Fear the Tax-man!

The IRS is looking to buy 12-gauge shotguns.

"The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to purchase sixty Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division. The Remington parkerized shotguns, with fourteen inch barrel, modified choke, Wilson Combat Ghost Ring rear sight and XS4 Contour Bead front sight, Knoxx Reduced Recoil Adjustable Stock, and Speedfeed ribbed black forend, are designated as the only shotguns authorized for IRS duty based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory, certified armorer and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts."

Anyone else think that it's a bit odd that the IRS gets their own "criminal investigation division" (read: "tax police") that has guns? Wouldn't the actual police-work involved be better left to, oh...say, the FBI or local authorities? I can understand their need for a division to investigate tax fraud, but to have an actual division of armed "tax cops"? It is a bit of a scary concept if you really think about it.

Here is the part that bothers me a bit...the majority of people who would defend the IRS's right to have their own form of armed law enforcement would also believe in limiting the 2nd Amendment rights of individual citizens. Anybody else see the hypocrisy in that?

Well, He's Got the Right Idea...

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the following at the World Economic Forum at Davos today...

"We are not asking ourselves what we will replace capitalism with, but what kind of capitalism we want?" he said.

"We must re-engineer capitalism to restore its moral dimension, its conscience,"

Ok, he's got the right idea here. Just because we hit an economic downturn does not mean we should start pushing towards socialist policies. In fact, moving away from such policies seems to be working in other places.

Now, what we need is not more regulation, but "good" regulation. We need current regulation to be simplified, clear, and transparent. The more you convolute something like this, the more loopholes you create for those who don't want to play by the rules to worm their way around the regulations in place. Both of our political parties seem to back regulation that apparently is too clouded in legalities that loopholes seem to be at every turn. Make it simple, make it clear, and make it so there is no doubt about what you are trying to accomplish.

This also naturally reduces and limits the amount of regulation you can implement, which is conducive to a well-oiled capitalist economy. You can only go so far without arousing protest from investors, businesses, banks, and the public at large (who probably does not understand a lot of the regulation to begin with, I know I have problems understanding some of the regulations I've looked up).

Granted, I would prefer minimalizing regulation, but since I have to play within the system (let's face it, most good revolutions do not happen overnight...unless you're talking Eastern Europe in 1989, but I digress), let's start by simplifying regulation first, then we can talk about what (if any) regulations are really necessary.

Also, taxing banks and big business as punishment will not be conducive to anything positive for the economy. If you thought big banks weren't lending before, watch what happens when you start penalizing them. If other states starting pulling moves like the state of Oregon just decided to do, you're going to see the leaders and drivers of free enterprise and industry start "going Galt" in huge numbers.

Worth Some Worry, But Don't Hit "Panic" Yet

Tertium Quids and Virginia Virtucon have both reported that Sen. Walter Stosch told Goochland Republicans that we "have to have more taxes this year".

While that is a worrisome statement, I wouldn't hit the panic button yet.

See, first of all, the House is solidly Republican again...and fiscally conservative for the most part. They have already declared Gov. Kaine's budget DOA. The Senate is already slightly tilted towards the Dems, who would support such a measure.

Last, but not least, the Governor-elect is a Republican. It's up to him to sign off on new taxes. Being that Bob McDonnell is not nearly as quick to raise taxes as Mark Warner is, I wouldn't start the panic of higher taxes just yet.

Obenshain Says Warner, Webb Owe Virginians an Apology

...and he's RIGHT!

Not only did our esteemed senators vote for a gaudy monstrosity of a health care bill, now Virginia has to pick up the tab for Nebraska, some of Louisiana, and non-profits in Michigan (among other things).

Given that Gov. Kaine's regional taxing authorities were unconstitutional, doesn't that instantly call this bill into review due to the fact that it forces some states to foot the bill for others in a discriminatory fashion? But I digress...

Sen. Obenshain points out where Virginia is on the hook for the sell-outs of other states and their senators, then goes after our own U.S. senators, especially Jim Webb.

