Where’s the “Anti-Spending” Party?

Virginia has no “anti-tax” political party. The “anti-tax” label routinely applied in the Mainstream Media to Republican factions in the General Assembly is patently ludicrous. A Republican legislature has presided over a 30 percent increase in state government expenditures adjusted for inflation and population growth over the past 10 years. (See “Fiscal Crisis Pending: Quick, Raise Taxes!”)

What we have in Virginia are two political parties, or, in the case of the Republican party, two factions, that haggle over the rate of growth of government spending. The main difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats are forthright about calling for tax increases while the so-called “anti-tax” faction of the Republican Party will do anything to avoid calling a tax by its name.

Republicans suffer from crippling political disadvantages in this ongoing struggle. First is the clear preference of the Mainstream Media for Big Government. You can deduce all you need to know about the prejudices of the press from the fact that journalists and editorial writers routinely label certain legislative factions “anti-tax,” which is a laughable misnomer, but never label their pro-tax opponents as what they so very clearly are: “pro-tax.”

The other disadvantage, self-inflicted, of what might more properly be called the “slower tax growth” crowd, is the lack of a set of coherent principles undergirding their positions. The “slower tax growth” faction is caught between a rock and a hard place: a perceived need to increase revenue while simultaneously placating a middle-class constituency that is sick and tired of its ever-escalating tax burden. The solution this spring was to raise $1 billion in new revenue for transportation while proclaiming none of it constituted a “statewide tax increase.”

The authors of the the Comprehensive Transportation Funding and Reform act of 2007 instituted a half billion dollars of regional tax hikes in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, but those didn’t count because they weren’t “statewide.” They imposed assorted statewide fees, such as the controversial Abuser Fees, but those didn’t count because they weren’t “taxes.” They borrowed money, which they would pay off with General Fund revenues, and they tapped General Fund surpluses instead of rebating it to taxpayers, but none of that counted either because no taxes were raised.

The result is a revenue-raising scheme that is spread among so many different sources, and is so disconnected from how far people drive, when they drive, or the demands they place on the transportation system, that it arguably will do more harm than good.

Here’s the ugly truth that the politicians of all parties and factions refuse to tell the voters: Virginia can never solve its transportation crisis without moving to a user pays system. (That’s only the first step toward a genuine solution, but it’s a critical first step.) Virginia cannot build its way out of traffic congestion by subsidizing construction of new roads and transit programs through revenue streams disconnected from the use of those roads and transit facilities. When the cost is free, the quantity demanded is potentially limitless. That’s Economics 101. The only way to moderate demand is to make those who use the system pay for their use.

The only way to restrain spending on roads and transit in the long run is to establish market discipline upon the transportation system. If that means, among other things, imposing a “gas tax” user fee in place of the opaque mix of taxes, fees, penalties, bonds and revenue surpluses that we have now, then so be it. But that’s something the Republicans, who once believed in market principles, have steadfastly refused to do. If the Republicans find themselves in trouble with the electorate this fall, it’s because opposing “statewide” increases in “taxes” while simultaneously abetting ever-growing spending is not a formula that most Virginians will buy into.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

18 responses to “Where’s the “Anti-Spending” Party?”

  1. Groveton Avatar

    Jim:

    Your argument almost has it all.

    Just one proposed change.

    Instead of … “The only way to restrain spending on roads and transit in the long run is to establish market discipline upon the transportation system. “

    How about … “The only way to restrain spending in the long run is to establish market discipline upon everything”.

    The continued focus on transportation to the exclusion of everything else convinces me that the Republican Party is not anti-tax or anti-growth. They are anti-urbanizing county and quite willing to tax and spend as long the taxing and spending is confined to Northern Virginia and Todewater.

  2. Groveton Avatar

    Sorry…

    Correction…

    The continued focus on transportation to the exclusion of everything else convinces me that the Republican Party is not anti-tax or anti-growth. They are anti-urbanizing county and quite willing to tax and spend as long as the taxing is confined to Northern Virginia and Tidewater. They are also pro-spend and will spend in Northern Virginia and Tidewater only to the extent that they have to do so in order to maintain the shallow facade of a political philosophy rather than a special interest group. Once that facade is maintained (barely) they support taxing in Northern Virginia and Tidewater while spending everywhere else.

