Bacon's Rebellion

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.

From today’s Washington Post: “Northrop Grumman Corp. and CGI-AMS have been selected by the Commonwealth of Virginia to spearhead a 10-year, multibillion-dollar initiative to transform its information technology.”

The Northrop Grumman piece is valued at $1.9 billion over 10 years to modernize the state’s 1980s-era infrastructure. CGI-AMS will handle the business-process applications; the value of that contract has not been made public. Sayeth the WaPo:

If Virginia had not pursued the transformation initiative, the state would have spent $200 million over the next 10 years to support “an increasingly outdated and expensive infrastructure,” James F. McGuirk II, chairman of the state IT investment board, said in a statement.

The overhaul of Virginia’s IT operations will be one of the most lasting legacies of the Warner administration.

Writing for the Cooper Center in February 2002 about Governor Warner’s election, Professor Larry Sabato wrote, “Since 1969, the party with the advantage on the ‘Ten Keys to the Governor’s Mansion’ has invariably captured the governorship.”

I don’t know how Professor Sabato is calling the race this year, but here’s my take on his “Ten Keys” applied to this year’s Governor’s race:

1) Economy: Advantage N
While gas prices are high and folks are concerned about how they’ll heat their homes this winter, taxes in Virginia remain lower than in other states; per capita income is still up and unemployment is still down (except in rural parts of the state where dissatisfaction may help Kilgore).

2) Party Unity: Advantage (D)
This is the first time in years Republican candidates have run from the party “brand” failing to include it in advertisements. Why? The Party has been injured by scandal (the eavesdropping case), and the primary season was bitter.

Democrats are united behind Kaine, albeit with less enthusiasm than he would want.

3) Scandal: Advantage (D)
The eavesdropping case…the resignation of a Congressman…the link between Bolling and a failed insurance company… none of this helps the R’s.

4) Campaign Operations and Technology: Advantage (R)
It will take the D’s in Virginia years to make up for the Party’s failure to enter the technology age sooner.

5) Campaign Money: Advantage (R)
Kilgore has shown, once again, that unless a Democratic candidate is a millionaire, Republicans will out raise Democrats (especially when they get to hide the names of their contributors)

6) Candidate Personality and Appeal: Advantage N
Kilgore seems brittle; Kaine seems elastic. Kaine’s natural charm isn’t translating in the media.

7) Prior Office Experience: Advantage (R)
Kilgore’s experience as Attorney General and Secretary of Public Safety has given him a solid record to run on. Kaine’s tenure in the “weak mayor” job and on City Council, left him fighting the negative perceptions of the City without marginal success.

8) Retrospective judgment of previous governor: Advantage (D)
Governor Warner’s popularity is a huge asset but difficult to leverage. Kilgore can hardly tout Gilmore.

9) Presidential popularity: Advantage (D)
Bush is down, but not out in Virginia, but he won’t help Kilgore with independent voters who are the key to this election.

10) Special issues and dominant circumstances: Advantage (R)
Like it or not (and I don’t), the immigration issue provides Kilgore’s campaign with some momentum going into election day.

Net Advantage: 4(D), 4 (R), 2 (N)

Guess we know why the race is a “dead heat,” with the deciding factor out of the candidates control…it’s what Sabato calls the “prevailing conditions.” This year the voters have a very positive view of the direction in which Virginia is headed and a pretty negative view of Bush and the federal government. Clearly, this factor favors Kaine.

But, there’s one thing that Sabato’s “Keys” don’t address, which is voter intensity about the candidates and about the election itself. Although articles in the MSM today quote insiders as saying that voter interest is picking up, it is still likely that “I don’t give a darn” may be the spoiler candidate this year rather than the independent candidate Potts.

If turnout meets Sabato’s projected 2 million voters (slightly higher than in 2001), I think Kaine will win. If turnout is below 2001’s 46.2%, and especially if turnout among African American voters is less than 15% of the total, I think that Kilgore wins.

We’ll all know Tuesday (or maybe later if the election is as close as many predict). Who knows? If it’s a close as some think it will be, we may not know who won until after all provisional ballots are counted and the final count is certified by the State Board of Elections. And, even then, we might be headed for a recount.