"What did our intrepid duo in the U.S. Senate do to stand strong for the rights and interests of Virginians? Absolutely nothing. They fell right in line with Mr. Reid and the rest of the Democrats in the Senate and voted for this abomination. They required little coaxing and no incentives. Jim Webb may have been "born fighting," but he did not hesitate to run up the white flag here."

Oooh, that's gotta hurt.

On a side political note, for Obenshain to get this in the Washington Times and have Real Clear Politics post it on their site as well really does raise his profile. Obenshain for AG in 2013, or maybe even a senate run in 2012? I wouldn't mind it one bit.

(h/t SWAC Girl)

For Once, Tim Kaine is Right!

Outgoing Gov. Tim Kaine states that "...the budget he is handing off to Gov.-elect Robert F. McDonnell, a Republican, is one he would have drafted for his own administration or for the Democratic candidate, if state Sen. R. Creigh Deeds had won the November gubernatorial election."

The difference would've been that Deeds would've readily accepted the income tax increase, McDonnell will not. Thus, Kaine is being honest that he's not putting in a tax increase to simply screw McDonnell...but he's still trying to pass off a tax increase. Period. Kaine is giving the right answer to the wrong question.

(h/t Barticles)

C'mon Dems, When Does Enough Become Enough?

Congressional Democrats to raise debt ceiling by as much as $1.8 trillion in 2010.

You know, all the progressive taxation in the world wouldn't corral the debt load that your crew of power-tripping leftists are leading us into. Even if we were to cease military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, next year's budget would have deficit at around $1.3 trillion (and that is a conservative estimate).

Yes, Bush got this ball rolling (which is why I don't label him a conservative, at least not in a fiscal sense), but the Dems are turning a steep hill into Mount Everest at this point.

A Breakdown of Obama's Lies on Taxes

Done by a small business owner at the ARFCOM forums.

A brief synopsis...

Obama Tax Lie #1 - By letting the Bush tax cuts expire, this is a de facto tax increase for 100% of Americans, because 100% of Americans received a tax cut under George W. Bush.
Obama Tax Lie #2 - Obama plans to lift the inflation-adjusted cap on the Social Security tax in a manner that will impact anyone making up to $249,999.99 a year.
Obama Tax Lie #3 - Obama wants to increase the capital gains tax from 15% to 20%. He claims it is to get those "Wall Street fat cats", which is about 1% of the population...however, 50% of the population invests in the stock market. So for 50% of the population, this is a tax increase.
Obama Tax Lie #4 - Obama wants to increase taxes on big corporations. However, as this gentleman points out, corporations do not "pay taxes"...they simply collect the money from the customers and give it to the government. When Obama raises their taxes, the corporations will simply increase the price of what you're buying from them, which will cost you money.

The poster also has a tax table comparing your current tax liability as opposed to what it will be in 2010 with Obama letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

Wealth Redistribution: Proof Americans Don't Want It

From a Gallup Poll in June...

When given a choice about how government should address the numerous
economic difficulties facing today's consumer, Americans overwhelmingly — by 84%
to 13% — prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic
conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking
steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.

Americans' lack of support for redistributing wealth to fix the economy
spans political parties: Republicans (by 90% to 9%) prefer that the government
focus on improving the economy, as do independents (by 85% to 13%) and Democrats (by 77% to 19%).

That's a truly non-partisan agreement, in my opinion. That's why WHAT Obama said to Joe the Plumber is much more important than WHO Joe the Plumber is.

(h/t The Campaign Spot)

The Impracticality of the Robin Hood Tax Theory

Robin Hood was a classic tale, and has made for two good movies (neither one of which featured Kevin Costner, but one did feature an animated fox and the other was a Mel Brooks classic).

It was actually a great rail against big Government, if you think about it. Prince John was taxing the people to death, and Robin Hood and his band of merry men faught valiantly to get the money out of the Prince's coffers and back in the hands of the people, where it belonged.

Realistically speaking, Robin Hood was a libertarian...you keep what you earn, and Government should keep it's hands off your money.

However, the Democrats have a tendency to attempt to do this in a somewhat reverse fashion...where Government plays the role of Robin Hood, and anyone who is even moderately successful is automatically placed (for the sake of winning votes and playing class warfare) in the unenviable role Prince John.

Why is it that taxing the hell out of a person's success is supposed to be a good thing? Robin Hood did not give someone else's tax money to a poorer citizen in the interest of fairness...he attempted to give back to the people what had been taken from them...nothing more, nothing less.

Honestly, I never have been able to understand this...even in my more liberal days (when I was 10 or 11 years old), I just never understood why taxing those who make more just to "redistribute" the wealth was a good thing. I always thought, even when I was young, that such policies generally discourage people from being as successful as they can be. Why strive to make more only to have Government take it away?

So...if Obama wins and the Dems get their supposed "Supermajority", I'll be sure to be a good American citizen (in their eyes) and never strive to make more than an average wage and work an average job...just so I don't arouse suspicion. :) :) :)

OK, all jokes aside, I know that many of my leftist friends will tell me that things are "much more complicated than that" and we need to uplift the downtrodden and spread the wealth around, because nobody should have a bigger piece of pie.

Hey, I get it, I understand the concept. In a philosophical sense, it sounds nice on the surface. However, to reduce voluntary (and more efficient) charity with forced Government intervention? Why? We're already the most charitable nation on Earth.

What's interesting is that many Democrats and American Liberals like to believe that their way of thinking is much of "intellectual" in nature, and most modern-day intellectuals believe that Big Government and centralized planning are the answer.

However, I simply economically identify with Classical Liberals (who would be labeled conservatives or libertarians in today's American society) such as John Locke, Voltaire, Montesquieu, or Alexis de Tocqueville? I mean, their writings only played a integral part in shaping our nation. They're also only names that you read about in any history class as being influential to American economic and social thought.

Anyone care to argue that those people aren't "intellectuals"?

Damn, Obama WILL Raise My Taxes!!!

So much for those tax cuts for 95% of middle- and working-class families, says Jason Kenney.

Honestly, people bought into that "95 percent" line of his??? Basically, if you're a family earning between $25,000 and $85,000 a year, your marginal tax rate will go UP under Obama.

UPDATE

I just realized that I predicted something similar to this from either Obama or Hillary Clinton in an earlier post...

"Democrats state they will fix this (and everything else) by raising taxes on the "rich"...even though "rich" to them (according to the circulating Dem tax plan post-Bush Administration) is now any single person making over $33,000/year, or any married couple making a combined $45,000/year."

Democrats...so predictable!

Podium Positions: Federal Budget

Budgetary Viewpoints from The Podium...

Military
Understandably, it's hard to reduce spending while fighting two separate military operations. However, as the situation continues to improve in Iraq, we can start projecting how we can save billions just by coming to a favorable end to our occupation of that nation. $145 billion has been allocated for the Global War on Terror, Iraq consumes a large part of that in and of itself. Once Iraq is done with and we wind things down a bit more in Afghanistan, we could cut the current budget deficit of $240 billion in half.

However, we must currently continue to create a favorable outcome in Iraq now, as future U.S.-involved conflict due to leaving Iraq in bad shape would mean future military operations there. To leave Iraq now would lead to more spending later.

Entitlements - Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP/Welfare/Unemployment
Until then, some trimming around the edges of other government programs will be necessary, we need to find a way to do this without hurting those who actually need government assistance.

The introduction of privatized Social Security (at least in an optional sense) would help. The U.S. federal budget will spend $608 billion dollars on Social Security for the fiscal year of 2008. It is the single-most expensive item of spending in our budget, and it gets more expensive each year.

$324 billion will be spent on welfare/unemployment, this can be cut down if we can stimulate job growth "from the ground up", so to speak.

The combined $595 billion spent on Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP could be made a lot cheaper if we opened up health insurance to the free markets just like car insurance, life insurance, et cetera. You, the individual, find the plan and the price that is right for you. In fact, we can probably even set up government-funded assistance for people who don't quite know what to look for when shopping around for insurance and still cut down on this price tag.

Also, by adopting a more federalist approach, we can defer funding for abortions to the state level, and there the states can decide whether or not they choose to provide funding and assistance for abortion practices on their own, thus removing financial responsibility from the federal government.

