Tim Kaine: don’t axe the car tax

            Yesterday, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine agitated, if not exactly shocked, the legislature by announcing his final budget proposal to the General Assembly’s two money committees, which includes $1.9 billion in tax increases and $2.3 billion in cuts.  The state has experienced revenue declines for two years in a row—the first time this has happened—and Kaine has gutted many billions of dollars from the budget since 2008.  He said that Virginia “has gone well beyond finding efficiencies and doing more with less”, although he has proposed some of the usual types of cuts: reductions for colleges and universities, elimination of empty state jobs and layoffs, cuts to public schools, eliminating state pay increases, raising the retirement age from 50 to 55, and requiring state workers to pay a portion of their salary into the retirement program that has heretofore been paid by the state.

            But the element that has everyone’s knickers in a twist is Kaine’s proposal to eliminate the state car tax and replace it with a one percent income tax.  This is not as simple as it sounds: in 1998, the Republican governor and legislature agreed to gradually phase out the car tax, which is a source of funding for local governments.  Instead of having car owners pay the tax directly, the state would reimburse local governments the cost of their lost revenue.  Eventually, this burden for the state came to be so expensive that the legislature capped reimbursements at $950 million per year.  Each local government has a different car tax rate, but car owners only pay a fraction of that (less than $300 in Fairfax County for a $20,000 car) annually.  Kaine’s plan is to eliminate the state subsidy by allowing local governments to impose the income tax (on top of state income taxes) that would go directly to them.

            First, I would say that despite the overwhelming Republican victory in November’s elections and despite the fact that we are in a recession, it’s ludicrous to think that the state ought never to raise taxes to pay for social services.  Do you want to keep police officers on the streets? Teachers in the classroom? Hospitals open for the mentally ill?  I know that there is an argument to be had that trimming teachers, doctors, and emergency responders should be the last target of budget cuts—but that administrative positions that have no direct impact should be fair game.  That is reasonable, except that all of the professionals just mentioned usually have enough work to do without having to take on more administrative duties or casework as a result of their support structure being reduced.  How can a person be expected to focus on teaching if she must investigate a student’s abusive parent when the guidance counselors and vice principals are lost to budget cuts?

            Second, I’m sensitive to the proposition that the state should not raise taxes on middle class families.  I like the idea of increasing statewide consumption taxes—or else unshackling local governments’ abilities to raise their own.  As always, the downside is that consumers might purchase less and retard economic recovery, but I don’t think that obscenely high sales or meals taxes (or a hike in the cigarette tax) are inferior alternatives.  (Also, I’ve said it before, but the gas tax needs to be bumped way up to reverse the shrinking transportation budget, but that’s another topic.)  Quite frankly, I don’t see why we cannot eliminate the car tax subsidy by making car owners pay the whole shebang—if calibrated the right way to include reduced assessments for hybrid vehicles, it could discourage ostentatious purchases and could encourage ownership of smaller, more efficient cars.  Northern Virginia’s transportation infrastructure is already overstretched (partly due to poor planning decisions), so it makes sense to me for car owners to shoulder the cost of keeping police on the roads and funding mass transportation where it exists.

            This could all be moot, since Governor-elect Bob McDonnell and the expanded Republican majority will refuse to raise taxes.  That’s too bad, because he could complain about the fiscal crisis he “inherited” from Kaine and beg the legislature to swallow a tax increase to prevent further cuts.  But, as it stands, it’s up to him now to figure out how to cut at least two billion further dollars from the budget without harming vital services or passing the buck to local governments, who must make the unpopular decision to raise taxes.

Hypocrites on free speech in Herndon, VA

            We have seen town hall meetings in August where angry constituents hurled insults at unflinching congressmen.  The meetings were mostly cathartic—venues for people to feel like they were actually giving input to the legislative process.  For the most part this was an illusion, since the congressional committees had already worked out a healthcare bill without directly seeking public comment.  And afterward, most members already knew how they would vote on the bill.  So, unlike the New England town hall meetings of the early republic, where citizens met together to hash over government business with leaders, today’s town halls are made for the media, rather than made for the good of the community.

            However, the spirit of community governance still lives on in thousands of localities around the country.  Boards of supervisors and town councils usually welcome public input and carry out their meetings in full view of citizens—or, at least the few dedicated enough to show up and speak or listen on any given occasion.  I say usually, because yesterday The Washington Post reported on a recent meeting of the Herndon, Virginia Town Council that was abnormal in one respect: the elected officials were yelling at the public, rather than vice versa.

