Bacon's Rebellion

Once again we find that tax revenues are surging in Virginia. A front-page graphic in The Wall Street Journal this morning notes that Virginia revenues so far are running 14.9 percent ahead of last year — exceeding the national average of 9.5 percent by a hefty margin. That amounts to 9.03 billion for the first three quarters of the fiscal year.

Actually, the WSJ’s numbers, based on only nine months of results, are a tad low. Says Finance Secretary John Bennett in his latest revenue report, based on 11 months: “Through May, revenues have grown 15.2 percent above the same period last year — substantially ahead of the forecast of 10.3 percent.”

Readers may recall the justification for raising taxes. Gov. Warner and his allies in the state senate warned of a long-term “structural” budget deficit in state finances. Now we’re facing the opposite problem, a long-term “structural” surplus. Last year the General Assembly found ways to spend nearly all of that surplus. The one saving grace was that legislators devoted most of the money to one-time uses that would not add to the state’s programmatic overhead. It will be interesting to see if they can resist the temptation in 2006, when the surplus recurs–bigger than ever–to crank up the spending machine.

The massive surplus is an embarrassment to Virginia’s political class, which would prefer to sweep it under the rug. But voters (those few who bother to go to the polls) should remember the budget surplus when they cast their ballots. The citizenry needs to chastise incumbents who panicked in 2004 and voted for a tax increase that many warned then was not needed, and, in retrospect, is even more clearly not needed now.

Margarett Edds, senior political writer for the Virginian-Pilot, can’t seem to understand the fuss about state and local taxes. In her column (requires registration) this morning, she writes:

Scan the political ads now clogging the airwaves, and you’d swear Virginians care about one thing: low taxes. Channel flipping during one segment of the nightly news last week, I caught barely a mention of education. The environment? Nary a word. Ditto for transportation and rising health care costs. But in the advertising run-up to Tuesday’s nominating primaries for statewide offices and the House of Delegates, the “T” word was everywhere.

… Good government means finding the right balance between taxes and services. It doesn’t take more than a half-hour before the television set to know that with the present crop of Virginia candidates, the emphasis is out of whack.

Imagine that. Virginians like keeping the money they earn. Selfish bastards. Where could such stinginess come from? Could it stem from the $1.4 billion in tax increases in the current biennial budget? Could it rise from the relentlessly rising property taxes that homeowners are paying across most of the Commonwealth? Could it reflect the fact that grandees from Senate Finance Chair John Chichester to Virginian-Pilot columnists are lecturing Virginians that they still aren’t paying enough taxes in a push for $1 billion-a-year (or more) tax increase for transportation funding in 2006?

Edds thinks there’s a problem when politicians “overemphasize low taxes.” I’d give her point of view a bit more credence if she occasionally wrote about strategies for taking the costs out of government — not cutting programs, but squeezing costs through process reforms, land use reforms, re-engineering, restructuring, whatever. But I don’t see much of that. It takes an effort to identify ways to cut spending and make programs run more efficiently. Any pea brain can raise taxes.

Today’s issue of The Washington Post has stories and graphics in three places about rebuilding the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.

The heroic quotes, striking photos and detailed graphics are very 21st century. A reading of Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond calls to mind a different perspective. One wonders if the same exhilaration and sense of purpose was not felt by those carving the moai on Easter Island, building the Mayan temples at Tikal or erecting the statue of Ozymandias memorialized by Percy Bysshe Shelly.

After all, few believe that rebuilding the Wilson Bridge or any other transport facility without Fundamental Change in human settlement patterns will make regional traffic congestion any less onerous in 2011, 2015 or 2050. See “Self Delusion and Fraud,” 7 June 2005 at db4.dev.baconsrebellion.com

EMR

Monday, June 13th, Governor Mark Mollycoddle will speak at the Communities in Schools of Virginia, Education Policy Luncheon at the Richmond Marriot. The theme of the luncheon is “Ten years into the SOLs, where does Virginia go from here?”

Question is, will the Governor report to the media that Virginia gets barely a passing grade? The Washington Post described a ‘Standards of Learning’ report card in which Virginia gets a D+.

A Report Card With Rare Meaning

That’s not a passing grade for His Excellency, and an uninspiring presidential candidate… Unless, the D+ stands for Howard DEAN, Monica DIXON or Mollycoddle DECEPTION plus.

