Bacon's Rebellion

The Trust for America’s Health has given Virginia its highest score among all states, tied with Delaware and South Carolina, in an evaluation of preparedness for major health emergencies. The report, “Ready or Not? Protecting the Public’s Health from Disease, Disasters, and Bioterrorism,” awarded federal response efforts with a D+.

Said Gov. Mark R. Warner in a press release: “Virginia has again been recognized as a national leader for its commitment to preparing and protecting our citizens from public health emergencies.” Virginia was one of only two states that received points for “plans, incentives, or provisions to ensure continuity of care in the event of a major outbreak.”

The Senate’s START group on transportation has gotten more attention, but the smaller and less ambitious House Transportation Subcommittee No. 4 met for the final time yesterday, and Delegate Leo Wardrup (who chaired the sub and the full committee) used the “other business” section to send up a few signals on his priorities for the coming session.

He started by downplaying some of the talk about 2006 being “the” transportation session and said while he is chairman transportation will remain a major topic every session. Then he starting ticking off items he expected to see introduced. He did not explicitly say they are House Republican priorities or consensus items. He also didn’t say it was a complete listing.

1) Additional fund for local revenue sharing programs, as mentioned in the Athey release a couple of days ago.

2) Some changes in the composition of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. He didn’t say they would be legislative appointments, but I kinda doubt they want to give that power to, say, the roadbuilders or even the Piedmont Environmental Council. I expect some effort to require legislative appointments along with the gubernatorial seats, and it has some legs in the Senate, too.

3) Making it easier to use design-build, increased maintenance outsourcing (the word mandatory slipped his lips) and continued revisions and tweaks to the Public Private Transportation Act.

4) Vague references to new revenue, and/or the dedication of existing revenues. The only thing he mentioned specifically is the return of the “abuser” bill that imposes added civil fines on driving infractions and directs the money to the transportation funds.

5) An even more cryptic reference to some additional form of legislative oversight of the transportation effort in Virginia.

One popular fix with many legislators — at least at election time — got another dose of cold reality. Delegates William Fralin (Roanoke) and Tom Rust (Fairfax) reported that their working group on the funding formula would be recommending no changes. Only about one in five transportation dollars goes through the traditional highway formulas anyway. “We’re not going to reformulate our way out of the transportation problems,” Fralin said.

Gee, we’re not going to tax our way out, pave our way out, reformulate our way out. Despite all the utopian dreams we’re not going to railroad, broadband, bus or land use plan our way out, either. We need a new anti-whatever catch phrase by session.

For some folks, any new state spending is always a pitiful drop in the bucket that just barely begins to address the massive problems caused by chronic underfunding.

Governor Warner’s announcement of $255 million in university research matching funds elicits that reliable response from a Roanoke Times editorial.

Governor Warner has the “right idea,” but …

Virginia needs to spend still more on higher education.

The state’s investment in R&D, as in instruction, is lagging.

Virginia has some catching up to do.

Base funding for higher education … remains woefully low.

Dedicating a half-billion dollars for research is only a start.

All these unmet needs, not to mention transportation and cleaning up the bay. Raise my taxes now as a “start.” My taxes surely are “woefully low” compared to those utopian states, like Michigan, a Times example, where research flourishes.

Please note I’m not even mentioning their shot at Republicans who seek “instant gratification.”

Michael Shear with the Washington Post has written a story describing how Virginia Republicans are split on the meaning of Jerry Kilgore’s loss. The differences he describes are real enough, and there’s nothing objectionable about the main thrust of his story. But his use of language is revealing.

— “The party’s true-blue foot soldiers, bloggers and activists … had vocally urged Kilgore to be more doctrinaire about taxes, abortion, guns and gays.” Doctrinaire? Oh, really? In other words, when conservatives urge candidates to hew to principles, they’re doctrinaire. What do we call the moderates when they hew to their principles? Are they, too, “doctrinaire,” or merely “unprincipled”?

— “Phillip Rodokanakis , the head of an anti-tax group called the Virginia Club for Growth….” Anti-tax? As in, opposed to taxes generally? Might not anti-tax increase be more appropriate? As in, opposed to raising taxes?

— “Gilmore’s insistence on cutting the car tax crashed headfirst into the desire for investment among leading Republican senators.” Ah, so increased government spending and taxes by “moderates” becomes “investment.” It’s as if they weren’t calling for increased spending and taxes at all.