            The trouble began on September 16, when Governor Tim Kaine arrived at a restaurant to attend a fundraiser for a Democratic supervisor running for the state House in this fall’s elections.  Outside, protestors formed a mini-tea party to rail against the policies of Kaine and the Obama administration.  Included in the crowd were three Republican councilmen and the Republican mayor.  Even though Fairfax County is teeming with Democrats, Republicans came to dominate the Herndon Council after previous members had approved a taxpayer-funded day laborer center in 2005.

            The center was created in response to an ordinance that barred workers and motorists from soliciting labor on the streets.  Courts generally see solicitation of work as a form of speech, so any ban must be accompanied by a designated site for such activity—i.e. a day labor center.  From the beginning, Herndon (like many jurisdictions) was worried about illegal immigrants being drawn to the center and hired out for work.  When a man challenged the ordinance on First Amendment grounds in 2006, the judge saw that the Herndon Council intended to bar illegal immigrants from the jobs center.  Consequently, she pointed out that the Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that the equal protections clause applies to noncitizens as well as citizens.  Rather than open the center to all residents, the Council voted to close it.

            That just lays the background for the political dynamic on the Council, which is an underlying but not proximate cause of the current trouble.  The protest last month attended by the Republican members was what caused a new furor in the town.  At a meeting of the Council a week afterward, the mayor called for “any member of the audience who would like to address the Council on any item not on the public hearing portion of our agenda” to come forward.  Ruth Tatlock, 81 years old, spent two minutes reading a speech that criticized the members of the Herndon government for their judgment—though not their right under the First Amendment—to assail the governor.  She noted that Herndon has to interact with Richmond and work toward policy goals with the governor, so the occasion chosen to protest Democratic policy was inappropriate for government officials.

            However, she was interrupted by Councilman Dennis Husch, one of the Republicans at the protest, who denied her the right to speak further and berated her for talking about “my personal business”.  He informed her that “this building is to do the town of Herndon business…it’s not to make political statements.”  After she had left the podium in disgust, Husch, still speaking, warned her to “Stay out of my business.”

 

            This was childish and completely unprofessional behavior from a public official.  Tatlock never questioned Husch’s right to express his opinion, she was just worried that it reflected poorly on the town to have government officials receiving the governor in an undignified manner.  Yes, Kaine was attending a political rally; and yes, elected officials can also voice their opinions publicly.  But it is awfully hard to ask for respect and deference as an elected official if you have been standing in the street waving “Don’t Tread on Me Flags” outside of where another politician is speaking.

            Part of acquiring a title is the obligation of being held to a higher standard—and the realization that personal and professional life become intertwined.  Doctors, lawyers, teachers—you name the role model—all have the right to do certain things, like get tattoos, spike their hair, or go on The Jerry Springer Show, but that doesn’t mean it is the best idea to do so.  Why?  Because some people may believe that these types of people may not have the best personal judgment, which could impact the way they conduct themselves professionally.  For government officials, the way to competently demonstrate objection is to give a speech, hold a hearing, or write a letter airing the grievances.

            Nevertheless, what these men did is an entirely different matter from how they responded once confronted.  The First Amendment guarantees our right to petition the government for redress of grievances and Tatlock, voicing her concerns about her government, was stymied in that exercise.  The council members were not restrained from questioning the governor’s policies.  But they tried to silence a citizen when she exercised her right to question their behavior in an official capacity.  Shame on these men for not being open to criticism the likes of which they were all too eager to heap on the governor.

Creigh Deeds experiencing a failure to communicate?

            Democratic state senator Creigh Deeds is lagging behind in the gubernatorial polls.  What’s more, he’s running about even with his opponent in Northern Virginia—a majority-Democratic area within a state that voted for Barack Obama and Mark Warner last year…and Jim Webb and Tim Kaine in the cycle before that.  What’s handicapping Deeds?

            Two things: one, it’s not a “Democratic year.”  Independents who were willing to give Obama a chance and are now wary of his policies are taking their frustration out on statewide elections.  There is not too much that can be done about that unless the economy turns around (it will eventually, just perhaps not by November).  But the other factor is fixable: liberals, particularly in Northern Virginia, are just not that enthusiastic about Deeds.

