Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Connaughton Won’t Rule Out Tax Increases

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Now we know why Sean Connaughton would not sign the Taxpayers Protection Pledge. The Washington Post let the cat out of the bag:

‘…he is honest and pragmatic enough to consider all options, including the possibility of new tax revenue. “I don’t rule out anything,” says Mr. Connaughton…’

What’s rather strange is this observation from the Washington Post:

‘Mr. Connaughton is a member of that increasingly rare breed: a moderate Republican in Virginia.’

Obviously form the Post’s perspective, a tax-and-spend liberal is a moderate Republican. So there should be little doubt left as to Connaughton’s real position on taxes–he is pro-tax!

But what’s odd is the Post’s conclusion that moderates are an increasingly rare breed in Virginia. Obviously the post hasn’t counted the office holders in the Virginia State Senate recently; by my count there are 18 RINOs to 6 conservative Republican Senators. That’s a three to one split in favor of the RINOs! Moderate Republicans are the majority, so what “rare breed” is the Post talking about?

But then again, the Post is not always focused on reporting the facts. Rather they prefer focusing on dishing out their liberal spin…

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. the grey area Avatar
    the grey area

    First, let me state the obvious: In all do respect, taking ‘not ruling new taxes out’ and jumping to “pro-tax” seems quite amateurish and a tad unfair. Or it could be that I don’t identify with “all issues are black-and-white” crowd.

    Phil, let me get this straight… if I wanted to be a Republican, do I have to believe in no new taxes? At all? Like zero/zilch/nada/nothing? Not even cigarette tax increases or other ‘user fees’?

    Or is the party you envision going to systematically write off folks who are pragmatic enough not to dig themselves into a hole early on and then be forced with tough decisions once elected (ie the holes George HW Bush and Gov. Warner have been in)?

    Or are you disappointed that Connaughton didn’t sign the pledge and you don’t have more ammo against him should he be elected and forced to raise taxes? You kind of put him in a ‘darned if you do/darned if you don’t’ situation. That can’t really be fair, can it?

    I prefer a politician who is driven by effective results and not blind principle. One who thinks instead of salutes… or believes in the adage “the truth is somewhere in the middle”.

    Agree or disagree with Connaughton, but what he did was politically smart.

  2. subpatre Avatar
    subpatre

    Dunno if leaving open the possibility of tax increase defines a RINO; as someone in another conversation pointed out there’s more to any Party platform than just finances. But it’s bothersome that Connaughton’s sharing the same smoke-n-mirror that Kaine used with claims of “lowering tax rates”.

    By his own account, Connaughton “…reduced the real property tax rate by more than 20 percent” and “In just over three years, the assessed value of real property in Prince William County has more than doubled.” Giving him benefit of the fractions, this is far above a 50% increase in actual tax.

    (2*Assessment/100 * .79 Rate)/(Assessment/100 * Rate) = +58%

    Connaughton claims that he “Dramatically increased the county’s fund balance or “rainy day” account” [emphasis mine] and consistently run year-end budget surpluses; the red flags of overtaxation. It’s clear Connaughton’s being murky about his financial philosophy. Most people expect candidates to blow their own horn, but this is beyond puffery, this is smoke out the wazoo.

    In my book, tax alone doesn’t define a RINO. Connaughton has many other accomplishments that I haven’t reviewed; but this one is a fraud.

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Actually Connaughton has reduced the tax rate by 33%. From $1.36 to .91 cents.

    And if the state did ITS job, then the tax rate could have been even lower.

    Of course, we could always drop the rate down to about .50 cents or so (and make all the NO TAXERS happy as clams) and watch schools crumble, roads not get built, and crime skyrocket over the next 5 – 10 years. Gee, then PWC could be the rotten little cesspool that it was in the 80s and 90s.

  4. James Young Avatar
    James Young

    The funny thing is, some people reading these comments might think that Sean Connaughton had not presided over what may be the largest tax increase over a five-year period in County history. The average PWC property owner is paying 50-60% more than when Chairman Sean took office, notwithstanding the rate decrease. Why do Sean and his supporters feel the need to ignore/lie about this fact?

    And I love the way that the pro-taxers weave their little disaster scenarios. “[S]chools crumble, roads not get built, and crime skyrocket over the next 5 – 10 years. Gee, then PWC could be the rotten little cesspool that it was in the 80s and 90s.” Well, I am less disturbed by the prospect that schools crumble than that the state is not meeting its responsibility to educate children whose parents choose not to utilize government schools. Schools, roads, and police aren’t all that government does. You forgot about recreational facilities, welfare payments, corporate welfare, contributions to charities, and apparently, a new jobs center where illegal immigrants can obtain illegal employment. And PWC certainly was no more a cesspool in the 80s and 90s (local government offices filled with Dems excepted) than Chairman Sean deserves credit for everything good that has happened during his tenure, including this morning’s sunrise.

    So come on, grey area! Sean isn’t a pro-taxer because Phil is “taking ‘not ruling new taxes out’ and jumping to ‘pro-tax.’” He’s “pro-tax” because of his record: increased taxes 50-60% on his watch; frequent advocacy of higher taxes (so-called “transportation tax” in 2002; higher gas taxes as member of NVTA; complaints about car tax relief); and failure to work to stop tax increases (meals tax referenda in 1993 and 1994 in PWC). Calling Sean “pro-tax” is like calling the Pope Catholic; it’s derived from even a passing familiarity with his record.

  5. the grey area Avatar
    the grey area

    James,

    [snark] Thank you for framing this in a black and white issue for me… I didn’t realize that Sean Connaughton is responsible for the NoVa real estate market explosion over the last 10 years. I’ll have to look into him helping with making the sun rise as well, b/c that would be awesome. I’d vote for that. [/snark]

    Apparently Connaughton can’t please you or Phil at all… he could have very easily left the rate as it was. We’re getting into semantics/wonkishness here, and I have no idea if Prince William Co is better off than before. Yet, I don’t automatically make the knee-jerk reaction and read “fiscally conservative” as “anti-tax”. I see it as “we’re going to pay for what we need to… we’ll do it well, provide a good return on your money and help make this a nice place to live… we won’t waste your money, and upon seeing waste, we’ll cut it, and we’ll do our best to keep taxes as low as possible”. That doesn’t make for a good sound-bite, but it does make for pragmatic solutions. Again, that’s just me, b/c there’s very few things that are black and white in this world.

    Why couldn’t Phil have made a passing mention to what you wrote? I don’t always like to get into the nitty-gritty/wonkishness that is popular here, but what he wrote was, on its face, a bald distortion (or true as you claim, yet he didn’t have facts), and at the very least, not congruent with the quality of this site. Maybe I took his post too seriously, but given that Phil’s previous posts have continuously used selective facts and assumptions to drive his point, I had enough. Going from intellectual discussion on this site during the week to this kind of amateurish posts finally got to me.

    My brain hurts… hello weekend.

  6. Frank Messings Avatar
    Frank Messings

    Grey,

    A fact for you to consider while sipping your martini on the back deck this weekend…Under Connaughton we have seen budget surpluses every year since he has been in office. The county budget has grown by more than 60% since he took the gavel. Each year Connaughton REFUSED to limit budget and with the rising assessments he took more tax dollars each and every year. That was until this year (wonder why he did that in the same year that he is running for LG). Every year he would be asked by the citizen budget commmittees to limit budget increases to around 5%. Every year he would rant and lecture each of them that we have to build schools, pay police, fight fires and build roads. Why then when the county has the largest increase in our population did he agree to limit the budget now in his election year? Sounds like he wants to make himself look like a conservative. Another point to chew on is that each year PWC has agency turnbacks (that is the money left over from each agency budget at the end of the fiscal year). These turnback are suddenly required to meet unmet needs (fire police and schools—why is that all he would say to justify his budget spending—maybe he did not want to point out that he got the funds for his contributors pet projects previously and that is why the coffer are empty). Each year the same meeting that the agency turnbacks would be announced he and the County Executive would suddenly come up with all these “urgent needs”. Surpluses should be returned to the people especially when the county does it 4 years in a row….maybe they have the Arthur Anderson accountants doing their budget forecasts. We know who took the bath on Enron…I guess us taxpayers in PWC are taking the bath at Connaughton expense.

  7. subpatre Avatar
    subpatre

    It’s true that Prince William tax rates are 0.91 per hundred. It’s true that the rates were much higher previously.

    It’s also true that the actual tax was raised, and per VA § 58.1-3321 subsection B, was knowingly raised by the Board, including Connaughton. Notice the law states “effective tax rate increase.”, the quotes are in the code.

    It may be technically true to raise taxes, then claim to have lowered them. It’s just as true as WJC saying ‘I didn’t have sex with that woman’. Both statements are dishonest; attempts to deceive.

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’ll agree that taxes paid out of pocket went up under Connaughton.

    Taxes paid out of pocket went up under Bolling too (both in Hanover and the state legislature).