At least we won’t have butterfly ballots.

In the Saturday edition of the Wall Street Journal, English writer John Derbyshire reviews a book, “Talk to the Hand,” by fellow Brit Lynne Truss, who laments the deline of civility and good manners in both U.S. and British culture. Truss, he observes, seems to think that reversing the collapse in good manners is a lost cause in England.

Writes Derbyshire: “I think she is right, and my own advice to English folk like herself, who are tired of it all, is to move to the U.S. — if possible to the southeastern states of the old Confederacy, whose inhabitants practice far and away the best manners in the English-speaking world.”

If good manners and civility make Virginia and the South distinctive, let us by all means celebrate our uniqueness.

The Audit Bureau of Circulation, the notes the Saturday version of the Wall Street Journal, will publish its semi-annual figures on newspaper circulation, and the news is not expected to be good. Gannett, the nation’s largest publisher with 100 newspapers, has already said its circulation is down 2.5 percent from year-ago levels. Knight Ridder’s numbers are down 2.9 percent. The Tribune Co. warns that its readership is down 4 percent.

“More Americans are getting their news online; about 30 percent of adults turned to the Internet for news in 2004, compared with almost none in 1996,” the WSJ notes. Newspapers are scrambling to make sure that online readers get their news through the newspapers’ own websites, not filtered through Yahoo, MSN or other Internet-only sites.

But the Internet-based model is not as attractive as the traditional newspaper model. Yes, Internet advertising is up, but it doesn’t generate the same revenues per reader that print ads do. Newspapers may succeed at retaining readers, and they may succeed at generating more Internet advertising, but I am skeptical that Internet advertising will be sufficient to support the large news staffs we saw in the newspapers’ glory years.

Publication of our Editorial Guidelines is way overdue. These policies arose out of the discussions that took place the Charlottesville blogger’s conference in August and follow-up posts on the Bacon’s Rebellion blog. Will Vehrs, a former contributor to Bacon’s Rebellion (we miss you, Will, sniff! sniff!), deserves most of the credit (or onus) for composing our guidelines. He wrote the first draft and posted it here. After reviewing the animated blogger commentary, I made some modest amendments. Unfortunately, I let the project languish until an exchange with Waldo Jaquith inspired me to get off my duff and finish the job.

Bacon’s Rebellion has no intention of imposing its guidelines on anyone else, or even insisting that every blog needs a set of guidelines.

Our goal is simply to make Bacon’s Rebellion a professional and credible source of news, information and commentary for Virginia, and we hold ourselves to the highest standards. We will make our editorial guidelines accessible to the public, and we expect readers to hold us accountable when we fall short.

You can read the Bacon’s Rebellion editorial guidelines here.

I know that purists sniff at suggestions there is any meaning in compilations like this, but take a look at Real Clear Politics now that Mason Dixon and Rassmussen are posted. The televised debate was October 9 and the Kilgore death penalty ads started two, three days later. Kaine then had his lowest result in a published poll (42) but his response and the Bnai Brith and editorial page assault that landed on Kilgore had their impact. I got the faux “Club for Growth” mailer at my house on Oct. 24, right after Kilgore got his best result (48). I don’t know when the 2,000th military death in Iraq was exactly, or the Libby indictment, but the timing was hardly great for Kilgore. The final push is on to make illegal immigration an issue high on voter radars by Tuesday.

This weekend will (and can) make all the difference, but the weather will be so good fewer Virginians will be huddled around the TeeVee to absorb all those wonderful ads (except football fans — what is a spot now selling for in that Tech-Miami game? You don’t want to know) and the prediction for Tuesday is for a stellar Indian Summer day. At this point in close elections Republicans are usually caught praying for rain.

Shaun Kenney offers what he calls a “conservative” response to House Speaker William Howell’s legislative package targeting illegal aliens. Here’s the core of Kenney’s argument:

Will these policies of shooing out illegal immigrants of workhouses, denying them in-state tuition, sanctioning businesses who hire illegal immigrants, etc. cure the problem? Or are we yet again treating the symptoms? … What then will Virginia’s illegal immigrants do? Will they work? Will they stay at home? How will they earn a living?