— “In the wake of Kilgore’s loss and the defeat of several arch-conservative legislative candidates last month, the pro-investment wing of the Republican Party is offering a different lesson for the future.” Here we get a two-fer. Shear contrasts “arch-conservative” candidates to the “pro-investment” wing of the Republican Party. He neglects to explain what the “pro-investment” wing of the Party wants to “invest” in. Presumably, he is referring to “investing” in massive highway and transit projects. By implication, those who favor alternative strategies — reforming land use, implementing asset-management programs at VDOT, promoting telework, synchronizing stoplights, instituting demand-management programs — are against “investment.”

— “Several moderate Republicans are hoping the lesson for their party is that being extremist doesn’t win legislative elections.” So, opposing tax and spending increases makes a candidate an “extremist,” does it? Tsk! Tsk! Michael, you need to be more careful!

On December 14th, a press conference will be held in Richmond to announce new “resources” for Virginia businesses interested in providing health insurance to their workers. Governor-elect Tim Kaine is slated to attend; he has been very involved in the small business health insurance issue as Lieutenant Governor. When Kaine and Kilgore debated and moderator Larry Sabato asked what proposal of his opponent each candidate liked, Kilgore mentioned Kaine’s health insurance initiative.

The resources are a website and regional guidebooks. Virginia received a series of three Federal grants, totaling $1.8 million, to study the health insurance availability issue in the state.

Now, don’t get me wrong. The people who have been working with this grant have done some great research. Most of what they discovered, however, is intuitive. I know that studying an issue and alternatives is important before launching into a program. But I cringe when I see a million dollars plus from a grant spent to produce a website and guidebooks. I haven’t seen either in final form and they may be chock full of good information, but I can’t imagine that it’s much more than a compilation of information available in pieces elsewhere.

Maybe I’m a hopeless idealist, but I just can’t help but think that $1.8 million could actually have provided some real health insurance to some real people, using existing resources and the plentiful amount of research and pilot program data that has already been amassed.

A Virginia pilot program could be the next step in the endless cycle of grant, study, report, and new grant. In Will’s world, a candidate comes along who proposes offering only “do something real” grants, wins handily, and keeps his promise.

According to Gov. Mark R. Warner’s website, primary beneficiaries of the proposed state research fund are already known.

The Governor announced that the funding package would support several new research facilities including:

• A bioscience facility and a biocontainment laboratory at George Mason University;
• A Medical Research Building at Virginia Commonwealth University as well as additional funding for the Massey Cancer Center addition;
• Investments in a new clinical cancer center at the University of Virginia; and
• Construction of a Critical Technology Building and an Infectious Disease Laboratory at Virginia Tech.

“According to the National Science Foundation, Virginia’s public and private universities conducted more than $770 million in research and development in 2003 — the latest year for which numbers are available,” said Secretary of Education Peter Blake. “It is our expectation that this initiative will catapult us over the Governor’s goal of $1 billion in research and development well before the end of the decade.”

Speaking at the Virginia Biotechnology Research Park yesterday, Gov. Mark R. Warner said that now is the time, while the state enjoys a booming economy and revenues, to invest in the state’s research universities. Virginia has a lot of catch-up to do. As Michael Hardy with the Times-Dispatch reports:

“It pains me greatly,” Warner said yesterday, that the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill conducts more research than Virginia’s top two research institutions, Virginia Tech and the University of Virginia, combined.

The University of Maryland “does almost as much as all Virginia universities,” he added.

Meanwhile, Hardy reports, the state’s public colleges and universities have pledged to match Warner’s proposed $255 million state research fund with up to $299 million raised from private, federal and other sources.

Barnie Day could infuriate me like no other columnist. That was the beauty of his punditry: He elicited sharp reactions. He is arguably the most gifted polemicist at work in Virginia today: alternately tart, sentimental and incredibly funny. Even when he skewered me, I usually had to laugh. It’s a darn shame that he’s giving up punditry for a higher calling.

Said Barnie in an e-mail sent out today:

After some thought, I have decided that I will write no more on Virginia politics and public policy. Henceforth, I am going to devote what word energies and sensibilities I have to 2-3 longer projects that have nothing to do with politics, policy, or even Virginia. A few years ago I agreed to write 12 commentaries for the Roanoke Times. Some 200 pieces later, I think I’ve said about enough—and maybe too much. Many of these pieces missed their mark and landed in that territory marked “vacuous, cheap, mean-spirited, lazy, and worse,” and I apologize for them. To everyone who carried these commentaries, or passed them along in one way or another, and to all of you who were so kind as to read them, I thank you. There remains the need in Virginia for a wide and varied discourse on public matters and I hope you will continue to add your unique talents and voices to the fray as you see fit. Merry Christmas.

Barnie, we will miss you. And we wish you well in your new endeavors.