    So, how are either one of these guys “anti-tax”? Bolling is just screaming it louder.

    Still don’t make it true. For either of them.

  9. Phil Rodokanakis Avatar
    Phil Rodokanakis

    Grey: No, taxes of course will have to rise. But there is no justification for government spending growing faster than the rate of population growth plus inflation. Had we kept the line on spending in the State instead of increasing spending by close to 20% last year, we could have issued significant rebates to the taxpayers.

    Connaughton can only be viewed as politically smart if you believe that serial lying is a sign of high IQ…

  10. Phil Rodokanakis Avatar
    Phil Rodokanakis

    Anonymous: Aren’t you getting tired of the sky is falling mantra every time someone suggest cutting taxes? Do you really believe that governments operate so efficiently, there is no fat to cut?

    I suggest you look at the Federal government where Inspector Generals routinelly uncover billions of dollars in fraud, waste and abuse. And this is after these IGs have been at it for about 27 years now.

    Please keep in mind that there is no independent auditing and investigating functions in Virginia’s state or local governments.

    Are you so convinced that your tax dollars are being spent wisely, when there is NO outside oversight?

  11. Phil Rodokanakis Avatar
    Phil Rodokanakis

    The Grey Area: The reason I didn’t cover the points that James did, was because I have covered some of these same points many a time before.

    This is one of the shortcoming of blogs. You can’t expect folks to read all your previous posts, but then again it’s hard for a contributor to cover a topic 100% in a particular post, especially if this topic has been the focus of many previous posts.

  12. criticallythinking Avatar
    criticallythinking

    First, there is a difference between the average real estate tax beign 60% higher, and the average person having their taxes go up by 60%. The first is likely true, the second is definitely false.

    A significant factor in rising average real estate taxes has been the assessment of the new houses put on the market. As an example, for those houses built this year, their owners have not had a “real estate tax increase” since they just bought the house, but their tax rate is much higher than the what the average taxpayer paid in 2000.

    Of course, the price they paid for their house is also much higher than what they would have paid in 2000.

    I’m not joining the “tax rates haven’t gone up too much” crowd, just pointing out that if political discourse is going to get to the nitty-gritty details, none of us is likely to come out clean (I’m sure something I’ve said is technically inaccurate somewhere).

    Second, local taxes should not go up “no faster than inflation plus population growth”. In fact, local taxes should be set exactly high enough to pay for appropriate government services. The rub is that we all disagree about what is appropriate. But the argument isn’t really about taxes, I think as conservatives we all would agree that we should PAY for whatever we buy, and so taxes should be set to pay for spending.

    So really we should be screaming about spending. But if we want to use a “rule of thumb”, you can’t pick an arbitrary year and then say taxes should rise by a set amount. Because first, the starting year might have had a particulary HIGH or LOW spending level. Also, certain necessary expenditures are based not on population, but on student population, elderly population, commuter population, etc. If the number of children goes up 30%, we need 30% more school space, even if total population only rises 10%. Conversely, if population went up 30% but they were all childless couples who walked to work, spending (and taxes) shouldn’t go up hardly at all).

    Further, at a local level the local taxes can go up if the state contribution goes down, something that happened in this state during the slowdown (when spending often rises because of more need for the welfare state costs — which are debatable, but do exist and have to be funded).

    My real estate tax did not go up 60% since Sean took office. It DID go up way too much. And Sean is responsible for that. And certainly it was a political act to cap the rise this year, although since Sean IS a politician (as is Bill Bolling) I don’t fault him for it, I merely discount it as a measure of what he will do in the future.

    I have no doubt that Sean would, as governor, consider tax increases. If he WOULDN’T, he probably would have signed the “pledge”. I hate the pledge. If a politician raises taxes unnecessarily, we can beat him on the head whether or not he signs a pledge. And if something unforseen happens and taxes must be raised, the pledge substitutes for character, and gets in the way of the hard decisions we elect representatives to make.

    I would prefer to chose a man of character who I trust to make the decisions I would make. I can’t believe anybody in this discussion believes that taxes are currently set at EXACTLY the appropriate amount (I’m guessing most of us think they are too high). But if they are too high, and they are lowered to the CORRECT amount, it is certainly reasonable to think of circumstances that, having been set exactly correctly, they might have to be raised a bit.

    I wouldn’t oppose a candidate for signing the tax pledge, but I don’t reject them if they don’t. I wouldn’t sign one.

    Now, if I could only figure out which candidate I want to vote for….

