Gov. Bob McDonnell has repeatedly asserted that the government of Virginia managed to close a $1.8 billion shortfall in the Fiscal 2010 budget “without a tax increase.” (See his column in the Wall Street Journal.) That may be true from a technical viewpoint but it leaves a few things unsaid. I won’t even get into the complex deal by which the commonwealth effectively borrows money from the Virginia Retirement System and repays the sum as part of a larger pension overhaul. More to the point is the matter of some $95 million in higher “fees” in the biennial budget, plus multimillion-dollar reductions in targeted tax breaks that bring the total to $137 million.
The accompanying chart from the House Appropriations Committee shows the grab bag of additional fees inserted by the General Assembly into the budget legislation during the last day of the 2010 session. There are two issues here.
First, when is a “fee” not a fee but a tax increase? I would argue that a fee becomes a tax when the revenue generated by the fee exceeds the level needed to provide the related government service. By that definition, how many of the above are fees and how many are taxes? I don’t know. But an honest rendering of accounts probably would suggest that the General Assembly did increase some taxes.
The second issue is the manner in which these fee increases and tax break deductions were enacted. According to Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Manassas, they were jammed into a much larger bill at the last minute. Legislators never had an opportunity to vote them up or down on their individual merits. In other words, there was minimal transparency. It makes me sour and argumentative to see fees and taxes increased in this manner.
Marshall has a solution. He proposes an amendment to the state constitution as follows:
Any law that appropriates funds shall not contain any provision that imposes, continues, increases or revives any tax, fee, or fine, nor shall any such law contain any provision that reduces or eliminates any credit, deduction, or exemption associated with any tax, fee or fine.
Personally, I happen to dislike tax credits and exemptions as a tool of public policy and think many if not all of them should be eliminated on the grounds that they provide preferences not available to the general public and that they reduce the tax base. On the other hand, I also believe in transparent government. If anyone has an argument in opposition to Marshall’s amendment, I would like to hear it.
(Marshall provides a bit more information about his proposal here.)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.