I’m one of the few commentators left, apparently, who thinks that Virginia’s political leadership should return some of the state’s mounting budget surplus to the taxpayers. But that’s not going to happen. So, it’s time to revert to Plan B. The next best use of surplus funds is to invest in programs and initiatives that either (a) expand the tax base through economic growth, or (b) achieve efficiencies that reduce future outlays.

Gov. Warner has announced two new initiatives: creating a $250 university research fund and spending $460 million to restructure state and local mental health services. The research fund, I believe, is a good idea. I don’t know enough yet about the mental health initiative to comment thoughtfully.

Under Warner’s proposal, according to Michael Hardy’s story in today’s Times-Dispatch, state colleges and universities could tap the research fund by matching grants with money they raised on their own. The funds could be used to recruit top researchers, build specialty laboratories or purchase cutting-edge equipment.

A top economic development goal of the Warner administration has been to improve the rankings of the state’s major research universities. To date, no significant gains have been made, mainly because competing research universities are all trying to raise money to improve their rankings, too. The best that can be said is that Virginia research institutions have held their own. This research fund represents the Warner administration’s effort to make good on its promise to higher education.

An investment in university research is an investment in economic growth. When universities succeed in recruiting top research scientists, they usually bring multi-millions in federal research grants along with them. Additionally, intellectual property created by these scientists often can be spun off in entrepreneurial start-ups (although Virginia’s track record in this regard has been mixed).

Virginia universities presidents will have no trouble putting the research funds to use. Instructive is a recent press release from George Mason University:

President Alan Merten called upon [Northern Virginia] legislators to provide the additional funding needed to propel George Mason into a world-class research university that is able to compete for the high-tech and biotech industries that are the foundation of the economic future.

In a plan that asks the state to add $5 million a year for the next five years to George Mason’s current budget, the university would specifically recruit research faculty with national and international reputations to focus on cancer biology and bioengineering; neurosciences and bioengineering; and global biosphere.

According to Merten, the university predicts their research dollars will grow to $150 million in five years with the goal of placing George Mason within the top 100 research universities in the nation.

Endowing a research fund with a one-time shot of $250 million, only a fraction of which would go to to GMU, isn’t the same as increasing GMU’s annual budget by $25 million a year over five years. But Merten is a smart fellow — I’m confident that he, like his counterparts at Virginia Tech, UVa, VCU and elsewhere, can figure out a way to restructure their plans to take advantage of Warner’s idea.

The big news that was new to me at the Huffman Advance wasn’t the handicapping of candidates for state-wide office, which is always great political theater, but rather the R.S.V.P. The RSVP is the acronym for the committee of VA State Senators O’Brien, Cuccunelli, Newman, Obenshain, and Martin to raise money for Conservative candidates for the GA. I asked why they didn’t like “the Gang of Five” as a name, but we agreed that that had too much baggage.

Once upon a time there was a joint Senate and House GOP election fund, separate from the GOP incidentally, to support Republican candidates. Bloggers will add or correct any details I mess up. Now the money, the Virginia Leadership Fund, is under the control of his Lordship Sir John Chichester. So, Conservative Republican candidates need not apply for funds. I understand the Moderates/RINOs/Governing Majority/Apostates – choose your label – control about $2m. That is a nice war chest for 2007 and still growing.

How much will they give to GOP congressional candidates and Sen. George Allen in 06? Or are those Republican races not their concern?

The numbers sort of jump off the page. If the whole RPV operates with less than $3m @ year and hands out probably – using ballpark figures here – $1m, then compare that to $2m controlled by one faction of Lords and the $23m that Jerry Kilgore raised for his race alone.

If the tax increases push $1 billion (and the 04 Chicken Little Tax hike moves more) to special interests that make their living from VA government, then a $1m payment from the special interests to the Lords has a payoff of $1,000:1. Not a bad payoff. Follow the money.

So, how are the RSVPs going to get $2m or more to help Conservatives? Tough call. Gov Mark Warner could do it with his ATM card. Or 100,000 Virginians could contribute $20 @ to pull in $2m. I know there are 100,000 Conservative Virginians with $20 discretionary funds. Problem is that they give now to their churches and synagogues, VCAP, and other good causes for The Cause.

For the RPV or the RSVP to matter more, they need more of the Mother’s Milk – money, money, money. Where is that Republican George Soros?

You can respondez s’il vous plait, to the Republican Senate Victory PAC (RSVP) at P.O. Box 606, Centrevile, VA 201222, s’il vous plait.

