Bacon's Rebellion

Rodney Sobin, of Richmond, penned the following response to my column, “Coping with $60 Oil” (Oct. 31, 2005). As much as it pains me to think that there are people who disagree with me, I thought his comments worth posting on the blog:

Your column makes many good points with which I mostly agree. You are exactly on target in emphasizing energy efficiency. The scope for reducing energy use in transportation, homes, offices, and industry is tremendous, yet Virginia is just about last in the nation in promoting such approaches and the federal effort is anemic at best. And, as is often addressed by Bacon’s Rebellion contributors, Virginia’s land use and transportation policies are sorely lacking in terms of mitigating sprawl, including the automobile and energy intensive lifestyle it engenders.

I also agree with you about the hazards of picking winners. Promoting certain listed technologies often has the unintended consequence of impeding the development and use of other promising technologies or approaches. Instead, policies should promote some target level of performance rather than a particular technology. For example, a tax break or HOV lane access for hybrid cars may benefit someone with an SUV that gets, say, 18 mpg rather than 16. Whoop-de-do. While someone buying a non-hybrid 40 mpg fuel sipper that meets California superultralow emissions standards gets nothing. An incentive based on performance would be technology neutral–if you meet energy and environmental criteria you get the benefit regardless of fuel or engine type. If you have an efficient, clean car, then fine, regardless of whether it burns gasoline, diesel, ethanol, hydrogen, or dung or what type of engine, batteries, fuel cells, or whatever it has.

Where I do quibble with you is on subsidies and tax breaks. I agree with you in principle under close-to-perfect market conditions. But the reality is that conventional fossil energy is highly subsidized, not only in terms of tax breaks and the like but in terms of external costs that are not included in market prices. You and I do not pay for health impacts, agricultural and fishery losses, and ecological damage when we pay at the gas pump or pay the utility bill. Nor do we cover the international political and military costs of oil dependence.

The marketplace is tilted because of these implicit subsidies. For example, using EPA-approved methodologies, it is estimated that 989 deaths, over 1400 heart attacks, and over 23,000 asthma attacks are instigated by power plant emissions annually in Virginia. We don’t pay for these on our electric bills–and the victims are not compensated by utilities or ratepayers. [See http://www.cleartheair.org/dirtypower/ for more.] Another example: About a third of the nutrient pollution in the Chesapeake Bay, contributing to dead zones and other ills, comes from nitrogen oxides emitted by our vehicles, power plants, factories, furnaces, water heaters, and so on.

If the prices of coal, oil, and natural gas derived energy included these and other impacts then there would be a level playing field with solar and wind. But they do not. Therefore, taxes or fees to “correct” prices is justified under free market capitalism. Since “tax” is a dirty word in Virginia, tax breaks or other subsidies may be more palatable even if less efficient from an economic perspective as a means to level the playing field. Also, one can design fiscal policies to assure “revenue neutrality” (i.e., no net tax increase) and to mitigate impacts on the poor, who usually don’t have the means to replace clunkers with hybrids or upgrade furnaces, windows, etc.

It is true that it is difficult to evaluate in dollar terms external costs of health, ecological, and other damage in order to determine an appropriate tax or fee to impose or subsidy to offer. But we do know that these costs are far from zero and that it is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong. Don’t let dirty energy sources get a free ride at the expense of our health and wellbeing, farms and fisheries, ecological balance, outdoor recreation, national security, and other values.

Mr. Sobin works for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, but the views do not necessarily reglect those of the DEQ.

Stuck on the Left Coast for a weekend of work, I am blogging about my home HD without the benefit of checking my facts at 7-11 or Farm Fresh.

Del. Tom Gear won 60:40 over faux Independent Randy Gilliland. Some bloggers predicted otherwise. Oops, they were wrong.

Let’s look at the numbers in a microcosm. My town, Poquoson, with 12,000 Virginians, is one sixth of the 91st HD. Tom Gear won 60:40 in my home. Based on our voiting demographics, he should have won 70:30 minimum and 80:20 tops.

The delta from 60:40 to 75:25(an appropriate number) in this election was 500 votes. If 500 more ‘Bull Islanders’ had voted for Gear, he would have been what is ‘expected’ (75:25).

Two Democrat city councilmen worked against Gear. One is a native and one is a retired USAF ‘move in’. If both men changed 250 votes based on their personal influence, that explains the whole deal. The home grown guy could do that if just his cousins voted with him.