Taxes
With lowered spending comes less of a need for taxes. While I'm not calling for the dissolution of the IRS just yet, the combination of lower spending and a simpler tax code would lessen the need for any future tax increases, and may lead to a call for tax decreases.

Overview
Whether we're talking federal, state, or local levels, fiscal prudence will always be an appealing cornerstone for conservatives. The George W. Bush-style of budgeting money has not been fiscally prudent overall. While his tax cuts have kept money in the pockets of those who earned it, spending has continued to increase.

However, the reigning in of spending increases has occurred over the past few years. The federal budget deficit has gone from $390 billion (FY 2006) to about $240 billion (FY 2008). Continued reduction at this rate will lead to a balanced budget, or budget surplus, by Fiscal Year 2011.

We must continue on this track, and find ways to "trim the fat" from our budget.

Optional privatization of social security allows people to make a choice to invest their social security funds, which allows for less spending on social security itself. Lower taxes puts money back in the pockets of those who earned the money in the first place. Less federal spending makes our government less cumbersome and more nimble and flexible to foreign and domestic changes. Finally, the reduction and streamlining of entitlement programs increases the amount of independency American citizens have from the federal government.

Kudlow: "President Bush had a very good year"

In a Washington Times column today, Lawrence Kudlow noted that, despite all of the negativity and criticism of his campaign, President Bush has had a good year.

The troop surge in Iraq is succeeding. America remains safe from terrorist attacks. And the Goldilocks economy is outperforming all expectations.

True enough, especially when you look at these numbers...which come despite the subprime crisis and overall housing market downturn.

- Headline inflation - 2.5%
- Core inflation - 2%
- Real GDP growth - 3%
- Consumer spending - 3%
- Jobs increasing at rate of 100,000/month
- Stock market continues to go up despite obstacles

Kudlow also notes Bush's legislative victories, economic optimism, and his crusade against wasteful spending and pork-barrel earmarks.

Mr. Bush's optimism is well-earned, in Congress too. He has stopped a lot of bad legislation on higher taxing and spending. He won on S-CHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) and the alternative minimum tax. He mostly prevailed on domestic spending. And he got much of what he wanted on war funding without any pullout dates.

And he is not yet finished. In the most dramatic statement of his holiday news conference, Mr. Bush said he will not stand for continuing congressional proliferation of pork-barrel earmarks.

"Another thing that's not responsible is the number of earmarks the Congress included in the massive spending bill," said Mr. Bush. "The bill they just passed includes about 9,800 earmarks. Together with the previously passed defense spending bill, that means Congress has approved about 11,900 earmarks this year. And so I am instructing Budget Director Jim Nussle to review options for dealing with wasteful spending in the omnibus bill."

This is huge. The statute of limitations for Republican overspending, over-earmarking, and over-corrupting that caused huge congressional losses in last year's campaign will not run out until the GOP shows taxpayers it again can be trusted on key issues of limited government and lower taxes.

In these matters, Republicans must be holier than the pope. And while President Bush has been doing the Lord's work with his newfound veto pen, he must continue to wage war on earmarks if the GOP is to cleanse the political memory of Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, and Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

This behemoth spending-bill was porked-up with such essential items as rodent control in Alaska ($113,000); olive fruit-fly research in France ($213,000); a hunting and fishing museum in Pennsylvania ($200,000); a bike trail in Minnesota ($700,000); a post office museum in Las Vegas ($200,000); and a $2 million monument to Rep. Charlie Rangel in New York.

Will Rangel's monument be inscribed with his quote that "Dick Cheney is a real son of a bitch"? Just wondering, since my federal tax dollars are going to support a project like this.

Kudlow finishes with some optimism and advice for how the GOP should go forward in making the economy even better.

Republicans also can take credit for outmaneuvering the Democrats on a patch for the AMT. The Democrats were made to waive the pay-as-you-go budget rule that might have forced tax increases on businesses and investment pools. Stopping this tax hike is a singular Republican achievement, while the AMT will now be indexed for inflation, thereby sparing more than 20 million taxpayers.

Looking ahead, the economy also would benefit from a corporate tax cut for both large and small businesses, including corporate capital-gains. The U.S. dollar would reap the rewards as new investment flowed in from the world. Several recent studies also show businesses would pass on tax-cost savings to the work force, thereby bolstering wages and ultimately creating new jobs.

