If Virginia Democrats can’t take advantage of the preposterous propaganda coming from Republicans on transportation issues, they don’t deserve to win back more seats in the Assembly come November. I hope the Dems party chair Kerry Donley has assigned someone at the Dems HQ in Richmond to clip every GOP reference to fixing our transportation problems without tax increases. Invariably such articles have someone, often from the business community, saying, essentially, they’ve got their heads in the sand.

Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore professed support yesterday for many of the expensive transportation upgrades dear to Northern Virginia business leaders. But he flatly rejected tax increases to pay for them.

Speaking to the Virginia Public Affairs Group of the Greater Washington Board of Trade, Kilgore embraced a proposed rail line to Dulles International Airport, widening Interstate 66 and building a new bridge spanning the Potomac River.

But Kilgore, the Republican Party’s likely gubernatorial candidate this year, said the billions of dollars those and other transportation projects would cost should not come from tax increases.

Rather, he said, the state can meet its pressing transportation needs by relying on partnerships with private businesses and tax revenue captured from a growing economy.

…Robert T. Grow, the Board of Trade’s director of government relations, said he welcomed Kilgore’s acknowledgement that more money is needed for transportation. But he said a no-tax pledge is shortsighted.

“The lower the taxes the better, that’s the way we feel,” he said. “The public-private partnerships are great, but the numbers have to work. There are many projects that will require government funding. You have to be realistic.”

The challenge for the business community is to put their money where their mouth is. Some have: the Hazels, the Leadership for Virginia PAC, Mike Anziolotti of the Virginia Business Council and others have financially supported Democrats running against flat-earthers. But it will take a brave effort for some business groups to finance challengers to incumbents either at the primary level and even more so in November when the choice will be a no-tax Republican or (Omigod) a Democrat.

The modus operandi of Bush appointees before Senate confirmation hearings is often to simply say they can’t remember details of incidents that may damage their chances of appointment. Note how many times Alberto “See No Evil” Gonzales claims he can’t remember something that happened only a few months ago.

[U]nder often tough questioning from Democrats and some Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales said he could not recall key details of his involvement in the production of an August 2002 memo that narrowly defined the tactics that constitute torture.

…Gonzales testified that while he disagreed with portions of the Justice Department memo, he could not recall whether he conveyed those objections to other government lawyers at the time.

…Gonzales said he could not remember who had requested the legal guidance on permissible interrogation tactics — many officials have said it was the CIA — but he acknowledged under questioning that high-pressure interrogation techniques were discussed in White House meetings at which he was present.

…”I don’t recall today whether I was in agreement with all the analysis….

…Gonzales declined to answer many questions and said he could not recall details in relation to many others, prompting complaints from some Democrats on the committee.

But Gonzales had another strategy for dealing with questions that made him squirm.

In response to a question from Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) about whether U.S. personnel could legally engage in torture under any circumstances, Gonzales said: “I don’t believe so, but I’d want to get back to you on that and make sure I don’t provide a misleading answer.”

Why worry? If he approves torture as the AG, when later asked about his involvement he can just say “I can’t remember.”

US Airways got a gift from a judge yesterday when he “unilaterally terminated a union collective bargaining agreement” between the airline and its machinists who now face 35% pay cuts. The AP story then goes on to say:

Pressuring workers for concessions is about the only way (emphasis added) to save large chunks of money in an industry where many of the costs, like aircraft leases, fuel and landing fees are essentially fixed, with little room to haggle. In US Airways’ case, it is in the midst of seeking a third round of concessions from its unions in less than three years.

…The judge also terminated three pension plans for US Airways workers and retirees that would have cost the airline nearly $1 billion through 2009 if they remained in effect. Mitchell called the pension obligations a “financial albatross” that would make it impossible for US Airways to attract the investment necessary for it to emerge from bankruptcy.

Why is it that a collective bargaining agreement is fungible but contracts for leases, fuel and landing fees aren’t? Why is it only the worker and not the airlines suppliers who must take the hit? Couldn’t the judge have ruled that the contracts with airports are null and void?

It’s not only the workers who will take the hit. Taxpayers will, too.