Parents Across Virginia United to Reform SOLs, recently wrote: “… Essentially, the report card compares the state’s testing results with NAEP results. The further apart those results fall, the lower the grade. For example, in VA, we reported that 70% of our 8th graders were proficient in reading (i.e., they passed the 8th grade reading SOL test). NAEP, a nationally administered test, reported that only 36% of Virginia 8th graders were proficient readers. Additionally, NAEP reports 31% of our 8th graders are proficient in math while Virginia reports that 78% are proficient. While some folks suggest that the NAEP proficiency levels (and the Virginia SOL levels, for that matter) are off base, I think it is pretty apparent that the rising SOL pass rates are not mirrored on the NAEP results, especially reading results. Math results are a little more unclear. While NAEP math results show gains for Virginia (and the nation), they also show that Virginia has excluded higher and higher numbers of kids from NAEP testing and now has one of the highest levels of exclusion (about 10%) in the nation. Excluding students who may test poorly can boost results.

Keep in mind that this report card does not look at actual proficiency rates, only how the proficiency rates on one set of tests (NAEP) compares to another set of tests (SOLs). Of course, we’ve been keeping you informed for several years about how results on SOLs compares to results on other measures. I’ll be updating the website soon on the achievement effects of the SOLs. Suffice it to say that we don’t think other measures of achievement mirror the (adjusted and tweaked) gains on the SOL pass rates.”

NAEP results at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states

For more information about PAVURSOL, visit: http://www.solreform.com/

~ the blue dog

Now we know why Sean Connaughton would not sign the Taxpayers Protection Pledge. The Washington Post let the cat out of the bag:

‘…he is honest and pragmatic enough to consider all options, including the possibility of new tax revenue. “I don’t rule out anything,” says Mr. Connaughton…’

What’s rather strange is this observation from the Washington Post:

‘Mr. Connaughton is a member of that increasingly rare breed: a moderate Republican in Virginia.’

Obviously form the Post’s perspective, a tax-and-spend liberal is a moderate Republican. So there should be little doubt left as to Connaughton’s real position on taxes–he is pro-tax!

But what’s odd is the Post’s conclusion that moderates are an increasingly rare breed in Virginia. Obviously the post hasn’t counted the office holders in the Virginia State Senate recently; by my count there are 18 RINOs to 6 conservative Republican Senators. That’s a three to one split in favor of the RINOs! Moderate Republicans are the majority, so what “rare breed” is the Post talking about?

But then again, the Post is not always focused on reporting the facts. Rather they prefer focusing on dishing out their liberal spin…

The Virginia Manufacturers Association doesn’t endorse political candidates, although you might overlook that fact in the glowing press release just issued regarding LC candidate Del. Bob McDonnell, R-Virginia Beach.

A new survey of candidates for Virginia attorney general reveals that Republican Delegate Bob McDonnell strongly supports reform of the Commonwealth’s legal climate, lower taxes and less burdensome regulation to promote prosperity in Virginia. Steve Baril, a trial attorney who squares off with McDonnell in the June 14 primary, failed to complete the Virginia Manufacturers Association (VMA) survey and repeated calls to his campaign were not returned. …

“Bob McDonnell could not have been clearer about his pro-reform, pro-business views,” said Brett Vassey, VMA president. “On issues of civil justice, medical malpractice and product liability, and his perspective on the job of attorney general, McDonnell’s positions are the right ones for Virginia’s economy and our quality of life.”

“McDonnell’s responses also illustrate that he doesn’t just talk the talk, he walks the walk,” Vassey added. “He detailed his specific and spirited leadership on medical malpractice reform and to stop the odious practice of venue shopping by trial attorneys.”

“The survey demonstrates to Republican primary voters next Tuesday that Bob McDonnell is rock-solid on core issues affecting whether the Commonwealth prospers or withers. On the other hand, Steve Baril’s non-response to our survey can leave only question marks in the minds of primary voters.”

Lesson to Baril campaign: Don’t misplace those questionnaires! These issues resonate with me far more than the effluvia emanating from both campaign headquarters.

Doug Koelemay’s VITA column Monday stimulated another reader to write. This comes from a VITA employee who provided me his name, but asked me not to publish it for fear of retribution. Says the state employee:

Make no mistake about it, VITA is solely interested in empire and Warner-legacy building, not in customer service or saving the taxpayers of this state money. The vast majority of the agencies are now being driven by VITA, not by their constituents’ needs. We are constantly being forced to submit to their audits and surveys. We are paying huge fees for services that prior to their existence cost us nothing more than the salaries we were already paying. VITA is a train wreck waiting to happen and Governor Warner will be lucky to be out of office before the train derails. The only hope the taxpayers of Virginia have is that JLARC steps in and prevents this disaster. However, seeing as how the Republican leadership in the General Assembly sold out to Mark Warner, I don’t hold out much hope.

I can go on and on with examples of how VITA has been improperly managed and launched, but I am a mere grunt worker in their eyes. I’ve been repeatedly told that I don’t understand the top-down perspective. I guess I’ll just keep walking back and forth to VITA headquarters every other day to reboot my servers that no longer operate with the efficiency they did prior to our server move. Rest assured that Warner’s only legacy in my mind will be the frustration I experience every couple of months when I have to replace my shoes.