Hokey ideas for temporary tax rebates? They should be ignored. But if the president and Republicans wipe out earmarks, hold down spending, and pass a bold corporate tax cut, Goldilocks will be nourished and sustained. Come November 2008, Republicans might be back in the driver's seat.

President Bush's Statement on H.R. 2764

Otherwise known as the Omnibus Spending Bill.

Today, I signed into law H.R. 2764, legislation that will fund the Federal Government within the reasonable and responsible spending levels I proposed - without raising taxes and without the most objectionable policy changes considered by the Congress. This law provides a down payment for the resources our troops need, without arbitrary timelines for withdrawal. The Congress should quickly take action next year to provide the remainder of the funding needed by our troops.

I am disappointed in the way the Congress compiled this legislation, including abandoning the goal I set early this year to reduce the number and cost of earmarks by half. Instead, the Congress dropped into the bill nearly 9,800 earmarks that total more than $10 billion. These projects are not funded through a merit-based process and provide a vehicle for wasteful Government spending.

There is still more to be done to rein in Government spending. In February I will submit my budget proposal for fiscal year 2009, which will once again restrain spending, keep taxes low, and continue us on a path towards a balanced budget. I look forward to working with the Congress in the coming year to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.

Finally, this legislation contains certain provisions similar to those found in prior appropriations bills passed by the Congress that might be construed to be inconsistent with my Constitutional responsibilities. To avoid such potential infirmities, the executive branch will interpret and construe such provisions in the same manner as I have previously stated in regard to similar provisions.

Hopefully, we can have less earmarks and "pork-barrel" spending, and we can further reduce the budget deficit, which has been on a steady decline over the past few years.

(h/t News Blaze)

Cents and Sensibility, A Look at Tim Kaine's Proposed Budget

Let's take a look at some of the highlights (and lowlights) of Governor Kaine's proposed budget...

THE SAVINGS...

- The current $641 million shortfall will be taken care of by using $261 million from the "Rainy Day fund", overall cuts of $300 million, and $96 million will come from agency savings (i.e. unspent money).

- The 2008-2010 budget...is projected to be a little over $78 billion, which is the smallest increase in 12 years, only $4 billion more over the last biennial budget. Projected revenues are about $81 billion, so we might come out of this with a surplus.

- No new taxes, but an increase in the license renewal fee from $5 to $15. However, the once-a-year car inspections will now be once-every-2-years, and that price goes from $16 to $20. Ok, we're not saving on the renewal fee, but we'll actually save a whole $6 a year with the change in car inspect

- No government pay raises in 2008. However, state employees get a 3% pay increase, and teachers get a 3.5% pay increase, in 2009. I'm going to put this under savings, but I'm not sure why Kaine is using Daniel Snyder-esque "back end loading" of spending increases.

The explanation I've heard about why these increases are being structured this way is because of the "hope" that the economy improves by 2009, so the state will "hopefully" exceed revenue projections. "Hope"? That's the same platform Barack Obama runs on, so I'm guessing that's why Tim Kaine supports Obama.

So that's the "Politics of Hope", simply "hoping" things get better. That explains a lot...

THE INCREASED SPENDING...

- Education: $56 million to expand public preschool programs, $44.3 million in increased operating costs for colleges and universities (didn't I talk about how this could be a place to cut funds in an earlier post?), $1.6 billion in bonds for college/university campus construction projects (buy now, pay later...?), $36.4 million increase in student financial aid. $1 billion to upgrade education requirements for K-12 ("education requirements"? Like, the standard curriculum? That should only require a few pieces of paper).

- Business: $68 million to recruit businesses to Virginia. This should be spent wisely...although, isn't the state already a magnet in and of itself for business? The $7 million in subsidies allocated for small businesses to provide health insurance to lower-income employees is agreeable, as it would help take people off of medicaid, etc...

- Juvenile Delinquents: $159 million to provide special schooling and foster care for juvenile delinquents. If they're in foster care, shouldn't they be going to a real school?