The underlying problem, he contends, is the strain that illegals put upon “socialized safety net of food stamps, medical care, and public schools.” Should the electorate, he asks, blame the illegals for the failure of these institutions? We should not deflect blame for the country’s institutional failure on powerless outsiders, Kenney argues. Read his full treatment here.

Kenney make some worthwhile theoretical points, but the fact is, Virginia has a social safety net and it has public schools. These institutions may be buckling and cracking, but there is no momentum whatsoever for changing them in any meaningful way. While it’s worthwhile for conservatives to question the underlying assumptions of our statist society, we are, as a practical matter, stuck with the welfare state and must work to make it functional. Consequently, we cannot ignore the implications of illegal immigration. If we can’t afford to educate and support our own citizens properly, we certainly can’t afford to educate and support non-citizens as well.

The blogger known as Scott offers an entirely different perspective — from the Green Party point of view. Several of his 11 key points seem entirely reasonable, a number are controversial, and one stands out as radical:

The Green Party calls for permanent border passes to all citizens of Mexico and Canada whose identity can be traced and verified. Work permits for citizens of Mexico and Canada must be easily obtainable, thereby decriminalizing the act of gainful employment. This action would help eliminate exploitation of undocumented persons by criminals engaged in human contraband (coyotes) and unethical employers. It would also help ensure that taxes will be paid in each corresponding nation per its laws. These measures will also help temporary residents from Mexico and Canada to secure driving privileges and liability insurance.

In effect, the Green Party would allow anyone from Mexico or Canada to work in the United States without fear of sanction. The Canadian standard of living is close enough to that of the U.S. that I’m not worried about an migratory flood from the Great White North, but such an open borders policy would unleash a flood of many millions more unskilled Mexicans searching for employment.

Scott wraps up his platform with this comment, “We oppose those who seek to divide us for political gain by raising ethnic and racial hatreds, and by blaming immigrants for social and economic problems. ” (You can read Scott’s complete remarks here ; scroll down to the fourth comment.)

I guess that last point is supposed to inoculate the Green Party from the negative impact that an influx of unskilled labor from Mexico would have on the wages and living standards of American citizens at the bottom of the skills-and-income ladder. The Green Party platform doesn’t acknowledge what its policy would do to the living standards of poor and working class Americans. Rather, it deftly turns the tables. By even mentioning the negative impact, I’m “raising ethnic and racial hatreds,” pitting working-class white and African-American citizens against the Mexicans. Pretty clever. And given the proclivity for many Democrats to shut down debate by crying “racism! racism! racism!” it just may work.

Bloggers can get results! Chad Dotson over at Commonwealth Conservative criticized the Tim Kaine campaign last week for posting an ad at the leftist “News Blog,” thus implicitly endorsing its contents — including a depiction of Maryland’s Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, an African American, as “Simple Sambo.” Dotson appealed to the Kaine campaign to denounce “this horrifying display of racism” and pull its ad.

In an update, Dotson reports that the Kaine team, to its credit, did pull the ad, calling the “Simple Sambo” post as “wholly inappopriate.”

The gubernatorial candidates aren’t talking about it. The press isn’t writing about it. But eminent domain is shaping up as the sleeper issue of the 2006 General Assembly session. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Kelo vs. New London case, in which the Supremes expanded the definition of the “public purpose” justification for condemning someone’s property, the Virginia legislature is expected to enact legislation that will remedy the perceived excesses of the Court’s ruling.

Eminent domain is one of those topics that put most people to sleep — until it’s wielded against them. Then it can mean being evicted from their homes, or life and death for their businesses. As Peter Galuszka writes in an article commissioned for Bacon’s Rebellion:

Fears now abound in Virginia and nationally that eminent domain could be wielded by powerful economic interests for mostly private gain rather than for public good.

It’s a rare instance in which liberals and conservatives agree! But good-government pragmatists are worried. Placing drastic restrictions on the power of government to condemn land could put a crimp in the community revitalization projects that municipalities depend upon to shore up their tax bases.

