Huh?

In an earlier post, I asked two simple questions of the new pro-Hanger blogger, "Teddy Roosevelt":

Do you really believe funding "core services" required a 22 percent increase in the last two years? Do you believe it required a 60 percent increase over the last six?

In a later comment, Teddy referred to "a special tax message just for you on Teddy's Truth." Curious to see what I figured would be an answer to my questions, I took a look. There was some, um, interesting blog art, and rather long verbal caricature of Grover Norquist, but my questions were not even addressed, let alone answered.

Pity.

Teddy on Taxes

I'll say this for Teddy's Truth (I prefer Teddy's Truthiness, but it's not my blog) - amidst the sludge aimed at us (BTW, Teddy, I'm a real person from Fredericksburg, not a "nameplate"), he does at least try to defend Emmett Hanger's tax hike votes. Scroll down a little from the blogart in Teddy's post and you get this explanation:

Hanger believes that a big part of being a Republican comes from understanding the importance of balancing the budget and in doing what is necessary to assure that core services are provided for.

Of course, this argument is hardly new; Andrew Clem tried a similar line earlier, and link Andy, Teddy sounds reasonable in the abstract. The trouble comes when actual recent budgetary history comes into play.

The fact is, when Governor Gilmore left office in January 2002, the biennial budget stood at $47 billion. The current biennial budget stands at $75 billion (Free Lance-Star), an increase of sixty percent over six years (three budget periods). The smallest budget increase, which came in Mark Warner's initial and "painful" budget, was still just shy of 10%.

In fact, the current budget is nearly $14 billion higher than the last one, a staggering increase of 22 percent.

So my question, to both Teddy and Andy (note to Andy: this is in response to your comment on my earlier post - a comment I must confess I did not notice until today) is this: Do you really believe funding "core services" required a 22 percent increase in the last two years? Do you believe it required a 60 percent increase over the last six?

If so, I simply can't take your claims to support limited government seriously.

Likewise, I can't take Emmett Hanger's claim seriously either.

The view from outside

Jerry Fuhrman (From on High) paid a visit to the 24th (something that, I must confess, I've been unable to do), and gives his take on the race. Here's the meat of the post (emphasis in original):

The reason Hanger has become a target for conservatives is because, over the years, he has adopted the political viewpoints of the despised enemy, liberal Democrats, having voted for tax increases to fix an overstated "education crisis" in 2004 and a mythical "transportation crisis" in 2006.

His penchant for looking the other way at the rising problem with illegal immigration (he even proposed that we offer conditional breaks on in-state college tuition to illegals) has turned much of his constituency off as well.

So Hanger is in the fight of his life. And has resorted to appealing to Democrats to save him in the
upcoming primary, where they are allowed to cross over and vote a Republican ballot.* That speaks volumes.

Those hundreds of yard signs speak to us as well. Even with liberal Democrat support, expect Hanger to be sent packing next week.

And good riddance. If we wanted a Democrat, we'd vote for a Democrat.

Exactly.

Hanger: Pot Calls Kettle Black

Emmett Hanger seemingly criticized consumers who took advantage of low interest rates to build these big houses, and buy these gas guzzling cars, and now the taxes to pay for these amenities are coming back to bite them.



This revelation came about on the latest The New Dominion Podcast.


Well Emmett how about a little introspection on your and the 'Senate Leaderships' part. While the General Assembly was enjoying high revenues, as a matter of fact high enough revenues to double the Commonwealth's budget in the last ten years didn't the General Assembly build us a big tax guzzling Government?

This is literally how 'out of touch' Emmett Hanger and the Senate Leadership are and literally how they view those stupid Virginians pursuing the American Dream?

This same Leadership spent an anticipated 6.5% in projected growth in tax revenues but come to find out our economy could only provide an increase of 3.5% in new tax revenue. As a matter of fact Emmett admits in the podcast that the Senate Finance Committee was aware of the slowdown in the new home building market, but took no steps to account for it, or if they did, just plain blow it!

Now of course we all know what happens when we have a budget shortfall right? The 'gap' needs to be bridged with new and or higher taxes, doesn't it? However, you have all those people who are just 'Mad at the World', and do stuff like volunteer at the grassroots level of the Republican Party, and/or sign crazy things like 'No New Taxes Pledges'.

Senator Hanger & the 'Gas Tax'

If Emmett Hanger had his way SB 708 would be law and Virginia's consumer would be subject to a 5% per gallon tax on the wholesale price of gasoline in addtion to the $.35 cents a gallon we pay now. The IBD chart says $37.7, but I have always heard $.35.

At $2.50 per gallon (wholesale) the extra tax would bring the total per gallon to $47.5 cents, at $3.00 (seems where we're going) it will be $.50 per gallon.

Take a look at the chart I borrowed from Investors.com and at $.50 cents per gallon it would move Virginia into ninth place for highest gas taxes in the nation. It would actually be higher than NJ's $32.9 cents per gallon. Now we have heard quite a bit about Virginia being a great state to do business, but increases in taxes on a commodity like gasoline along with what has obviously been an exponential growth of the Commonwealth's budget in general over the past ten years is going to eventually drag our business environment down.

Seriously, why couldn't our General Assembly hold the line on the growth of our annual budget which has doubled in only the last 10 years, while the population has only grown 10%, and inflation has been only 2 to 3% annually? Now all the talk is about our coming budget deficit whereby the GA projected a 6.5% increase in revenues and our economy was only able to come up with 3.5%?

There is a simple solution to that, and it has to do with changing the Leadership in the VA General Assembly's Senate. Scott Sayre says "Let's stimulate business to encourage revenue growth". Now that's pretty Reaganesque thinking and I like that. Scott is a businessman that has had the burden of meeting a payroll, dealing with governmental Red Tape and regulations. He knows business, and he knows what businesses need to thrive.

Russ Potts and Chichester are gone, and we're working on one more here in the 24th. It is time for a change. Let's Thank Senator Hanger for his public service, and bring in some new blood.

Speaking of "Calls for lower taxes", & new Leadership on the Immigration issue is also a must!

Did Emmett Hanger actually look at the current budget?

Emmett Hanger tried to defend his tax increase votes thusly (emphasis added, h/t Inpollitically Correct):

As a conservative Republican, I am a strong advocate for fiscal responsibility, but recognize that the term fiscal responsibility may or may not mean lowering taxes and it may or may not mean reducing spending, but it always should mean providing necessary services in as efficient a manner as is possible and within the constraints of a balanced budget.

Here's my question for Senator Hanger: does he honestly believe the current $70+ billion monstrosity of a budget is "providing necessary services in as efficient a manner as is possible"?

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

Dem echos call for lower taxes

Will Hrovat is a Democrat seeking his party's nomination in the 24th Senate District. Not too much has surfaced regarding Hrovat's platform, but one message that he has reiiterated is tax reform. In today's News Leader, David Royer reports, "If elected, he said, he would work for a middle-class tax cut."

I'm not sure what I am more suprised about, the fact that a Democrat is advocating lower taxes, or the fact that all three of Emmett Hanger's opponents are advocating lower taxes.

Republican challenger Scott Sayre writes:

I believe it's time we send a message to the career politicians in Richmond that enough is enough - that Virginia citizens have had enough of higher taxes and spiraling government spending. Those who say higher taxes are the only answer are just plain wrong.

Libertarian Arin Sime echos Sayre saying:

"As a small business owner, Arin sees first-hand how heavy taxation burdens everyday people and Virginia’s economy. Many in Richmond, especially in the State Senate, apparently believe that the state must take even more of your money to fund their pet projects. Arin knows the state has already taken more than enough money to fund core responsibilities of government; what the politicians and bureaucrats in Richmond really need is fiscal restraint and respect for your rights."

Senator Hanger has labled low tax advocates as "extremists". Then, in defense of his position
said, "taxes are part of a civilized society, and must be looked at based on how equitable they are and what services they fund."

He further states:

I recognize that the term fiscal responsibility may or may not mean lowering taxes and it may or may not mean reducing spending, but it always should mean providing necessary services in as efficient a manner as is possible and within the constraints of a balanced budget.

Sounds like on the tax issue, Hrovat and Hanger have swapped parties.

Yet the question begs to be asked--if all three of the challengers are advocating a lower tax, doesn't that send a message to the Senator that voters in the 24th are fed up with his tax hikes?

x-posted to Inpolitically Correct

SB 708 Emmett Gas: Put a Tax in Your Tank!

Emmett Gas is actually looking pretty cheap, We Need an Update!

Check out the details/summary in SB 708:

Funding of transportation in the Commonwealth. Provides several mechanisms for funding transportation in the Commonwealth.
The bill would provide that all moneys credited to specified transportation-related funds shall be solely used for the purposes set forth therein relating to the funding and maintenance of highways (including access roads and bikeways adjacent thereto), public transportation, congestion mitigation, railways, seaports, and airports; making payments on bonds and obligations related to funding transportation projects; or making loans to finance transportation projects.
The bill would raise new revenues for transportation by (i) imposing an additional $200 fee upon certain convictions relating to violations of Virginia's driving laws; (ii) imposing annually additional fees on any driver with a driver's record having a balance of 8 or more demerit points; (iii) increasing motor vehicle registration fees by $10 for all vehicles and doubling the gross weight registration fee for vehicles weighing more than 10,000 pounds; (iv) increasing current liquidated damages for violations of any weight limit imposed under law or for violations of any weight limit included in a permit that has been issued; (v) imposing additional liquidated damages of $20 for every violation of any weight limit imposed under law or any weight limit included in a permit that has been issued; (vi) increasing the state grantor's tax to 30 cents for each $100 of value with the revenues from the increase in the tax distributed to the respective locality and required to be used for local or regional transportation projects; (vii) authorizing local governments to impose a local grantor's tax at the rate of 10 cents for each $100 of value with the revenues to be used for local or regional transportation projects; (viii) increasing the motor fuels tax on diesel fuel to 17.5 cents per gallon (the current rate of the motor fuels tax on gasoline and gasohol); (ix) imposing a 5% tax on motor fuels that would be based on the statewide average retail price of a gallon of self-serve unleaded regular gasoline over rolling six-month periods and that would be imposed at a cents per gallon rate; and (x) increasing the motor vehicle sales and use tax from 3% to 3.75%, phased-in over fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009. The bill would also dedicate for transportation purposes all insurance license tax revenues relating to automobile insurance policies.
The bill would allow individuals to apply for a refund of any motor fuels tax paid in excess of 17.5 cents per gallon. Individuals would apply for a refund when the cumulative amount of the refund would exceed $5.

Triple the Grantors Tax, Double Registration taxes on Trucks, $10 more on all vehicles, TAX, TAX, TAX! Our Rates are still lower than New Jersey's!!! This Can not be!!! Raise em!

This bill was so ugly, that it had the insane notion that you didn't have to pay the 5% wholesale gas tax if you just simply saved your receipts and took them down to the friendly people at DMV. Seriously, that is fighting to make government more efficient? How many more people would have to be hired at DMV to dispense the reimbursements?

Potts and Chi-Ching-Chester are gone, Let's Finish the Job!

Transportation (I81)--More revenue v. Creative Solutions

It is no secret that transportaiton is a hot-button issue. The Valley experiences a high degree of frustration, because it seems as though most of the monies are sent to NOVA and Tidewater, and very little is given to address the issue of Truck Route 81. As an individual who is on 81 almost everyday, I have to say, we need help!

Those of you who drive I81 understand. There are 2 speed limits; very slow or very fast (trucks usually set the pace). I have learned trucker edicate, that's for sure. I had to, or else my fuel efficient mini-car would be run off the road (actually, that has happened twice now).

Things were looking up 2 years ago when there was discussion centering on I81. There were proposals involving rail, extra lanes, tolls, and misc. band-aid approaches. There was actually a lot of talk. Then there was more talk. Then the talk turned into chatter and the chatter turned into mumbles and we still have major issues on I81 and it seems like there is a deafening silence.

So I was curious and decided to take a look at what Hanger and Sayre were saying themselves about solutions to our I81 problems.

Senator Hanger states:

"There is no question, based on current policy; that we do not have adequate revenue coming into the Transportation Trust Fund to pay for existing needs.".

Editors note: Senator Hanger wasn't kidding. In 2006, he voted for SB 708 twice, which based on FY 2007 projections, would have added $114 million for mass transit, $662 million for highway contruction and $210 million for local and regional projects. This money cwould have come from several sources including an increase in motor vehicle tax, increase in gas tax, increase in vehicle registration fees and increase in auto insurance tax to name just a few. Thankfully the bill died in the House.

Hanger continues

"I do not support the impact fees that were authorized, but some of the growth management tools may prove helpful. The biggest shortcoming of the funding package, in my opinion was that it relies totally on taxes and fees that are paid by just Virginians and do not extend to the out-of-state motorists and truckers that use our highways."

Editors note: Once again, more talk about "funding". And, Hanger's statement is contradictory to his previously noted votes, both in committee and on the floor, on SB 708.

Next Hanger says:

"We recently created a Transportation Accountability Commission, to provide some additional oversight from the legislature on the implementation of transportation policy. I have been appointed to serve on this Commission."

In summation, from what I gather, Hanger's solution is to raise more money and sit on a commission to discuss policy.

What does Sayre have to say? On his website he states:

It's time for us to prioritize state spending on core functions of government: public safety, education, and transportation...What we have found thus far is the need to fund and build climbing lanes on several stretches of I-81 in the 24th District. Here are some simple solutions:

1. Enact a Constitutional Amendment to Protect the Transportation Trust
Fund. The Trust Fund has been repeatedly raided to fund non-transportation
spending.

2. Reform VDOT so that it is responsive to the needs of the people. Have
you ever sat at a red light waiting for it to turn green - and worse there was
no one else in the intersection - just there alone wasting time and fuel?

3. Allow for more citizen involvement in the process and expand public
private partnership initiatives to ensure even greater private involvement in
road building, maintenance and construction.

4. Educate our drivers to Drive in the right lane and Pass in the left
lane.

The stark difference between Hanger and Sayre is obvious. Hanger, having been in Richmond for many years, sees the fix as an obvious increase in revenue sources. Sayre, a businessman, seeks a four-fold solution which includes driver education and an amendment to lock up transportation funding. The dollars are already out there--we have a huge surplus. Let's use the money that exists.

X-Posted at In-Politically Correct

Nice try, Andy

Andy Clem has decided the Republican Party can washout low-tax folks like us. He came up with this revelation upon reading this section in the party creed: "That fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government" (RPV).

Andy then waxes philosophical (emphasis in original):

Fiscal responsibility -- i.e., making sure you've got enough money to pay the bills -- does not mean cutting taxes, the fad which Scott Sayre and many on the Right espouse these days. Indeed, it could be construed as justifying tax increases when necessary.

It all sounds perfectly reasonable; doesn't it? Unfortunately for Andy, he forgot (or ignored) the other part of the creed plank: budgetary restraints. That means holding the line on spending and cutting unnecessary waste. Now, it does not include stopping the government from doing things it should not do. That is covered in the first plank of the Virginia Republican Creed: "That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice." In other words, the less that government does, the better.

Of course, Andy's real target in all this is our buddy Chris Green, who mistakenly believed low taxes were written by name into the platform. Chris may have had his syntax wrong, but it is abundantly clear upon reading the entire creed in context that its thrust is limited government, minimal spending, and lower taxes.

Chris didn't remember the exact words of the VRC. Andy twisted the creed to claim it says something it doesn't. I'll take the honest mistake over the intellectually dishonest half-truth any day.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

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.