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    In Minnesota, you can bet that the next transportation bill will not be vetoed by the governor, as the as two were because they raised revenue (increased taxes). You can also bet it WILL include a gas tax increase.

    Already, there is a call for a national gas tax increase to help fund the repair of aging infrastructure.

    RH

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I like it: Toadwater.

    RH

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “According to the Tax Foundation, in 2006 Virginia had the 10th lowest state and local tax burden in the country at 9.5 percent of income.”

    http://www.vaperforms.virginia.gov/i-taxation.php

    As a percent of income, that tax burden has DECREASED from 10% in 2000.

    RH

  6. Groveton Avatar

    RH:

    Lol – the Toadwater comment was purely a typo.

    Jim Bacon:

    All this talk of transportation and taxation is fascinating. However, when will you show the gumption to post something regarding the real issue in Virginia at this moment – namely Michael Vick and what should happen there?

    Now that will bring some commentary :).

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The only way to restrain spending on roads and transit in the long run is to establish market discipline upon the transportation system. “

    Maybe.

    What if market discipline shows that expenditures on transportation and transit provide among the best ROI’s available for state expenditures? In that case, market discipline would require that you spend more on these items.

    “When the cost is free, the quantity demanded is potentially limitless.” OK, but potential demand isnt the same as actual demand, and anyway, the cost isn’t free.

    First, we pay for the roads one way or another, so the cost isn’t free: instead, we trade that option for spending on something else. If something else offers a lower ROI, then the trade is rational.

    Second, even If I assume that what I pay for roads is a sunk cost, so my marginal usage is free, I still have to pay all my personal costs. I don’t know about you, but I don’t hop in the car willy nilly without considering the costs – in dollars and time.

    (Of course, if I use transit, I don’t even have to pay my total personal costs. If your argument was correct, people would over use transit, too. In fact Metro is struggling with overcrowded trains now. the only reason it isnt worse is a matter of availability, and time.)

    Congestion has nothing to do with how many roads we have. Most of our roads are uncongested most of the time. Congestion has to do with allowing the creation of too much demand in too little space, mostly commercial demand.

    “Virginia can never solve its transportation crisis without moving to a user pays system.”

    OK, let’s say that there is a fixed value to the ability to get downtown during rush hour. Then everybody ought to pay the same price – transit riders and auto riders alike. Then all we have to do is allocate the money according to who is using what. That would suggest, among other things, that residents outside the usage area would get none of the money for their infrastructure, and NOVA money would stay in NOVA.

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Would someone PLEASE direct me to authorative research that directly ties the growth in government spending to the rate inflation or population growth!! And I do not consider the Cato Institute, MoveOn.org, or the Club for Growth as such sources. Are federal mandates, such as Medicare, NCLB, etc. affected by inflation or population growth? It use to be that the federal government even published a separate inflation index for state and local governments. I am sorry but I cannot buy the argument that ALL government spending should be tied to those two factors. I guess the up and down price of oil does not count. How about the GASB full pension and benefit funding requirement? Do you think that the bridge in Minnesota collapsed because of the rate of inflation or population growth? Things are not that simple.

  9. Phil Rodokanakis Avatar
    Phil Rodokanakis

    Jim Bacon said: “Virginia can never solve its transportation crisis without moving to a user pays system”

    Jim, it might surprise some folks to hear that I wholeheartedly agree with you. But I support user tolls and congestion pricing. Right now if we implemented a congestion pricing scheme on some of our more clogged arteries, I bet we could solve some of the gridlock without having to add much new road capacity.

    My pay-as-you-go model doesn’t involve raising the gasoline tax. As you’ve advocated before, this is a losing proposition because the revenues derived from this source will continue to decrease as mileage efficiency increases, alternative fuels are introduced, etc. Worse I don’t want that money to go to Richmond–that’s the root of our current problems.

    I think the state should explore the option of funding new roads by entering into public-private partnerships. The partnership is allowed to issue bonds for the expressed purpose of building a new road where the market dictates that it will be profitable. The state backs the bonds that are issued and the private sector builds the road, manages the new road, and collects the tolls to pay off the bonds. And such toll collections should always involve a congestion pricing mechanism.