Delegate Clay Athey has released a list of nine House GOP initiaitves for the 2006 General Assembly to today’s Winchester Star. You may need to sign on to the site (winchesterstar.com) to read the story. The nine bills he mentioned include several that have been proposed before and some new ones. More detail is likely to follow in coming days, as will more bills.

1) A pre-school sales tax holiday.
2) Increased revenue sharing for local transportation projects. Athey predicts a number of transportation bills, as everyone expects.
3) A tighter definition of “public use” in state law in response to the Kelo case on eminent domain.
4) Medicaid Health Savings Accounts.
5) Incentives for long term care.
6) Continued funding for the Chesapeake Bay clean up and the required local sewage plant upgrades.
7) More enforcement to reduce illegal immigration (as discussed in the campaign)
8) Final passage of the proposed amendment limiting marriage in Virginia to a heterosexual couple and preventing recognition of same sex marriages elsewhere. It passed in 2005, too, so the goal is to have it on the ballot in 2006.
9) Bills to fight the rise of gangs and increased trafficking in meth.

When you go to the legislative information page it has already switched over to the new 2006 template and bills are starting to appear. Snow on the ground, bills being filed. It’s beginning to look alot like…session.

In response to my post and the comments on telecommuting, Del. Tim Hugo emailed us and referred to the bill that was passed last year in the General Assembly and advised us of his new bill:

Many earlier telework efforts focused on identifying telework eligible employees. This bill works on the premise that all employees are eligible to telework unless explicitly prohibited. [Emphasis in original]

I’d like to thank Del. Hugo for reading the blog and championing this issue. James Atticus Bowden responded to Del. Hugo with these thoughts:

This bill is limited to state employees. I would offer this:

You mention incentive programs. You could specify comparing the cost of office rent/maintenance, heat, cooling, light, security, etc. vs telephone and cable at home. (If you have to pay for the costs for the office if the employee is gone, then never mind) Take the cost savings, if it was actual savings or 90% of it say, and put in a fund for managers and workers for year end productivity bonuses.

I recommend that you introduce a general public telecommuting bill. Gotta be careful what you measure and incent (it actually is a transitive verb).

The Commonwealth might reduce the corporate taxes of a business for every person-day telcommuting. In addition, the congested miles of highway (they were noted in the Hampton Roads study to justify the 02 Transportation Tax Scam) not driven (will require specifying the locations and the commuter telling his employer he drives those locations) for every person-mile could be reduced from the corporate taxes. How much? I don’t know in the absence of data. What is the profile for corporate taxes paid by revenue, number of employees etc. If I saw the data I could make a suggestion. It has to be worthwhile to keep the data and keep the worker at home.

Jim Bacon then weighed in:

If you want to provide tax incentives, then Jim Bowden’s methodology is a logical starting point for thinking about hte problem. Personally, I am concerned that our tax code is riddled with too many exemptions already. I’m a firm believer in creating as level a playing field as possible when it comes to taxes: Few exemptions and low rates…. But there are other things that the state can do to promote telework.

(1) The area where the state can legitimately help is in the area of infrastructure — ensuring that broadband is deployed as widely as possible. Broadband connectivity into employee homes is virtually mandatory for effective telework at home. Amazingly, there are large tracts of the suburbs, not to mention rural areas, where broadband is not yet accessible. Similarly, there may be ways for the state to encourage the accelerated deployment of Wi-Fi hot spots, so people can work away from their offices and their homes.

(2) The state can be more aggressive about using telework as a cost-savings tool for state agencies. My understanding is that Sandy Bowen’s study for improving real estate utilization never broached the subject of office sharing. By implementing telework and office sharing in its own departments and agencies, the state could save millions of dollars in office overhead while simultaneously taking people off the road! (I’m sure you’re familiar with John Vivadelli’s thinking on this subject.)

Maybe Governor-elect Kaine needs to have a few “town halls within town halls” to zero in on small, but relatively “doable” transportation initiatives–the pieces of buckshot, like telecommuting, not the “silver bullet” of a big money infusion.

Yesterday Fairfax County Executive Anthony Griffin emailed county employees to remind them of the county’s computer security policies. He led off the email with a discussion of blogging:

There are new communication venues available on the Internet, including blogs (Web logging) which serve as online diaries where one shares opinions and thoughts. Blogs, which are unregulated sites hosted by individuals, media outlets and others, can serve as platforms to share knowledge, foster dialogue and open up two-way channels of communication. Personal blogging is not allowed to be conducted from the county’s technology environment: network, Internet connection or computers. Likewise, personal IT resources (computers, network and/or wireless devices) are not allowed to be connected to the county’s IT resources to facilitate personal uses such as blogging.