    Charles Reichley

  13. Phil Rodokanakis Avatar
    Phil Rodokanakis

    Anonymous: You are parroting the Connaughton propaganda. While Bolling was on the Hanover BOS, real estate tax collections went up by about 2.25% per year during Bolling’s tenure–a factor considerably lower than the growth in population plus inflation. During the same period a number of taxes were also reduced by the BOS.

    You really should read “ The Politics of Lies” and “ The Politics of Lies II.”

  14. the grey area Avatar
    the grey area

    I wish I was sipping martinis, and after reading through these comments I’ve determined I need something harder.

    Phil, you hit the nail on the head w/ the last comment. There are many shortcomings with blogs. As you acknowledge it can be difficult to tie previous posts and everything into the most current one. Yet, it doesn’t have to.

    I shouldn’t have to make a slightly trollish comment to inspire others to back up your claims… I know there are tons of opinions around here, but they are backed with facts… other readers don’t need to be cajoled to do the dirty work.

    When I come to Bacon’s Rebellion, I am delighted to read a first class blog with opinions across all spectrums and from all walks of life. I also have come to expect references or sources to provide more meaningful discussions rooted in fact. Even if I don’t agree with a contributor I respect their positions as I can tell they have thought them through and passionately believe them. Not only did I disagree with the post, I disagreed with the way it was presented as it seemed out of line compared to the rest of the site.

    Other contributors on here usually provide some context… can you do the same in the future?

    Ex: when you typed “pro-tax” in your post, maybe stick a link there to a previous BR thread where there was a serious discussion about your favorite LG candidate? Even opinion columnists in newspapers reference something. Yes the reader still has to do the work to further investigate if they want to learn more, but there’s a huge credibility gap between one source and no sources. Blogs can be a pain, but a little reference goes a long way.

    //Brain’s really gone… going to bed.

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Phill: why would one measure tax collections as the measure of anti-tax effectiveness in comparing Hanover in Bolling’s day with PW in Connaughton times? If you say tax collections increased in Hanover only 2.25% under Bolling, it’s a meaningless comparative statistic unless you account for the number of taxpayors, and the relative size of the two Counties’budgets. A booming county like PW with very strong population increases should have significant tax collection increases measured in either absolute dollars or by percentage. Hanover, had nothing like that expansion, now or then, and I would not expect their tax collections to increase much. what the Connaughton folks are saying is that elected officials can only attack the ad valorem rate, they can’t control either the market (or assessed) values of the properties (unless they really botch things up and cause values to tank). They are also saying that this idea of large increases in average homeowner tax bills in PW is strongly affected by thousands of new high-value homes in that particular market, thus skewing upward the average per household tax bill figures. finally, they say that Connaughton has never raised taxes in PW and Bolling on several occasions while on the Hanover BOS did directly support increases in taxes. I’ve not seen an effective refutation of these arguments. Finally, while I’m here, I do not understand the reason that taxes should increase in lockstep with population growth and inflation. I could envision scenarios where that might indicate financial mismanagement on the high or low side, depending on the nature of the jurisdiction. So I ask, with sincere detachment, why do you an others take the position that the relationship between revenue and population/inflation growth is a parallel relationship?

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Phil –

    Bolling is misleading you. Here are some headlines from 1992:

    BUDGETS HANOVER TAX BILLS UP 13.5%
    Gregory Gilligan. Richmond Times – Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: Apr 09, 1992. pg. B-1

    HANOVER BOARD ADOPTS BUDGET THAT RAISES REALTY TAXES

    Gregory Gilligan. Richmond Times – Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: Apr 09, 1992. pg. 7

  17. MR JMS Avatar
    MR JMS

    Anon 7:10am- Mr. R(I would butcher your name and for that I apologize) will not respond to those facts. I mean come on, if Sen. Bolling says the only went up 2.25% then it has to be true.

    Two things:

    1.) Sen. Bolling does not refute his budget plan that caused a rise in taxes after he left office. His simple answer is the took effect when he was no longer on the board, gee isn’t that convienient?

    2.) When all of this began Sen Bolling and Mr. R loved to lament about the state law requiring jurisdicitons to not allow tax bill growth above 101% of the previous years total, regardless of assessments, unless a public hearing takes place. The point they were trying to make is Chairman Connaughton had to publicly vote to raise above the 101% level and therefore he voted to raise taxes.

    Now, I was not a math major, but isn’t a 2.5% increase also above the 101% level? Mr R., since you have admitted that Sen Bolling raised taxes are you now going to withdraw your enforsement of him???

    Feel free to question the policies of our elected officials. But, when we set benchmarks and use lines of attack can we please just be consistent? I frankly am tired of our party tearing ourselves down.

