The purpose of Commonwealth Commonsense is in part to enjoin a discussion of Virginia politics. That’s happening, with a few posted comments and with emails responding on my weekly email updates. There were a few comments this week I’d like to address.
But first, an editor’s note. Starting now, I’ll only allow comments on the blog for those folks willing to identify themselves with at least an email address. I’d prefer people say who they are. There’s plenty you can find about me, so no more anonymous posts.
As to some recent comments:
First, lets take the easy one. In this week’s email I wrote:
“Keep in mind that under the Senate plan, those making $60,000 a year would pay only $29 more in taxes a year. Virtually everyone under that income would pay less in taxes. Only those making as much as $200,000 would pay about $585 a year more, a small price for good, uncrowded schools, new transportation projects, health care for the indigent and disabled and many other services.”
Brad Marrs writes (Where’s my manners) Del. Brad Marrs (R-richmond) writes: “Your figures as to tax burdens on households are so absurdly understated as to lead me to question your integrity.”
OK, Del. Brad Marrs, here’s where I got the numbers for the impact on a family of four (which I didn’t clarify in the post). Now when Sen. Toddy Puller (D-Fairfax), who has been in the Senate a few years, referred to this document at a public hearing in Woodbridge last month, freshman Delegate Jeff Frederick (R-Woodbridge) warned the crowd that this was biased because it came from the Senate. The Hampton Roads Daily Press puts it most delicately, saying that Frederick “speaks with the calm assurance that only a 28-year-old can summon after less than four months in public office.”
So if you want to lump me in with Toddy Puller, John Chichester and a number of other senators, I’m fine with that.
Diane writes about the Charlottesville police casting a wide DNA net for a rapist:
Look, I was the victim of a crime and asked to give a DNA sample to “assist” in the investigation of the crime. The police officer was less than informative about what would happen to the sample I gave and how the information would be used. I was the victim and felt even further victimized by this practice– and the perp still hasn’t been caught– and I never hear about the investigation– so if I were a black make in C’ville, without an warrant, I wouldn’t ever give a sample again in the name of “ongoing investigations” “public safety” and a host of other folderol from the local constabulary.
I agree. Fortunately, the Charlottesville police chief is listening. He’s getting praise for his response to the outcry.
John K. has been commenting frequently and almost always in disagreement. I wish he’d give his last name so we may know more about him. The other day he wrote:
Speaking of the Washington Post, the paper shows a clear lack of objectivity in covering the continuing Virginia budget stalemate by labeling the efforts of opponents to the massive tax increases proposed by Governor Warner and the Virginia Senate as “anti-tax.” This isn’t far off the mark from the rhetoric employed by this blog, and others supporting tax increases, who refer to the legislators attempting to hold the line on tax increases as “the ‘no tax, no way’ crowd.” It’s enlightening, if not expected, that the Post’s noticeably biased reporting on the budget stalemate also includes glowing coverage of what it terms “advocate[s] for greater state investment.” These advocates could just as easily and accurately be described as “tax increase proponents,” but that doesn’t convey the kind of message the editorialists at the Post are selling.
I agree “advocates for greater state investment” is a mouthful. So just call me an “invest now or pay later” guy.
As for The Post’s bias, I think Mike Shear & Co. in Richmond have been playing it fairly straight, almost too much so for my blood. There’s “fair and balanced” and there’s “objective.” The latter is to call it like you see it. The Post has had a few lines that I’ve chuckled about. “Virginia’s lawmakers have not figured out how to spend the state’s money, but they know they can still collect it” was its lede about delegates taking per diem in overtime. But on the other hand, The Post stuck with $560 million as the figure the House’s early plan for eliminating sales tax exemptions would raise when many other newspapers were carrying the qualifier that essentially said teh figure was a crock.
Bruce writes:
I would like to point out, over the years, we have had a continuing
increase in taxes that has outstripped our normal increase requirements due
to new population and yet we have apparently failed miserably to improve
our schools even though the schools have benefited from an unnatural
largess.There have some irregular movement of funds in the last few years that gave
the appearance of “funny stuff” going on. For example the state was
afforded $317M in “Transportation Trust fund Money” they promptly
converted to the general fund. They then had the audacity to borrow $317M
on our credit.. placed it in the Transportation Trust Fund and then tell us
they paid it back. Maybe it is time to try something else.
Bruce has a point about raiding the transportation trust fund. Both Dems and GOPers have played the shell game with supposedly dedicated funds over the years. That “funny stuff,” including the gross under estimation of the cost of the car tax cut by past Gov. Jim Gilmore, is what got us where we are today. We’ve spent all the funny money.
As to the schools, etc., first of all, our schools are better, and increased population isn’t the only measure by which we should allocate money. We have unfunded federal and state mandates, and schools try to do more, especially for special needs kids. I like to live in a place that tries to do that.
Another reader writes:
Revenue, even without a tax increase, is expected to increase 11% because of the exploding economy. Richmond does not need more money; what they need is a dose of fiscal reality and prioritizing where they want to spend the money. Right now, politicians are like kids in their first candy shop; they want some of everything.
And one of my neighbors didn’t like some of the terminology in my last email.
We “anti-taxers” (aka “pro-growthers”) think that the keys to managing the budget problems, both at the state and federal levels, are to promote business and control spending rather than continuing to draw from the same well again and again. The concern isn’t necessarily the dollar amount as much as it is the principle and the precedent. Can’t reasonable people engage in the political process and disagree on this issue without the negative connotation of terminology like “retaliatory politics”?
Both readers point out a problem as I see it. Controlling spending is fine. It’s imperative. But both seem to suggest that we pick an arbitrary number at which we want spending to grow and then start prioritizing and cutting. The argument I hear from Grover Norquist in Washington to Arthur Purves in Fairfax is cut taxers and then fund what you can.
Those two guys would like to slash and burn, but I’ll bet my neighbor and Bruce aren’t of that ilk. Still, they need to say where we cut. Saying there is rampant waste, fraud and abuse or inefficiencies and that if we just cut spending, all that will be eliminated is foolish. If governments are truly that incompetent, I wouldn’t trust them to know the wheat from the waste.
At least “tax hike proponents” are proposing a solution: higher teacher salaries to attract better people, smaller classrooms where kids learn better, training programs for the disabled, more affordable college for middle income kids, a teacher certification program, etc. Even “more roads,” as simplistic an answer as that is for gridlock, is at least something.
Cut taxes and we’ll be better off isn’t much of a vision.
I’m not sure what “promote business” means. How? Who will pay for it?
As for “retaliatory politics.” The Club for Growth has publicly stated that it will find GOP candidates to challenge in primaries any Republican who votes for higher taxes. If that ain’t retaliatory, I don’t know the meaning of the word.
Which brings me to a final editor’s note. I hadn’t made mention of Congressman Tom Davis’s offer to help any GOP maverick in the next election. Bully for him. Of course, I wish he hadn’t given Del. Dick Black (R-Sterling) $2,500 and Del. Scott Lingamfelter (R-Woodbridge) $6,000 in the last election. I guess an “R” gets you at least a big tip.