would sever any connection between those who use the transportation system and those who pay for it. This transportation package would subsidize people who drive more and it would do nothing to reward people who drive less. Bikers, pedestrians, telecommuters and bus riders would support the road warriors who drive 30,000 miles a year. Only a lunatic detached from reality, or a politician… forgive me, for I repeat myself… would think that such as scheme would ameliorate traffic congestion.

The financing package would rely heavily upon General Fund revenues, much of it collected from income taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, lottery profits and the like, which have no relationship whatsoever to how much someone drives, when they drive or where they drive. The same can be said of the proposed $2 billion in bond issues and, to some degree, the $590 million that would be raised yearly for projects in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads.

Better for the entire GOP package — even the worthy reforms — to go down in flames than for this abomination to be enacted in law.

The Republican transportation package recommends a number of valuable reforms, but it omits at least three critical components to any meaningful re-shaping of Virginia’s transportation system.

Technology. Other than a bill that would require all tolls to convert to electronic payments, the GOP package fails to utilize promising new technologies.

• Intelligent Transportation Systems would put more real-time traffic information in the hands of commuters and businesses.
• Traffic light synchronization could increase the capacity of road corridors without the expense of adding new lanes.
• Modeling & Simulation could provide planners with more powerful tools to examine the system-wide impact of transportation improvements, enabling them to allocate construction dollars more precisely.

The Kaine administration wants to create a $20 million fund to advance ITS projects in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads. It’s not much, but it’s $20 million more than the GOP plan provides for.

Telecommuting/Telework. The relationship between workers and the workplace is undergoing a seismic shift not seen since the advent of the industrial revolution. Technology allows hundreds of thousands of Virginians to work at home all or part of the time. The state could do far more than it has to encourage telework, which would take commuters off the roads or, at the very least, give them the flexibility to drive to work during non-rush hour periods,

Mass transit deregulation. This topic isn’t even on the radar screen, but it’s vital. One way to reduce traffic congestion is to get more people to use more shared vehicles. But taxis are highly regulated, jitneys are outlawed, and bus systems are government monopolies. As a consequence, there is shockingly little innovation. The General Assembly needs to think seriously about deregulating the shared-ridership sector with the vision of encouraging entrepreneurs to find creative ways to serve the public.

The GOP legislative package is so ambitious that it’s hard to fault legislators for failing to address every conceivable transportation strategy. But technology, telework and mass transit deregulation are critical. They must be addressed — if not this year, then next.

Before launching into criticism of the funding proposals in the GOP transportation package, which I regard as an unmitigated disaster, let me say something positive. The compromise contains some very promising ideas for reforming land use, aligning transportation and land use and overhauling the Virginia Department of Transportation. It represents only a start, but the proposals, if enacted, would move Virginia in the right direction.

Some of the highlights:

• Establish performance measures for congestion and safety. Currently, the state approves road construction projects for a wide variety of reasons, including “economic development,” a vague term subject to manipulation by regional and development interests. This bill would require VDOT and the Commonwealth Transportation Board to set goals for safety and traffic mitigation and to consider them when funding projects. The impact, presumably, would be to prioritize projects that addressed congestion as opposed to those that open up new land for development.
• VDOT outsourcing. Require VDOT to outsource or privatize functions that can be provided less expensively or more effectively by the private sector. Good idea. My only question: Why stop with VDOT?
• Reclassify roads. VDOT would take a fresh look at state roads to classify them as primary, secondary or urban. The reclassification matters. First, because it affects which roads qualify for which pots of money. Second, because it’s a precondition to transferring responsibility for secondary roads to local governments.
• Electronic tolls. Convert all tolls in Virginia to electronic payment systems. The technology works — why not use it?
• Local subdivision roads. The state would stop admitting local subdivision roads into the state system. Either local governments or homeowners associations would have to maintain them. This is necessary because local governments approve subdivision roads without considering the cost of maintaining them or their impact on traffic patterns. Local officials would make different decisions if they knew they couldn’t pass on the cost to VDOT.
• Urban Development Areas. Require local governments to designate areas where they’re prepared to provide public services. Developers still could build outside these areas, but local governments no longer would be obligated to extend roads and public services to them at public expense. From a high-altitude perspective, I think this is a good idea. But the devil is in the details. Let’s see how the debate goes.
• Urban Transportation Service Districts. These would be developed areas where local governments would take over responsibility for building and maintaining roads. Another idea that sounds good in theory — but let’s see the details. My one concern is a provision that would allow local governments to charge impact fees on development outside the districts. I’d like to get a better idea of the thinking behind that provision.

