Monthly Archives: August 2007

Where’s the “Anti-Spending” Party?

Virginia has no “anti-tax” political party. The “anti-tax” label routinely applied in the Mainstream Media to Republican factions in the General Assembly is patently ludicrous. A Republican legislature has presided over a 30 percent increase in state government expenditures adjusted for inflation and population growth over the past 10 years. (See “Fiscal Crisis Pending: Quick, Raise Taxes!”)

What we have in Virginia are two political parties, or, in the case of the Republican party, two factions, that haggle over the rate of growth of government spending. The main difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats are forthright about calling for tax increases while the so-called “anti-tax” faction of the Republican Party will do anything to avoid calling a tax by its name.

Republicans suffer from crippling political disadvantages in this ongoing struggle. First is the clear preference of the Mainstream Media for Big Government. You can deduce all you need to know about the prejudices of the press from the fact that journalists and editorial writers routinely label certain legislative factions “anti-tax,” which is a laughable misnomer, but never label their pro-tax opponents as what they so very clearly are: “pro-tax.”

The other disadvantage, self-inflicted, of what might more properly be called the “slower tax growth” crowd, is the lack of a set of coherent principles undergirding their positions. The “slower tax growth” faction is caught between a rock and a hard place: a perceived need to increase revenue while simultaneously placating a middle-class constituency that is sick and tired of its ever-escalating tax burden. The solution this spring was to raise $1 billion in new revenue for transportation while proclaiming none of it constituted a “statewide tax increase.”

The authors of the the Comprehensive Transportation Funding and Reform act of 2007 instituted a half billion dollars of regional tax hikes in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, but those didn’t count because they weren’t “statewide.” They imposed assorted statewide fees, such as the controversial Abuser Fees, but those didn’t count because they weren’t “taxes.” They borrowed money, which they would pay off with General Fund revenues, and they tapped General Fund surpluses instead of rebating it to taxpayers, but none of that counted either because no taxes were raised.

The result is a revenue-raising scheme that is spread among so many different sources, and is so disconnected from how far people drive, when they drive, or the demands they place on the transportation system, that it arguably will do more harm than good.

Here’s the ugly truth that the politicians of all parties and factions refuse to tell the voters: Virginia can never solve its transportation crisis without moving to a user pays system. (That’s only the first step toward a genuine solution, but it’s a critical first step.) Virginia cannot build its way out of traffic congestion by subsidizing construction of new roads and transit programs through revenue streams disconnected from the use of those roads and transit facilities. When the cost is free, the quantity demanded is potentially limitless. That’s Economics 101. The only way to moderate demand is to make those who use the system pay for their use.

The only way to restrain spending on roads and transit in the long run is to establish market discipline upon the transportation system. If that means, among other things, imposing a “gas tax” user fee in place of the opaque mix of taxes, fees, penalties, bonds and revenue surpluses that we have now, then so be it. But that’s something the Republicans, who once believed in market principles, have steadfastly refused to do. If the Republicans find themselves in trouble with the electorate this fall, it’s because opposing “statewide” increases in “taxes” while simultaneously abetting ever-growing spending is not a formula that most Virginians will buy into.

Fairfax Taxes: Feel the Pain

I never cease to be amazed at the passivity shown by the million-plus citizens of Fairfax County in the face of higher taxes. But as onerous as the tax burden is now, it will, in all likelihood, get even worse.

A couple of straws in the wind… First, this from the Times-Community newspapers:

Fairfax County is anticipating an even tougher 2009 budget year than previously expected, after revised housing market analyses and fiscal forecasts show a potential shortfall of $120 million because of flat revenue growth. …

Long said county planners anticipate a 4-percent drop in value for residential properties and, as better numbers are available, that figure may even worsen. …

To make up the combined county and school deficits – which planners estimate to be around $250 million – an increase of 10 cents would be required on the real estate tax rate.

“I can assure you, we ain’t gonna do that,” board chairman Gerry Connolly told the newspaper. So he says. But the pressure for a combination of spending cuts and higher taxes of lesser magnitude will be intense.

Meanwhile, there’s this news from the Washington Post:

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors is planning to vote next month on a proposal to raise the tax rate on retail, office and warehouse properties to pay for up to $110 million a year in transportation improvements.

