Virginia Raising Interstate Speed Limits

At least, it appears that this will be happening. Reaction around the state blogosphere has been mixed, to say the least.

- Blubber123 at RockDem claims this is the GOP's attempt to kill more people, and decries that they refuse to pass more restrictions on cell phone use while driving...of course, he completely ignores (or doesn't know about) the recent study that shows that banning cell phone usage while driving does not reduce accidents. Apparently, Blubber thinks that the government should keep you from being responsible for your own driving habits.

- Bearing Drift seems to approve. The comments section of the post there has an interesting perspective from a truck driver.

Personally, I don't see what the problem is. Seems to work well in West Virginia, and I do a good 70-72 MPH on I-81, and I get passed constantly. I would be inclined to believe that most of the accidents on I-81 come from stupid driving manuvers, and not speeding-related incidents (at least it seems that way). Other than making a slight reduction in the revenue that comes from speeding tickets, this change in law shouldn't have any real consequences.

Connaughton Named McDonnell's Transportation Secretary

Former Chairman of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors and U.S. Maritime Administrator Sean Connaughton was named to Governor-elect Bob McDonnell's cabinet as his Secretary of Transportation. Connaughton was also a candidate for Lieutenant Governor in 2005, but lost the GOP nomination to current Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling.

Commentary from Virginia Virtucon, Too Conservative, and Bearing Drift are all positive. I would have to agree. Connaughton has shown himself to be very proactive and practical in his decisions. Bearing Drift pointed out that Connaughton's experience with maritime administration provides an extra perspective, since Virginia is home to a lot of maritime traffic. Too Conservative also noted that Connaughton was the BoS Chairman in PWC when PWC was being recognized for it's efforts to build an excellent network of roads, and has received praise for this. This would make Connaughton an excellent choice for this position, and I've noticed a distinct lack of criticism from the opposition on this pick, because I don't see where they will have much to complain about, either.

Rain, Ice, Snow...Who Knows?

We've gone from minor sleet, to an ice storm, to just a whole lot of rain in our forecast for Tuesday evening into Wednesday. Well, they are saying we'll get a tenth of an inch at the most. I'm happy there won't be much ice, as I'm not a fan of hour-long commutes in ice, especially since my commute is exclusively on I-81.

I-81 is notorious for accidents already, as evidenced by yesterday's fatal crash involving an SUV and an 18-wheeler (which I saw the aftermath...the impact caused an axle to rip off of the truck). So sad to hear, but unfortunately it seems to be a fairly common occurrence on I-81.

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).

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.

"Abuser Fees Are Constitutional" - Henrico Co. Circuit Court

At least, the excusion of out-of-state motorists is constitutional. This is today's ruling from a Henrico County Circuit Court judge.

What I find amazing is that people pointed at the initial lower-court ruling as "proof" that the abuser fees were unconstitutional. What many missed was that the lower-court ruling stated that the exclusion of out-of-state motorists was unconstitutional, and not the fees themselves.

I think that including out-of-state motorists would be a fair amendment to the Abuser Fee rules. However, the Circuit Court judge disagrees...he believes that since Virginia motorists are the mass majority of drivers on Virginia roads, that there is a reasonable case for placing the scope of the fees on Virginia drivers only.

One can only look to the Capital Beltway and the Northern Shenandoah Valley to see a lot of fallacy in that statement. I see many West Virginia tags on I-81, and many Maryland and D.C. tags on the Beltway and I-66...so I would have to personally disagree with the judge on this one.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

TND: Abuser Fee Winners and Losers

Chris Graham has a "Winners and Losers" column up at The New Dominion in regards to the Abuser Fees. Here's a few of his winners and losers over this whole debacle...

"Winner: General Assembly Republicans

How they’ve been able to turn the driver-fee thing around on Gov. Tim Kaine without eliciting a peep of retort from the governor’s office is beyond me.I don’t agree with their position on transportation funding, but I have to admit that I admire their style.

...

Winner: We, the people

Not that the petitions have actually forced anybody in Richmond to change the course on the driver fees, but they have been successful in generating scads of attention to how upset the vast majority of us are about what is obviously a boondoggle.

If only we could channel this into actually getting people to get out to the polls this November...

...

Loser: Democratic Party of Virginia.