I have no idea whether or not this correspondent has a reasonable beef or not. But it’s clear that a number of people in VITA have yet to see the logic.

In this week’s column, “Re-VITA-lyzing Government,” Doug Koelemay makes the argument that VITA is living up to its goals of transforming the delivery of information-technology services to state agencies, providing better citizen service, new economic development opportunities and more cost savings for localities. Wrote Koelemay: “VITA was never to be about saving money by spending less. It has been about improving service delivery and avoiding wasteful, redundant spending.”

One reader responds, “Koelemay’s column is a spoof, right? ‘VITA was never to be about saving money by spending less. It has been about improving service delivery and avoiding wasteful, redundant spending.’ Migawd. And I’d thought the original sales pitch for VITA was in large part to lower costs.

see, e.g., § 2.2-2023. “Virginia Technology Infrastructure Fund created; contributions. … B. The Fund shall consist of: (i) the transfer of general and nongeneral fund appropriations from state agencies which represent savings that accrue from reductions in the cost of information technology and communication services, (ii) the transfer of general and nongeneral fund appropriations from state agencies which represent savings from the implementation of information technology enterprise projects. … The Auditor of Public Accounts shall certify the amount of any savings identified by the CIO. …

Is VITA delivering value, as Koelemay says, or is it falling short of its stated aims, as our anonymous correspondent, a local planning official, suggests?

Jim Bacon’s post on the “family farm” made a number of good points. The responses raise a lot more good observations, especially the spacial relationship between raising and consuming food.

In the discussion of extensive (nonurban) land uses it is important to keep in mind that it is economically, socially and physically important that the Urbanside be compact without regard to what nonurban land uses are found in the Countryside.

The Urbanside is most efficient and most effectively serves the market for functional urban land uses if it occupies about 5 percent of the land area in the United States. (The number varies from region to region and from continent to continent.) Scatteration of urban land uses beyond that amount of urban land diminishes the functionality of human settlement patterns in the Urbanside.

Therefore, devoting 95 percent of the land area to nonurban (aka, Countryside) uses is a good idea without regard to what those uses are. We will be documenting this in The Shape Warrenton-Fauquier’s Future.

The support (or subsidies) for family farms, multifamily farms, corporate farms owned by a family or an enterprise, family tree farms or cyanide heap-leach gold mining, etc., etc., depend on the utility/impact of the product (raising healthy, tastier vegetables, sugar beets, tobacco or whatever) and how it is done (e.g. spreading chicken manure in DelMarVa).

EMR

The Virginia Club for Growth PAC issued a Press Release today on the “Big RINO Lie.”

RINO (Republican In Name Only) Delegates that voted for the largest tax increase in the history of Virginia last year are again promoting falsehoods in their coordinated defense regarding their vote against hard-working Virginia families.

The mantra being repeated by the RINO incumbents–including some of the State House and Senate leaders supporting them–has been that their vote was courageous and was needed to avoid a government shutdown. Nothing can be further from the truth. This is another flagrant example of RINO politicians speaking from both sides of their mouths.

You see, Sen. Jay O’Brien (R-Fairfax), had already sponsored a bill (SB 5004) during the extended legislative session in 2004, that would have continued operating the State Government at the prior year’s funding level (similar to a continuing budget resolution at the federal level). This bill was also co-sponsored by Senators Bill Bolling (R-Mechanicsville) and Ken Cuccinelli (R-Centreville).

The Senate Finance Committee did NOT kill the bill–they sat on it, just in case they needed it. Thus, the RINO malarkey that they did the honorable thing because shutting down the government would have cost $100 million just doesn’t fly–there was already a bill in place to address that potentiality.

This orchestrated excuse is another example of the duplicitous and dishonest campaigns waged by RINOs, who campaign as fiscal conservatives, but govern as Ted Kennedy liberals. Politicians should be held accountable and not allowed to hoodwink the voters by spewing out half-truths, lies, and falsehoods.

Michael Graham on WMAL (AM630 — the ABC affiliate in the Washington, DC area whose signal reaches all of Nortern Virginia) is carrying on a RINO Hunt. He’s targeting three NOVA legislators, namely, Gary Reese, Joe May, and Harry Parrish. Apparently, he plans on carrying this theme through June 14!

Graham interviewed Reese, May, and Parrish on Tuesday, May 31, 2005. He also followed up with an interview of yours truly, on the following day. The audio clips of all four interviews can be heard on the VA Club for Growth website.

Graham had an online poll on his website last Friday. The question asked was: “RINO Hunt – Divisive or About Time”. 83% of the respondents answered “Yes, it’s about time!” (See below.) Obviously, this is not a statistically valid poll and it doesn’t even say how many people voted. Nonetheless, it shows a trend, which is also validated by the many callers into Graham’s show–the majority of the callers are speaking out against the RINOs.

