So THAT’S where all the money went in Virginia

The Gilmore-Warner Senate debate this morning will certainly have plenty of material for the Warnerese-English translator, but there was one point of disagreement that peaked piqued (thanks, Shaun) my curiosity (excerpt from Vivian Paige, emphasis added):

Warner: Let’s revisit one of the issues that was one of the ideological hot buttons for you, Jim. It was your reluctance to support any kind of children’s health insurance program. Even though the legislature said please let’s put in place this children’s health insurance program you said it offended your philosophical positions. Instead Virginia during your term sent back 56 million in federal dollars that were supposed to come into Virginia that instead got spent in other states to sign up kids for children’s health insurance. Jim was that the right decision, to not sign up those kids for children’s health insurance?

Gilmore:Here’s the answer, Mark. We established that FAMIS program and started it, and we actually created a program that was correct philosophically and in terms of what was best for families. It was a private health insurance, families had to have some responsibility of their own and pay a co-payment. It was not a welfare program, and gave people the dignity to know that they were taking care of themselves with the assistance of a state program like FAMIS. But when Mark Warner came in he concluded that the measure of success was simply putting people on a government welfare program and as a result he lowered the thresholds and then signed everybody up into Medicaid. And what happened was this program went up because everybody went on Medicaid the numbers on Medicaid went up. And that’s what the difference is that he hasn’t told you today. But it reflective of something. And the question is, what are the health care policies that we’re going to face in the United States Senate. Barack Obama has come forward with a health care plan that is gonna say that employers have to pay to play and that in fact they have to offer a certain type of program or they will be taxed if they are an employer, and government will impose that on you. It says that insurance companies have to offer particular kinds of benefits and control certain types of programs. And then for extra measure he puts in a government-controlled program which will squeeze out private insurance. And in fact the more Medicaid goes up like Mark’s type of program, the harder it is on private insurance options. And so the question I’ve got for you Mark, when you get to the United States Senate are you going to be supporting Barack Obama’s health care program, or will you be supporting John McCain and myself, who want to put in place a more private kind of program, a private program that creates associations and more opportunities for private care, and more opportunities for guaranteed admission into private programs, so that in fact you can utilize the private sector, or you gonna go to in fact this type of government control that Barack Obama would like to do? And I think that’s the fundamental question that we have to ask and I think we already know the answer, because when the time came on SCHIP and FAMIS, you put ‘em in a government program.

Now, as you can see, this is a serious ideological difference, but after noticing that, another thought quickly came into my head - if Warner expanded Medicaid like that, it should show up in budget numbers.  So, after doing some digging, I found out where Medicaid spending shows up in the budget (Department of Medical Assistance Services), and started looking at the changes from budget to budget.  Here’s what I found (Dept. of Planning and Budget):

Fiscal Year	DMAS Spending	Increase
2003	$3,719,897,469	13.7%
2004	$4,030,280,698	8.3%
2005	$4,563,474,648	13.2%
2006	$4,921,099,602	7.8%
2007	$5,320,510,865	8.1%
2008	$5,662,663,577	6.4%
2009 (Projected)	$5,841,781,048	3.2%
2010 (Projected)	$6,165,171,257	5.5%

As you can see, the increases were quite dramatic during Warner’s term (FY2003-FY2006).  Certainly, Warner’s decision to turn Gilmore’s private-insurance plan into another part Medicaid had something to do with that.  The question is, how much?

Well, while it’s impossible to know the exact budgetary numbers if Gilmore’s plan had been maintained, I calculated what the increases would have been if the numbers were just held to population growth (averaged at 1.2% a year) and inflation.  I should note that I did not use the regular CPI, but the health care CPI as calculated by the federal Department of Health and Human Services.  The resulting numbers were as follows:

Fiscal Year	Health Care Inf.	Pop. Growth	Spending growth	Proj. Spending ($B)	Diff. from Actual ($B)
2003	4.6%	1.2%	5.9%	$3.46	$0.26
2004	4.6%	1.2%	5.9%	$3.67	$0.36
2005	4.0%	1.2%	5.2%	$3.86	$0.70
2006	4.4%	1.2%	5.7%	$4.08	$0.84
2007	4.2%	1.2%	5.5%	$4.30	$1.02
2008	4.0%	1.2%	5.2%	$4.52	$1.14
2009	Budget # used		3.2%	$4.67	$1.17
2010	Budget # used		5.5%	$4.93	$1.24

The numbers are mind-boggling.  The extra $1.5 billion for FY05-06 is more than Warner’s entire tax hike.  Over the entire eight years, the difference is $6.7 billion - $2.2B more than raised by Warner’s tax hike over that six year period.  Imagine how that $2.2 billion could have been improved, say, our transportation network.

So, if you want to know why your taxes went up, and (for Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads) why you’re snarled in traffic, today’s debate gave the answer: it was so Mark Warner could knock out low-income private health insurance and expand government controlled health care.

Do we really want to reward the author of this costly and ideological mistake with a seat in the U.S. Senate?  Shouldn’t we instead choose the fellow who tried to prevent this budget-buster?

Cross-posted to Bloggers 4 JimGilmore

What a perfect time to jump ship, Jody

Riley at VV has the letter from my favorite State Senator (Ralph Smith) to his constituents on Governor Kaine’s decision to fire Rosy Scenario as his chief economic advisor.  The letter is definitely worth a read, but Riley’s add-on is perfect:

Gee, Jody Wagner, Gov. Timmy!’s Sec. of Finance wouldn’t have anything to do with this botch job, would she? Well, I suppose she would. And she has the audacity to think that she should be our next Lt. Governor? What a joke!

So Jody Wagner will leave the Finance Department and announce her LG candidacy (Washington Post) on the heels of her department getting caught in a major numbers no-no.  Maybe the Dems would be better off with the guy who joined the party five minutes ago after all.

Fun with maps

Blame Doug Mataconis for pointing me to the Predict November site.  Armed only with instinct and the latest Rasmussen polls, I came up with this:

Unlike Doug, I see OH and NJ as competitive.  Even as Obama solidified the nomination for the Democrats and had is now deflated “bounce,” his lead shrank in New Jersey and McCain stayed on the right side of a statistical dead heat in the Buckeye State.

The way I see it, McCain needs to win Ohio and Virginia.  From there, it’s either shore up the west (Colorado, Nevada, and either North Dakota or Montana), or take the risk and go all-in in New Jersey (he’d still need one more state, but I’m guessing ND will fall his way).

In the twenty years I’ve been following politics, every presidential race has a WTF state (as in “What the F***?), a state that goes the wrong way for reasons no one understands at the time (it may or may not make more sense later).  In 1988, that was Maryland, which Bush somehow carried despite a Democratic advantage so strong that it was one of six states that went Jimmy Carter’s way in 1980.  In 1992, the Perot effect created more than a few WTF candidates, but I think Montana was the most surprising (Clinton is the only Democrat since LBJ to win there).  In 1996, it was Arizona (not even LBJ could carry Arizona, but Clinton did).  West Virginia edged out Tennessee for the honor in 2000 (Al Gore’s home state had a history of electing Republicans in close contests, WV hadn’t done that since 1916).  Four years later, even with the red-blue divide nicely predicting almost every state in the union, Bush still pulled an unexpected upset in New Mexico.  Looking back, though, most of the WTF moments can be easily explained (Perot for Montana ‘92; demagoguery on Social Security for Arizona ‘96; social issues and anti-radical environmentalism for West Virginia ‘00; and Bush’s surprisingly strong showing among Hispanic voters for New Mexico ‘04).

This year, I’m thinking New Jersey fits the bill.  President Bush cut his 2000 deficit by more than half (the 5th biggest gain for him in 2004), and McCain is an even better fit for the Garden State.  Moreover, before our politics re-oriented toward the cultural divide that culminated in the red-blue split, New Jersey was the most Republican state in the northeast (besides New Hampshire).  I think it could be again.