Have you seen the new DPVA website poking fun at the Republican Party of Virginia? (www.theydontgetva.com)

Let me spare you - one of its key features has to do with pointing out how various Republicans have flip-flopped on the driver-fees issue that has hundreds of thousands of Virginians preparing for a run on Richmond.

Earth to Virginia Dems: How much of a role did Tim Kaine, aka the Democratic governor, have to do with creating the furor with his amendment limiting their application to Virginia drivers?

Hmmm...

Not that I would pin it all on him, because the GOP-majority legislature had to do its part to pass the amendment to get us to where we are now. But..."

Tim Kaine was also a "loser", while Virginia Media Outlets come out as pretty big winners in this whole deal.

I would say that, in the grand scheme of things, this is pretty accurate. One thing that was missed, however, is the fact that there was a higher percentage of GOP delegates against the final version of the Abuser Fee legislation than there were Democrats.

That also makes the DPVA big losers in this whole deal.

Abuser Fees and the Lower Class

I've heard a LOT of anti-Abuser Fee bloggers mention the fact that these fees are "unfairly detrimental to the wallets of the poor!" They believe that if you're wealthy and violate the law, you should pay more because you can afford to.

However, that is outright "reverse classism". Instead of punishing those who are guilty of a crime, and the punishment being the same for everyone...these people believe that the more you make, the more severe your punishment should be. How is that "fair" justice? That's classism...and very typical socialist classism at that. Punish those who are wealthier for having that wealth...no matter how hard they worked to attain it.

Taxes are based on income, not the repercussions of breaking the law.

If everyone wants these Abuser Fees to go away...OBEY THE LAW!!! It's not that hard to keep your car UNDER 80 MPH on the interstate, is it? Is it too much to ask someone not to drink and drive?

If you don't like being passed on the interstate, then swallow your pride and let it happen...let some other fool get the ticket, and then get slapped with an Abuser Fee. Don't be the one who defy the law just because you have to go over 80 MPH.

Poor, rich, or middle class...all would be wise to heed my advice and be a little more careful when driving, for both their sake and the sake of those they share the road with.

Hold The Phone...

For over a week or so, now...we've been hearing bipartisan blogger cries for immediate repeal of the Abuser Fees. They've advocated the bombardment of all members of the General Assembly to hold a special session, and to pressure current pro-Abuser Fee delegates and senators into changing their position and opposing the Fees.

So Scott Lingamfelter saw the public's reaction, and changed his position due to this sudden and virulent backlash against the fees. Pretty much, the goal of the blogs to convince the pro-Fee politicians to change their minds was actually met in regards to Lingamfelter.

Immediately, the liberal blogs within the state jump on Lingamfelter and declare him a "flip-flopper", stated that he was simply trying to "save himself from losing" his reelection campaign, and generally derided him for changing his mind...which is what THEY wanted him to do in the first place!!!

If you want politicians to support your cause, don't criticize them when they do. Hypocrites...if anything, the liberal blogs should be blasting Democrats in the General Assembly for NOT recognizing what the people are demanding.

Sen. Mark Obenshain on Republitarian

He will be discussing the abusive driver fees, so please keep your questions in reference to that topic. Myron wants to make sure that this Q-and-A session stays on topic and to the point, and I hope we can all respect that.

Submit your questions here.

Front Royal Not Going to Enforce Abuser Fees?

The Town Council of Front Royal, just 10-15 minutes from where I live, is encouraging county court clerks not to cooperate with the State Police in reference to the Abuser Fees, and is looking to pass a resolution that permits the Front Royal Police Department to NOT enforce the abuser fees.

After the recent bipartisan support over these fees, it looks like the localities are finding their own ways to rebel against these fees.

Read more at The Washington Post.

Cantor Putting Virginia First

Rep. Eric Cantor continues to have Virginia's interests at heart during his term on Capitol Hill. H.R. 2116 is the latest piece of legislation that he has introduced in the House of Representatives, and this bill is designed to expand freight rail operations. For those of us in the Valley that drive on I-81 often, this will relieve some of the constant truck traffic we have to compete with every day during our commutes.

I'm sure those who drive I-95 and I-64 often will appreciate Rep. Cantor's efforts as well. Good to see that a real rising star in Congress still puts Virginia's interests at the top of his agenda.

