VIRTUALLY every week, a new medical procedure makes the front page of America's newspapers. Some procedures purportedly may correct birth defects in the womb, while others promise vaccines for horrible diseases such as AIDS. Given the current climate of medical advances, I would like to suggest a new task for ambitious doctors: transplant a spine into the bodies of Virginia politicians.
This medical goal, although difficult, would help avert the current monumental gap in representative government taking place over the ever-present budget shortfall. Specifically, it would force Virginia's political leadership to abandon its current plans to approve tax increases via referenda.
As virtually every issue of this fair publication has noted, anticipated revenues for the state budget have declined dramatically over the last year. To make matters worse, despite this reduction in income, Virginia's executive and legislative branches must somehow create a balanced budget, a requirement contained in the Commonwealth's own constitution.
Naturally, to meet this need, a number of simplistic approaches present themselves to the governor and members of the Virginia legislature. The state may raise taxes. It may cut spending. It may undertake a combination of both. While some might propose a magical program involving bonds, public-private partnerships, and a rabbit, the state seemingly is limited in its options.
|
Gov. Mark R. Warner, faced with having to make a decision and to take responsibility regarding the education and transportation portions of the budget, blinked.
Clearly, having been elected to office on issues like transportation and education, Warner would prefer not to cut spending. Rather than simply submit a budget that increases taxes to pay for these priorities, Warner has decided to push a combination of regional and statewide referenda that would approve tax increases for these same purposes. In effect, Warner currently is refusing to raise taxes without getting the go-ahead from Virginia's voters.
Some state legislative leaders, faced with the same problems as Warner, have suffered from the same lack of courage. As Republicans, one may assume that they would prefer to cut spending rather than increase taxes. Unfortunately, legislators fear the wrath of campaign ads that would say something like "Do you know why Johnny can't read? Because Senator Claghorn voted to cut the eraser budget for our schools." They also envision campaign mailers that tie auto accidents to transportation budget cuts.
Rather than argue the issue, Virginia's legislators have agreed to portions of Warner's plan.
Referenda, of course, sound like wonderful things. They give the voters a final say in shaping statewide policy. In some areas, like enacting whole new policies or programs, they serve their function nicely. The decision over whether to allow statewide gambling is such an example.
In areas where the state already has an existing policy, however, referenda do little but remove accountability and waste precious time.
Virginia already has a sales tax that acts as a major budget revenue generator. Warner's proposals focus on increasing the sales tax for the relevant programs. Thus, the tax increases do not represent anything new or dramatic. They just reflect an increase in an already-accepted tax.
By allowing "the people" to accept what amounts to a legislative decision, Warner and a majority of Virginia's legislators are refusing to place their names either for or against these tax increases. If asked whether they support tax increases or budget cuts, they may simply say, "I put my trust in the hands of the voters." Voters will not be able to locate their positions by looking to any clear vote.
This process of budgeting, normally undertaken by the executive and legislative representatives who the voters elect every few years, is designed to take place in the course of a few months. By putting off this question until November, the governor and his legislative friends do little but place portions of the budget in an uncertain and tenuous position. If the voters understandably choose "no," somebody will have to take away money from the relevant programs after it should have happened originally.
The problem is compounded by the fact that voters rarely have to make "big picture" votes in referenda. That is, they might vote to keep a beloved program to encourage panda breeding and simultaneously refuse to raise their own taxes to pay for the program.
The governor and legislators typically are elected to deal with overall problems like this. They have to balance the budget somehow. In so doing, they enrage some portions of the electorate. They also show responsibility and accountability. In advocating so many referenda, Virginia's political leadership is showing itself to be lacking in both of these sought-after qualities.
(Seth Wood's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at swood@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 4 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 4 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
