Here\u2019s another answer you could try, Creigh, to the question, \u201cWill you raise taxes?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNo governor can raise taxes without the consent of the governed. Mark Warner didn\u2019t raise taxes. Gov. Warner saw a need, went across the Commonwealth to discuss that need with Virginians. They saw the need. They understood his reasons. And they backed him. But even then, he couldn\u2019t raise taxes until the General Assembly agreed with him. They debated. They compromised, and they voted to raise taxes. When I\u2019m elected, I will study our options, see how the economy is doing next year, discuss it with Virginians through the state and with their representatives to see if, together, we can come up with a plan that move us forward on an issue that concerns citizens greatly.\u201d<\/p>\n
Of course, that would take a backbone, which puts Democrats at a congenital disadvantage.<\/p>\n
This morning\u2019s debate wasn\u2019t really illuminating, but it had its moments.<\/p>\n
First, the award for the stupidest question, to be given to one of the local reporters who surely couldn\u2019t hold a candle to the bright light that is David Gregory of \u201cMeet the Press.\u201d You guessed it. The oracle on high asks Creigh Deeds, \u201cAre you an Obama Democrat?\u201d Not really that far from \u201cDo you think Rev. [Jeremiah] Wright loves America as much as you?\u201d asked by George Stuffasockinhispuss. Gregory, oblivious to his own silliness, actually asked the question twice.<\/p>\n
McDonnell still comes off as smoother, but borders on rehearsed and automated. Deed\u2019s passion comes through, though others may see a tongue flapping in the wind. He loses his point occasionally. Both ignored questions so they further rebut a previous question, but McDonnell managed to do it without getting snickers from the Fairfax Chamber of Commerce audience, who, let\u2019s face it, was more likely to favor him.<\/p>\n
McDonnell effectively addressed the thesis question by citing his wife and especially his Iraq veteran daughter as examples of his support for working women. That didn\u2019t deter Deeds, who recited the points from his ad several times. But he missed an opportunity. He could have addressed his opponent directly. \u201cBob, you say that the thesis is old hat, but your record of introducing 34 bills to restrict the right to abortions is very recent. Why did you introduce so many such bills? Do those bills reflect your attitude about women\u2019s rights? Are you willing to explain to voters why that was so much of your legislative agenda? Are you afraid to address that question?\u201d<\/p>\n
The other thing that struck me is how fast each candidate talked, rattling off facts and figures that surely were lost on the many in the audience due to the acoustics and probably by a good number of people who will hear this online or on TV. McDonnell is smoother at fast talk, which gives Deeds an opportunity to appear more thoughtful by slowing down. That doesn\u2019t mean accentuating his slight Southern drawl. But by slowing his speech and using pauses effectively, he could be a thoughtful counterweight to McDonnell\u2019s patter. Deeds did sound more passionate but it bordered on frantic. These delivery issues are much more important than candidates think. If you talk slower, with \u201cthoughtful\u201d pauses, people can follow your arguments better.<\/p>\n
Speaking slowly might also allow a candidate to say something none of them want to say. Ever since Walter Mondale said he was going to raise taxes, it has been an article of faith among politicians that they never say they\u2019ll raise taxes, especially during a campaign. The man or woman hailed as the next Obama will be the one who can articulate a grown-up approach to taxes. The argument is not that hard to make in the case of Virginia\u2019s transportation system. (In fact, in front of the Chamber, if either said he\u2019d consider a tax increase they might have gotten a cheer out of the blue suit crowd\u2013as long as it wasn\u2019t business taxes.)<\/p>\n
How do you make the case for tax increases? Some thoughts for starters\u2026.<\/p>\n
- \n
- First, you demonstrate the courage to address the issue<\/strong>. That alone will win you points. You don\u2019t have to put it in an ad (believe me your opponent will) but being an adult about the issue will win you admiration from the information gatekeepers, especially editorial boards and likely a few reporters. <\/li>\n
