Will anyone speak for the taxpayers at the special session?

Just before I skipped town for my sister’s wedding, Governor Kaine called for another special session on transportation funding (AP via Daily Press), meaning we can look forward to yet another argument between tax-hiking Democrats and tax-hiking Republicans.  Whether or not we will see a group of lawmakers opposed to any tax increases (i.e., if anyone will join Bob Marshall) remains to be seen.

So far, the tax-hikers are holding - such as they can - to their already vague positions.  Kaine wants a tax increase on car sales, but he is also clearly open to a gas-tax hike (WTOP).  Whatever his plan is, he apparently won’t see it for another week and a half.  Senate Democrats are already on record demanding a gas-tax hike.

Meanwhile, Republican Delegate Chris Cox called Governor Kaine’s projected transportation revenue and spending numbers “alarmist data” (DP).  Yet even he, like the rest of the House GOP leadership, would prefer some sort of regional tax hike.

There is, however, another way - an alternative that would not rely on tax increases at all, but rather download the cost of secondary and subdivision roads where they belong - localities for the former and homeowners for the latter.  The question is, will anyone in the legislature have the courage to present it?  Will anyone (besides Marshall, Mark Cole, Tom Gear, and Johnny Joannou) stand up for the taxpayers?

Or must we pray for a train wreck to avoid a tax hike?

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

RLCVA Chairman to General Assembly: Do Not Raise Taxes to “Fix” Transportation

The chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia strongly cautioned legislators in Richmond against using tax increase to replace the funds lost when the Supreme Court ruled that the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority’s taxes and fees were unconstitutional. 

“I held out hope that . . . the Republicans in the General Assembly would take this second chance to craft a transportation solution without raising taxes,” said McGuire on his right-wing liberal blog.  “Alas, they seem determined to repeat their initial mistake, and put the proverbial gun to the heads of local officials.”

Not that the RLCVA head was happy with the Democrats: “the G.A. Democrats wanted a gas-tax hike then, and  sadly, they still want one now. . . There are ways to deal with transportation without shoveling piles of taxpayer money at the problem and hoping it goes away.”

McGuire noted that Republicans in particular had best be wary: “the idea that Northern Virginians and Hampton Roads residents will sit still for HB3202 II - The Sequel is insane.  Meanwhile, tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of Virginia voters will wonder why the supposed party of limited government and low taxes will have helped to enact three tax increases in five years.”

 The Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) is a grassroots, nationwide organization affiliated with the Republican Party (GOP). The goal of the RLC is to elect pro-liberty individuals to public office.  The RLC was founded in 1990, and now has members in every state. 

“Voters in northern Virginia and Hampton Roads made abundantly clear what they thought of these taxes and fees on November 6,” said McGuire.  “Republicans who supported them lost support (and in many cases, their jobs), while Republicans who opposed them gained support.  They won’t take kindly to the GOP bringing those old taxes back under new labels or less dubious constitutional authority.”

For more information, e-mail D. J. McGuire at djmcguire_1999@yahoo.com or visit the RLC’s national web site at http://www.rlc.org.

They still don’t get it

Zak Moore (Roanoke Red Zone) and Marty Williams (Reagan’s GOP) each have posts on the future of the Republican Party.  Both want to cure the party’s recent penchant for losing elections.  Unfortunately, neither have the correct diagnosis.

Both start from the belief that he party must be a broad-based coalition in order to win elections.  While this may come as a shock to both of them, I tend to agree with that sentiment, but it doesn’t explain why the GOP has had such trouble lately.

I’ll star with an excerpt from Zak’s post:

Take Jose. Jose is pro-life. He’s a gun owner. He believes in low taxes and smaller government. He home schools his children. Jose is a Republican. But Jose is also Hispanic. And he supports amnesty for illegal aliens, many of whom are his friends who have lived here for years. They are not just people caught on camera crossing the border some 2,000 miles away. Now, some would say there is no place for that belief in our party. They would say there is no place for Jose and would seek to cast him out. Where would he go? Most likely he would become an independent. Or he may even become a Democrat. But the bigger question is does casting someone like Jose out of our party make sense?

At first blush, that might sound reasonable, but take a look at the beginning again:

Take Jose. Jose is pro-life. He’s a gun owner. He believes in low taxes and smaller government.

FULL STOP.

Now, let’s say Jose is a Virginia voter.  He has seen the leaders of the Republican Senate demand higher tax increases than Mark Warner wanted in 2004.  He saw them clamor for a tax increase that even Tim Kaine kept at arms length in 2006.  He saw the debacle of HB3202.  All the while, he sees the Republican President and (until January 2007) successive Republican Congresses bust their budget limits year after maddening year.

Would Jose necessarily be fond of the Republican Party under these circumstances?  I don’t think so.  The fact is, the Virginia GOP has not been friendly to limited-government supporters for quite some time. 