- $46 million to repair "gaps" in the mental health care system, including $14.6 million for crisis mental health care. $14.6 million for "crisis" mental health care? We have to have funds on hand in case of a "crisis". Shouldn't our money go towards averting a crisis in the future?

THE INEXPLICABLE

- $180 million in transportation funds reverted back to the general budget for this biennium. Wait, didn't we have a BIG debate over the abuser fees that were supposed to pay for the supposed transportation needs? And now Kaine, who supported the fees and wanted them imposed on Virginia drivers only, wants to take money AWAY from the transportation fund?

There has been a lot of negative reaction on the blogs...some of it warranted, some of it not.

- On The Spot is not happy with this. In fact, there is a lot of sarcastic commentary about the budget.

- Right-Wing Liberal sees this as a very "Clintonian" way of expanding government without necessarily increasing spending. Decrease the amount of money spent and number of government employees, but no decrease in the actual size and scope of governmental power.

- Spank That Donkey notes that Kaine made a promise during his 2005 campaign not to touch the transportation fund for other purposes...oops. He also makes an excellent point that when you're looking at a possible recession, "the most prudent action of the government should be to trim spending, and provide a stimulus to the people."

- The GOP has their own doubts about this budget.

- Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling is "very disappointed."

Personally, I think Kaine's overall budget keeps the size of the actual "meat and potatoes" of the government's spending the same...but has some back-end increases in areas that don't necessarily need the increases. That's where the disappointment lies. Why increase spending on projects like Kaine's attempt at gradually implementing universal pre-K? We're not in a financial position to consider such a project, which is not even a good idea in the first place.

Kaine is to be commended on keeping his spending increase down...but if you're going to increase spending, do it to the areas that need it (infrastructure, transportation, commerce) and stop increasing it in less-important areas (universal pre-K, non-justified increases in secondary education spending).

Rasmussen: Good News for Bush, Common Sense, War, and Society

- Bush's approval rating for the overall month of November was 37%, which is not great but is an improvement from the low-30's he was pulling several months ago. It's been a slow climb upward for the President.

- 54% of Americans believe that the individuals who borrowed more than they could afford are to blame for the subprime mortgage crisis...only 25% blame Wall Street investors. This 54% includes 42% of Democrats (surprisingly, only 37% of Dems blame Wall Street), 52% of Independents, and 69% of Republicans. Interesting, since the mainstream news tends to place blame on Wall Street for this problem.

- 47% of Americans believe we are winning the War on Terror, the highest level of support in 35 months on Rasmussen and 4 points higher than a month ago. This is also up 13 points since early January.

- Here's an interesting one...62% of Americans would prefer a government that offers fewer services and lower taxes, only 25% say the opposite.

Taxes, Budgets, Transportation...

Craig Vitter and I were bantering back and forth a bit over the proposed gas tax increase. Craig thinks it is a good idea because we need to improve roads and finish transporation projects. I, on the other hand, think that maybe some budget cuts would help, or at least some reallocation of funds.

So I'm looking at the 2006-2008 biennial budget for Virginia, and let's see where our money is going. My goal is to see if we can find $500 million that can be trimmed off of the over $70 billion that is budgeted for the current biennium. Here's a few spots I've found and that I would question in future, or cut down, the figures I use are combined from the General Fund and NonGeneral fund for Fiscal Year 2007 and 2008 unless otherwise stated....

I will also preface this with saying that this is just number flipping, I'd have to actually see a better breakdown of the budgets to make really specific cuts. I'm just throwing some numbers around and looking at where they're going in a slightly general sense.

- We should be able to cut the $15 million spent on Jamestown 2007...that's over and done with now.

- $55 million in grants to nonstate entities or agencies...I'd like to see this one explained a little more. Are the recipients of these grants doing anything to bring commerce and/or industry to Virginia? Are they doing anything to increase state income? I'll go on the assumption that they are, so I'll leave them alone...but I'd be interested in seeing how much we could cut from that.

- Department of Taxation has a budget of over $194 million. I imagine that we could shrink that down a bit. Maybe down to an even $180 million. I mean, honestly...the only reason to increase the budget for the Dept of Taxation is if we're going to increase taxes, which is what I'm trying to avoid here.