Let’s say one fellow moved 150 votes and the other 100 votes – that means only 200 voters bought the dirt slinging by Gilliland.

So, the difference between 60:40 and 75:25 can be explained with names and faces in local politics. Looks like, as usual, our MSM – the Daily Press’s shrill attacks and bias was meaningless at the polls.

The big story is how our vote turnout was so low. Poquoson usually is in the top 3 of 134 counties and cities for vote turn out. Many reliable ‘R’ voters were too disgusted with Republicans in office to vote at all. I’d like to see more real analysis of the low turnout.

Oh, by the way, Gilliland never called to concede the election. Not gentlemanly, like his campaign.

Re Negative ads backfired in governor’s race, camps say

By CHRISTINA NUCKOLS, The Virginian-Pilot

© November 11, 2005

” Hutcheson said voters are partly to blame for the negative tone that has become more common in political campaigns.

“Voters are very lazy,” he said. “They’re uninformed because they choose to be uninformed. It’s depressing to me as someone who works in the business to see so many of our troops in Iraq dying for Iraqis to have the freedom to vote, the freedom we take for granted. … It’s a very sad commentary on our society, and so I think voters take some responsibility in the campaigns for how they’ve evolved over the years.”

This can’t be a correct quote, can it?

If it is, IF, I need to figure out a way to have it made in to a campaign button. Maybe a variation of “we’re not worthy” from Saturday Night Live skits…like “we’re so stooooopid”

Those uninformed voters fussed at me, GOP Party Bubba, from April through October over Kilgore’s platform and campaign.

But, what do I know? I guessed the final per cent vote wrong by 4 points. And, I thought the cartoon Kaine eating taxes was a good first step to reach for humor.

Guess it should have been funnier. I knew turnout would be low.

Governor-elect Kaine hit the ground running on Wednesday, bare hours after his clear and convincing victory at the polls. He named an impressive transition team and announced fulfillment of a campaign promise–he will tour the state at five “town hall” meetings to discuss the transportation “crisis.”

The town hall meetings are intriguing. Jeff Schapiro of the Times-Dispatch says they will “spotlight solutions to the state’s transportation problems that might include new taxes.” The Washington Post‘s Michael Shear and Carol Morello say the town halls will be used to “to rally public support for a legislative battle next year over fixing the state’s transportation problems.”

Wait a minute.

Didn’t we just have a campaign that criss-crossed the state and heard “the voice of the people?” Didn’t Tim Kaine run ads where he said he had a transportation plan and urged voters to “read my plan?” Didn’t Tim Kaine just sweep into office by capturing the suburbs and exburbs where transportation issues were front and center? Wasn’t Jerry Kilgore derided for proposing regional transportation authorities and “trusting the people?” Isn’t transportation easily the most studied and discussed issue of our time in Virginia?

Tim Kaine got over a million votes. He got votes where Democrats never got votes before. He ran on a transportation plan. If that isn’t an indicator that he’s rallied “public support for a legislative battle next year over fixing the state’s transportation problems,” what is?

I’ve played out the string on my “sabbatical” and Jim has graciously invited me to return to these pages. With editorial guidelines in place and most of the partisan passions of the election behind us, I felt like it was the right time to return. I look forward again to the give and take with contributors and readers that this blog provides in abundance.

Bacon’s Rebellion concentrates on the “wonkish” side of all things Virginia and I’m comfortable with that specialization, but I may also collaborate with other Virginia bloggers on their blog or on a blog that heads into Monty Python territory–something new and completely different. We’ll see. I know I have enjoyed my guest blogging over at Chad’s place, Commonwealth Conservative.

Tuesday’s election demonstrated that being civil and being positive matters. If we just add being substantive–talking about real issues realistically and offering solutions, not bromides–we might have something that makes a difference. Jim Bacon has always tried to be positive, civil, and substantive with this blog and his e-zine. I’m proud to be associated with it again.

Ok, wonks and political junkies, the election’s over. The Dems are scrambling for positions in the Kaine administrations and the ‘Pubs are wondering what to do with their lives. In either case, it’s time to get back to the serious business of building your personal network.

