Bacon's Rebellion

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.

Old soldiers know to discount the first report from the field. So, here is a first report from the Huffman Advance.

The mood is sober, pragmatic and committed. Like a farmer who lost his crop, faces a tough winter, but has enough seed for next spring. I look forward to seeing what our local Daily Press reporter puts in the paper. Saw him and Richmond Times fellow, new guy, forget his name there.

Interesting to see who wants to position for statewide office. Cong. Tom Davis is the most prominent. Sean connection is there.

Bill Bolling gave a great speech, Gilmoresque, this morning. I missed Bob McDonnell’s speech. Love his nickname, if the votes hold up through recount, as ‘Landslide’ Bob. Hope it all goes well honestly.

State Central Committee meeting was a true diversion from the cheerleading exercises and occasional debates on very focused issues. No resolutions to be ignored by some Republican officials this year.

The fundamental problem of the Party, lack of political power, was clearly demonstrated in discussions that I heard. If the Party is to have power, it must truly deliver votes in its own right, independent of the candidate, national mood, etc (I understand those all matter, but think ‘Democrats in super majority Black precincts’ where the Democrat candidate has to be going to jail, literally, for a Republican – like Winsome Sears – to win) (Haven’t seen how new Sheriff Gabe Morgan did in the East End of Newport News – need to check SBE site). Or the Party must control the money.

Right now, a great Party organization can mean up to five or so percentage points, which means a win in close races, but the Party can’t just guarantee cranking out the voters. Then, there is the money. If the Jerry Kilgore raises $23m by himself for himself, then the money the Party controls is chump change.

Until the Party makes votes or money happen, the Party, the Republican Party, is a marginal force for The Good People of Virginia. Yet, still, I think, worth the effort to make it better, more effective and more powerful.

Love him or hate him, you’ve got to credit former Gov. Jim Gilmore with being a fighter. He relishes the rough and tumble of politics, and doesn’t shy away from controversy. Speaking to the press at the annual gathering of GOP luminaries at the Homestead, Gilmore faulted the party for not being critical enough of Gov. Mark R. Warner’s tax and budgetary policies, according to Tyler Whitley, a reporter.

Gilmore questioned the validity of polls that showed Warner with a favorable rating of more than 70 percent. Poll questions were not directed, he noted, to Warner’s broken promise to raise taxes, nor, as Whitley paraphrased it, his “lack of attention” to transportation and education. Also, Gilmore accused Warner of creating a “false crisis” in 2004 to justify a $1.4 billion tax increase.

Some one needs to counter the Warner administration spin on the 2004 tax hike. Thanks in part to a compliant press corps, Warner successfully blamed all of the earlier state’s budget woes on Gilmore, his predecessor. Gilmore deserves much of the criticism, particularly for the shambles his administration made of transportation spending. But the budgetary crisis brought on by the recession had passed by 2004. Despite warnings from bond-rating service Moodys that Virginia’s AAA bond rating was on “watch” status, revenues were pouring into the state Treasury appreciably faster than forecast in Warner’s budget — and the surpluses have been ballooning in size ever since.

Unwilling to offend Warner’s Republican allies in the state Senate, Jerry Kilgore did not make a major issue of the 2004 tax hike in his gubernatorial race. Gilmore, who told reporters that he is interested in seeking elected office again, would be well advised to keep the issue alive. But if he wants to have credibility when he speaks about the budget, he needs to acknowledge the mistakes that were made, particularly in transportation, on his watch.

Momentum, conventional wisdom, or whatever you want to call it seems to be coalescing around a special session of the General Assembly to deal with transportation and presumably new taxes to “fix” the problem. Former Governor Baliles and Chamber of Commerce heavyweights are the latest to jump on this plan, according to Peter Bacque of the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Of course, less than one month ago, Russ Potts, the candidate who forthrightly advocated a special session and more taxes, garnered 2% of the vote.

Now, a special session and new taxes may be the best alternative. Governor-elect Tim Kaine may or may not end up advocating this and/or using his political capital to make it happen. I know that he is a serious man who wants to make a positive difference. But whatever the merits, the fact remains that Virginia voters did not endorse the special session/tax course of action when they were asked on November 8th.

Call me old-fashioned, but I like to vote for both a candidate and his/her plan. If my candidate is elected, I expect him/her to try and implement his/her plan. If the candidate I didn’t vote for is elected, I expect him/her to try and implement his/her plan and I will respect the mandate the voters gave. It appears that in Virginia, elections aren’t about anything but personalities and image. Whoever wins is free to pursue whatever post-election plan is cooked up with the powerful interests that favor it. Unaffiliated citizens with just one vote apparently aren’t the majority of speakers at the transportation town halls where this “momentum” for a special session and new taxes is being carefully nurtured.

It’s easy to see now why the newspaper editorial boards of Virginia embraced Russ Potts until it came time for their endorsements. He was a convenient stalking horse for the positions they probably believed their endorsed candidate would end up favoring, but they knew he couldn’t express them with the vigor of Potts and win.

In Virginia, win first, then feel free to do what you want.