    In my mind, this is the only way that to start building new roads right away. No public expenditures are involved. More importantly, VDOT should be kept away from such projects, so that they can be completed within 18 to 24 months as opposed to VDOT taking a decade or longer to add new road capacity.

  10. Phil Rodokanakis Avatar
    Phil Rodokanakis

    Anon 1:14 said: “According to the Tax Foundation, in 2006 Virginia had the 10th lowest state and local tax burden in the country at 9.5 percent of income.”

    I’m afraid you’re buying into our state government’s propaganda. You’re referring to the Tax Foundation, but the hyperlinked reference you provide points to “Virginia Performs” a website controlled by Virginia.gov.

    I don’t know where they came up with these figures, but they certainly bear no resemblance to the tax statistics reported by the tax foundation.

    If you go to the page on the Tax Foundation‘s website that records State and Local Tax Burdens by State for 1970-2007 you’ll be surprised by the actual data that’s posted there.

    In 1993, Virginia ranked 44 out of 50 on the state tax burden scale (1 being the highest and 50 being the lowest). Today, Virginia ranks 33!

    So contrary to the propaganda dished out by the state, our state’s tax burden has gone up–not down–and Virginia now ranks just below the middle of the average state burden.

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Phil: Nice letter to tom Rust. Right on. The example of what happened to Mr. Mason is exactly what I predicted would happen: a tax lottery.

    With sufficient righteous indignation you could claim he had it coming if he was 20 miles over the limit. But as you point out, lots of people do it, ocasionally, depending on conditions. In other words, in some cases, a blanket 55 mph rule is too stringent.

    It all comes down to a call on the part of the police officer, who may have another incentive or agenda.

    If I actually thought it would apply to the worst of the worst, I’d support it, but I do not think that is the case, and all of us are subject to what happened to Mr. Mason.

    It’s no way to raise money. Fairly.

    ——————————–

    As to the tax foundation, good catch. I recognized that the URL was not the same as the source of the data. That should have put me on alert – twice. I hate agenda driven drivel. From either side.

    Unfortunately, sometimes all we can do is throw dung at the wall and see what sticks.

    Maybe, if we started from a point when everything was hunky-dory, all our most pressing needs were met, government worked smoothly and efficiently, and all things remained relatively constant; then you could claim that all government needs is population growth plus inflation.

    But, maybe global warming means our bridges corrode faster. Or maybe anonymous 4:49 has a point, and there are other factors at play. Surely if we only increase spending enough to cover population and infation we can never improve anything.

    Just as surely, if the data I quoted is correct, then our tax burden has gone down, relative to our wealth, and not up. I based that on a graph provided on the government site verbatim. I have no reason to think it is wrong or mistated from the tax foundation.

    But your complaint is MUCH different. The fact that we rank differently has nothing to do with whether our tax burden as a percentage of wealth has gone up or down. It could simply mean that other states wealth has increased even faster than ours. In that case their taxes might have gone up (even more than ours), and still resulted in a lower burden,and lower ranking.

    What that would mean is that they did a better job of turning their tax expenditures into ROI that they can return to their “investors”, and which the recognize as higher income.

    To be sure, the refrain of James Atticus Bowden is also true, at some point. Taxes that are too high reduce the funds available for investment in private enterprise. Infrastructure that is too low also reduces the incentive for private enterprise. Speeding and construction rules too rigidly enforced reduce the incentive for enterprise, at some level.

    What you have not showed me is that the figures I quoted were wrong. What you did is quote different figures which could appear to make them seem wrong. In fact, they may both be accurate pictures of the same thing, and what we have is innaccurrate captions.

    And this is the essence of my usual complaint here. Had you merely quoted different figures, we could discuss them reasonably. I don’t have any heartburn at all if you can show me that in 1990 our tax burden was NOT 10% of total state income and in 1997 it was not 9.5%.

    Wrong is wrong: I can accept that.

    But, when you accuse me of “buying into” agenda driven drivel, and support that by stating something entirely different from what I said, then I’m not so impressed. I never said I believed the numbers, but only suggested that IF the numbers are true, then out tax burden has gone down, not up as suggested by JB.