More economic illiteracy from Mark Warner

As the question of oil supply continues to dominate the U.S. Senate campaign here, Mark Warner expressed his skepticism on Jim Gilmore’s assertion that drilling for oil - even if it would take years for the oil to get to market, would reduce its current price (Daily Press):

“There’s no serious policymaker or economist who predicts that,” Warner said. “I know it’s political season, but some of this is basic math.”

Actually, Mark, it’s about economics, but you’ve already proven you know nothing about that, so you might want to pay attention.

Like most commodities, oil not only has a current price, it also has future prices.  One of the biggest drivers in the current price of oil has been the surge in its future price (if a gap is created between the two, an investors can sell the higher and buy the lower, ensuring a nice profit until everyone else catches on and the two prices return to rough equal).  The future price of oil is driven by several factors - turbulence in the Middle East, the rise in demand from Communist China and India, and no major exploration moves by the United States.

So the idea that a decision to drill more now would have no effect on oil prices is based on pure economic ignorance.  How can I say that?  Take a look at this (Larry Kudlow, NRO - The Corner):

In a dramatic move yesterday President Bush removed the executive-branch moratorium on offshore drilling. Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.

. . .

Traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a single new drop of oil has been lifted. What does this tell us? Well, if Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. That’s the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime.

The congressional ban on offshore drilling expires September 30, so that becomes a key date.

Indeed.

President Bush’s lifting of the ban does two things: removes a barrier to future drilling, and all but ensure the Congressional barrier is gone as of October 1 (unless Congress can override a Presidential veto on maintaining the ban - highly unlikely now).

So, not only did the market react to future drilling (contrary to Warner’s claim), it actually reacted to expected future drilling.  Not only has this happened “before a single new drop of oil,” it happened before anyone could even begin drilling by law.

Imagine how far it would fall if, say, the candidate in Virginia who made support for oil drilling his signature issue was elected to the U.S. Senate!

Cross-posted to Bloggers 4 Jim Gilmore

Michael O’Hanlon - Democrat - on Barack Obama

Turns out Barack Obama still wants every American out of Iraq - regardless of the situation on the ground - within sixteen months of taking office.  The harshest words in response to that came from - another Democrat (Washington Post):

Michael E. O’Hanlon, a Democratic defense analyst at the Brookings Institutionwho has been an outspoken supporter of the war in Iraq, said he could not believe that Obama would put such a definitive timeline into print before a trip to Iraq, where he is to consult with Iraqi leaders and U.S. commanders.

“To say you’re going to get out on a certain schedule — regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground — is the height of absurdity,” said O’Hanlon, who described himself as “livid.” “I’m not going to go to the next level of invective and say he shouldn’t be president. I’ll leave that to someone else.”

Got ya covered, Mike!

Webb’s Foot-in-mouth disease: in remission?

My junior Senator suddenly sounds healthy (J.R. at Bearing Drift):

How did I miss this last week? Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), when at a book signing in Arlington, made comments advocating for nuclear and coal as alternative energy sources. This is sure to get the left in a twist.

First nuclear:

“We need to look at nuclear. We need to have a sensible nuclear policy. We haven’t built a nuclear power plant in this country in 30 years. Technology’s changed a lot in the last 30 years. You know when I was saying this two years ago, as some people in this room know – there were people who were Democrats whose hair would get on fire when I started talking about nuclear. But it’s sensible.
….
“It’s safe when it’s done right. France has shown us that. Japan has shown us that. It has to be done right, but it’s environmentally friendly.”

Then, coal:

“In terms of coal, we need to find technological solutions – and they’re available – that will go after carbon dioxide emissions and these sorts of things,” Webb said. “When we were doing the discussion of global warming, one of the things I started saying to my staff was … ‘Somewhere out there, in a lab at MIT, or Cal-Tech or George Mason – there is somebody out there who has figured out how to break apart a carbon dioxide molecule and put a carbon bi-product and oxygen going up in the air and that person is going to make a billion dollars and will help us solve this problem.’”

Now, if we can just get him to recognize that off-shore drilling has withstood hurricanes and the climate of the North Sea without any environmental threat, keeping the fjods and beaches as pristine as they ever were, we’d be all set.