Blogging apparently is a special case of personal use of county computers, because “incidental and occasional personal use of the county’s Internet access or electronic communication is permitted,” with a few caveats.

Certainly the county has the right to establish such a policy and to differentiate between various “personal” uses of county computers, blackberries, and the like. Of course, I’ve never heard of anyone being reprimanded for using their personal computer to do county business and I guess Mr. Griffin, emailing on a Sunday from home, presumably using a county computer, takes great pains to move from county computer to personal computer depending on what he is doing. We sure wouldn’t want some county employee blogging on a public issue; it’s much better just to shop online incidentally.

In a similar vein, “Dear Abby” offered a letter from an employer in her column that appeared in yesterday’s Richmond Times-Dispatch:

Please warn your readers that their Web pages and blogs could stand in the way of securing a job! Just as employers have learned to read e-mail and blogs, they have learned to screen candidates through their sites.

Many people in their 20s and 30s wrongly believe their creations are entertaining and informative. Employers are not seeking political activists, evangelizers, whiners or tattletales. They do not want to find themselves facing a lawsuit or on the front page of a newspaper because a client, patient or parent of a student discovered a comment written by an employee.

Abby, ever relevant, agrees and warns job seekers that their names might be googled.

Yes, employers should discount anyone and everyone who dares express an opinion or has done or said something significant enough to appear on a google search. Why bother to read and judge it? It’s much better to hire someone with no google hits instead of somebody who’s written something not expressly to impress the employer as part of their application packet.

When we last saw Gordon Morse in the Washington Post, he was calling Jerry Kilgore a “cracker.” Today, he’s blasting smart growth advocates and anti-taxers in the transportation debate. Of Governor-elect Tim Kaine, “he of the many town meetings,” Morse says, Kaine, “eventually will have to open his mouth. It better be good.”

I’m sure my colleague Steve Haner will take Morse to task for implying criticism of the Governor-elect.

Of the strain of “smart growth” thought that frequents these pages, Morse is dismissive:

Much better, according to the smarts, is to “cluster,” “telecommute” or “levitate” or something. They tell you this in great earnestness, then get in their cars and drive to their 8,000-square-foot suburban enclaves located in a field with a dozen other similar homes just south of Lovettsville.

As we all know, however, it’s the other group that really chaps Morse’s backside:

Then, there’s the “no taxes” bunch, which has gained substantial, though arguably disproportionate, representation in the Virginia political mix. They hold on to their “no tax increases” stance the way a soap company holds on to a favorite slogan. It’s their brand. They’d like to reduce road congestion ever so much but they don’t want to get tagged with the bill.

If Virginia doesn’t get a whole lot of new tax money going into transportation soon, I fear for Mr. Morse’s health.

“Although some [Republican Party leaders] feel the GOP has veered too far to the right, leading to two straight losses for the governor’s race, most … here urged the part to stay the course,” reported Tyler Whitley, a reporter, summing up prevailing sentiment at the Advance, the GOP’s annual retreat at the Homestead.

“When we allow our differences with the Democrats to become blurred in the eyes of the voters, we risk losing,” stated Sen. Bill Bolling, R-Hanover, and lieutenant governor-elect.

“We must stand up for conservative principles,” echoed Del. Robert F. McDonnell, R-Virginia Beach, and attorney general-elect.

Ignore the counsel of “the elite demanding that we abandon our positions, thinking that is the way to electoral sucess,” stated Kate Obenshain Griffin, GOP chairwoman.

That’s all fine and good. Conservative Republican principles of limited government, fiscal conservatism and free markets are wonderful. Those are the principles that animate my writing. But abstract principles are not enough. Abstract principles, by themselves, do not solve problems. Opposing tax increases — a meritorious goal — doesn’t solve traffic congestion, educate our children or build a better health care system.

Republicans need to show how their principles translate into bettering peoples’ lives in tangible ways that voters can understand. I have seen a number of good ideas emanate from the ranks of Republican legislators, but they haven’t gotten much attention. Most of them are technical and wonkish, not designed to capture the imagination of voters. And I realize that the job is difficult when (a) the other party controls the executive branch of government, and (b) a significant wing of the GOP is so brain dead that it can conceive of no alternative to raising taxes and pouring more revenue into Business As Usual programs and policies.

Democrats in Virginia have established themselves as the party of technocrats, the party of good government. They don’t challenge the system — they try to make it run better. To a majority of Virginians voting for governor, that’s preferable to the airing spouting of airy nostrums and the politics of symbolism. Until Republicans can effectively translate their principles into programs for action on the issues that Virginians repeatedly say that matter, they will continue to be denied the governorship.