The airline has said most retirees will receive the same level of benefits from the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., which will take over the funds. But that did little to mollify dozens of retirees who attended Thursday’s hearing and shouted at CEO Bruce Lakefield as he left the courthouse.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. is federally funded and rapidly going broke as it takes up the slack of companies that say they can no longer fund promised retirement benefits. It’s taxpayer money that’s bailing them out, much like the savings and loan crisis of the Reagan era.

The mayor of Warrenton.

Seeing a bit of the tsunami coverage on TV, I’ve been struck by how much more likely American TV is to show death, or more precisely, dead bodies or people being swept to their deaths. I’m reminded that the U.S. government was offended last year when Arab television stations showed the burned bodies of Americans and other pictures of dead soldiers.

Then there’s this piece from The Hartford Courant about the tsunami aftermath.

We saw more dead bodies in photos and on videotape than we usually do. Most of the human figures were distant or covered. You could not usually make out facial features. But some images, even in prestigious news magazines and newspapers, were much more personal. For example, Newsweek devoted a two-page spread to a close-up shot of a drowned boy wept over by his mother in India.

Would a respectable U.S. publication or TV outlet show a dead American child with a grieving mother? I doubt it. The news executives would fear a deluge of complaints from the public. Apparently, the Newsweek editors felt there would be less outrage over its two-page photo of a dead Indian boy and his mother.

…. If it’s OK to show us images of dead Indians, Sri Lankans, Thais and Indonesians killed by a giant wave, then isn’t it OK to show us images of dead Americans? We see virtually no images of Americans killed in Iraq. The U.S. government will not even allow us to see images of flag-draped coffins of American soldiers. Why is that? Do we think that only Americans deserve privacy in death?

Maybe the Bush administration, which demands a blackout of flag-drapped coffins, has the answer.

Update: Here’s a story that suggests it’s the print media that’s leading the way to more graphic coverage of death.

There’s a good article in the Mecklenburg Sun (Clarkesville, Va.) on the challenge before tobacco farmers in light of the new federal buyout law that does away with price supports.

Tradition and habit is bumping against a great deal of uncertainty as to whether local growers can make money in the post-buyout, price support-free environment.

Local growers and farm representatives agree that prices for tobacco in 2005 will fall sharply, from somewhere around $1.80 per pound to as low as $1.35. However, without the cost of administering the price support program, many growers believe they can still make decent money on tobacco.

The Washington Post today published excerpts from a speech by former Governor Gerry Baliles on transportation. You can find it here. But below are two of his proposals that haven’t received much coverage.

Regional transportation districts — I believe transportation in Virginia should be a statewide responsibility, and for the most part that has been the case for about 75 years. We have the third-largest network of highways in the country, and that network of 69,000 miles connects communities all across the commonwealth. It has been a compelling part of our prosperity.

Already in recent years, we have seen some localities, unable to wait any longer for transportation improvements, begin to finance projects out of local revenue and bond issues.

I don’t like the idea of “balkanizing” the state’s transportation system, either in construction or financing. In the absence of the state’s assuming responsibility for funding its transportation needs, however, you can expect legislative proposals that would encourage regions of the state to create regional transportation districts. (Two such districts already exist in Northern Virginia.)

In addition to powers for transportation planning and implementation, regional transportation districts would possess the power, if authorized by the General Assembly, to impose a regional gas tax that would be collected and spent solely on transportation projects within the region. Already, there is discussion in the Richmond and Hampton Roads regions about the creation of such regional transportation authorities. In the absence of a statewide commitment to transportation funding, I support the creation of regional transportation districts. Something has to be done.

…Tap increases in land value — When the commonwealth proposes to build a new road, it compensates landowners for the property taken for the road and accompanying rights of way. In most cases, the construction and completion of the new artery, particularly in urban and suburban areas, increases the value of adjacent properties over time, and sometimes overnight. When those properties are subsequently sold or developed, landowners reap the benefit of the public transportation investment; in other words, they get paid twice.

Perhaps the time has come for the commonwealth to consider some means by which those increased values above a certain percentage are captured and placed into a state and/or local transportation trust fund, the proceeds of which can be used to finance other, future transportation projects.