    I’ll accept that our RANKING has gone up. Now let’s look at what that means and how it happened. Let’s look at what we get for our money vs what they get, and then figure out the ranking.

    My taxes in Alexandria are higher than my taxes in Fauquier. But I think I get a better deal over all in Alexandria.

    RH

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I support a pay as you go system, but I think that implies that those that pay get what they pay for, and not what somebody else uses. It also implies that you don’t pay for more than what you get. In Fauquier, my representatives are proud to proclaim that I, as a farm owner, pay more in taxes than I get in services.

    I think that is just wrong.

    I think it’s wrong if road users pay for transit riders to a greater extent than they benefit from the congestion reduction that results from those that choose to ride transit.

    Since it is apparent that htere will laways be someone willing to fill the space vacated by a transit rider, that congestion reduction turns out to be nil, or nearly so.

    If we are going to have a user pays system, then we will have to have a system of figuring out who is paying for what. Right now, we are a long way from that kind of sunshine.

    If we can’t even agree on how much taxes we are paying in tehe aggregate, out of how much aggregate income, then how are we to ever agree on the much smaller details? These details may be small potatos in the aggregate, but to an individual abusee, they may be huge, just as the case of Mr. Mason illustrates.

    In the end, “The Public Benefit” turns out to be the sum of all the little benefits, and all the little abuses as well.

    RH

  13. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Phil, We basically agree on what constitutes a pay-as-you-go system. My argument in the original post is that the gas tax is preferable to the grab-bag of taxes, fees, fines, etc. that were imposed this year. As I have argued many times, the gas tax is living on borrowed time and will have to transition to a Vehicle Miles Driven tax eventually.

    In my ideal world, drivers would be assessed a user fee at periodic intervals (monthly, annually, whatever) based on Vehicle Miles Driven. This fee would cover the cost of road and bridge maintenance. There is a direct connection between how far you drive and how much wear and tear you put on the system.

    Traffic congestion would be addressed through congestion tolls. And major new construction projects could be covered through public-private partnerships, which also rely on tolls.

    That still leaves open the issue of how to pay for local roads — proffers, impact fees, local government borrowing, etc. — but we will have solved a big chunk of the problem with the simple, transparent changes noted above.

  14. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Anonymous 4:49 p.m., I would suggest that you could do your own research by consulting the following sources: the Census Bureau consumer price index calculator, the Weldon Cooper Center (University of Virginia) state/local population estimates and the state budget numbers contained in the Department of Management and Budget website. Don’t trust anyone else — do it yourself. It’s all on the Web.

  15. G. A. Harrison Avatar
    G. A. Harrison

    Is the Republican majority of the General Assembly going the same way as Congressional Republicans?

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Mr. Bacon – I agree that the data is there, everywhere, but again, can you point me to scholarly research that directly ties population growth and the inflation rate to government spending? Where is it? You are continuing to trade on the myth put forth by others that there is a direct connection. Check out the annual report of JLARC on state spending. Yes, the compare state spending to population and inflation, but they also acknowledge that other factors, such as what goes on across the Potomac, that have just as much or more cause and effect relationship on state spending. If we put up walls around Virginia and let no one in, let no more Virginians have babies, instituted a controlled economy where there would be no inflation, the state’s spedings would still go up because of the many other legit factors that cause Virginia to spend money.

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “There is a direct connection between how far you drive and how much wear and tear you put on the system.”

    There is an even better connection between how much energy you use and how much wear and tear you put on the system. And in this case, the “system” includes the atmosphere, not just the roadways.

    And, let’s face it, there is also a very significant effect from the weather on our roadways. At some level, reducing miles driven will not only not reuduce our costs, but will mean we get less benefit from what we doo spend.

    rh

  18. Groveton Avatar

    Anon 5:09 makes good points. The research should not be something that savvy computer – using taxpayers can do themselves. It should be prepared and presented by the elected politicians, the political parties and those seeking election.

    The Virginia state legislature practices mushroom management – keep ’em in the dark and feed them cow dung.

    It’s time for this to end.

    No matter whether you are Republican, Deomocrat or Independent; liberal, conservative or middle-of-the road – you should want one thing this fall:

    More transparency and more clarity from state government.

Leave a Reply