I hate doing this, but I don’t think I have a choice; nothing has dissuaded me from the certainty that Gilmore will lose, and lose pretty badly, to Mark Warner. I talked about a couple reasons here, but more have since come to my attention.
Government spending: I just took a look at the past budget tables, and the data is shocking. During Mark Warner’s four years as Governor, state spending grew by a whopping 32%. However, that number was lower that the 36% increase in state spending during Gilmore’s term. In other words, Gilmore would actually losethe issue of government spending to his Democratic opponent.
We went through that in the 2006 elections; I’m not up for a repeat.
Taxes and credibility: Now, truth be told, this isn’t Gilmore’s fault entirely. His car-tax phase-out was planned for five years, and he did his part for the four he was in office. However, he still has to fight both the perception that he broke his word to “end” the car-tax, and the reality that he set up a five-year plan n the first place, thus leaving the ultimate decision up to someone else (in this case, Warner).
Mark Warner is very vulnerable on both the tax and spending issues, but Jim Gilmore is uniquely unable to use those against him.
The sad fact is, on the issues that matter most to the voters - especially Republican voters (taxes, spending, the WBK War, and life) - Jim Gilmore doesn’t beat Mark Warner; he joins him.
That will be a sure vote-killer for Republicans of all stripes and factions - to say nothing of centrist Democrats who would see no differences between the candidates and thus stick to the party label, as Democrats are more likely to do.
Bob Marshall, by contrast, has a near-two-decade record fighting taxes and government spending (as I mentioned here); he also has an armor-plated record on life and a strong history of winning over Democratic voters in northern Virginia. He would be a far better candidate than Gilmore and - more to the point - a far better Senator than either Gilmore or Warner.
December 21, 2007 at 8:43 pm
You are right on the problems with Gilmore. Spending went up more any Governor in modern times. Part of that was structuring the car tax relief as a spending program and then not having a way to truly eliminate it. It could (and still can)be truly eliminated without having a state spending program to do it. Also the car tax push doesn’t have any legs out in SW VA–traditionally an area a GOP candidate needs to do well in.
I’m not convinced Marshall is the guy to do however–I’m still waiting.
December 22, 2007 at 2:10 am
DJ:
I haven’t looked at the numbers you used to jusitfy that the budget grew greater under Gov. Gilmore vs. Gov. Warner…. but it looks like our friend…. Senator Bell, who for some strange reason thinks that refunding localities to replace the revenues…. errr let me clarify TAXES!!! that other wise would have been paid by the TAXPAYERS !!! are part of that budget….
Thank You Senator Bell… but if we could just for one second recognize that when the General Assembly is using General Funds to reimburse localities for revenues that otherwise would be paid by citizens of this Commonwealth… its a tax cut…. Because, Senator Bell we…. let me ephasize again WE… the citizens are all paying into the kitty… err General Fund.
You are just mad at Gov. Gilmore, because he figured a way to short circuit the General Assembly i.e. 140 elected officials whose job it is, is to hand out the ‘peoples’ money, and in so fashion do so to be re-elected every year…..
OK, to be precise, A Governor wants to deliver a tax cut… it will never happen, because you have to deal with 140 people otherwise known as the General Assembly, whose job it is, is to disperse the ‘Commonwealth’s Revenues’… it is just not going to happen….. (a tax cut)
Gov. Jim Gilmore figured out a way to achieve an actual and now almost decades long net tax cut to Me…. and all the other taxpayers…. at the expense of those… You in the former sense members of the General Assembly who just spend our money with hardly any accountability….
Why not throw your spears and arrows at the current Governor, who has exposed the shell game? He just verified that for all the moaning and groaning the 2005-2007 Senate Leadership did to demand tax dollars now, that they will not even be spent for 2 years in the future?
For the Love of the Almighty….. Ya’ll couldn’t even ad $50M to the PP Tax relief to keep it near 70%? Can you not fathom, how absolutely, positively…. put off I am about your attitude about the taxpayers $$$$ in this Commonwealth?