Read about a pro-rail group in Virginia endorsing Cantor's efforts at The New Dominion.

Those Pesky Abuser Fees...

You know, I'll be the first to admit that these new abuser fees (sponsored by Republicans and Democrats alike in the General Assembly) are awfully high and seemingly excessive. However, I do find it a bit odd that people are whining about being punished for driving over 15-20 miles over the speed limit, or driving under the influence/while intoxicated. I almost believe that people think they are entitled to do these illegal acts, at least with some of the verbage being tossed around.

Plus, it's not like all Virginians are suffering the burden of some new tax. Those who are abusing the privilege to drive on Virginia roads are bearing the brunt of this.

There will be no special sessions called to repeal these fees. In fact, there is only one surefire way to make these fees go away.

Simply put...just use better judgment when driving on our roads. Don't drink and drive, don't speed excessively, and don't act reckless behind the wheel. The simple tenets of what we're taught in Driver's Ed are all that we need to abide by to make the fees go away.

If the lawmakers can't raise the kinds of funds necessary to declare the fees a success, they'll eventually repeal the fees.

The biggest problem I had with this whole piece of legislation was that this only applies to Virginia drivers, and not the out-of-state drivers. Wait a minute, who can we blame for that one? Why, our Democratic governor himself, Tim Kaine.

So people, drive slower, avoid road rage, control your vehicles as best as you can, and don't drink and drive. THAT is how we'll eliminate these abuser fees from our lives.

More Thoughts on the "Civil Remedial Fees"

I've blogged about these recently-enacted penalties previously, and I do hold the same opinion that I held previously. While I feel that the fees are tremendously high (especially for first-time offenders), I do believe that these fees are a good alternative to simple tax-raising to fund transportation projects in Virginia.

An editorial in The Washington Times blasted these new fees. I agree that the fees are WAAAAY too high, but this paragraph here is where I have a problem with those protesting this bill.:

"But $1,050 for driving 20 mph over the speed limit is predatory, tax-and-spend government at its worst. For families in the middle or at the bottom of the economic ladder, this reaches 4 percent and 5 percent of annual take-home income. Government is supposed to serve the people, not fine and tax them toward the poor house for what amounts to ordinary behavior."

Yes, that is too much for a "first offense" under the new rules. However, breaking a law that is posted every couple of miles should not be considered "ordinary behavior". The speed limit on I-81 is 65 mph...I keep myself between 67-70 to keep up with the flow of traffic, but I never go over 72. I've gotten a couple of tickets in my lifetime (including a bogus "reckless driving-speeding" charge, but that's another story)...because of the repercussions from the tickets I've received, I've learned my lesson.

While Republicans are being blasted for the creation and passage of this bill (credit to Dave Albo and Tom Rust), look at the 15 that voted against the bill. Watkins Abbitt Jr., Kathy Byron, Ben Cline, Mark Cole, Jeff Frederick, Tom Gear, C. Todd Gilbert, Johnny Joannou, Joseph Johnson, Dwight Jones, Robert Marshall, Ken Melvin, Melanie Rapp, Jack Reid, Lionell Spruill.

60% of that is list is GOP Red. That's 9 Republicans, 5 Democrats, and 1 Independent that voted against this bill. 1 of those Dems is considered to be a DINO by most bloggers.

Let's do a little math: the Virginia House of Delegates is currently comprised of 57 Republicans, 40 Democrats, and 3 Independents. That means that nearly 16% of Republicans, 33% of Independents, and 12.5% of Democrats voted against this bill. The lowest percentage of dissent came from the Democrats on this one.

However, I do believe that there is plenty of "guilt by association" to go around for both parties, so for some bloggers to irresponsibly place this bill squarely on the shoulders of the GOP (see an example here) without taking into account who actually voted for the bill is somewhat erroneous, and fairly irresponsible, on their part.

I will give NLS credit for calling out many of the Dems who supported this bill...although, he pretty much labels them DINO's as well.

Until this law is revisited next year (as some in the HOD have hinted at), my advice to Virginia drivers is simple...DRIVE SLOWER AND BE CAREFUL!!! That should be the short-term solution for Virginia drivers until these fees are lowered to more acceptable levels.