It looks like we have the makings of a perfect storm in commercial real estate. According to the Times-Community acrticle cited above, the commercial real estate sector is way overbuilt. Only 13 percent of the seven million square feet of new office space has been leased. In the Dulles corridor alone, 97 percent of office space under construction has no future occupant. Add to that, the slowdown in federal spending on defense, intelligence and homeland security means businesses won’t be expanding as fast as they have been since 9/11.

A lot of people are feeling a lot of pain. A couple hundred million dollars in higher taxes will only make it only worse.

Time Out! The Abuser Fee Debate Is Still Missing the Point

I must say, for all the skepticism I have expressed about Abuser Fees, I am astounded by the depth and breadth of hostility towards the bad-driving penalties that has surfaced this summer. State and local governments have been jacking up spending, taxes and fees for years, yet the electorate has laid there, supine and tranquilized. Stirring at last from their somnolent state, people have fixated on… what? Property taxes? Sales or income taxes? The swarming host of lesser levies? No, people are agitated about a set of fees that will punish a tiny fraction of the population — about 2.5 percent — consisting of the most reckless and incorrigibly dangerous drivers in the state.

Now momentum is building to throw out Abuser Fees. Former Gov. Jim Gilmore and 11th District Rep. Thomas M. Davis III, R-Fairfax County are the latest to denounce the penalties, according to Bob Gibson at the Daily Progress. Lost in the criticism is the idea that maybe we should incentivize the worst drivers — who cause the most accidents and, as a byproduct, the worst traffic congestion — to drive more carefully.

Constitutional issues aside, there are two core problems with the Abuser Fees legislation as it now stands. First, the fees are structured to raise transportation revenues, not to curb bad driving. That’s why, for a convoluted chain of reasons, out-of-state drivers are exempt from the fee. Virginians are rightly irate. If we need to raise taxes for transportation, then we should do so in a way — raising gasoline taxes — that is transparent and captures revenue from out-of-state motorists. The gasoline tax has many problems, as I have written extensively. But at least it functions as a rough user fee, which makes it vastly preferable to the $1 billion grab-bag of taxes, levies, fees and penalties that lawmakers foisted into place this year.

The other problem is that we have no idea if the higher fees will succeed in curtailing bad driving as they are purported to. No one has studied the issue carefully. Legislators did not solicit the input of traffic court prosecutors or judges. If the goal is to reduce the incidence of reckless driving, the ideal solution may not be blunt-edged, oppressive fines, which force many people into driving on suspended licenses, but a combination of penalties that include fines, remedial driving education, driving restrictions and other remedies.

If we want to combat traffic congestion, it does make sense to target the reckless drivers who cause accidents and snarl traffic. But we should put into place a set of remedies that are designed specifically to accomplish that goal — not to raise revenue.

The Constitution? We Don’t Need No Stinking Constitution

A group of conservative activists, represented by Richmond attorney Patrick McSweeney has filed a sweeping legal challenge to the Comprehensive Transportation Funding and Reform act of 2007. As the Virginian-Pilot’s Christina Nuckols sums up the initiative: “The lawsuit seeks to disable the legislation by riddling it with 13 separate state and federal constitutional objections.”

“As far as I can tell, no one gave any thoughtful analysis to the constitutional questions as this bill went through the process,” McSweeney told the Virginian-Pilot. “There’s a lot of fault to go around.”

In 13 counts, the lawsuit alleges that major provisions of the act, which raises nearly $1 billion a year in new transportation revenues, violate either the U.S. or Virginia constitutions. Among the claims, as reported by Examiner.com:

-Regional transportation authorities in northern Virginia and Hampton Roads with the power to levy taxes breach the state Constitution because their members are not directly elected by voters;

-“Impact fees” on people who develop their land in those regions constitute an unconstitutional governmental taking of property.

-$3 billion in long-term borrowing for roads without statewide voter approval violates the state Constitution.

-The civil remedial fees, already under court challenge, violate federal and state protections against double jeopardy, equal protection under the law and state constitutional safeguards against excessive fines.

-The multifaceted law, directing numerous ways revenues are raised and spent statewide and regionally, violates the state Constitution’s “one-object” mandate that bills be confined to a single purpose.

I’m no legal scholar, but I think there’s merit to four out of the five challenges listed above. The only one I would question is the objection to the impact fees — impact fees have passed constitutional muster elsewhere, what’s so different about these? Meanwhile, abuser fees have already encountered a major setback in Henrico County courts. It will be interesting to see how far these legal challenges go.