While this package addresses the problems of fast-growth counties, it is incomplete. It does nothing to stimulate re-development and revitalization of Virginia’s cities or its older, urbanized counties. It does nothing to create communities with a balance of jobs, housing, stores, services and amenities. It does nothing to address the beggar-thy-neighbor competition between counties for commercial tax base or the hostility to permitting affordable, accessible housing, which isn’t perceived as “paying its own way.” Even if this package passes, an iffy proposition at best, there still would be lots of work to do.

Michael Hardy, Jeff Schapiro and the Richmond Times-Dispatch have outdone themselves with the headline and lead paragraph of their transportation story today:

Fees, fines for roads proposed
GOP plan relies on bonds, increased fees and fines, and $250 million from schools, police and the poor.

Republicans hope to finance Virginia transportation improvements with the government credit card, by siphoning significant dollars from schools, police and the poor and raising taxes and fees for drivers and homeowners.

Funny, I don’t recall the news reporters of the Times-Dispatch using the pejorative description “financing … with the government credit card” when characterizing Warner administration initiatives to issue bonds for parks and college construction projects. Apparently, issuing long-term bonds to underwrite acquisition/construction of long-term assets is prudent finance when executed by Democrats but reckless when proposed by Republicans.

As for “siphoning significant dollars from schools, police and the poor,” the charge may parrot Democratic Party talking points — “Sen. R. Edward Houck, D-Spotsylvania, a budget negotiator, emphasized, ‘We should not pave roads in Virginia at the expense of schoolchildren and frail, elderly nursing home patients’” — but it is never backed up in the story. The fact is, the Republican plan wouldn’t cut a dime from existing programs. A number of politicians are concerned that transportation would compete with schools, health care, etc. for future dollars, but that’s a very different story.

It’s bad enough that two experienced political writers would craft such a lede. It’s even worse that no one on the T-D copy desk failed to call them on it — and, worse, would replicate the offense in the headline. Tom Silvestri, read the treatment of this story by other Virginia newspapers. Then sit down with the editorial staff for a little chat explaining the difference between writing news stories and writing editorials.

Washington Post
Virginian-Pilot
Roanoke Times
Free Lance-Star
Washington Times

(For the record, I am not defending the Republican road-financing plan, which I regard as a horror and abomination and will criticize in a future post. I simply expect the Times-Dispatch to uphold the fundamental tenets of journalism.)

There’s nothing like reopening old emotional wounds to promote racial reconciliation. I feel so warm and fuzzy I’m ready to start singing Kumbaya… Not.

The rhetoric emanating from Del. Don McEachin’s resolution to exact an “apology” from the General Assembly for slavery, Jim Crow and other assorted wrongs is escalating. Now, reacting to comments by Del. Frank Hargrove (see “So Much for Racial Reconciliation“), the Virginia National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is calling for Hargrove’s censure.

Writes the Associated Press:

In often emotional and seething comments Thursday, state NAACP director King Salim Khalfani and four black religious leaders said nothing short of an apology by the Republican Party and a formal rebuke of Hargrove would satisfy them.

“The handwriting of the past is still riding upon the slaves today because we’ve never gotten our therapy, we’ve never dealt with it honestly because this is Virginia, this is the 51st state – the state of denial,” Khalfani said.

After the news conference, the group confronted Hargrove in his office. “We think that’s very insensitive for you to say blacks should just get over it when you haven’t walked in our shoes,” Khalfani told Hargrove.

I wouldn’t expect much else from Khalfani, who wouldn’t have much of a job if African-Americans didn’t perceive themselves as perpetual victims. It’s in his self interest to keep Africans seething with a sense of injury and injustice, even if the perceived offenses are getting so subtle, nuanced or hard to define than many people fail to see them at all. If the Khalfanis of the world can’t find any real racism to combat, they’ll manufacture some.

But I do expect better of elected legislators like McEachin, who ought to be working on constructive measures — such as improving the educational system, fighting crime, reviving inner city neighborhoods or promoting minority entrepreneurship — that will have a tangible benefit for their constituents.

Like it or loathe it, there is no other word to describe the General Assembly’s compromise on transportation and land use in Virginia: monumental.

The legislative package represents one of the most far-reaching overhauls of Virginia’s transportation and governance since the Depression-era organization of the modern-day transportation system in 1932. If a deal can be reached with Gov. Timothy M. Kaine — and given his previous rhetoric, it is difficult to see how he can do anything but tinker on the margins — Virginia state and local government will be sorting through the implications for years.

The press release issued by the General Assembly leadership can be viewed here.

The Governor’s reaction: “We have concerns about some elements of this proposal, but I recognize that this is an early – and significant – step in the legislative process.” Read his press release here.

The Attorney General’s office has issued a statement, which I will link to as soon as it is posted online.”

The grand compromise includes the following three elements: transportation funding; land use reform and a realignment of state and local responsibilities for road maintenance; and a radical overhaul of the Virginia Department of Transportation.

• Reform “linking transportation and land use.” The package includes all of the major governance reforms introduced by the House of Delegates in the September 2006 transportation special section and modified slightly for this session. These allow for (1) the creation of “urban development areas” in fast-growing counties, (2) the establishment of “urban transportation service districts” whereby Northern Virginia localities can take over responsibility for secondary roads, and (3) a ban on VDOT accepting any “local subdivision roads” into the state system for maintenance.
• Transportation funding. The transportation funding package would raise $500 million annually in recurring statewide revenues from the General Fund, the General Fund surplus and a variety of other sources. This would be supplemented by $2 billion in bonds issued over five years. Additionally, regional transportation authorities would be able to raise up to $383 million a year in Northern Virginia and $209 million a year in Hampton Roads to spend regionally.
• VDOT reform. The package envisions sweeping reforms for the way VDOT does business. It would (1) institute”quantifiable and achievable goals” relating to congestion and safety; (2) put VDOT functions for competitive bidding; (3) streamline the environmental review process; (4) require tolls to be electronically automated; (5) reclassify primary, secondary and urban roads to bring them in line with current function; and (6) allow the General Assembly to elect at-large members to the Commonwealth Transportation Board.

That’s just the highlights, folks. This is massive. I’ll follow up tomorrow with commentary on the package and a critique of the Mainstream Media presentation of it.

Let’s hope there’s money in the transportation compromise crafted by the General Assembly (to be announced at 4 p.m.) for one of the cooler initiatives in the Kaine administration’s proposed transportation package. Bacon’s Rebellion reporter Peter Galuszka sat down earlier this week with transportation secretary Pierce Homer and technology secretary Aneesh Chopra to get the skinny on their proposal to create a $20 million fund for Intelligent Transportation Systems. (Read the article, “ITS Wits.”)

The Kaine administration would use the money to spark ideas and public-private partnerships for applying information technology to congestion-mitigation projects in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads. The top priority would be to put more real-time traffic information into the hands of commuters and businesses so they can alter their routes or travel schedules to side-step gridlocked roads. As I have stressed repeatedly, Virginia cannot build its way out of traffic congestion: We must address the demand side of the equation as well. Intelligent Transporation Systems are one potentially cost-effective way to do that.

The Virginian-Pilot is reporting that the leadership of the state Senate and House of Delegates have agreed to a compromise transportation plan that will include a combination of tolls and fee increases. The $2 billion package calls for issuing bonds and redirecting revenue from the General Fund. Additionally, the package calls for regional plans for Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads. The Hampton Roads plan would include $200 million a year for local projects, funded by an increase in the real estate for most businesses.

Details of the announcement will be forthcoming around 4 p.m. today.

I’ll never forget trying to help an old man and his wife try to find his way out of Richmond. He was heading north but had taken a wrong turn and ended up in a residential neighborhood. I explained how to get back on the Interstate, but I could tell he wasn’t absorbing my instructions. I was heading in the general direction of where he needed to go, so I offered to show him. Hopping in my car, I guided the old man onto the Powhite Parkway and then, when Interstate 95 North veered off to the right, pointed vigorously to the exit as I continued on my way.

Oooh. Tough luck. He got confused and took the I-95 South exit instead. As he sank into the distance in my rear-view mirror, I wonderered how long it took for the old guy — Petersburg, maybe? — to figure out he was heading in the wrong direction.

The moral of the story is that road markings — even roads as big as Interstates — can be confusing to people who aren’t intimately familiar with them. People take wrong turns, get disoriented and sometimes end up having accidents. Wrecks are bad in and of themselves — people get injured, even killed. Wrecks also tie up traffic, often causing back-ups and aggravating congestion. Anything we can do to reduce the incidence of automobile accidents is a good thing.

According to Tom Holden at the Virginian-Pilot, the Virginia Department of Transportation is using more reflective sign materials, putting bigger typefaces on signs and painting bolder highway markings to help make driving a little easier. Along some sections of interstates, VDOT is painting interstate shields directly onto the pavement so that drivers are clear about what road they’re on.

The changes should be helpful to motorists with poor eyesight and slow reaction times, a number that grows as the population ages. Better interstate signs certainly would have helped the old guy I tried to assist. The measure may be modest but it’s also relatively inexpensive. VDOT should be commended for a small but welcome change.

(Better signs and markings, incidentally, were on the list of reforms recommended last year by former VDOT Commissioner Philip Shucet shortly after leaving the post. They join the list of ideas on that list — outsourcing maintenance, soliciting design-build contracts, and creating access-management plans for road corridors — that have been implemented to a greater or lesser degree since then.)

If Del. Don McEachin, R-Richmond, hoped to initiate a “healing process” with his resolution apologizing for slavery, he didn’t get off to a very good start yesterday. Del. Frank Hargrove, R-Hanover, took exception to his resolution and made some remarks that some perceived as outrageous. Tempers flared and accusations were hurled.

The exchange was magnified by the media, of course, which loves nothing better than a good cat fight. “Hargrave offends blacks, Jews,” stated the front-page headline in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

When it comes to symbolic issues like this, there’s a lot more raw emotion than common sense. Hargrave did use indelicate language to express himself. But the fact is, his words reflected the views of many Virginians. And if there is to be any “reconciliation,” as opposed to “capitulation,” the people who hold such views must be allowed to express themselves rather than being shouted down with cries of fiery indignation. Of course, as I wrote in my previous post, “How About a Resolution Atoning for the Welfare State?”, McEachin’s resolution isn’t really about “reconciliation” at all — it’s about imposing a politically correct interpretation of recent history that absolves a failed liberalism of any culpability for the plight of African-Americans in our society today.

Let’s examine Hargrove’s transgressions.

First, Hargrove made the following statement to the Charlottesville Daily Progress:

How far do these calls for apologies go, wondered Hargrove, a member of the House Rules Committee that could take up McEachin’s resolution as early as Wednesday.
“Are we going to force the Jews to apologize for killing Christ?”

Hargrove wondered. “Nobody living today had anything to do with it. It would be far more appropriate in my view to apologize to the Upper Mattaponi and the Pamunkey” Indians for the loss of their lands in eastern Virginia, he said.

Del. David Englin, D-Alexandria, took umbrage. One of three Jewish delegates in the House, Englin recalled how he was picked on when he was a child because of the misperception that Jews killed Jesus. “I want you all to understand,” he told the legislature, “what it means when people the respect and stature of a member of this body perpetuate the notion that Jews killed Christ.”

Excuse me. We can argue until the cows come home — and historians do — the extent to which the high priests of the Jerusalem temple did or did not force Pontius Pilate’s hand to crucify Jesus. But it is a historical fact that for the better part of 2,000 years, Christians did accuse “the Jews” of killing Jesus. It was not Hargrave’s intent to reanimate the view of Jews as Jesus killers. It was quite the opposite: He was saying that most Christians, who once embraced that view, got over it — and rightly so.

Hargrave also said the following, according to the Daily Progress:

“I personally think that our black citizens should get over it. … By golly, we’re living in 2007. Nobody can justify slavery today, but it’s counterproductive to dwell on that. … Political correctness has kind of gotten us into this area.”

Del. Dwight Jones, chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus, responded as follows: “When somebody tells me that I should just get over slavery, I can only express my emotion by suggesting that I am appalled.”

The point that Hargrave was raising, albeit in a clumsy way, was that nursing a cult of victimization does nothing to improve the lives of African-Americans or to better prepare them to prosper in a globally competitive economy. It’s a legitimate argument; indeed an increasing number of blacks are making it. But aggrieved and offended Democrats don’t want to engage that argument. Calling upon the unassailable moral force of the 19th- and 20th-century struggles to abolish slavery and enact Civil Rights, they want to delegitimize dissenting strategies for achieving black prosperity in the 21st century. They want to drive those views from the public sphere — and call it “healing.”

In Frank Hargrave’s case, I think they succeeded. It’ll be a long time, I wager, before he unfolds himself from his foetal position to speak on the topic again. But that doesn’t mean he’ll change his thinking.

