When the McDonnell Administration revealed its plan to get the government out of the liquor business, I had my concerns – and I wasn’t exactly quiet about them.
After some further review, I decided the problems with the plan were smaller than I thought, but they hadn’t disappeared. In particular, there were two new taxes that I felt were unwarranted – the 2.5% “optional convenience fee” and the 1% wholesale receipts tax (euphemistically dubbed a “license charge”). I called them tax increases, several bloggers expressed disagreement (Mason Conservative, Brain Schoeneman, VA Blogger – albeit in various comments, rather than posts - and Jim Hoeft among them).
Well, I could say the Governor himself agreed with me, but rather than kick that hornet’s nest again, I’ll just say he rendered the symantic discussion moot, because the taxes are gone (Richmond Times-Dispatch):
The revised plan, endorsed today by a gubernatorial subcommittee on government reform, would eliminate the proposed 2.5 percent optional tax on restaurant alcohol sales and a 1 percent tax on wholesale liquor sales.
Folks, this changes everything. Simply put, the McDonnell ABC privatization plan no longer includes tax increases.
Clearly, the Administration decided the $26.5 million that would have come from these taxes wasn’t really worth it after all. Good for them. I would also note that I do not agree with the Wine and Beer Wholesalers’ Associations on the nature of the new excise tax (here’s why).
There were many of us who were concerned that McDonnell hadn’t learned the lesson of the Summer 2008 special session (namely, that Republicans and tax hikes don’t mix). Thankfully, we can put those fears to rest now.
so…….. does this mean he has to find cuts in the budget to compensate for the revenue loss?
isn’t this what the Republicans have been saying needed to be done?
give back the taxes and cut govt?
so you and enough other “principled” conservatives stood your ground and I congratulate you.
but I still don’t like the way that guy combs his hair and announces that ‘staff’ has “decided”.
Staff? who made this decision? the “staff”?
“does this mean he has to find cuts in the budget to compensate for the revenue loss?”
This year, they’ll probably use the undesignated surplus, but I do hope they reduce the budget for the difference.
After all, this kind of cut requires a lathe, not a knife.
Have you got an opinion on what to do about transportation?
Have you already forgotten our agreement on getting VDOT out of subdivision street maintenance? That would free up (by my calcualtion) over $300 million a year.
Again, that’s per year, not one shot.
[...] This changes everything « The right-wing liberal says: September 30, 2010 at 3:28 pm [...]
well.. that’s a start….. but it only averages out to about 3 million per county and that’s not going to buy much…. but it’s a start…
it’s actually the KIND of THING I was EXPECTING from fiscal conservatives and McDonald…
index the gas tax to inflation?
cashless electronic tolling (no toll booths)?
what else?
Larry G……….did i misss something here? you say a ‘principled’ conservative is one that doenst care about ANYTHING but taxes? what about the state programs to be cut? sounds like you dont care aboutthat……….and that in my view is unprincipled and reckless!! unthinking……..
huh? a principled fiscal conservative works on both ends of the equation.
the no-mo-tax folks are …in my view.. unprincipled because they assume that any amount for any function is too much by virtue of the fact that if govt is doing it – it cannot be efficient.
so .. maybe I was riding both horses there…eh?
what I’m saying is that if you say you are a no-mo taxer then your principles REQUIRE you to cut – certainly when revenue decreases….
because what you are about is working it the other way – cutting BEFORE your revenues decrease – by making the cuts first.
the difference between a no-mo-taxer and a fiscal conservative is that the fiscal conservative realizes that roads cannot be built from no-mo-tax confetti and ….ADDRESSES THE ISSUE.
so.. you either accept the premise that we do not have enough funding for transportation and work that end of things…
or you say they already have too much and if more cuts come down the pike – good.
so which is it?
do we need more funds for transportation in Va.. in Spotsylvania or do we have enough infrastructure right now and we don’t need to figure out how to get more?
make sense?
If we need to pay for something, then we need to have the $ Amen.
Call it what you will, the citizens will pay more for booze.
I guess it is not a “new tax” if the profits go to the liquor manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers instead of Virginia’s bank account. All these guys will make more money and the tax money that used to go into the system will be used for four year “loans” so that they can all get rich while the voter gets screwed.