And in another excerpt, Baliles states what everyone should remember when it comes to roads.

In today’s political environment, it is difficult for some to state the obvious: Roads are built with either tolls or taxes — or both. It is not easy to propose them or secure their approval. But for certain, money is required.

And with the amounts needed (over $20 billion just to address No. Va. and I-81 problems), playing around the edges with proposals to increase fines for traffic violations will not address the long-term problem.

Governor Mark Warner is showing national leadership as chairman of the National Governors Association in the fight to shed light on the game the Bush administration is playing in the name of federal deficit reduction. Like many other expenditures, the way the Bushies are trying to accomplish their feat is to slough off the payments from the federal government to the states. And the governors, under Warner’s leadership, are calling Bush’s Medicaid plan it what it is.

“I certainly understand the need to balance the federal budget,” said Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a Republican and the vice chairman of the governors association. “But people need to remember that to balance the federal budget off the backs of the poorest people in the country is simply unacceptable. You don’t pull feeding tubes from people. You don’t pull the wheelchair out from under the child with muscular dystrophy.”

… “They tried to cap it the last time around,” said Gov. Bob Taft of Ohio, a Republican. “Then, you’re asking the states to take a risk – what if the caseload grows?” That effort to make major changes in the program collapsed after lengthy negotiations between federal officials and a bipartisan group of governors.

… Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts is among several governors battling the Bush administration’s efforts to eliminate a practice some states use to get more federal Medicaid money. The federal government says these states’ practice of transferring money to county governments or local hospitals is a way to get more federal Medicaid money by making it appear that they are spending more on Medicaid than they are.

In Massachusetts, the Bush administration says $580 million in federal Medicaid money obtained using such a practice was an improper grant. Mr. Romney disagrees.

“This was a practice approved by the federal government, and it’s one of the ways that we provide health care to the poor and needy,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, Mr. Romney’s press secretary.

Do you catch a drift here? All three governors above are Republicans. Again, Warner has found a way to let the GOP lead his fight. I’m not sure how he pulls this off, but the way he’s going he could wind up with both the Democratic and the Republican nominations for president in ’08.

With the debacle that was the national elections last year, the Richmond Times-Dispatch (of all newspapers) finds a bit of good news.

National headlines reported that George Bush increased his totals at the presidential level, and Republicans upped their margins in the House and the Senate. Democratic gains in state legislatures received far less play. It appears Democrats may have picked up about 60 state seats.

State legislatures often serve as incubators for Senators and Congressmen. For Democrats, the results from the state contests, including Virginia, rate as a sliver of good news in an otherwise dismal year.

The plan the House GOP introduced yesterday to address transportation issues does not solve the long-term problem. Even the GOP admits that (see previous post).

The major new revenue sources, Republicans said, come from diverting about one-third of the state’s taxes on vehicle insurance premiums, ranging from $127 million to $169 million a year, and raising about $100 million annually through imposing bigger fines on bad drivers.

Two questions comes to mind: One, what other services will be cut from the general fund if you take up to $169 million out of it?, and two, who has verified that the $100 million estimated to be raised by larger fines are anyway near accurate?

Clearly, the GOP is on the defensive. Note some of their language in the transportation stories.

“We applaud the governor for getting out of the blocks on some of these things, but the majority of the funds the governor is putting in with that $800 million-plus are in one-time deposits,” Del. Robert F. McDonnell, one of the sponsors of the GOP initiative, said during a news conference outlining the package.

“Governor Warner took a positive step last month. I want to thank the governor for presenting, like the House Republicans, a transportation plan that does not include a gas tax increase or any other general tax increase,” Howell said. “We can work with the governor on transportation issues.”

[Delegate Terry Kilgore (R-Gate City) … said the governor has proposed pouring a large amount of general fund money into the transportation budget, and he intends to work with other Southwest Virginia legislators to bring a share of that money home for local improvements.

Everybody wants to be seen as doing something for transportation. And even the House GOPers want to be seen as working with governor. Can those who see a certain hypocrisy between wanting to address the funding issue and anti-tax stands reveal the flat-earthers sleights of hand?