One thing I’ve learned from my marriage: Sometimes the best way to get over an argument is just to stop talking about it. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree, and move on with life. Resolutions like McEachin’s don’t reconcile anyone, they don’t heal anyone. If not time to “get over it,” it is indeed time to “move on.”

Del. Chris Peace, R-Mechanicsville, is forming a state task force to study textbook reform in Virginia.

The goal, as discussed in “A ‘Textbook’ Study of Knowledge-Wave Education Policy,” is to devise an end-run around monopolistic textbook manufacturers, who publish school books geared to the curricula of bigger states like California and Texas. Through use of shared texts and print-on-demand printing technology, Peace thinks he can save taxpayers millions of dollars each year and better align the content of textbooks with the Virginia Standards of Learning.

Peace is assembling a list of people who would like to participate in the study. If you have something to contribute, let him know your interests and your qualifications at [email protected].

The big cultural wedge issue in this year’s General Assembly session comes not from the right but from the left. Del. Don McEachin, D-Richmond, has submitted a bill that calls for “atoning for involuntary servitude of Africans and calling for the reconciliation of all Virginians.” It pays to read this bill carefully and to note what it says and does not say.

The bill commences by reciting the horrors of the Atlantic slave trade and the practice of slavery in the United States and Virginia, and then recounts the injustices of the Jim Crow era. If the bill stopped there, I wouldn’t find it terribly objectionable. (I say that with certain reservations. As Jim Bowden points out in his recent column, “Our Humblest Apologies,” the McEachin apology provides a lopsided, context-deficient account of history.)

But McEachin doesn’t stop there. He links the evils of slavery to the present time.

An apology for centuries of brutal dehumanization and injustices cannot erase the past, but confession of the wrongs can speed racial healing and reconciliation and help African American and white citizens confront the ghosts of their collective pasts together. … Racial reconciliation is impossible without some acknowledgment of the moral and legal injustices perpetrated upon African Americans. …

Throughout their existence in America and even in the decades after the Civil Rights Movement, African Americans have found the struggle to overcome the bitter legacy of slavery long and arduous, and for many African Americans the scars left behind are unbearable, haunting their psyches and clouding their vision of the future and of America’s many attributes. …

In the Commonwealth, home to the first African slaves, the vestiges of slavery are ever before African American citizens, from the overt racism of hate groups to the subtle racism encountered when requesting health care, transacting business, buying a home, seeking quality public education and college admission, and enduring pretextual traffic stops and other indignities.

This document does not merely ask Virginians merely to apologize for slavery — it asks that Virginianscollectively accept moral responsibility for the condition of African-Americans today. Further, it asks us to accept facts that are demonstrably untrue (that African-Americans are the victims of racism in college admissions) and facts that are arguably untrue (that African-Americans are discriminated against by mortgage lenders and providers of health care). And it does so without ever mentioning the devastation wreaked upon the African-American community by the modern welfare state. So, while Virginians apologize for the sins of long-dead ancestors, McEachin does not request anyone to apologize for the facts that:

• Great Society urban-clearing programs devastated African-American neighborhoods and disrupted the social cohesion of African-American communities in cities across the country.
• The problem of endemic African-American unemployment did not exist until after the introduction of Great Society welfare policies.
• Violent crime rates among African-Americans skyrocketed after the introduction of the welfare state and liberal attitudes towards law enforcement.
• The break-up of the nuclear African-American family and the surge in out-of-wedlock births occurred after the introduction of the welfare state.

Of course, acknowledging that the welfare state, not slavery or Jim Crow, is what created the African-American underclass, hence is responsible for most of the suffering of living African-Americans, would require McEachin to apologize policies that he endorsed and defended.

My sense is that McEachin really isn’t interested in apologizing himself. He’s looking for others to do the apologizing. McEachin isn’t interested in “racial reconciliation” — he’s just another liberal playing the racial blame game.

State government is plodding in its embrace of technology to deliver services to the public, but the fact that it is plodding suggests that it is moving forward. A case in point: As part of its outreach program, the Department of Business Assistance is holding a webinar tomorrow about the state’s eVa procurment system. States Director Louisa Strayhorn:

Think about it: no traveling, no traffic, no unfamiliar conference room seating. Just you, us, and an opportunity to help your business without leaving your business. Not only is it more convenient for you, our customer, but it will allow VDBA to reach more customers at less cost. As a taxpayer, you’ve got to love that!

Yes, as a taxpayer, I do.