- Can we shave a couple million from the budgets for each of the major public colleges and universities? The combined budget for the main campus of William & Mary/VT/UVA/JMU/GMU/VCU/ODU/Norfolk State/Virginia State/Radford/Longwood/CNU = $9,615,094,801 for '07 and '08. That's about 13 percent of the budget by itself.

If you averaged cuts that equaled $2 million per school (bigger budget = bigger cut, obviously, but let's just average it out for simplicity's sake), that right there could save the state $24 million, a $3 mil average would save the state $36 million. If you averaged cuts of $5 million, you would save the state $60 million. This is a large portion of the budget that is worth taking a peek into. Let's see if we shave $60 million over two years on this, what it would do.

Note: I didn't even count the $1.9 billion for the UVA Medical Center, VMI, or any special research or experimental divisions, or special colleges (like the Virginia Institute of Marine Biology). I also didn't factor in Community Colleges, general public education, museums, arts projects, or anything of the sort. We can leave those alone for now.

- Secretary of Education = over $1.4 million...for what? Anyway we can shave this down to an even $1 million, or $500,000 per year?

- Judicial Agencies combined = over $769 million. Take it down to $760 million even, if not further.

- The Virginia ABC = over $950 million. Somehow, I think we can cut $25 million from this without any problem.

- General Assembly - Senate = $21,229,665...HOD = $38,115,455. I say we get the Senate down to $20 mil, HOD down to $36 million. Total cut = over $3.3 million.

Just using round numbers, and making relatively modest cuts on only a few programs...I'm saving the state $126.7 million over two years. That right there is pretty much equal to the revenue that would be generated by the proposed gas tax increase.

And really, I've only scratched the surface.

Hey Gov, Get Your Party on the Same Page as You!

This week, Governor Kaine was set to state that there would be no tax increases for the upcoming 2008-2010 budget.

Now, Virginia Democrats are set to raise the gas tax by 5 percent (that's 5 percent, not 5 cents). That's not a tax on the rich, that's a tax on everyone. C'mon Governor, didn't you say there were going to be "no tax increases"? If so, why is your party pushing a gas tax increase.

Is this the Dem plan to force conservation? Tax the commuters who just want to go to work and make a decent living. Tax the families that want to visit other members of their family across the state? Tax us all into not driving?

But wait, this proposed tax increase (blame Toddy Puller on this one, she's the chief patron), applies to all fuels. So much for your flex fuel vehicles saving you...they're getting taxed, too!

To use the Democratic Party's battle cry, this tax is UNFAIR to the middle, working, and lower classes!!! But hey, it shouldn't come as any surprise...we already knew that the Dems were the true party of the rich.

Kaine: "Lean Budget" in '08, State Economy Still Relatively Strong

In an interview with The New Dominion, Governor Tim Kaine discussed the next two-year budget.

“I do think at least the first year of the next two-year budget is going to be a pretty lean budget. But there’s initiatives that we need to do to improve quality of life, and we’ll find ways by economizing in other areas to do the initiatives that matter,” stated Governor Kaine.

While I'm glad that he is at least looking to trim down the fat first, I would like to see if he will prove to be more prudent and fiscally conservative than his predecessor, Mark Warner, who went so far as to raise taxes on a budget surplus. If Kaine can manage to overcome the revenue shortfall by being smart with the revenue that the state is bringing in, and not raising taxes, he will definitely win a few points with Virginia citizens.

However, relatively speaking, things aren't that bad according to Kaine.

Later in the interview, the Governor assured Virginians of the strength of the state's economy, “The Virginia economy is very strong relative to other state’s economies. We’re trying to deal right now with a $640 million revenue shortfall. Just across the Potomac in Maryland, they’re dealing with a $1.7 billion shortfall, and their budget is smaller than ours - that is a huge percentage of their budget. And many states are in that same position. So I think we’re relatively fortunate. We have an economy that’s quite strong relative to other states - but national trends affect us just like they do anyone”

I would agree with that statement, our state's economy does not seem to be in any kind of iminent danger at this point. I will be interested to see how this year's budget shapes up.