Sounds like someone has figured out that in four years he will be out of the Gov’s office and could care less about leaving others to hold the bag.
Sorry, anon, but I’m not going to weep for state bureaucrats.
BS. Alberta privatized all its liquor stores in the ’90s and the selection, service – everything is better. Sorry, did I step on your delusions?
Weeep for state bureaucrats? you mean the guys that get paid minimum wage to sell booze, the profits from which……well, i guess you all believe the profits go for waste fraud and abuse????? hohohohohoh the profits go for dealing with mental health problems in the state…….va. is among the lowest in the nation in dealing with those issues………w/o which we go from 49th to 57th…….duh
57th? So what are those mythical seven states that exist in the parallel universe you share with the President?
In general though – I agree with the concept that certain items like alcohol and cigarettes be taxed from mental health and Medicaid.
There’s a reasonable Nexus.
there is no nexus for transportation.
57th? Just trying to kep you on yor toes!!!
Just privatize the roads.
“the no-mo-tax folks are …in my view.. unprincipled because they assume that any amount for any function is too much by virtue of the fact that if govt is doing it – it cannot be efficient.”
Does this also include folks who were lent brains from God with which to analyze and understand basic arithmetic concepts such as 1 + 1 = 5 – 3 = 7……….those kinds of concepts so critical to being able to walk and chew gum at the same tiime??
and what is good for Alberta is good for Princedale……..damn i are smart!!!
It’s not easy to tell what those who claim that govt taxes too much – really stand for – sometimes.
They never really advocate a “right” amount for a given govt function
A good example is VDOT. Some Conservative Republicans like Mark Cole make the point that VDOT has received substantial infusions of additional money over the recent years and implys that they don’t need any more money.
McDonnell, on the other hand seems to think they DO need more money ….he’s advocating to find more money for them …from offshore drilling, sale of ABC and with the Audit – an implication that VDOT is not delivering bang for buck and/or hoarding money.
The problem is – McDonnell is not saying what the right amount of money they should have and I think not saying what the “right” amount is – undermines any advocacy – in favor or in opposition or more or less or status quo.
There are a number of reasonable metrics that could be used especially in comparison with other states.
Some very simple ones might be how much we pay per capita or how many miles of road there are per capita – or the ratio or any number of things that would help to quantify what VDOT “needs”.
I sort of expect this from people who claim fiscal conservative credentials.
I’m well familiar with the tax & spend types… more..more..more…
In my mind – a GOOD fiscal Conservative is one who WILL SAY – when an agency does not have enough money – and they’ll say how much more they need – and in doing that – they then accept responsibility for finding the funding especially if they are opposed to taxes.
We don’t get this reasonable dialog these days from any in the Republican party.
The Party Line is – no-mo-tax and that’s that.
Even as the Gov “explores” other potential sources of funding for VDOT – others in his party are saying “enough already”!
You make so much sense Larry….if everyone thought in such a clear responsible manner, we would have the best of both worlds……….excellent service that we have agreed to pay for……..and have developed sources to raise the $…….
You make so much sense Larry………..responsible govt requires an INFORMED citizenry~~~~
A REAL fiscal conservative – acknowledges that we need deputies and teachers but strives to understand how many we should have and how much they should cost – as opposed to advocating for cuts …cuts.. and more cuts.. without every saying what the target is.
That’s what has gone wrong with the Republicans these days.
They’ve labelled the REAL fiscal conservatives as RINOS – banned them from the party.
I note that Gov McDonnell though has not adopted the cut, cut, cut approach with VDOT.
I half way expected him to announce that VDOT had too much money but were wasting it… and the solution to waste – is to cut even more.
so where is the Republican statement that VDOT already gets too much money.
Mark Cole, a Republican Delegate, has essentially made that case in his last newsletter.
Sorry, Larry, flag on the play.
The “real fiscal conservatives” more often than not are allergic to spending cuts. They follow, for the most part, your faulty logic on stimulii – and thus can’t seem to ever cut spending. So they end up raising taxes.
Those of us who usually try to cut spending, meanwhile, try to wade through budget minutiae, come up with some ideas, only to be yelled at (figuratively) “YOU CAN’T CUT THAT!!!!”