            Which is strange—considering that he beat two Northern Virginians in the primary by large margins even in their own backyards.  Former Congressman Tom Davis, who is a Republican but not a staunch conservative, said of Northern Virginia that “People here don’t get up in the morning and ask if I can go hunting and fishing.”  The inference is that Deeds is too much of a backwoodsy, gun-loving, Bible-thumping enigma to be trusted with cosmopolitan issues—even though his opponent fits almost the same caricature.

            Republican Bob McDonnell may seem like the more urbane candidate on the surface.  As a legislator, he represented Virginia Beach in the House of Delegates, he worked at Newport News at an Army hospital as a lieutenant colonel, and he is sure to mention that he grew up in Fairfax County.  But Fairfax County in the early 1970s was a far cry from Fairfax County today.  In McDonnell’s childhood, Fairfax had fewer than half a million residents.  There was no Metro, no commuter rail, no HOV lanes, and no corridor of defense contracting and IT firms.  Today, the County is affluent, one-third non-white, with large enclaves of Asian and Latin American immigrants, and has excellent public schools.

            So, neither of these men is really familiar with the Northern Virginia lifestyle.  What are the issues important to us?  Well, healthcare and the economy, of course.  But the governor does not really have control over those issues.  Deeds could try to run away from the controversial stimulus package and healthcare legislation.  Or he could embrace what the Obama administration is doing, saying that thousands of teachers, firefighters, police officers, and state workers have avoided being fired because of the stimulus.  He could also agree with Obama that every citizen needs quality, affordable insurance—something he can appreciate after growing up in rural poverty.

            The issues over which he will have control, however, are essentially two: education and transportation.  At George Mason University this week, he made an earnest—though at times stuttering—defense of state-funded public schools and universities, citing his own experience and that of his children in working their way through college.  On transportation, he has made only one thing clear: his opponent’s plan to divert money from schools and utilize the one-time revenues from liquor store privatization is bad news.  Deeds is open to any other means of funding, which traditionally infers that “new sources of revenue” (or higher taxes) are on the table.

            These are good core issues around which to run a campaign.  But the message needs a medium in order to get through.  Deeds needs to stand out on Metro platforms at 7 a.m. and rap with commuters about transportation funding.  He should hop into one of Arlington’s enviroCAB “green” taxis or get on a bus with local officials and drive through the Springfield Interchange.  He and Mark Warner (the most popular elected official in Virginia) should be touring the construction of Metro’s Silver Line and talking about how many jobs the Metrorail extension will bring to the Dulles corridor.

            Unfortunately, Deeds has hinted at his willingness to bring abortion into the campaign to rile up social liberals.  Now, I’m not saying that abortion isn’t a fair issue, considering that McDonnell pursued anti-abortion policies quite vehemently as a legislator.  And obviously if the McDonnell camp tries to link the moderate-to-conservative Deeds with liberal Obama policies, Deeds is right to pull the mask off of McDonnell’s centrist costume.  But considering that Deeds won the primary amid misguided negative campaigning by his two rivals, having a progressive plan and demonstrating it to voters may be a better strategy—as is constantly reminding the base that his opponent has a bad plan that is regressive.

Slight overreaction to Kaine’s Travelgate

            Poor Tim Kaine: the recession has gotten so bad that he has had to get a second part-time job—as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

            It turns out that Kaine’s instinct was correct when Barack Obama first broached the subject with him last year.  Kaine said that taking up the new post would not comport with his job as governor.  Yet, he still managed to accept the position, where he has supposedly been serving a weekends-and-evenings role in traveling for party business.  There is nothing inherently wrong with that, as long as Virginia matters take precedence and his time/money/staff are not used inappropriately.

            Last month, when requests for Kaine’s travel records arose, he told the press, “If anyone wants to know where I am, all they have to do is ask. . . . There’s nothing covert about it.”  Yet he delayed for weeks in releasing the reports, only relenting when the Virginia State Police (which provides his security) decided that they had to release their own records of travel.  The information provided shows that Kaine, from the beginning of March through the end of June, traveled outside of Virginia on thirty occasions, fifteen of which occurred in June alone.

            Now, leaving the state to give speeches and campaign for candidates is obviously not the most egregious activity in which a governor could partake (see: hiking the Appalachian Trail).  Nor is Virginia—which, like many other states, is seeing its budget deficit widen as tax revenues fall short of projections—in any special crisis (see: California).  Further, there is not undue national scrutiny on our state political antics (see: New York, Alaska).