Bacon’s Rebellion is proud to create a venue for the discussion of eminent domain at the “Public Private Partnership Forum” this Dec. 16-17, at the Virginia Crossings Resort north of Richmond. Sessions include:

• The Public Sector’s Responsibility to the Private Sector
• The Private Sector’s Responsibility to the Public
• Abuses and Successes of Eminent Domain Cases
• Economic Risk Considerations with Community Development
• The Eminent Domain Debate of Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach
• What’s on Virginia’s Political Horizon for Community Development, Eminent Domain and Transportation?

And more… To find out more about the conference, click here.

– sponsored content –

In the absence of good polling data, campaign contributions are one of the best gauges of voter sentiment. And the signs are favorable for Independent candidate Katherine Waddell, who is challenging incumbent Republican Brad Marrs for the 68th House of Delegates seat in Richmond. Marrs, as you will recall, distinguished himself this summer for the anti-gay rhetoric of one of his fund-raising letters. The Waddell campaign has repudiated social issues in favor of education, public safety, transportation and economic growth.

According to the Virginia Public Access Project, Waddell was matching Marrs almost dollar per dollar through Sept. 30: raising $192,000 compared to Marrs’ $194,000.

But it looks like Waddell must have surged ahead in October fund raising. According to Virginia FREE, which reports October numbers, Waddell ranked No. 20 — with $272,000 — on a list of the Top 20 fund raisers among all House candidates statewide. Marrs did not make that list.

Waddell’s platform is common-sense and middle-of-the-road for the most part. But one plank really bothers me. On transportation, she says: “Virginia cannot afford to wait any longer to fund a comprehensive long-term transportation plan that includes mass transportation as a major component.” Although she does not say so explicitly, I take that as an endorsement of the Business as Usual, tax-and-build approach to transportation that has gotten Virginia in the fix that it’s in. 68th District voters beware: There’s a good bet that Waddell, if elected, will vote to raise your taxes in 2006.

These numbers come from Virginia FREE:

Statewide Campaign Funding has eclipsed the $50 million mark:

GOVERNOR
Kaine for Governor (D) $18,402,021
Kilgore for Governor (R) $21,220,688
Potts for Governor (I) $1,279,268

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
Bolling for Lieutenant Governor (R) $2,853,562
Byrne for Lieutenant Governor (D) $1,267,564

ATTORNEY GENERAL
Deeds for Attorney General (D) $2,543,255
McDonnell for Attorney General (R) $4,661,238
Total $52,227,596

Promising to crack down on illegal immigration, House Speaker William Howell and other senior Republicans announced a series of reforms two days ago such as ending in-state tuition rates for illegals at public colleges. Not rounding up the illegals and sending them home, mind you. Not denying them admittance to public universities. Just denying them the in-state rate reserved for legal residents of Virginia.

None of the House proposals struck me as “over the top.” (Read yesterday’s post here.) Of course, that may be because I’m one of those awful, bigoted “white males” the House leadership and Jerry Kilgore are pandering to in the hopes of motivating me to vote for Kilgore in the gubernatorial election.

Read the responses to my post. They’re more interesting than the post itself. What strikes me is that there is little effort to argue against the merits of the proposals themselves. The criticism of the House initiative varies in tenor but follows a common theme: The crackdown on illegal immigrants (illegal, mind you, not legal immigrants) is a nativist, if not downright racist, election gambit to rile up the white bubbas against the brown-skinned newcomers and get them to the polls on Tuesday.

Assuredly, there is an element of political calculation in the Kilgore campaign. Republicans have this funny thing about “law and order,” and Kilgore is appealing to it. But I have seen no evidence to suggest that the appeal of the illegal-immigration issue is an ethnic or racial one. If someone can present me evidence, then I will be all ears. But who needs evidence? Among many people, there is simply the presumption of racism. No evidence needed. Guilty until proven innocent, racist until proven otherwise.

The evidence that exists indicates that ethnicity and race are not behind the House legislative initiative. Speaker Howell couldn’t have been more clear in his speech in Springfield the other day: The issue is the rule of law, not ethnicity, race or immigration. “We are a nation of immigrants and better for it,” he said. “Our national character is not centered around any one religious denomination. Neither is it based upon any one ethnic group our race.” I could go on, as he did, but you get the message.