Update: Attorney General Bob McDonnell, Gov. Tim Kaine, and House Speaker Bill Howell have filed a legal brief defending the constitionality of the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority.

Another Awesome Virginia Accomplishment

Add another accolade to Virginia’s list of accomplishments: weaponizing the laser. It looks like the U.S. Navy is going to build a battlefield-strength laser based on technology developed at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility in Newport News. As Noah Shachtman explains in the Danger Room blog:

The Navy is interested in the FEL because most other lasers lose strength as they move through — and get absorbed by — the atmosphere. That’s especially in moist environments; around the sea, for instance. But the FEL can pick particular slices of the spectrum where the absorption won’t be nearly as bad.

For decades, though, the problem was that no one could get the FEL the shine much stronger than a lightbulb. During the Star Wars era, the government sank ten years and a half a billion into a FEL. All it could only muster a meager 11 watts.

That changed in recent years, when researchers at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility managed to assemble an FEL that hit 10,000 watts, or 10 kilowatts, in 2004. (The video, above, is of the Jefferson FEL in action.) The group got to 14 kilowatts two years later, and is now aiming for 20.

The Navy will use the laser to knock out enemy rockets — conceivably enemy ICBM missiles.

Flogging a Dead Horse: College Tuitions Still Out of Control

At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself… College tuitions are out of control. Attending a four-year public college or university in Virginia this year will set you back about $452 more in tuition and mandatory fees on average than last year, according to new figures released by the State Council on Higher Education in Virginia.

The jump in tuition and mandatory fees is equivalent to an increase of 6.8 percent, reports Gary Robertson with the Times-Dispatch. That represented a moderation from the previous year’s 9.2 percent hike, but it still beats the 2.7-percent inflation rate by more than 4.0 percentage points.

How much is enough? At what point will Virginia’s colleges and universities acknowledge that they’ve made up for financial hardships imposed upon them years ago by the General Assembly and start restraining their tuition increases? At what point will the dramatic productivity gains of the profit-driven private sector — yes, even in the labor-intensive services sector — be seen in the not-for-profit, academic sector? Universities are loaded to the gills with really smart people, right? Virginia has some of the best business schools in the country, right? Why can’t they figure out how to bolster productivity and restrain tuition charges?

(Obligatory disclaimer: Yes, I know Virginia’s public colleges provide more educational bang for the buck than most of their peers. But the fact that higher education generally is totally out of control is not a sufficient excuse for Virginia instituations being only moderately out of control.)

It strikes me as no mere coincidence that the most inflation-prone sectors of the “private” economy are those that are most affected by the heavy hand of government: education, health care and housing.

Rail-to-Dulles: On Life Support?

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and three Northern Virginia Congressmen met late last week with federal transportation officials “as part of a late-stage effort” to salvage the multibillion-dollar Rail-to-Dulles heavy rail project, reports Examiner.com. The meeting follows a report by the Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General that expressed grave reservations about the project.

The only substantive comments about the meeting came from Rep. Jim Moran, D-8th, and they didn’t reveal much:

The first phase of the planned 23-mile rail line now is “probably on a more solid track,” [Moran] said after the hours-long discussion that dealt with the cost and timeline problems that have plagued the project, among other issues. “And we think that some of the concerns that the Federal Transit Administration has may have been addressed,” he said.

Who Will Gather the News? WaPo Profits Take Another Hit

Profits at the Washington Post newspaper operation plunged in the 2nd quarter of 2007, led by a 13 percent decline in print advertising revenues, according to the Washington Post Company’s most recent quarterly report. Revenue declines were particularly brutal in classified ads and in all types of real estate advertising.

Meanwhile circulation of the print newspaper continues to erode, losing another 2.9 percent over the past year. That’s all the more extraordinary when you consider that the Washington metro area is one of the fastest-growing big metros in the country.

The only good news in the newspaper publishing division was the performance of the online operation: 2Q revenues increased 11 percent to $28.2 million. The fast-growing online business is generating in excess of $100 million a year in revenue now. Thanks to the strength of the online operation, newspaper publishing division revenues declined only seven percent overall.

But online isn’t growing enough to salvage profits. In the 2Q of 2006, before taking into account a $46.8 million retirement plan buyout, the newspaper division generated $29.4 million in profits. This year, quarterly profits were only $17.8 million. (The year-to-date numbers, encompassing two quarters, aren’t looking any better.)