Bacon’s Rebellion is launching a new blog, “The Road to Ruin,” which will focus on transportation and land use issues. The blog is a key component of a broader initiative to provide deeper, more insightful coverage of the transportation policy debate.

Thanks to the generous financial support of our donors, led by the Piedmont Environmental Council, Bacon’s Rebellion has hired a full-time staff writer to research and write about transportation issues through the 2006 session of the General Assembly. (Read more about the initiative here.) Bob Burke, a former writer for the Fredericksburg Free-Lance Star and senior editor of Virginia Business magazine, will tackle the transportation topics that the Mainstream Media has consistently ignored. Bacon’s Rebellion will disseminate his stories electronically.

Burke has extensive experience writing about the environment, transportation, land use and economic development. As part of his daily routine, he will round up transportation-related news in Virginia publications and link to the articles from the new blog. Also, I will shift my transportation-related blog posts to “The Road to Ruin.” I invite readers of this blog interested in comprehensive and in-depth coverage of transportation/land use issues to frequent www.virginiatransportation.blogspot.com.

A month ago, I promised Bacon’s Rebellion bloggers that great things were coming. While Virginia has a number of excellent blogs, none have had the resources to create much in the way of original content. For the most part, we have been limited to putting our own spin on news reported by the Mainstream Media. By hiring Burke, Bacon’s Rebellion breaks the mold. We will provide a depth of coverage that will put the Mainstream Media to shame. Yes, that’s a challenge. And a promise.

In his new book, “Going Broke by Degree: Why College Costs Too Much,” Richard Vedder contests a key justification for public investment in higher education: the argument that higher ed spending contributes to the general prosperity. A brief version of Vedder’s argument appears in the current edition of Forbes magazine (requires registration). I haven’t decided if I agree with his arguments or not, but he raises excellent points that should be considered in the context of public funding for Virginia universities.

Vedder, a professor of economics at Ohio State University, compared the 10 states with the highest state funding for universities to the 10 states with the lowest between 1977 and 2000, and found that the low-spending states enjoyed a 46 percent growth in real income per capita while the high-spending states racked up only 32 percent growth. How could this be? Vedder raises a couple of possibilities.

Colleges have devoted relatively little new funding over the past generation to the core mission of instruction (spending only 21 cents of each new inflation-adjusted dollar per student on it), preferring instead to assist research, hire more nonacademic staff, give generous pay increases, support athletics and build luxurious facilities. … In 1976 American education employed three nonfaculty professional workers (administrators, counselors, librarians, computer experts) for every 100 students; by 2001 that number had doubled.

Vedder also notes that educated people are mobile. Many of them leave the high-tax states where they were educated. Where to? To low tax states that don’t invest nearly as much in higher education! “Taxes reduce private-sector activity,” he says. “People who must pay high taxes tend to work and invest less and also tend to migrate to lower-tax areas.”

This comes from “Clean Virginia Waterways,” a Longwood University organization dedicated to the cleanliness and quality of Virginia’s waterways, and organizer of the International Coastal Cleanup here in Virginia: In last year’s clean-up, nearly 4,000 volunteers picked up more than 176,000 pounds of litter, including these top 10 items:

1. Plastic beverage bottles, two liters or less
2. Glass beverage bottles
3. Food wrappers/containers
4. Cigarettes/ Cigarette filters
5. Beverage cans
6. Bags
7. Caps, Lids
8. Cups, Plates, Forks, Knives, Spoons
9. Straws / Stirrers
10. Balloons

Dis-gus-ting!

I’ve had it with all this talk about “saving the family farm!” What’s so special about the family farm? Nobody gives a rip about the disappearance of the “mom and pop” store. I don’t hear anyone singing the praises of the “family blog.” So, why do we have this sentimental attachment to the family farm?

The latest pabulum comes from Tim Kaine, as quoted by Chris Graham in the August Free Press: “What I want to do as governor is to organize my agriculture policy around a simple principle, and that’s to do what we can to save family farms. I started to really focus on this as a main goal, more than increasing output or increasing percentages or the tonnages of soybeans or other products. I want to focus on saving family farms.”

Here’s the reality of farming in Virginia. Outside of a few niche products, farming is not profitable! It requires long hours of hard work, and the return on investment is lousy. Virginia simply lacks the competitive advantages that farming has in other states, particularly the Midwestern breadbasket. Most Virginia farmers still working today fall into one of two categories: (1) Old guys who’ve been farming all their lives, and (2) affluent farmers who raise grapes, horses and cattle as part of their patrician lifestyle.

If farmers’ children don’t care about saving the farm, I don’t see why state government should. As far as the patrician farmers, god bless ’em. They maintain beautifully manicured estates that the rest of us can gaze upon as we drive through the country. But I don’t buy the argument that semi-retired financiers from New York are worthy of state support.