Emmett Hanger's economic model - New Jersey?

The moment I saw STD make reference to Hanger's mantra on taxes ("The purpose of tax reform is to emphasize sales tax and income tax and take the burden off of real estate tax"), the blood drained from my face, my heart nearly stopped dead, and the warnings clanged in my brain: I've heard this nonsense before, where I grew up.

Unlike the overwhelming majority (I think) of the B4S roster, I am not a native Virginian. My "formative" years (before college) were spent in a suburban township in northern New Jersey. More to the point, every single tax increase I ever witnessed in the state of my birth has been justified by a spurious claim to lower property taxes. The theory goes like this - the more revenue the state raises, the more it spends; the more the state spends, the less the local government has to spend; the less the locals have to spend, the less they have to tax.

When said like that, it sounds marginally logical. Of course, what they leave out is that this depends on the frugality of locally elected officials. If the locals are willing to spend money like water, then the entire notion collapses under its own heftier tax bills.

This may also explain why nearly every local official is coming out for Hanger: this tenuous link between state and local taxes give all of them cover to spend like drunken sailors, while Hanger blames anti-taxers for "forcing" said locals to tax and spend.

Of course, as in New Jersey, local officials down here never seem to get enough state money to slow down their own profligacy.

Meanwhile, I would also note with amusement that Hanger's argument focuses only on lowering (in theory) real estate taxes, for if he had said property taxes, then it would have brought the personal property tax (i.e., the "car tax") into the discussion.

There, Hanger and his tax-hiking buddies didn't help local officials and taxpayers, but shafted them. While most have focused on the income and sales tax hikes, the 2004 tax soak also included a ceiling on the amount headed to localities to cover the local car tax (it was suppose to rise in order to maintain a 70% car tax reduction in all localities). In particular, the legislation froze the amount for each county and city, regardless of the future increase in car prices or population. This means Valley voters (and, although it means far more to me than to others here, the Fredericksburg area) will see their car taxes go up nearly every single year - precisely because Hanger et al did the exact opposite of what they claim they wish to do. Rather than increase state funds for supposed local tax cuts, Hanger, Warner, et al left the locals high and dry.

However, Hanger's excuse is still valid for local officials, so they're sticking with him.

This gives a new dimension to this campaign. Electing Scott Sayre will not only send a message to Richmond to keep taxes low, but also to local officials: namely, that they can no longer jack up spending and expect the voters to blame Richmond for it.