What effect this has on the base is arguable, but among those who support limited government and do not call themselves Republicans (either capital-L or small-l libertarians), the effect has been catastrophic.

It is this fact that Williams also misses, thus leading to this faulty analysis:

Fred Barnes, writing in the Wall Street Journal, makes the point:

“It was the defection of independents, not conservatives, that caused the Democratic landslide in the Congressional elections in 2006. Their preference for Democrats jumped to 57 percent in 2006 from 49 percent in 2004. [John] McCain must win many of them back, since independents constitute nearly one-third of the overall electorate.” (reprinted in the RTD)

Read that carefully - especially the last sentence. Are we going to allow the ultra conservatives in our party to drag us into permanent minority status?

We Republicans should be more than aware of this growing problem, but many seem inclined to ignore it. We have lost the independents and we can’t win elections without them.

What Marty ignores (either by inclination or accident) is which independents have abandoned the party.  A quick rundown of 21st-Century political history makes it abundantly clear, the GOP lost the small-l libertarian vote.

This is important for two reasons.

First, when the libertarians are not part of the GOP coalition, said coalition loses, period.  In 1992, they were furious over Bush the Elder’s tax increases, and they left for Ross Perot.  In 1996, they didn’t really trust Bob Dole, and they either stayed with Perot or went to Clinton (who at least agreed with them on social issues).  By 2000, Bush the Younger’s tax cuts and Al Gore’s decision to run the big-government “populist” campaign brought just enough of them to the GOP. Since then, at least here in VA, we have seen what I described above, and the libertarians haven’t been part of the GOP coalition since.

Secondly, what Zak, Brandon, and Marty would like the party to do will not bring the libertarians back.  All three have, in one way or another, insisted that their tax increase votes (Zak obviously did not vote, but he worked for Senator Bell) were defensible - exactly the kind of talk that will keep the libertarians away.  Ironically, if they really were the petty, bitter ex-pols their more strident detractors claim they are and spent all their time settling personal scores, they’d do less damage.  It is their support for enlarging government, not their anger at the “base,” that is making it harder for the GOP to win elections.

Now, all is certainly not lost here.  With McCain, the GOP has a nominee who is a dogged and principled opponent of excess government spending.  Meanwhile, the Senate GOP has clearly learned the lesson (I should also note that it was Brandon Bell himself who has presented the most thorough demolition of Governor Kaine’s pre-K nonsense).

My point is this; we lost a particular part of the coalition over the last few years - the small-l libertarians - and we must return to low-tax, limited-government policies to bring them back.  Nothing else will work.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

Republican Liberty Caucus Chairman Lambastes Gas Tax Vote

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT:  D. J. McGuire (djmcguire_1999@yahoo.com)

(ARLINGTON, December 1, 2007) — The chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia criticized the Virginia state senate for passing a 5-cent increase in the gas tax.

“This vote was deceitful, disgraceful, and dumb,” said McGuire, who also ripped vote on his “right-wing liberal” (http://rightwingliberal.wordpress.com/) blog.  “There was no need to come to the taxpayers once more for money that would have been available had Governor Kaine not diverted $180 million in transportation money for his big-government wish list of pet projects.”

McGuire was especially critical of the four Republicans (Harry Blevins, Emmett Hanger, Fred Quayle, and John Watkins) who joined all twenty-one Democrats in favor of the tax hike.

“For these four Republicans to vote for this after pleading with voters for another term is just galling.  Did Hanger learn nothing from his primary challenge?  Clearly, he needs another one, because the his constituents will not be able to afford four more years of him - ditto for the constituents of Blevins, Quayle, and Watkins.”

“We here at the Republican Liberty Caucus are in the business of advancing limited government and electing pro-liberty Republicans.  As of right now, we’re looking for pro-liberty Republicans in the 10^th, 13^th, 14^th, and 24^th State Senate Districts to replace these four.”

The Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) is a grassroots, nationwide organization affiliated with the Republican Party (GOP).  The RLC was founded in 1990, and now has members in every state.

For more information, email D. J. McGuire at djmcguire_1999@yahoo.com or visit the RLC’s national web site at http://www.rlc.org. 

From the voters to Richmond: Cut spending

Christopher Newport University took a poll to examine Virginians attitude toward the state budget.  Here’s what they found (Roanoke Times via From on High, emphasis added):

Boosting taxes or tapping the state’s “rainy day” reserve fund is not the way a majority in a new statewide poll wants the state’s strained budget to be reconciled.

Fifty-six percent of those questioned in a Christopher Newport University survey said they prefer that the General Assembly and Gov. Tim Kaine slash state spending to offset a projected revenue shortfall.