VDOT is a perfect example. I’m not entirely sure whether or not the Department “gets too much money,” given that they do too much (i.e., subdivision roads). Hardly anyone is willing to say *that*.
DJ – when I hear you guys say “we are paying too much for this function and here’s why” – I’ll accept your assertions.
I will EMBRACE your philosophy when I hear you say in addition to the first assertion that – “we are paying the right amount for THIS function and it should not be cut further and here’s why….”
Then I will have heart palpitations when I hear you guys say in addition to one and two above , in very, very rare examples … that we are not paying ENOUGH for a govt function…
probably immigration – or wars.. right?
Not all RINOS performed as you say. some actually had all 3 of the above in their vocabulary and they were leaders we could trust because they actually had more than one answer other than cut, cut cut, AND they had an intelligent discourse that supported their position.
…. unlike the cut, cut cut guys who have very little intelligence behind their unvarying rants.
help me understand this DJ….
For starters, Larry, nix the strawmen.
I follow the same politics you do, I do not hear this mythical “cut, cut, cut” crew. I’ve heard some reaction to the “tax, tax, tax” mantra we have heard for nearly a decade in Virginia – in both parties – but nothing as mindless as what you’re mentioning.
Congressman Ryan has proposed a series of reforms. It’s not perfect (I’m hesitant about adopting VAT long-term), but it’s a good start.
Boehner has discussed raising the retirement age for Social Security (good idea) and means testing it (not sure on that one).
Again, a lot of this is emotional exhuastion. I remember how the Dems reacted in the national budget battle of 1995. I also remember how the locals beat us up this spring on our ideas (before Mr. Barnes adopted 2/3 of it himself in his no-tax-increase scenario). A lot of them have decided the aggrevation isn’t worth it. Sad, but understandable, especially if they’re not a numbers geek like yours truly.
DJ – you need to differentiate entitlements that comes from FICA from general govt that comes from income taxes – especially at the state level when you are talking about major functions like law enforcement, transportation and schools.
What is the “right amount” of taxation and level of service for transportation, schools, law enforcement, etc?
Ryan, to his credit, has a lot more meat on the bones than all the others including Boehner in my view.
But go look at his blue-print and differentiate between entitlements and general govt.
SS and Medicare are not in trouble right now – they WILL BE – but right now they generate 42% of the budget and they pay 39% of the expenditures for SS and Medicare.
It’s not these that are causing the EXISTING DEFICITS.
How do we address the EXISTING ANNUAL STRUCTURAL deficits?
that’s a different question than the tax vs level of service at the state and local level though…
so don’t confuse them either.
DJ – by the way – Virginia has the RIGHT ATTITUDE when it comes to SCHOOLs in that the SOQs are based on the SOLs and the funding that Virginia provides to localities stipulates that it be used in direct support of the SOLs – i.e. academics.
It cannot be used for sports, or extra-curricula, etc and yet monies do get spent on these.
Where does it comes from?
It comes from you and me via our local property taxes – that’s where.
Why does Spotsylvania collect taxes for programs that are not in support of the SOLs and NCLB?
Why are these not user-fees instead – for those that want them?
Again – what is the “right” amount of tax and levels of services – for – … SCHOOLS?
where is the intelligent discourse on how much we should be taxed for schools and how much should be paid for in user-fees?
not from the no-mo-tax folks … and not in the case of the local Republican Party who EXEMPTED school spending from the budget analysis even though school spending is the 600-lb tax gorilla and the primary reason why taxes in Spotsy keep going up.
I don’t see this as “strawman” guy….
If you were talking 2007, 2008, or even 2009, you might have a point about local school funding.
The dynamic changed this year.
If it changes back, I’ll be the first to call them to account for it.
well no… how much is the right amount THIS YEAR?
You know the state – they fund PER STUDENT – a SET AMOUNT – established in a fixed formula…
It’s up to the school system to figure out how to allocate that money in terms of salaries, raises, admin, tech support, etc.
If I were a Republican – instead of saying on a year to year basis whether the schools were “right” or not – I’d want an underlying formula or process that laid out what was “right” and – we’d live by it – even if it required a tax increase to sustain it and certainly no tax increases if not warranted.