However, it has been very useful to this conversation… so please proceed to tell us how dreadful Gov. Gilmore was to the mechanics of the General Assembly to wring every dime they can from us….. the people are clamoring to obviously re-elect you and anyone else who will fully restore the car tax upon the people… and stand aside as you expand government into an even more bloated state….. one that still can’t spend everything you send it…
December 22, 2007 at 7:05 am
Hey, STD, I hate taxes as much as the next guy. But when you cut taxes you cut spending not increase it. That’s like the federal govt way to cut taxes and just borrow from our kids to make up the difference. I don’t like what the current Gov. has done with the trans. revenue redirect and I’m sure it won’t stand at the end of the day. By the way I introduced bills to truly eliminate the car tax but they never got out of committee. You have to do it by constitutional amendment.
December 22, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Irrespective of whether the car tax reduction was a tax cut or a spending program (I don’t necessarily agree with Mr. Bell, but I understand his argument), Gilmore’s spending increases still outdistanced Warner’s.
In the meantime, Brandon, what can I do to convince you on the worthiness of Delegate Marshall?
December 23, 2007 at 8:18 am
RWL,
I definitely will keep an open mind. I think Bob’s big hurdles are statewide presence and more importantly fund raising ability. Can he appeal to the “business community” who generally only see him now as primarily a social conservative. Also guys running in a generally homogeneous state house district have issues speaking to the concerns of broader constituency-in this case the entire state.
December 23, 2007 at 3:09 pm
DJ:
Hold on now with this statement:
“Gilmore’s spending increases still outdistanced Warner’s.”
Senator Bell is making a very good point… What was the ’spending’ minus the obvious tax reimbursement of the line item for PPTRA (I believe that is the correct acronym) for the car tax reduction….
and a salient point here is thus…. the General Assembly spends every dime they can wring from us….. so you really have to compare ‘revenue increases’ due to the state of the economy and the effect of increasing or lowering other taxes… The driving influence being the economy itself and population growth driving revenues to be doled out by the 140 Santa Claus on the Hill…
Senator Bell’s reservations are correct, Del Marshall is a good Conservative, but he doesn’t have the statewide recognition of Gilmore, nor is he the correct man to slam Warner in a debate over taxes….
I mean Gilmore is going to look over to the other podium during the debate and say… “You promised the citizens of the Commonwealth that you would fully eliminate the Car Tax in your first or at least second Year… You didn’t do that, more over you broke your promise to not raise taxes at all”…..
He is going to devastate Warner, and they know it…. because of the car tax cut, the citizens of VA had more $$$ in their pockets to make VA one of the first state economies to rebound after 9-11…. Then followed by GWB’s tax cuts…. our economy boomed…..
Gov. Gilmore is the correct person to redeliver that message to the voters in NOVA….. We’re not talking George Allen here…… Gilmore is going to connect with NOVA voters in a big way…
Think about it, who does Gov. Warner want to run against Gov. Gilmore or Del. Marshall….
December 23, 2007 at 6:14 pm
STD,
Even if you back out the car tax cut funding from the spending numbes, Gilmore’s spending increases were still higher than Warner’s. He didn’t have to approve the General Assembly’s budget; he could have demanded lower spending and deeper tax cuts. In fact, he could have phased out the car tax in four years rather than five (and since the fifth year was never implemented . . .).
As for the line about Warner’s record on taxes, Marshall can say it just as well as Gilmore can. Name recognition isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Furthermore, I would surmise that NoVa voters would trust one of their own (Marshall) more than a Richmond suburbian who told them the car tax would disappear when it never did.
December 27, 2007 at 12:18 pm
[...] Bell, while the other has been unspoken so far. Bell expressed his concern (see comment five here) thusly: “guys running in a generally homogeneous state house district have issues speaking [...]
December 27, 2007 at 12:20 pm
[...] Bell, while the other has been unspoken so far. Bell expressed his concern (see comment five here) thusly: “guys running in a generally homogeneous state house district have issues speaking [...]
January 2, 2008 at 10:25 am
[...] Gilmore’s history as Governor (lest anyone forget, spending increases were larger under Gilmore than under Mark Warner) tells us he’s more likely to go along with the [...]
January 2, 2008 at 4:01 pm
[...] car tax There’s been quite a bit of discussion over the data that reveals Jim Gilmore increased government spending at a higher rate than Mark Warner did. Naturally, a lot of it has focused on Gilmore’s signature initiative: [...]
January 9, 2008 at 8:08 am
[...] State Senate election. Spanky is making the case for Jim Gilmore, while I am, of course, arguing for my candidate Delegate Bob [...]