What the “racism, racism, racism” trope tells me is that those opposed to the Republican initiatives have nothing constructive to say on the subject. By labeling Republicans as nativists, racists and hypocrites, they are saying, in essence, that the Republican position is entirely irrational and that the problem of illegal immigration is a fabricated one. Yet that position is untenable. Even Tim Kaine concedes that illegal immigration is a problem. He just doesn’t want to do anything about it. He blames the federal government, and says the feds should solve it.

But illegal immigration is a unavoidably a state/local problem when illegal immigrants apply for food stamps, seek medical care and attend overcrowded, fiscally stressed schools. These problems cannot be fobbed onto the federal government. The problems are inherently local, and they’re real. They aren’t racist fantasies. And Virginia has to find a way to deal with them.

I don’t pretend to know the answers — the issues are complex. Illegal immigrants are embedded in our society, and they do play a significant role in our economy. I know a lot of immigrants, some of them probably illegal. Once you get to know someone as a person — with hopes and fears, children to care for, out-of-work relatives back in the old country, elderly parents who can’t afford health care — it’s hard to take the attitude, “ship ’em back home!” I’m not saying that the House came up with the right answers, but I do think they are tackling important issues — and I think it’s wrong to stigmatize those who would try to address those issues by characterizing them as racists.

It looks like the debate over illegal immigration is spilling out of the gubernatorial campaign. It’s not just Jerry Kilgore blasting illegal immigrants anymore. House Speaker William Howell, R-Stafford, Del. David Albo, R-Fairfax, and other Republican legislators held a press conference at an American Legion hall in Springfield yesterday to announce a broad-based crackdown on illegals:

• Require county-funded day labor centers to check for legal presence in Virginia.
• End in-state tuition rates for illegal aliens at Virginia public colleges and universities.
• Give local law enforcement the authority to detain and deport illegal aliens such as drug traffickers and violent gang members who have been charged with a separate crime.
• Stiffen penalties on the unlawful manufacture and use of birth certificates and drivers’ licenses for illicit purposes.
• Require the State Board of Elections to confirm if a voter is a citizen and remove illegal aliens from voter rolls.
• Establish sanctions for businesses in Virginia that knowingly hire illegal aliens, among others.

The Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C. estimates that Virginia currently has approximately 200,000 illegal aliens – including a heavy concentration in the Northern
Virginia metropolitan region – which represents a tripling of that population since 1996. As Del. John S. “Jack” Reid (R-Henrico), put it, according to the Washington Post: “People who come here illegally and are not willing to go through the process [of becoming citizens] are not welcome, and I don’t want them here.”

Please note: The growing anti-illegal movement is not an anti-immigrant movement. No one is talking about undertaking measures against immigrants who have played by the rules. This is not an anti-Latino movement. This is a simply a movement that seeks to reclaim control over fundamental aspect of any nation state — the rights and obligations of non-citizens– that seems to be spinning out of control.

Is every idea proffered by the Republicans a good one? I don’t know. But the proposals seem worthy of debate. Let’s not shut off debate by accusing Howell & Co. of nativism, prejudice or negativism. Let’s have an honest and open discussion.

It’s encouraging to know that there are some outer boundaries of political correctness that even Virginia’s vanguard universities will not cross. In response to a National Collegiate Athletic Association initiative, the College of William & Mary has evaluated the use of the Native American logo and nickname — the Tribe — and concluded that they are not “hostile and abusive.”

President Gene Nichol appointed an evaluation committee, which gave the matter careful consideration. Not only does the term “Tribe” not violate NCAA standards, the moniker “communicates ennobling sentiments of commitment, shared idealism, community, and common cause,” Nichol wrote in a letter published on the W&M website. “My recent conversations with nearby Virginia Indian tribes have affirmed their acceptance of the nickname, which highlights, of course, the historical connection between the College and its role in educating Native Americans.”

One can never take for granted the triumph of common sense on a university campus. This is truly cause for celebration!