Easy, now, J.R.  Foot-in-mouth is a terrible disease; as far as I know, there have been no instances of a full recovery.  Jim Webb has a long way to go before he’s healthy again; best to just wish him well for now.

He did it again - McCain has wiped out Obama’s poll lead

The John McCain candidacy refuses to die.

All throughout 2007 he was written off, only to take the lead in New Hampshire right at the end of the year, win the state in January, and become the GOP front-runner overnight.

Then a stumble in Michigan was supposed to open the way for Romney, Huckabee, or Thompson.  Instead, McCain closed it in South Carolina and Florida.

Now, with the Democrats finally settling on Barack Obama as the nominee, his “bounce” was supposed to leave McCain in the dust - forever.

Well, Newsweek, otherwise known as Obamaweek (NRO - The Corner), has admitted that Barack Obama’s lead in their poll has fallen from fifteen to three (a statistical tie when you factor in the margin of error).

Meanwhile, Rasmussen (upon whom I have a lot more faith), released their latest numbers this evening:

The race for the White House is tied. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Barack Obama and John McCain each attract 43% of the vote.

After all the “healing,” all the “momentum,” and even Ben Tribbett succumbing to the “O,” John McCain has managed to tie him - again.

Yet another example how different things are in Virginia since Wednesday

The special session has ended, and the intra-party recriminations has begun - as everyone knew they would.

Except that the feuding is between Democrats.  Check out the latest from Tim Craig:

This General Assembly’s debate over transportation this week set up a rare, clear division between the two Democratic candidates for governor next year.

Sen. R. Creigh Deeds (D-Bath) voted in favor of a plan by Senate Majority Leader Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax) to raise the state’s gas tax by six cents over six years, which would cost the average family about $45 a year. Deed’s likely opponent in next year’s Democratic primary, Del. Brian J. Moran (D-Alexandria), voted to strip the gas tax from Saslaw’s bill when it got to the House floor.

The two campaigns are now throwing verbal jabs at the other over the issue.

. . .

“Just this week, gas prices crossed $4 per gallon average in Virginia and people are struggling,” said Jesse F. Ferguson, a Moran spokesman. “Delegate Moran put forward plans to solve our transportation crisis and relieve traffic congestion without raising gas prices. When people are struggling in this economy, raising gas prices is like throwing an anchor to a drowning man.”

. . .

“With gas at $4 a gallon anyone who wants to raise gas taxes is out of touch with what people are going through,” Ferguson said. “Brian has never voted for a gas tax increase.”

(Deeds spokesman Peter) Jackson maintains Deeds did the right thing by supporting Saslaw’s bill. “It is very clear where Senator Deeds stands, providing transportation solutions for Virginia. The same can’t be said of Delegate Moran,” Jackson said.

Man, does it feel good to be a Republican today.

The MSM goes on a pro-tax-hike bender

After watching Tim Kaine miss the boat on what the Republicans did during the special session, I’m not surprised that MSM remained as blind as he is.

The Washington Post, for example, is very sober on the WBK War and some national domestic issues (for which it has taken quite a bit of flak from lefties), but on Virginia politics it is still the screaming Democratic rag it has been for over a decade - and outside that weird endorsement of Mark Earley in 1997, for several decades.  All one had to do was look at their endorsements in the Virginia races last year to know what the Posteditors would say about the innovative and tax-less Republican plan. 

Still, one argument the Post tries to raise needs answering:

Republicans like to pretend that state transportation funding, last meaningfully increased a little more than halfway through the Reagan administration, can be addressed by diverting existing general fund money to build and maintain highways, bridges, tunnels and rails. They like to pretend that those funds are not needed for public schools, the salaries of sheriff’s deputies, the operation of prisons, or payments to Medicaid providers. The bills they offered this week on transportation — proposing to divert future tax revenue from Dulles International and Reagan National airports, for instance — were therefore fraudulent; if push came to shove, those bills would have been undone by Republicans themselves.

