Huh. I thought he’d have offered up the proceeds from auctions of the uteruses he’d have the state seize control of.

Posted by MB on 25 June 2008 @ 9pm

The immediate question - now that the Senate has actually passed SOME meaningful measures on transportation, will the House reject those, despite support by a majority of Republicans voting in the Senate?

Posted by teacherken on 25 June 2008 @ 10pm

Perhaps he wants to get rid of a science museum because it teaches EVILUTION.

Posted by Freddie on 25 June 2008 @ 11pm

Delegate Marshall’s ideas to consolidate some government functional areas, then apply savings to transportation, has merit. You offer no compelling reason why the management of the two museums should not be consolidated. This sort of staff consolidation has been done in many other business and government agencies. The staff cuts are usually gained over a few years as staff retires and relocates.

There are, no doubt, many other areas where both immediate and long term savings can be achieved, if our legislators would only look at both sides of the budget equation.

If Republicans can see some targeted program cuts and consolidations, then they will be more inclined to give a little on the gas tax issue and perhaps some of the fees.

Many of the Republicans who I have corresponded with on this transportation issue have, at first recited that party-line nonsense about “fixing” the HB3202 from last year, but shortly after my scream of BULLSHIT! reverberates, then fades in their ears, they have all indicated that some horse trading could be done if some targeted program cuts or consolidations were offered as part of a compromise.

I am hopeful that they don’t parade a “fixed” HB3202 out and pretend that they accomplished something. We need a more reliable, auditable solution, such as the gas tax and the license fees.

Those regional tax increases and the home sale fees should be rejected by Virginians. The sale of a home is already saddled with too many fees.

Regional taxes are an approach that ignores the fact that all of our citizens benefit from roads, even when the roads are on the other side of the state. Also, if we are going to set up separate fiefdoms, why have a state government at all? We do not need “regional transportation authorities” or any other form of another layer of government, by any other name or form. We already have too much government.

The message from the citizens to the legislators should be to just implement some targeted budget cuts, add part of the Governor’s fees and gas tax that will get the targeted revenue, and get out of town before Independence Day.

Just an aside, I just finished Jim Webb’s book, A Time to Fight and Ron Paul’s, Revolution: A Manifesto. Jim Webb should skip the Veepstakes and go straight to President. Ron Paul’s book is not a manifesto for revolution, but it does flesh out some of the thought provoking ideas that he tried to raise in his recent campaign. Dr. Paul’s book correctly points out the incremental losses of Liberty here in America since the Truman Administration and gives several examples of how our Congress has ceded their power to an ever more imperial Presidency.

Both Dr. Paul’s and Senator Webb’s books are well worth reading, regardless of one’s political orientation.

Posted by J. Tyler Ballance on 26 June 2008 @ 12am

Delegate Marshall’s ideas to consolidate some government functional areas, then apply savings to transportation, has merit. You offer no compelling reason why the management of the two museums should not be consolidated.

I don’t care if it has merit or not. It didn’t make it out of committee just a few months ago (so we see that his peers believe that it lacks merit), and it has nothing to do with transportation. He’s just scrawling “and the money goes to transportation” on his bills like a truant seven year old might scrawl “hell crap damn” on a wall.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 26 June 2008 @ 7am

At least down in Florida someone is doing something about our National Energy and Transportation crisis…I’m sure Del. Marshall would approve of this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7474797.stm

Posted by Connie on 26 June 2008 @ 8am

I wish Bob Marshall were the nominee for Senate, he would provide levity where Gilmore only provides bitterness.

Freddie- I agree that Marshalls “ideas to consolidate some government functional areas, then apply savings to transportation, has merit” but if it didnt get out of committee during the general assembly session, that is compelling evidence that the GA will not be examining these options during this session. Moreover a piecemeal consolidation to look for marginal savings is unlikely to find the funding required to solve the transportation problem.

Posted by jennifer on 26 June 2008 @ 9am

If Republicans can see some targeted program cuts and consolidations, then they will be more inclined to give a little on the gas tax issue and perhaps some of the fees.

Do you really think so? It seemed to me the fees were the most likely thing to get through the GA in the first place–these folks love them some fees, whether “abuser fees” or the countless other little things that nickle-and-dime me in this state so that they get their money without calling it a “tax.”

I didn’t realize anyone had to do anything to meet Republicans half way to encourage them to hit us with another round of fees.

Posted by Sam on 26 June 2008 @ 10am

Both parties know we need more money for infrastructure. Out of a nearly forty billion dollar budget, there are many areas where some targeted cuts can be achieved. For example, privatizing the State owned rest stops, as they have done in other states, could generate several million per year and get that expense off of the budget. Some candidates for the House, such as Henrico’s Jimmy Wheat, have proposed privatizing the ABC stores; a step that, if handled correctly, could create hundreds of entrepreneurship opportunities for small business owners while generating net income greater than the current state-owned monopoly. There are hundreds of million dollar Budget line items, like “Minority Business Enterprise” a function where small and minority owned businesses are included in the bidding process, that is, by law, already the responsibility of every existing agency; so there is no legitimate need for a redundant agency.

I encourage our citizens to spend a few hours and look at the actual budget and contact their legislator with ideas for targeted cuts and proposed consolidations.

If the Republicans can return home and can show that they won some belt tightening issues, then they can declare the Special Session a victory. If the Democrats can return home and show that they were able to fund key infrastructure without resorting to tolls, or foreign ownership, but with only a modest tax increase that is shared by all of our citizens, then they too, can declare victory.

If the citizens get targeted cuts to the budget, along with a minor tax increase, like the gas tax, that is paid by all drivers (including out of state) and a modest increase in registration fees, without the addition of road clogging toll plazas, or more cops hiding in bushes with radar guns, “hunting” the citizens as revenue prey, then Virginians can declare victory, too.