- You make the argument that a tax increase can actually save people money<\/strong>. For example, how much do you pay when you lose a tire or need a front end alignment after hitting a pothole? Or how do you value the time lost? Or gas burned sitting in traffic? It\u2019s likely less than the tax increase one might proposed for transportation. Would you pay $75\/year, or even $225\/year (based on average 15,000 miles per year driven in a vehicle getting 20 miles to the gallon) for a 10-30-cent increase in the gas tax, which has declined in value over the last 20+ years? This is a tougher sell in non-urban areas, but the votes you lose there likely would be more than made up in urban areas. Is 30 cents enough? It\u2019s a good start. <\/li>\n
- Be specific on what they\u2019ll gain<\/strong>. It\u2019s not just we\u2019ll improve transportation but what projects would you build, when would they be finished and exactly how much time and money might they save the average driver? People reject taxes in a knee-jerk fashion because they don\u2019t believe they\u2019ll get anything for it. Saying that a tax increase \u201cwill fix our transportation problem\u201d is too vague. You need to be specific. You also might suggest tax trade-offs. What taxes or fees would you reduce to guarantee adequate transportation funds? <\/li>\n
- Emphasize other cost savings<\/strong>. Tell them what you\u2019ll cut in the overall budget to minimize the need for tax increases. If you emphasize only the income generation, you\u2019re a tax-and-spender. Democrats especially can gain traction by talking about areas that can be cut. Today in Virginia, it\u2019s prisons, as Kaine has learned. <\/li>\n
- Attack the other guy\u2019s empty promises<\/strong>. I am amazed that not once did Deeds point out that what McDonnell is proposing is the \u201cborrow-and-spend\u201d approach of the Bush administration. That\u2019s what his bond program is all about. You need to service that debt. The money must come from somewhere. <\/li>\n
- In Virginia, I think you can make the argument that so goes NOVA\u2019s transportation, so goes its economy<\/strong\n>. And so it goes, so goes southern Virginia schools. NOVA pays for them. <\/li>\n
- And, yes, speak slowly<\/strong>. Give people a chance to hear your argument. <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Bottom line is we need to make that argument. I heard one Democratic leader say after the debate that \u201ceveryone in that room knows Deeds is open to a tax increase, but he can\u2019t say it.\u201d So do a lot of voters who are sitting on the fence. He needs the ones who may be open to a tax increase to fix transportation. But they won\u2019t know what he plans to do until he tells them.<\/p>\n
There may be another opening for Deeds in McDonnell\u2019s antipathy towards unions. Many government workers are unionized. And I believe a lot of them live in Virginia.<\/p>\n
Deeds missed another opportunity. When he mentions that McDonnell opposed Warner\u2019s tax increases, he needs to tell Virginians where we\u2019d be today without them. The hole would be much deeper and the cuts more draconian<\/p>\n
One final note: I appreciate the nod Deeds gave to this blog, when he said he was a \u201ccommonsense Democrat.\u201d<\/p>\n
That\u2019s what he meant, wasn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
UPDATE: When I wrote the post below yesterday, I hadn\u2019t seen this after the debate interview. It\u2019s not pretty. This is why you can\u2019t run away from an honest discussion of taxes. Robert McCarthy has more this morning. Here\u2019s another answer you could try, Creigh, to the question, \u201cWill you raise taxes?\u201d \u201cNo governor can… Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[93,95],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=189"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
- You make the argument that a tax increase can actually save people money<\/strong>. For example, how much do you pay when you lose a tire or need a front end alignment after hitting a pothole? Or how do you value the time lost? Or gas burned sitting in traffic? It\u2019s likely less than the tax increase one might proposed for transportation. Would you pay $75\/year, or even $225\/year (based on average 15,000 miles per year driven in a vehicle getting 20 miles to the gallon) for a 10-30-cent increase in the gas tax, which has declined in value over the last 20+ years? This is a tougher sell in non-urban areas, but the votes you lose there likely would be more than made up in urban areas. Is 30 cents enough? It\u2019s a good start. <\/li>\n