At some point, plummeting revenues and profits will force the WaPo to engage in another round of editorial cost cutting.

Fiscal Crisis Pending: Quick, Raise Taxes!

Virginia faces a $1.2 billion budgetary gap in the next two-year budget, warns a new report by The Commonwealth Institute, “The Other Side of the Coin,” and the reason is… no, not soaring government spending that has boosted state spending by 51 percent between FY 2003 and FY 2008… no, not anything done during the Warner or Kaine administrations… it’s the Gilmore-era car tax relief!

States a press release summarizing the report:

The current budget deficit is not due to out-of-control spending, but is instead due to inadequate revenue policies. State spending has increased only an average of 3 percent over the last 10 years, once inflation and population growth in the state are factored. In addition, Virginia continues to lag behind the rest of the country in several key spending areas, including education, health care and mental health, despite having one of the highest per capita income levels in the country.

So, state spending has increased “only” three percent annually for 10 years — that means it’s “only” 30 percent bigger than it was during the Gilmore administration, adjusted for population growth and inflation.

I do agree with one finding of the report: Lawmakers have undermined the tax base by handing out tax breaks like candy. The report specifically mentions the state tax repeal and conservation tax credits, which it estimates will cost $260 million a year, but the problem is much, much bigger. Gov. Mark R. Warner highlighted the problem back in 2003 (or thereabouts). The problem has only gotten worse since then. The corpus of the 2007 state tax code is riddled with more holes than Bonnie and Clyde.

For the latest extravagances, you need go no farther than the Secretary of Finance’s home page, which touts, “Governor Kaine, General Assembly Pass New Tax Relief Legislation.” Aside from increasing the filing threshhold for the state income tax, 2007 measures include: (1) breaks for energy-efficient appliance purchases and the use of alternative fuels; (2) a sales-tax holiday for purchases of home generators in preparation for hurricane season; and (3) an exemption for expenses associated with organ donation.

So, what’s the Commonwealth Institute’s solution? Close the tax loopholes? Rejuvenate the efficiency-in-government reforms of the Warner era? Set different budgetary priorities? Seek innovative solutions to public needs? Push for Fundamental Change in human settlement paterns? No, no, no, no, and no. What we need to do is increase general taxes. Of course, the Institute doesn’t say that explicitly. Here’s what it says: “Policymakers should embrace a long-term solution that stabilizes state revenues and restores a balanced budget.” Got that? We need to “stabilize state revenues” — stabilize them at a higher plateau than they are now.

Don’t Panic!!

The Comprehensive Transportation Funding and Reform act of 2007, which institutes the most momentous changes to Virginia land use law in a generation, is slowly grinding its way through the system. Currently, local government officials are trying to figure out what it all means.

Bob Burke attended a recent daylong summit, co-sponsored by the Virginia Municipal League, the Virginia Association of Counties and other organizations, dedicated to sorting through the dteails and answering questions. His observation: No one seems terribly enthralled with the legislation, which will preoccupy local officials for years to come. But no one is predicting death, doom and destruction either. For the most part, people are still trying to get answers.

One preoccupation: impact fees. When can you impose them, how do you calculate them, and what can you spend the money on?

Another question: What role are “New Urbanism” design principles supposed to play in newly created Urban Development Areas? The legislation is exceedingly vague.

Burke has the story here: “Don’t Panic.”

Maybe We’ll Take Aging Infrastructure Seriously Now

Nine dead and 60 injured, 20 missing in Minneapolis– and that’s just the latest count. Reports the Star-Tribune: “The 1,907-foot bridge fell into the Mississippi River and onto roadways below. The span was packed with rush hour traffic, and dozens of vehicles fell with the bridge leaving scores of dazed commuters scrambling for their lives.”

Virginia has its share of old bridges in need of maintenance and repair. The state highway allocation formula allocates more money for fixing them than it used to, with the goal of working down the backlog of projects over 20 years or so. However, my impression is that Virginia places a higher priority on maintenance than most states, many of which prefer to steer funds into new construction.

It’s tempting to short-change maintenance in favor of new construction — until a disaster like this reminds us what’s at stake.

Conservation: Not Just for Democrats Anymore

The Virginia League of Conservation Voters has released its annual legislative score card, which ranks General Assembly members on the basis of committee and floor votes crucial to the conservation community. The House of Delegates improved its score considerably in 2007 compared to the year before, outperforming the state Senate by a wide margin.