Allow me to be blunt; if this editorial were published anywhere else in the Anglosphere, the Virginia Republicans would sue for libel - and win.  Not to say it should be that way; I prefer the right to throw around whatever assertion pops into my head.  Clearly, the Post editors do, too, because that’s all they did here.

Are we supposed to believe that the near-doubling of the state budget in 10 years is all for schools, cops, prisons, and Medicaid?  Should we automatically assume those dollars are all spent wisely and prudently?  Should we just ignore the fact that states actually have far more control over Medicaid coverage than politicians like to admit?

The fact is, the Republicans stunned MSM, Kaine, and every other Democrat in the state by coming up with a proposal that doesn’t raise taxes and forces them to defend the bloated budget.  So it’s back to Jim Wright’s old mantra: it’s “wah on students, ole folks, and cripples” (that was an attempt by Bill Buckley to capture Wright’s accent, not a typo).

As for the Virginian-Pilot, which I remember from my time at William and Mary being basically in the position the Post is now (generally good on national security and some national issues, more flaky on state and local stuff), they managed to waste over 500 words without ever mentioning what the Republicans actually proposed.  At least the hyperbolic Post editors acknowledged the existence of an opposing policy.  Perhaps the V-P editors were just upset that the House Republicans were more interested in getting a real plan passed than letting reporters get their beauty sleep Wednesday night (and, I should note, that if I published that anywhere esle in the Anglosphere . . .).

All that aside, it’s the Richmond Times-Dispatch in whom I’m particularly disappointed, because I expected them to know better.  I was particularly put off by this:

Throughout the year we have discussed our transportation preferences. An editorial tomorrow will reiterate our arguments regarding revenue. There is no need to recapitulate the entire platform here. At least our files have copy we can re-run on slow days next year.

That wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that they demanded higher taxes, right?  After all, if they put that in the editorial, their readers might find out the Republicans proposed a solution without tax increases, and made them look like utter fools.  Instead, their words are just as chippy, vague, and lacking in substance as the V-P’s.

The more I ponder the three reactions (note: the editors of the Free Lance-Black Hole have been surprisingly silent so far), I actually have the most respect for the editors of the Post.  Their insane hyperbole aside, they were the only ones to even acknowledge the Republicans had a plan of their own - let alone respond to it.

That said, the silence of the other papers is quite revealing.  The Post has a large chunk of its readership that will react positively to the big government manifesto.  The RTD and V-P have no such political demographic, and they know it.  Thus, they have all but conceded that the Republican plan is a political winner in Hampton Roads and suburban Richmond - and given the hemorrhaging of Republican support in those regions over the last six years due to all the prior buckling on taxes, this is a very good thing.

This is not to say the Post editorial means Northern Virginia is in the bag for the Dems on this one.  Both the Times and the Examiner have taken issue with the higher-taxes-or-else mantra.  What I am saying is that the various reactions of the papers provide a glimpse into ow the 2009 campaign will go, and it looks very good for the newly united Virginia Republican Party.

Dear Bob McDonnell, I don’t mean to be rude, but please shut up

Reading the Washington Post story on the special session fall-out was quite entertaining, especially as it reminded me just how much Tim Kaine (and nearly all of the Democrats in Richmond) missed what actually happened, i.e., the GOP finally managed to stick together, ward off a tax increase, and come up with a transportation plan that, while not perfect, is an improvement over the status quo.  The Dems really have no idea they’re about to drive over a cliff.

There was, however, one discordant note - from the fellow who is supposed to be the Republican standard bearer next year, Bob McDonnell . . .

We have had seven years of Democratic governors, and the only plan that passed is the Republican plan that I helped pass last year.

. . . and we were doing so well.

Can somebody - anybody - please tell the Attorney General that we have moved on from last year’s debacle?  Is he even aware of what how far forward the House GOP moved the ball?  Or is he as mired in the past as Kaine is?

Bob McDonnell just became the favorite for next year; that’s how big this week was for him.  However, he’ll just end up as Jerry Kilgore II unless he gets with the program.  My advice: take a look at Bill Bolling’s statement from yesterday and use that as a guide - and until you do that, shut up.