This is what I’m looking for from those who say they are fiscal conservatives – a real approach to how much YOU INTEND to provide – and receive.
Do you know what a 10 year history of Spotsylvania taxes might show with respect to School Funding?
What do you think?
do you think that over the last 10 years that school funding INCREASES outpaced general Govt funding increases (or not?)?
we’re going to find out here …shortly…
Aw, thanks for the tease, Larry.
Since 2001, Spotsylvania local school funding has risen 21% in real terms, a shade over population growth.
During that interval, general fund spending as a whole has risen nearly 40% in real terms.
But DJ…..just because some dumbbell decided and dittoheads followed, that budgets s/be drawn up according to pop and inflation rates…..well, duh, budgeting needs to factor in such matters as need for a new school bldg, purchases, emergencies in a given year……..not shear numbers…..was that Grover Norquist’s rule? and alll followed!! or maybe sarah thought that up
how much is that in real dollars per taxpayer for each?
how much more are we paying per taxpayer for schools and how much more per taxpayer for govt?
Oh.. and costs should go up when population goes up?
I thought the theory was that population growth would bring in new taxpayers so that taxes should remain the same.
no?
I presented the numbers as a comparison between schools and local government as a whole, that’s all.
well you did… indeed… but the REAL ISSUE with taxes is the IMPACTS on the TAXPAYERs.. not the down-in-weeds number twiddling.
I think you’ll admit that the biggest impact to taxpayers – is the schools.
what is your answer to the population growth vs tax increases question?
do you believe that tax increases are justified because we have population growth?
Indeed, the school funding is the largest piece of what the Holbert Building takes from taxpayers. So that fact that the rest of government managed to pull the general fund spending up to 40% should tell us something.
And no, population growth need not automatically generate a tax increase.
so in total $$$ or $$ per capita how much was involved with the schools increase and how much with the general govt increase?
how about in terms of county costs per student?
what did that do in the last 5-10 years?
how about the state funding on a per student basis – how did that change in the same time period?
Yes we must always look at the numbers from alll sides, but that doesnt mean that the human judgment and decision-making s/be abandoned…
but that’s not a reason to not do the numbers. And when you don’t do the numbers so that everyone is seeing the same ones – you end up with opinions not based on facts.
it’s true. data is not information – and information is not knowledge but not knowing the basic facts is even worse….
I’d like to see some facts in evidence about what the tax increases paid for… and not in percentage of growth terms – because that does not give you the real impact. 100% of a tiny bit is still a tiny bit… but 10% of a large pile – is HUGE….
How much did our property taxes go up and of that amount how much was for education?
Don’t get me wrong. I am strongly in favor of education but as a taxpayer what I expect from the tax dollar is highly performing academic students and a good graduation rate because what public education is about first and foremost is producing a productive workforce that will pay taxes and take care of their families and not need entitlements.
What we’re doing right now in the schools we’re creating winners and losers and the winners grow up to pay heavy taxes for the entitlements for the losers – who have the same basic IQ but they lose because the system is set up to cater to the parents who want things for their kids and not for the kids who need help but have no effective advocates for their needs.
We need to fix this FIRST before we decide that taxpayers need to be funding competitive sports, extra-curricula activities and amenity courses and college-resume-building courses.
we do not need 5 different foreign languages each with I through IV. We should offer one like many schools do and if people want more – then pay for it.
Here’s some fodder for thinking about property tax burdens:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/the-highest-property-tax-burdens-in-america/
” Another way to compare property tax burdens is by looking at their size relative to median household income for homeowners. By this metric, the residents of Passaic County, N.J., are most burdened. The median real estate tax bill in that county is $7,095 – 8.34 percent of the median household income in that county.”
so how does Spotsylvania compare on this basis?
Oh shazammm…
Spotsylvania’s median real estate tax is: $1505
and the median household income? $86K and change. Wow.. that’s about 2% eh? and New Jersey is 8.3%? WOW!….
I wonder where Spotsy sits overall across Va and across the US?
DJ – you are substituting numbers and calling yourself a ‘principled conservative’ for thinking!!!!!!!!