Bacon’s Rebellion ran a brief beta test of its “Political Network” back in August. Now it’s time to roll it out for real. Our Political Network is like those social networks you’ve heard a lot about. Except we’re not interested in your favorite band or your sexual orientation. This is for activists and politicos. Here’s what’s involved:

• Create a professional profile. This is like a curricula vitae converted into searchable database format. List your areas of expertise so other people can find you.
• Invite your political/activist associates to join and create their own profiles. Build your network.
• Use the search function. Looking for direct mail expertise? Use the search function. Tracking down someone who worked on the Byrne campaign? Use the search function. Looking for Wahoos engaged in politics? Use the search function.
• Keep a journal. This feature is like a blog — only simpler to set up.
• Promote events. Free listings for political/policy-related meetings, conferences, events.
• Start a message board. Any subject.
• Create a group. Maintain privacy — restrict communication to selected members of your group.

The service is free (unless you want premium features). Click here to register.

Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard, made an interesting observation about the Virginia governor’s race in today’s Wall Street Journal:

[Jerry] Kilgore “ran on what voters, at least here in Virginia, perceive as national issues: guns, immigration, gay rights, death penalty. That strategy failed. … The odd thing is that if Mr. Kilgore had been running against [Tim] Kaine for the Senate, he might have won.

Senate races are highly ideological in Virginia. But governor’s contests are quite different: They are non-ideological. Mr. Kaine adjusted to this reality, jettisoning the liberalism of his days as mayor of Richmond. Mr. Kilgore stuck to his conservative views with only a few fudges.”

There may be something to do this. Many Virginians emphasize the ideological qualifications of the warriors they send into the hyper-polarized environment of Washington, D.C. That doesn’t mean they like the polarization — they just understand that the state’s two senators are powerless to change it, and they might as well send representatives to Washington equipped to do battle there. But electing a governor is a different matter. A governor can set the tone for a state, as Mark Warner so clearly did. A huge majority of voters appreciate Warner’s pragmatic, problem-solving approach. Tim Kaine got the message, Jerry Kilgore did not.

In deciphering the meaning of Tuesday’s elections, let us not forget Russ Potts, the candidate errant from Winchester. Though Potts was beloved of Virginia’s punditry for his “straight talk,” voters would have none of him. The independent candidate garnered less than 2.2 percent of the vote. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement for the No. One plank in his platform: raising taxes by some $2 billion a year to fund a massive expansion of Virginia’s road and rail construction.

Potts and his defenders will argue, of course, that he did not raise enough money to get his message out. But that begs the question. Why didn’t he raise enough money? It’s not as if people didn’t know he was there. He suffered from no lack of press attention. Perhaps he didn’t raise enough money because he couldn’t find enough people who agreed with his solution to traffic congestion.

Transportation, argue Stewart Schwartz and Laura Olson at the Coalition for Smarter Growth, did play a key factor in the race, however. Especially in Northern Virginia. Here’s their take:

All three candidates for Governor talked about transportation issues, but Kaine hit a chord with voters when he linked transportation solutions to land use and growth issues. For five years polls have shown that Northern Virginia residents believe better managing growth is the best way to deal with traffic problems. This year, they had the choice of a gubernatorial candidate who focused on: more money for transportation, general fund for transportation or managing growth to reduce traffic, and they chose the third. (See full comments on the Road to Ruin blog.)

Kaine’s election and Potts’ pitiful performance does not bode well for those in the state Senate who would raise $1 billion to $2 billion per year to enact a Potts-like transportation policy.

I’m posting a missive from John Farmer, a Richmond intellectual property attorney and a friend of mine, who felt compelled to e-mail his post-election analysis to friends and associates this morning. I thought it worth adding to the blog. Jim Bacon

The recent Virginia gubernatorial election is being spun mainly as a defeat for President Bush, in addition to being a setback for the Republican Party generally. Past electoral history contradicts this analysis. See the chart below.

Notice that, since the advent of modern politics – the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 – the party that wins the national election always LOSES the Virginia governorship the next year.

Next, notice how all three statewide offices go. Beginning again with the modern era, no Republican held statewide office until Allen and Gilmore won on 1993, immediately after Clinton’s reelection. Beginning with that 1993 election, the Republicans won 2 (1993), 2 (1997), 1 (2001) and 1 or 2 (likely 2, but AG race isn’t clearly resolved). McDonnell appears to be leading narrowly. No downward trend there for Republicans.

Next, notice that, if McDonnell wins, this will be the first election in the modern era in which the party that won the governorship lost BOTH down ticket races. Stated conversely, starting in 1981, the party that won the governorship always won at least one down-ticket race.

So what conclusions can we draw? One theory is that middle-ground Virginia voters are fickle – they are always dissatisfied with the person holding the Presidency and vote in, narrowly, the other party to the governorship the next year in Virginia.

That theory doesn’t really hold water well. Virginia hasn’t voted Democratic for President since Johnson. Thus, while mushy-middle Virginians may have been dissatisfied with Clinton, and Clinton may not have been a positive force for Terry or Beyer, they mostly didn’t vote for Clinton.

The best explanation is that Virginians in the middle don’t tend to link their vote for President and their vote for Virginia Governor the next year, and don’t let the perceived performance of the former dictate the election of the latter. If they did, almost every, if not every, Virginia’s governor’s race would have come out the opposite way.

Here’s my take:

First — Jerry Kilgore ran a lousy race. Unlike Allen or Gilmore, he didn’t seize on a single, positive issue with which to play offense in the election (parole abolition, car tax elimination). Instead, like Early, he tried to glide through under the assumption that having an “R” after his name would carry the day. He ran an unfocused, sometimes shallow, sometimes demeaning campaign. On top of that, he treated the AG position entirely as a stepping-stone for Governor rather than an office that was an end itself and to be managed toward excellence, and many people (including many Republicans) picked up on that and didn’t like it.

On the other hand, Kaine ran a disciplined campaign. He hid his liberalism under a bushel basket, feigned some seemingly conservative positions, and his naturally sunny demeanor shined through.

Second – A big reason why Republicans win national elections is national security. That issue is largely out of the picture in state elections. Thus, for a Republican to win statewide office, he must pick an issue on which to play offense and ride it hard. Just showing up won’t do.

The blogosphere’s response to the election has been subdued so far. Only the briefest of comments as of 9:30 a.m. (I suspect many bloggers stayed up too late last night watching the election returns!)

Kenton Ngo at 750 Volts: “Hark the Herald Angels Sing…”

J.R. Hoeft at Bearingdrift: “I have to admit, Gov. Warner is pretty popular here and I think that helped Kaine with his association.”

Steven Sisson at Blue Dog: “Congrats to Tim ‘the choir boy’ Kaine.”

Poli Amateur at Commonwealth Watch: “I wish like heck we would have won with Jerry Kilgore, but it is what it is, and Governor-elect Kaine deserves our congratulations at this point.”

Shipwrecked at Cries in the Night: “Why I didn’t vote for Kilgore. … Kilgore would do nothing to advance the cause of life. … Kilgore took the exact position that tax-hiking Mark Warner did in 2001: local referendums. … Kilgore kept proposing more and more government spending and programs. … Because of his electoral ineptitude Kilgore held back down ticket candidates, and I hold him responsible for contributing to Dick Black’s loss and Bill Bolling and Bob McDonnell’s tougher than necessary races.”

Alice Marshall at FCDC: “Thank you Tim Kaine for carrying our party standard to victory. Now comes the hard part, governing. But you have experience with that.”

Norm Leahy at One Man’s Trash: “I didn’t vote for Tim Kaine, but I congratulate him nonethless for winning the governor’s race. I wish him luck…I really do… And as for Mr. Kilgore… he ran hard, he ran well. But he was not the choice of the majority of Virginia voters tonight…. Now about 2009…”

Lowell Feld at Raising Kaine: “This was a clear and strong affirmation of Mark Warner’s loyal lieutenant, Tim Kaine, a clear and strong reward for Kaine’s positive campaign, and a clear and strong mandate to continue the Mark Warner policies the next 4 years.”

“This was NOT a great Election Day for Virginia Democrats overall, even if many spend today patting themselves on each others’ backs. Sure, it was a great day for Mark Warner. Absolutely, it was a great day for Tim Kaine! But a great day for the Democrats overall? Sorry, but I don’t think so. A tremendous repudiation of Bush and his entire agenda? Ditto — I don’t see it.”

MR JMS at Too Conservative: “Today was very disappointing for everyone. We need to dust ourselves off and re-evaluate how we are operating as a party– especially in Northern Virginia. … For now though we should have one single focus in the GOP… Ensuring Bob McDonell is our next Attorney General. I encourage everyone to volunteer with the recount that is almost certain to come tomorrow.”

Waldo Jaquith at Waldo Jaquith: “The tides have shifted. Republicans are losing their grip on power in Virginia, in no small part thanks to President Bush’s weakening grip on power in the United States. … Let’s get to work on 2006. We’ve got a House of Representatives to take back.”

I am nothing if not contrary on mornings like this, so let’s rub some fur in the wrong direction. Hindsight is always 20-20, of course, but it was actually clear over the weekend that the President’s 11th hour, 50th minute visit to Virginia provided a late but measurable boost to the Republican effort all over Virginia. Had he not come, I think Kilgore’s loss would have been worse and another 1985-style sweep could have resulted. Both internal and published polls indicated the trend was very strong for the Democratic ticket as a whole, and had there been a complete meltdown it would have bled into more House races. I think the Survey USA tracking poll, showing 9 for Kaine and then 5 for Kaine and a tie on the final day of tracking, reflects the impact of the Bush visit.

The absence of an earlier appearance by Bush was a problem for the Kilgore campaign. What happened and why with that Norfolk opportunity is unknown, but there was widespread news reporting that somebody snubbed somebody and that had to depress the President’s hard core faithful. Those of us who voted for him — those of us who have sent our children to war — are not enjoying his travails and look for a comeback.

This was an act of political selflessness on Bush’s part. By coming, and everybody behind the curtain must have known if wouldn’t save Kilgore, he gave Bush-bashers around the world a video clip we will see all week and maybe up through the 2006 midterm election. By coming he turned a possible nightmare for Republicans into just a bad night (with a couple of recounts pending to see how bad.) Republicans, repeat afer me: Thank You, Mr. President.

To all from all parties who stood in the whirlwind yesterday, and did what most sane people won’t and made the run, thank you. The process only works when there is competition, and we sure had that.

Starting with a seven- to 10-point lead in the polls back in the summer, the race for governor in Republican-leaning Virginia was Jerry Kilgore’s to lose. But lose it he did. Tim Kaine won by a 5.7 percent margin, representing a cumulative swing of 12 to 15 points over the campaign. The question is why. Here are some morning-after thoughts.

• Kilgore expended his resources attacking Kaine on “cultural” issues — the death penalty, immigration, gun control, etc., but opinion polls showed clearly that the electorate was more focused on pragmatic issues such as education, government spending, taxes and transportation. Gov. Mark Warner had consistently steered clear of the culture wars, sticking to good-government themes and achieving extraordinary levels of popularity as a result. Kaine campaigned as Mark Warner Jr., assuring voters that he would give them four more years of the same. Kilgore’s strategists ignored the obvious and Kilgore paid the price.
• Kilgore never forced Kaine to defend the $1.4 billion tax increase that he and Warner backed in 2004. That’s probably because opinion polls showed that the Virginia public largely approved of that tax increase. But that public approval, I maintain, was skin deep: the result of fawning press coverage and division among Republicans at the time. Since 2004, massive budget surpluses have demonstrated clearly that the tax cut was never needed. But other than going on the record as having opposed the tax increase, Kilgore never made the budget an issue. In effect, he gave the “Warner/Kaine administration” a free pass on its claims to have done such a magnificent job of managing the state budget.
• In contrast to Kaine’s discipline about staying on message as the pragmatic, can-do successor to Mark Warner — Kilgore never established a dominant theme. He tried a lot of things: the death penalty, immigration, etc., but none of them gained traction, so he jumped on to the next. He never convinced the electorate that he bad a better blueprint for governing.
• Labeling Kaine as “liberal” did not work. If Virginians thought that Kaine was liberal in the mold of a New York or California Democrat, he would have been unelectable. But simply calling someone a liberal does not make him so. Kaine effectively countered Kilgore’s charges by emphasizing his religious faith and tying himself to Warner. He maintained a tone of moderation and pragmatism throughout the campaign. The “liberal” label just didn’t stick. In fact, it boomeranged. A lot of Virginians were turned off by the consistently negative tone of Kilgore’s ads.
• While denouncing Kaine as a liberal, Kilgore failed to energize his conservative base — especially the low-tax, small government wing of the party. Although he trotted out some ideas for tax cuts, he simultaneously served up lots of ideas for spending more money. He never convinced the small-government conservatives that he was serious about controlling the size of government.
• Kilgore never projected an image of leadership. His unwillingness to debate his opponents, and his less-than-stellar performance in the debates he did conduct, did not create the persona of someone in command.

Jerry Kilgore is a decent, honorable and personally likeable man. He wasn’t a bad candidate — he just wasn’t good enough to overcome the mistakes he made. The Virginia electorate made it very clear that it prefers the politics of substance over the politics of cultural symbolism. If Republicans want to hold onto their majority status in the legislature, they need to think more creatively about how to apply their ideals to the issues that matter to the voters.

All those negative campaigns ads may have disgusted the electorate — but they didn’t dissuade people from heading to the polls today in large numbers. There was a steady stream of people running through the voting booths in Henrico County’s Tuckahoe precinct around 9 a.m. this morning. I asked one of the volunteers who checked off the voting rolls how the numbers were running.

“We can hardly breathe,” she said.

“It’s like a presidential election,” said another.

Henrico County is reliably Republican, which will help Jerry Kilgore locally, but high turn-around across the state, according to the conventional wisdom, will help Tim Kaine.

Gov. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine are still boasting how they increased taxes in 2004. In the same e-mail quoted in my previous post, described as “from the desk of Mark R. Warner,” the Kaine campaign makes the following statement: “In 2004, we joined with responsible legislators from both parties to enact the most sweeping tax and budget reform in the nation in the last decade, cutting taxes on food and incomes, and raising them on cigarettes and a half penny on the sales tax.”

The e-mail blast doesn’t mention the fact that budget “reform” ended up raising taxes by roughly $700 million per year. Nor does it mention the large and growing budget surpluses that promptly followed.

When you go to vote tomorrow, just bear this fact in mind: The Commonwealth of Virginia is on track for a more than $2 billion surplus this year. Had the state not increased taxes in 2004, we’d still be on track for a surplus of $1.3 billion or more! We could have paid for Mark Warner’s huge K-12 education spending programs, the clean-up-the-Bay initiatives, growing Medicaid bills and a whole lot more without raising one extra dime in taxes.

But don’t believe me. Scan Secretary of Finance John Bennett’s September 2005 report. September, he notes, is the “first significant data point” for the fiscal year. Here’s how the General Fund is doing so far: It’s brought in $3.55 billion in revenue compared to $3.11 billion the same quarter last year. We’re running 14 percent ahead of last year — and 16.9 percent of what we actually need, given the humongous surplus last year!

The bottom line: The tax increase was absolutely unnecessary. Tim Kaine wants to own that tax increase. Let him. And when the General Assembly figures out how to spend the surplus — with massive increases in state spending the inevitable result — let him own that, too.

It was one day before the election, and I was still agonizing over who to vote for. Jerry Kilgore is, for all his failings, more likely to hold the lid on future tax increases. Tim Kaine, on the other hand, has the better grasp of transportation policy, the most important single issue in the year ahead. Who to vote for… who to vote for…

Then, a half hour ago, an e-mail from the Tim Kaine campaign arrived in my in-box. It pushed one of my biggest hot buttons… the wrong way. Boy, am I steamed. I know that campaign communications from both sides play fast and loose with the truth, but this one played fast and loose with the truth on an issue that I really care about. Here’s what the e-mail, putatively from Gov. Mark Warner, said:

When Tim and I were elected to lead Virginia in 2001, our predecessors’ fiscal irresponsibility had left the state with historic shortfalls – that grew to $6 billion. We made some tough choices and cut the budget. Tim even cut his own salary!

Let’s go through this step by step. “… left the state with historic shortfalls — that grew to $6 billion.” The situation was dire when Warner and Kaine entered office during a recession, and Warner had to scramble to close a looming deficit. But the deficit wasn’t anywhere close to $6 billion. The key is understanding what Warner means by a “shortfall.” It’s not the same as a budget deficit. The term represents a cumulative gap between anticipated spending and revenues over three years. That gap consisted of roughly one part revenue shortfall (i.e. revenues coming in less than anticipated) and one part spending increase. That $6 billion “shortfall,” to be precise, included $3.1 billion in “required new spending” on Medicaid, prisons, K-12 education and car-tax relief that the previous governor had never contemplated.

“We made some tough choices and cut the budget.” Gov. Warner and the General Assembly — oh, and Tim Kaine, too — enacted approximately $3.3 billion in spending cuts over a three year- period. Factor in the spending increases noted above, and the net cuts amounted to $200 million. Over three years. Not quite $6 billion.

The parsing of words is technically correct, so Kaine/Warner cannot be accused of “lying.” But the words are carefully designed to mislead — and they have succeeded marvelously in doing so. I’ve seen commentators repeat over and over — never once corrected by the Warner administration, much less the lapdog press whose job it is to expose such claims — that Warner & Co. cut spending by $6 billion, or closed a $6 billion budget deficit. (For details, read my column “What’s a ‘Budget Shortfall’?” here.) The Governor deserves credit for a number of very real budgetary accomplishments. But he tarnishes his legacy — and Tim Kaine tarnishes his reputation for integrity — by shamelessly exaggerrating those accomplishments.