The League specifically commended 10 legislators, eight delegates and two senators, for achieving 100 percent scores. They include:

Sen. R. Edward Houck, D-Spotsylvania
Sen. Mamie E. Locke, D-Hampton
Del. Clifford L. Athey, R-Front Royal
Del. Jeffrey M. Frederick, R-Prince William
Del. l. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Woodbridge
Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Manassas
Del. Harvey B. Morgan, R-Gloucester
Del. David A. Nutter, R-Christiansburg
Del. James M. Shuler, D-Blacksburg
Del. Robert J. Wittman, R-Caroline

How about that? Seven out of the Top 10 scorers were Republicans. Obviously, there is a major disconnect between the politics of conservation/environment on the national level and on the local level. The issues that the VALCV focused on included: Citizen Environmental Board Consolidation, the Electric Utility Restructuring, Right to Deny a Rezoning, SLAPP suit protection, and Offshore Drilling. Read the full report here.

Hispanic Activists Take Aim, Shoot Foot

The crackdown on illegal immigration continues to spread. First Prince William County… then Loudoun County… now Culpeper County.

Meanwhile, Hispanics aren’t taking the Prince William resolution — which “instill[s] in the Latino community an atmosphere of terror, desperation and a feeling of discrimination” — sitting down. A coalition of Hispanic organizations are preparing business boycotts on non-Hispanic businesses, work stoppages and a massive rally in protest. Writes Dan Genz in Examiner.com:

Hispanic immigrant groups are hoping a strong show of financial muscle can help shape public opinion. “This will show what it would be like without us,” said Francisco Vargas, the owner of Blanca’s Gift Shop in Manassas.

Let’s see if I get this straight. As a way to protest the crackdown on illegal immigrants, militant Hispanics are planning to target the very people who give them work and cater to their needs — in other words, their friends and supporters in the Anglo community. Here’s some unsolicited advice: You’re targeting the wrong people! For the most part, the middle-class citizens who have spearheaded the resolutions don’t have enough money to hire maids, landscapers and day laborers. They may own businesses, but I can assure you, they aren’t selling lottery tickets and Western Union wire transfer services.

Here’s some more unsolicited insight. Middle-class Virginians are sick and tired and they aren’t going to take it anymore. The state has hiked their taxes, local governments have hiked their taxes and, thanks to inflation, bracket creep and the Alternative Minimum Tax, the federal government has hiked their taxes. Meanwhile, they’re paying more and more and getting less and less for medical care. They have a problem with illegals who slip into the country, work for cash, don’t pay income taxes and proceed to avail themselves of free public schools and emergency room care.

If Hispanics want to call that sentiment racist, they’re totally missing the point. Indeed, crying “racism, racism” is self defeating. People know it’s a bogus charge, and it makes them angry. Just like it makes them angry that the Hispanic activists never acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, there’s a teeny-weeny bit of truth to the concern that illegals increase the tax burden on others? Just like, while they’re loudly demanding that others show understanding for their point of view, they show zero understanding for the concerns of others.

I know a lot of immigrants, some legal and some illegal. I like them as individuals, and I help them when I can. I’m sympathetic to their desire to better their lives and become American citizens. But there is nothing, I mean nothing, that infuriates me more than when a group of people come into this country — a country that welcomes those who come here legally — prosper here, and then turn around and embrace the cult of victimhood, hurling accusations of racism and bigotry at those with whom they disagree. It makes my blood boil.

Fortunately, I am quite certain that the activist Hispanic groups don’t represent the sentiments of all Hispanics. Many of the Hispanics that I know believe that everyone, including other Hispanics, need to play by the rules. I recall with some amusement talking to a Mexican bus driver in Jackson Hole this summer who confided that the country has “too many Mexicans.” I wonder if the activist groups would call him racist, too.

Tim Kaine: Simpsonized

I’ll give the Burger King/Simpson’s team an “A” for creativity in ginning up the “Simpsonize Me” website, which transforms photographs into Simpson-style cartoon art. But I was disappointed with the result — a “C” for execution.

I ran a photo of Gov. Timothy M. Kaine — one showing the infamous “eyebrow” — through the program, and this was what it came up with. It’s not remotely recognizable — although the eyebrow does stand out nicely.

You’d never know it from the fact that this is the second Simpsons-related blog post in two days, but I have yet to see the new Simpson’s movie. But I will, oh, yes, I will.