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.

Virginia school censors critical-thinking exercise

            When Barack Obama was running for president in 2008, he gave a speech on Father’s Day in which he reminded parents of their role in shaping their children’s futures: “As fathers and parents, we’ve got to spend more time with them, and help them with their homework, and replace the video game or the remote control with a book once in awhile. That’s how we build that foundation.”

            That’s all well and good, but just as damaging as too little involvement in a child’s education is the prospect of too much involvement—that is to say, parents who think they know what their children ought to be learning more so than teachers and principals.  Such an act of academic sheltering was on display this week in Arlington County, Virginia, when parents complained to a middle school principal that a mock United Nations group of eighth-graders was inappropriate, given the subject matter.  Their anxiety stemmed from a planned discussion in which some children were assigned to research the views Taliban and represent the radical organization’s point of view.  Other sources of international conflict which were to be discussed included India vs. Pakistan, China vs. Taiwan, and Russia vs. Chechnya.

            The principal cancelled this social studies exercise because the school “Recogniz[ed] the pain that has touched many of our families and neighbors due to the terrorist attacks on the United States and acknowledg[ed] the sensitive nature of the conflict in Afghanistan involving many of our dedicated members of the U.S. armed forces”.  If that is the case, I would think it to be highly beneficial to learn about the group whose actions may have killed the parents of students working nearby at the Pentagon or who are fighting faraway in the Middle East.  It’s easy to say that mommy or daddy is fighting bad guys to a four-year-old, but once kids enter middle or high school, it is intellectually disingenuous to treat that as an adequate response.

            Yes, the Taliban are bad, but what makes them that way?  Who are they and what do they believe?  Do they hate what America stands for, or do they just hate what we have done?  President Obama has conspicuously reoriented his foreign policy around the notion that there are not automatically good and bad elements in the world—there are simply competing interests that may be overcome by cooperation.  A key pillar in resolving conflicts is to learn to see what your behavior looks like through your adversary’s eyes.  Perhaps they would be willing to give up something to meet you halfway if you did the same.

            It is possible that these kids, were they allowed to do the research, might find that the Taliban are irrational—that those terrorists would rather kill themselves and others rather than compromise their beliefs.  If that is the case, the eighth-graders could ask themselves the same questions that the Bush and Obama administrations have asked: How do we defeat these kinds of people?  Why are they able to recruit others to harm their fellow Muslims?  I know that these kinds of questions aren’t part of “teaching to the test,” and thus have no place being posed in our schools; but imagine the well-formed, engaged citizens these kids would grow up to be if they learned to critically appraise world affairs.

            I hate to point out the irony, but I have a feeling that the Taliban are wholly in favor of censoring discussion that they deem to have “sensitive” implications for their culture.  In an era where cable news and blogs depend on audiences with short attention spans and who lack an appreciation for context, it is refreshing that children have the ability to learn the method for accessing both sides to a story—even if one side is morally bankrupt.  Schools should not be manufacturing apathetic, ignorant students who can only fill in bubbles on multiple choice tests.  If kids cannot learn to examine our country’s behavior when they are approaching voting age, what will happen when they are actually able to influence the policy direction of the United States?

Virginia election analyses

Lowell over at Blue Virginia has written an excellent postmortem of last night’s election (from the Democratic perspective):

http://www.bluevirginia.us/2009/11/after-action-review-of-mcdonnells.html

Likewise, Ben Tribbett at Not Larry Sabato has an equally fascinating pre-mortem:

http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/2009/11/the-democratic-gilmore-repost-from-july-2008.html

McDonnell wins Virginia; blogger calls on Republican to release birth certificate

Governor-elect Bob McDonnell (R-Va.) is facing calls to verify the location and circumstances of his birth.

Charlottesville, VA—Less than four hours after Republican Robert F. McDonnell won the governorship of Virginia by a wide margin over his opponent, Democratic state senator R. Creigh Deeds, he faces calls from some prominent Democratic activists to provide proof of his citizenship.

            “I’m not saying that he’s not a citizen,” said Michael Karlik of The 28th Amendment, a liberal-leaning blog.  “I’m just saying that the allegations are out there—and the burden of proof should be on him” to disprove the rumors.  Karlik is calling on the governor-elect to produce his certificate of birth to show his qualifications to hold Virginia’s highest office.

            Although McDonnell, who was born in Philadelphia to American citizens, has held elected office for nearly two decades, this is the first time any concerns over his birth are receiving scrutiny.  The Virginia constitution requires governors to be citizens of the United States. 

            The outcry echoes the movement by some conservatives after the 2008 election in which President Obama, who was born in Hawaii, was accused of being Kenyan by birth and thus not eligible to hold the presidency.  Neither the McDonnell nor Deeds campaign had any immediate comment on this issue.

            Still, Karlik is not giving up.  “I think it’s completely rational to assume that Bob McDonnell is not a citizen of this country until it is proven otherwise.  As the former attorney general, he should know that one is presumed guilty of a charge until able to provide proof of his innocence.”  Karlik added, “I mean, McDonnell?  What kind of name is that?  Sounds Congolese to me.”

Lessons from election ‘09

      We knew it was going to be bad, but not this bad!

This is a real screen capture, but the data are not authentic.  Apparently, someone at the SBE accidently put a 2 in the millions place, producing this comical result.

         Still, in looking at the real returns from tonight, the result is pathetic: a thorough rejection of the Democratic ticket, with gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds the worst performer, followed by attorney general candidate Stephen Shannon and lieutenant governor candidate Jody Wagner.  As is sometimes the ironic case, Deeds’s concession speech was the most impassioned bit of oratory he had given to date.  At the victory party, meanwhile, McDonnell thanked God profusely for his win, while Attorney General-elect Ken Cuccinelli quoted Dr. Seuss and vowed to protect Virginia’s “sovereignty” against federal encroachment.

         Today’s election may mean many things: a repudiation of the Obama agenda; a pushback against Deeds’s negative campaigning on social issues; a resassertion of Virginia’s true conservatism; or a declaration of Virginia’s preference for balanced partisan administration between the state and federal levels.  But one thing is clear: given the victors tonight, we may very well know who the next governor will be in 2013.

        In Virginia, attorneys general and lieutenant governors have a habit of running for governor after their term is finished.  Since Virginia is the only state whose governor is elected to a non-renewable term, it is virtually certain that Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling or Cuccinelli will seek the Republican nomination in 2013.  And, assuming Obama is elected to a second term, there is a good chance they will win.

       To use a phrase that both campaigns employed tonight, Virginia Democrats stand an excellent chance of being in the wilderness for the next eight years.