The Governor’s plans for turning the “rainy day” fund into a “Kainy day” fund were not nearly as popular: “Thirty-one percent favored Kaine’s proposal to pair spending cuts on some programs with supplements from the reserve fund.”

As for the plans of Governor Kaine and othersto raise taxes (which the geniuses as the Timestried to airbursh out of existence): “Nine percent favored higher taxes.”

 Oh, and just in case anyone out there still thought the transportation tax hike of 2007 was a good idea:

When asked what they would cut first, 55 percent of the 700 registered voters questioned said it should be transportation funding, the legislature’s signature achievement last year.

In other words, the voters of Virginia want their politicians to be thrifty, set priorities, and cut spending where necessary rather than raise taxes or rename the rainy day fund.  Virginians are still, by and large, averse to big government.  We can only hope the Republicans in Richmond have been burned badly enough to listen.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

A dead certain addition to the RLCVA scorecard

Tom Gear’s HB 829: “Abolishes the (Hampton Roads Transportation) Authority and the taxes, fees, and charges dedicated to financing its operation and programs.”

Personally, I wish Gear would have proposed both Authorities be scotched, but with the NVTA still in court (thank you, Bob Marshall), and far too many NoVa politicians unwilling to take this step, I can understand why Gear would focus on his home region.  Either way, if the Richmond Republicans have learned their lesson, they’ll stand foursquare behind Gear’s bill.  Otherwise, they will have revealed they have learned nothing.

One more issue we’re watching

In addition to these six, we also have the budget transparency bill (Rick Sincere).

Richmond preview . . .

We’re starting to get an idea of what the state legislature will be examining in the proposed law department.

The highlights (and lowlights) so far:

• Raising the gas tax (NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! - Shaun Kenney and BVBL)
• “Son of HB3202″ for the greater Richmond area (NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!)
• Examining the possibility of allowing school board the authority to set tax rates (BAD IDEA - Bacon’s Rebellion)
• Privatizing the state-run liquor stores (GOOD IDEA - Smyth County Conservative)
• Privatization of the state lottery management (GOOD IDEA - although Smyth County Conservative disagrees)
• Repeal of abuser fees (good idea, but not enough - Mason Conservative)

This is hardly everything, but its some of the things we’ll be eyeing.

“Son of HB3202″ casts its shadow over Richmond

Be afraid; be very afraid.

President Bush, please nix the earmarks

The DC Examiner beat me to the punch this morning, but the point is important enough to be spread far and wide: President Bush can wipe out billions of dollars in wasteful spending with the stroke of a pen (emphasis added):

President Bush and Republican members of Congress have a critical choice to make and very little time left in which to do it. For Bush, the choice is whether to issue an executive order directing federal departments and agencies to ignore earmarks that aren’t explicitly included in the legislative text of the recently approved $515 billion omnibus spending bill. As we noted a week ago in this space, the Congressional Research Service has advised Congress that such an executive order would with the stroke of a pen kill the thousands of earmarks that are routinely “air-dropped” into the federal budget via committee reports on spending bills. This is because the Constitution requires that all federal expenditures originate in the House and be approved by both chambers of Congress. Committee reports aren’t and so are not binding on the executive branch.

Now the merits of this are beyond question, but there is a significant political upside for the President on this.  He would accomplish several things at once (besides the obvious in saving taxpayer money and stopping the government from doing things it should not do).  Some of them, the Examiner mentioned, so I think it’s only fair to cite them:

Talk of a lame duck in the White House would cease because Bush would gain leverage to force Congress to stop talking about federal spending priorities and actually establish them. He would also bequeath to his White House successors a powerful precedent. If Congress resists, the issue will be starkly drawn for voters in an election year. The thought of Bush on the campaign trail speaking against those who opposed his effort to kill earmarks ought to be sobering. The executive order would be Bush’s finest hour and a worthy legacy on domestic issues.

As for Republicans in Congress, a Bush executive order against earmarks is probably their last slim chance to prove their claim to have gotten the message of 2006.

There are two things the Examiner editors left out: (1) it would be a nice way for the President to rebuild credibility with the Republican base - said lack of credibility being the real reason his approval rating remains doggedly below 40%- and (2) it would provide a perfect reminder of just what the Constitution allows the government to do and what it doesn’t - thus providing a terrific bridge between the majority of Republican voters and the Ron Paul supporters, both within and outside the party.

The only drawback is that Senate Republicans - who, as the Examiner noted, are still “talking and voting for earmarks as if the 2006 elections never happened” - would be nonplussed.  Well, given that nearly half of there seats are up for grabs in the upcoming elections, I’m guessing they’ll keep their complaints to themselves.

Mr. President, this is the one issue that would at last give you the political upper-hand against Congressional Democrats, because it’s the right thing to do.  Please, issue that executive order; cancel the earmarks; and bring us at least part of the way back to limited, constitutional government.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal