The SB2 Debate Kicks Off
By Greg L | 7 December 2007 | Virginia Politics | 11 Comments
The pre-filing of SB 2 by Senator Toddy Puller has started a big debate in Virginia political blogs about the wisdom of raising gasoline taxes in Virginia as a means of funding transportation. The bill repeals the much-maligned “abusive driver fees”, and of course wants to replace the revenue those fees were projected to generate with a new $136 million tax hike on Virginians. After hearing so many Democrats (such as Chuck Colgan) campaign on the idea of raising taxes, and then amazingly not only win, but become the majority in the Senate, they perhaps correctly feel they have a mandate to impose these new taxes. Provided that the debate remains framed by the perspective of those who believe the level of spending in a government program is the metric of it’s success, as has been the case on transportation policy, Democrats will certainly exercise that mandate not because it exists, but because there’s no alternative proposal to consider.
Former Communications Director Sean Kenney was first out of the gate pointing out the effect SB 2 would have if enacted:
A five percent (not cent) gas tax to be levied on every working family, senior citizen, and fixed-income taxpayer in the Commonwealth. Given the most recent statistics on gasoline consumption in Virginia, at $3/gal that’s a $136 million tax hike on working families.
Welcome to a Richmond in the hands of Virginia Democrats. So much for the party of the working poor… unless their intent is to make us all working poor.
The Shad Plank called foul, noting that Republicans had advocated a rise in the gas tax, that is if you consider Emmett Hangar and and Ken Stolle as anything other than the frequent rebels from Republican values of fiscal responsibility that they often demonstrate themselves to be:
Just a few glitches in this post:
1. In the debate over how to fund transportation projects, both Democrats and Republicans have advocated raising the tax on gasoline (or, as Puller proposes, eliminating its exemption from the state sales tax). In fact, as recently as this morning, Sen. Emmett Hanger, a Republican from Augusta, said he would like to replace the “fees” approved last session with a gas-tax increase.
And as long ago as July, when the abusive driver fees took effect and the revolution began, some Republicans were pointing proudly to their votes for tax increases. (”I have voted for tax increases for transportationi on at least two or three occasions,” Sen. Ken Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, said on Cathy Lewis’ “HearSay” program.)
2. Kenney writes that the tax would be “levied on every working family, senior citizen, and fixed-income taxpayer in the Commonwealth.” Under the current legislation, those people are already facing higher taxes on car repairs, vehicle registration and home sales. About the only people exempt are those who are also currently exempt from the abusive driving fees — non-residents, who would have to pay the tax on gasoline. (Puller, by the way, has also pre-filed a bill that would repeal the abusive driver fees.)
Kenney shoots back with this:
The point is that VDOT is receiving plenty of money, and Virginia government shouldn’t have to dip into the pockets of working families to get more. The problem isn’t cash flow, it’s how it’s being spent.
Furthermore, if the funding mechanism were more, say — creative, thoughtful, or innovative — then the debate might be worth having. Instead, Virginia Democrats have chosen to throw more money at the problem without one iota of concern as to how it will be spent… or whom we’re taking the money from.
This exchange really reveals the underlying reason why there’s a debate going on here, and explains why the two sides here seem to be talking past each other. For Democrats, the metric of success here is the total amount of funding that can be dedicated to transportation. For Republicans, it’s not a matter of how much money is spent, but what the results of that spending are. Democrats have successfully framed the exchange as a discussion of how transportation can be adequately funded, and those Republican pundits who have engaged on this issue are somewhat hamstrung in that the discussions about HB 3202 have always talked about the money it would raise, rather than the effect it would actually have on the state’s transportation infrastructure. We started this as a money discussion, and it’s rather difficult to get people to consider that the purpose of this whole exercise wasn’t about spending money, but getting actual results that would reduce gridlock and improve safety.
One reason we got all caught up in spending as a metric of success was that then Senators Chichester, Potts, and the above mentioned Emmett Hangar to name a few — all Republicans — could only view this issue from this perspective. To get anything passed through last year’s Senate with a chance of getting their support, the language of the debate had to focus on the typical Democrat perspective of “adequate funding”, as if it is ever possible to adequately fund any government program at a level that will satisfy everyone’s desires. There was a fair amount of “how can we spend better to get better results” that got rolled into this compromise, but for the most part no one is talking about those components of the compromise.
To beat down this “if we spend more, we will get more” fallacy and stop this, Republicans are going to have to come up with alternatives that achieve the same or better tangible results without the revenues anticipated from the “abusive driver fees” or a hike in the gas tax. Until there’s some tangible proposal, or set of proposals to consider as an alternative to Toddy Puller’s tax hike, the debate will necessarily be framed as a “where is the money going to come from” discussion, with only one possible answer: “higher taxes”. A better debate is sorely needed here.
Then, and only then, are we going to stop talking past each other and fighting on the terrain chosen by the tax-hike advocates. We need better ground to fight on. It’s time for the Republican Caucus to stake that out, and now that Potts and Chichester, who would be expected to pollute such an effort are gone, that should be significantly easier to do.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
11 Comments
Views: 555
Loading ...
Good post Greg. I often feel that the ultimate benchmark for puccess in politics is “how much money can we throw at it”? Never mind that a real business would never work that way, because they have to use their own funds - or those of their investors - to implement that kind of policy. It’s always easier to spend someone else’s money that it is your own.
CORR: success in politics
Get a car with better mpg and really save $
I wonder what would be worse on the VA economy? Raising gas taxes 5% on retail, or the Fed hitting us with a 1% jump in rates all in one fell swoop, not just a 1/4 or 1/2 point…. a full monty point….
We need to audit the transportation budget first to see what and how we are spending the tax payers money first, then assess the states needs for transportation for the next X number of years, then project a new budget that fits within the money we have on hand. Is that not how you create a budget….Find out how much you have and where you can tighten your belt, do a projection of what your needs will be in the future the create a budget to fit those needs with the money you have on hand(or will have)….works for my checking account should work for the state.
….we don’t need to raise taxes as the first solution to a problem.
Spank that Donkey,
“I wonder what would be worse on the VA economy? Raising gas taxes 5% on retail, or the Fed hitting us with a 1% jump in rates all in one fell swoop, not just a 1/4 or 1/2 point…. a full monty point…”
Wouldnt that be rather unprecedented?
Since PWC is paying for their own roads and carrying the spillover load for I-95 and I-66 I’m not sure what I think except this makes me feel like I am paying twice?????
Local taxes cannot continue to carry this transportation burden PWC has assumed with the downturn in the real estate market.
At the bottom of the issue is who is responsible for our interstates and state roads? Guess bridges would fall into my question as well.
Before we start taxing folks, we need to find out who is responsible for what level of transportation and what we’ve been paying federal taxes for. We’re building some darn fine roads and schools in Iraq.
I thought the Dems were mad about the high gas prices, all the talk about the oil companies making record profits I guess was just BS. I guess adding to the price is alright in the eyes of the dems when it is their beloved taxes that are the cause of it.
[…] Raising the gas tax (NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! - Shaun Kenney and BVBL) […]
[…] Raising the gas tax (NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! - Shaun Kenney and BVBL) […]