            The General Assembly wrapped up its legislative session in February, so it’s a bit disingenuous when part-time Republican lawmakers are chastising Kaine.  House Speaker William Howell said that “During this, the worst jobs environment for working families since the Great Depression, Virginians deserve a hands-on, full-time governor.”  In fact, Kaine was the first governor in the country to call for a special legislative session in August to address the Supreme Court’s recent ruling requiring lab analysts to give testimony at criminal trials.  So, I think it’s fair to say that he’s pulling his weight as much as the assembly is pulling theirs.

            Still, Kaine has to deal effectively with many distractions before his term expires in January: he has to monitor the budget woes, campaign for gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds and House of Delegates candidates, monitor stimulus spending in Virginia, be on call in case a crisis emerges—all while trying to fend off Republican gains on a national scale next year.

            In a sense, Republicans’ concerns are legitimate.  And unfortunately, Deeds will undoubtedly be linked to Kaine’s mini-travel scandal under a larger attempt to smear the national Democratic leadership.  But Kaine has already wrapped up his legacy more or less satisfactorily.  The recession has dominated his last year-and-a-half in office and he was not able to fix transportation in the state, but he did push through a cigarette ban in restaurants, oversaw the groundbreaking for Metrorail to Dulles Airport, and led the state through the Virginia Tech shootings.

            In my opinion, Kaine will have enough of a challenge trying to get a Democratic successor elected in the fall without the need to travel all over the country.  However, as long as he does so transparently and no more than a couple days each month, I see no harm in that.

Let’s end the lieutenant governor’s race

         Last week, Left of the Hill lamented the fact that both of Virginia’s candidates for lieutenant governor are busy sniping at each other’s records instead of laying out their agendas to the voters.  Republican Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling attacked the Democratic nominee, former finance secretary Jody Wagner, for “flawed revenue projections” and “budgetary gimmickry” in light of the recession—a totally bogus claim considering that the great majority of states continue to see their revenues decline precipitously as the economy deteriorates.  Wagner responded that Bolling refused to support a bipartisan tax increase in 2004, when he was a state senator—which is a relatively unimpressive claim and lacks context.

            I agree that there is a problem (candidates going negative) but I would like to offer a different solution.  Not only do I not think that lieutenant governor candidates should not campaign on a particular message, but I feel that they should not have their own agendas at all.  Virginia, like 19 other states, elects the governor and lieutenant governor separately (in addition to the attorney general).  The candidates can campaign together, of course, but their political futures are not linked.  And after the voters have made their selections, we could end up with a scenario like what we have now, with a Democratic governor and a Republican lieutenant governor and attorney general (or any combination).

            Where the train comes off the rails is in the division of time, energy, and attention that must be given to the lieutenant governor’s race at the expense of the two more important races.  Considering that we elect state officials the year after a presidential election—and especially this year with a robust primary campaign—the voters cannot be expected to focus on so many names and offices (turnout was 44 percent in 2005).  The lieutenant governor’s campaign is a distraction, and the candidates should not pursue plans that they will doubtfully ever be able to implement.  Rather, they should be campaigning on behalf of their principal, and attacking the other party’s candidates for governor and attorney general.

            Of course, the qualifications and the record of the lieutenant governor candidates should be scrutinized.  Attacks on them should be fair game, if not entirely productive.  But given that the governor only has four years to carry out his agenda, it is highly unlikely that he will step down halfway through and surrender power to the lieutenant governor, especially if it be someone of the opposite party.

            The lieutenant governor of Virginia (whom I suspect is similar to many states’ lieutenant governors) has only two constitutional duties: breaking tie votes in the Senate and succeeding the governor if he could not fulfill the duties of his office.  Of course, I’m sure there are numerous unofficial duties, like reading to schoolchildren, going to police officers’ funerals, and making photocopies when the temp is sick; but the fact that each of the lieutenant governor candidates has posted a snazzy video on his and her websites laying out the “vision” for the commonwealth is at best amusing to the small fraction of people who are interested, and at worst completely irrelevant.

            The only vote I think a lieutenant governor candidate should be subject to is during the primary.  (I would not want to give gubernatorial candidates the power to choose their own running mates as presidential candidates do.)  But after the parties choose their ticket, the lieutenant governor’s campaign should merely be an extension of his or her running mate.  The two candidates should have the same message, be using the same line of attack, and pool their resources.  Virginia is too big of a state to process the platforms and personalities of six different candidates, plus the myriad candidates for senator and delegate.