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I saw somewhere that the per capita income tax bill has risen over 50% over the last 10 years, why doesn’t the General Assembly apply the 101% rule that it applies to the localities to itself?

  19. MR JMS Avatar
    MR JMS

    Don’t we all get it? As they said over at Commonwelath Conservative the “Anti-Tax” crowd has begun a downhill effect on our tax bills. The Fed lowers the income tax rate and builds up the unfunded mandates to the states(No Child Left Behind is a perfect example).

    Now the state is stradled with a bill to comply with these new mandates. We refuse to raise taxes(which honestly is the right thing), but in the process of fighting taxes we provide ZERO solutions on what spending should be cut. So, what happens? The state does not fund their mandates(again, education is a perfect example) to the localities.

    Now we get to the local level where leaders are forced to make tough decisions. In places such as Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, Spotsylvania, Stafford, and Faugquier they have a growing school population but a lower assistance from the state. Compound that with much of the new population living in apartments(especially in Fairfax and Prince William) and we have more students with a lower percentage of people paying and less money from the state. So, the local property owners have to pay up.

    In order to truly address taxes we must first address the mmanner that money is spent. I would like to see some realistic cost-cutting proposals from anyone in this state. That is how we address our growing tax bills, property or income.

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    And to expand on MR JMS –

    the problem is even further compounded because many of the new transplants to places like Fairfax and Prince William county schools are in need of ESL classes which are significantly more expensive than traditional classes. It costs much more to educate 30 ESL students than it does to educate 30 non-ESL students.

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Phil…

    If you do not mind, I would still like you to respond to the questions I posted to you in a previous thread. If you do not recall them, I have reposted them below…

    __________________________

    OK Phil…question for you…

    Two VCAP challenged incumbents, May and Reese, received Family Foundation scores in the high 80’s. So did Bryant although his challenger is not VCAP endorsed.

    Two other Republicans who are not VCAP endorsed, Wardrup and Purkey have lower scores than the three RINOs, as you call them, above. Are Wardrup and Purkey RINOs too? How about Suit with a 67 score although she voted against a tax increase?

    What I want to know:

    1. Do you consider Purkey, Wardrup and Suit RINOs too?

    2. Is Speaker Howell a RINO for supporting the re-election of those your group opposes?

    3. If all of the so-called RINOs (assuming that everyone on Grover’s poster was a RINO) left the party tomorrow in the House and the Senate and became Democrats, wouldn’t that just prove that a party that only aligned with your specific views is a minority party?

    4. Is it more important to hunt RINOs than it is to hunt liberal Democrats who vote against your philosophy far more? After all you raise the average rate of agreement with your views far faster by eliminating Democrats with 30 scores than so-called RINOs with 88 scores.

    5. If you took the “surplus” this year and spent it rather than fight tooth and nail to give it back to the taxpayers, doesn’t that make you a tacit RINO? Isn’t every Republican–including Bolling, Cuccinelli, Frederick, etc.–who voted for this year’s budget–and who spent every penny and are now talking about all that new road money and so on in their campaigns–aren’t they really RINO’s too? Shouldn’t they have refused to pass the budget until they gave the money back? Or are they just WHORE’s?

  22. Bob Griendling Avatar
    Bob Griendling

    Gee, I thgought of leaving a comment here about the convulsed thinking of the anti-taxers. But after listening to you anti-tax folks bash each other and reveal the inconsistencies, never mind. You don’t need my help.

  23. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “I didn’t realize that Sean Connaughton is responsible for the NoVa real estate market explosion over the last 10 years.”

    Anybody want to take a guess on how much of the real estate explosion was based on phony reassessments caused by proffers on new homes?

    “But there is no justification for government spending growing faster than the rate of population growth plus inflation.”

    I disagree, what about bonafide increases in commerce? If we are all better off, and if government is even partially responsible (through economic development or whatever) doesn’t it deserve a cut of the action? Aren’t there enough bonafide needs for the extra money?

    There is a difference between raising taxes and raising the tax burden. Taxing phantom profits on real estate fall in the latter category, in my opinion.

  24. James Young Avatar
    James Young

    RE: 7:10 a.m. Anonymous:
    Thanks for the points from the Connaughton mailer, but I already received multiple copies.

    I guess (actually, know) Connaughton’s had a much friendlier press. Publisher of our local paper was head of the local Chamber last year. No surprise that the Pot. News has been a lap dog for Connaughton. It’s big brother in Richmond is much more editorially stern on the tax issue.

Leave a Reply

Read More