Posted by J. Tyler Ballance on 26 June 2008 @ 12pm

You know, it’s funny, Waldo: you Liberals bitch and moan about Republican fiscal prudence (i.e., refusing to increase taxes) by asking “Where would you cut”? And then you ridicule a Republican who shows you where he would cut or, more accurately, reallocate resources. In short, it is a fool’s errand to try to argue with a Leftie, because you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. Is it any wonder that no one has taken you up on your “challenge.”

Must be nice to have your cake, and eat it, too.

Posted by James Young on 26 June 2008 @ 12pm

James, logic fails you here. I’ll restate what I’ve already said, since apparently I was insufficiently clear.

This is a transportation session. We had a budget session—you might remember it—just a couple of months ago. Museums != transportation. If a bill about a museum didn’t pass during a budget session, it’s sure as hell has no place in a transportation session.

Marshall introduces an embarrassment of bills each year. He’s the top filer, far and away, every time.

So if we’re taking turns painting each other with stupid, partisan brushes, I’ve got one for you: For a party that’s about limited and efficient government, your man Marshall sure is all about filling it up with as many bills as he can cram into its maw. In short, it is a fool’s errand to try to argue with a Rightie, because you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. Must be nice to have your cake, and eat it, too.

See? I, too, can be an insufferable ass. (It comes easy.)

Is it any wonder that no one has taken you up on your “challenge.”

Oh, that is awesome. So what you’re telling me is that there are just oodles are articles out there documenting that Gilmore left a budget surplus, and you and lots of other Republicans know about them, but you’re just holding out, because I’m “a Leftie”? There’s just this evidence out there, the only evidence supporting your thesis but, hey, why bother telling anybody? God, that’s delicious.

I guess I need to start putting a bounty on this documentation. Maybe there’s a price at which somebody will produce this precious, precious data.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 26 June 2008 @ 12pm

Balance (do you prefer Tyler?) I agree that the question “what can we cut?” should be an important part of the budgeting process, particularly when we’re discussing the possibility of raising taxes. Looking for ways to reduce our spending on other lower-priority expenditures isn’t a bad thing; it’s actually a pretty good thing. I note that historically, agreeing first to look at spending before taking action to raise revenues was a large part of how Mark Warner built a bi-partisan coalition to address the funding shortfall for education and other critical public services during his administration.

I’d also like to note that I support Marshall for doing more than proposing another VDOT audit (which would be the ninth in seven years). He may not have a transportation plan, but he’s closer to having one than Bob McDonnell. Perhaps the wrong guy from the GOP is running for Governor.

Here’s what I have an issue with: he’s grandstanding to make it look like he has a transportation plan when actually he’s just recycling a bunch of old ideas that didn’t make it out of a Republican-controlled committee to the floor of a Republican-controlled House of Delegates for a vote. I’m not sure why his Republican colleagues are shooting down his ideas (retribution for challenging Gilmore? or for challenging their 2007 plan in court?) but at this point we’ve let the transportation issue go unaddressed or inadequately addressed for so long that I’d prefer he spend his time trying to come up with a broader solution rather than trying to grandstand for his constituents back home.

Posted by Sam on 26 June 2008 @ 1pm

I’m in. $100 to the Waldo Gilmiracle Challenge. Who knows, this might be Gilmore’s opportunity to pick up some badly needed cash (if he’s holding anything).

Posted by Bubby on 26 June 2008 @ 2pm

In for another $100.

Posted by MB on 26 June 2008 @ 6pm

Before I make this challenge formal-like (and I think I’ll do it on a sliding scale, perhaps increasing by $10/day for X days until somebody meets it), I’m going to spend another quality hour or two on LexisNexis. I’ve put about an hour into it so far, back when I first wrote about this, and obviously turned up nothing. As I’ve said, so many otherwise-intelligent people are claiming that Gilmore left the economy in great shape that I just have to think that I’m overlooking something.

Thanks for helping to make this interesting! I’m good for another $100—the first $100, in terms of when the payout is made—so that gets us up to a maximum of $300, or 30 days. That raises an interesting question of microeconomics, the question of when somebody with appropriate documentation should step forward to maximize their profit while minimizing the risk that somebody else will claim the bounty first.

Ah, this will be fun.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 26 June 2008 @ 7pm

So, say I have the goods, that is, links and articles that prove that Gilmore really did leave things in great shape and Warner wrecked things. The longer I hold out, the more I make?

Posted by Julie on 26 June 2008 @ 7pm

That’s right. But the catch is that the longer you hold out, the more likely it is that somebody else will claim the purse first.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 26 June 2008 @ 8pm

Waldo,

Make sure and look on L/N for articles from Weekly Standard, NewsMax, and/or NewsBusters.

You are sure to find something there. Not the truth, mind you, but something.

Posted by Mark Brooks on 26 June 2008 @ 9pm

Nah, I’ll just set some ground rules that it has to be a real newspaper, maybe a Virginia daily or something along those lines.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 26 June 2008 @ 9pm

Hear that? That was the sound of deflating hopes across the internets.

Posted by MB on 26 June 2008 @ 10pm

Republicans are crying over their misspent century. Too bad they won’t be getting a chance again soon…oops! I meant, darn! They have to wait to screw things up again.

And if someone thinks that I am being overly generalized, the Republican brand has suffered a setback in the last 6 years. I have nothing else to judge them by. Actions, not words, are what is needed now.

Posted by Mark Brooks on 26 June 2008 @ 10pm

Im in for 100 dead presidents. That makes $400 if your still taking donations.

Posted by Tim on 27 June 2008 @ 11am

And for the stellar use of ‘jackassery’ in a sentence…another $20.

Posted by Tim on 27 June 2008 @ 11am