Briefing with Congressman Tom Garrett and Afghan and Czech Ambassadors

Fifth District Congressman Tom Garrett on Friday hosted several diplomats on a tour of Thomas Jefferson’s home at Monticello. After the tour, he and two of them – Ambassador Hamdullah Mohib from Afghanistan and Ambassador Hynek Kmonícek from the Czech Republic – answered questions from the local Charlottesville news media.

Garrett explained that even though, as a slaveholder, Thomas Jefferson was a flawed individual, the Declaration of Independence that he drafted was a “brilliant” document that led to freedom not only in the United States but around the world. Both Ambassador Mohib and Ambassador Kmonícek acknowledged that they learned things about U.S. history and Jefferson himself by taking the tour of Monticello, and that there are lessons they could convey to their compatriots back home.

(Ambassador Kmonícek joked that, where he comes from, a 200-year-old house is considered new.)

You can see the entire press conference here:

Congressman Garrett also answered questions about current domestic policy. Tyler Hawn of the Charlottesville Newsplex asked him about the budget bill that was passed late in the night and signed Friday morning by President Trump, and whether the process was frustrating. Garrett replied (starting at the 9:28 minute mark in the video):

It’s ironic that we stand at the home of Thomas Jefferson, who drafted the Declaration of Independence, which was signed by people who knew when they put their name on that paper that if they were captured they would be killed. We’ve devolved into a political class with the inability to say “no.”

I voted against the National Defense Authorization Act even though people would describe me as a hawk, because thirty-plus years ago department of defense agreed with other federal agencies to be audited – it’s never been audited.

To continue to spend and spend and spend is a symptom of a political class without the courage to do what they think is right when it’s too difficult and standing for reelection having done what you said, even when it was difficult or uncomfortable, is the hallmark of who we are supposed to be as a people.

I voted against that. I think President Trump was wrong to capitulate on heightened spending. He can spin it however he likes. We need to draw lines and assure that taxpayer dollars are being spent efficiently and on the core functions of government. We’re not doing that. It wasn’t OK when President Obama spent profligately. It’s not OK when President Trump does it. So, yes, I’m frustrated.

Garrett also answered a question (about 10:40 in the video) about pending immigration legislation and how it will affect participants in DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).

That’s going to start in the Senate, for sure, because that’s the chamber where I think they can get something out. I’ve spoken with dozens of DACA recipients – dozens may be low – they can prove it because they’ve filmed me. I’d love to have a solution for DACA. I don’t think deferred action is the proper long-term solution but I’m not going to vote for anything until we secure our southern border.

To do the same thing again and again and expect a different result is the definition of insanity. And I’ve said this to these people with whom I’ve spoken: I think border security should be this AND that, not a this THEN that. We tried this in ’86 with a this-then-that and it failed. And I haven’t had any of the people with whom I’ve spoken who are DACA recipients have a problem with that.

So, I think if we set aside some of the hyperbolic rhetoric that we can get something done but right now people need to step back from the rhetorical edge, acknowledge the existential reality to the young people who are DACA recipients, and also acknowledge that it makes no sense not to take action to secure our southern border.

There are plenty of other gems in the conversation, from both the ambassadors and from Congressman Garrett, who said he would like to do more programs like this, perhaps three or four times each year, bringing ambassadors from Washington to Charlottesville to visit both the University of Virginia and Monticello.

In addition to Tyler Hawn of the Newsplex, Pete DeLuca of NBC29 covered the press event in the Robert H. and Clarice Smith Gallery at Monticello's David M. Rubenstein Visitor Center.

This article was previously published, in slightly different form, on Bearing Drift.

From the Archives: Will 2011 state election voters feel enough pain to solve state budget crises?

Will 2011 state election voters feel enough pain to solve state budget crises?
December 4, 2010 1:22 PM MST

At the annual holiday dinner hosted by the Mercatus Center on December 1, economist Eileen Norcross spoke to the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about the impending crisis in state budgets. Norcross is a senior research fellow at Mercatus and co-founder of the web site StimulusWatch.org.

Norcross answered questions about state budget shortfalls and the “fiscal evasion” tricks that state governments play to create the appearance of balanced budgets. Most states, she explained, are facing serious consequences as a result of distended pension obligations and growing expenditures.

Some better than others
Still, she said, “there are a few states that are not in terrible shape,” such as South Dakota and Wyoming.

Some states are doing better because they “are simply smaller” and “don’t have as big of a public sector workforce. They don’t have the same pension obligations that some of the mismanaged states like Illinois and California do.”

Even so, Norcross warned, “all states are facing one crisis, and that is in Medicaid and rising health care costs. That is a feature of all state budgets.” Another universal feature, she added, is education spending, which “has been baked into the cake.”


Stimulus problems
Referring to research that shows that the federal stimulus money of the past couple of years may lead to budget problems for state governments in the future, Norcross cited research conducted for the Mercatus Center by Russell Sobel and George Crowley on the effects of intergovernmental transfers.

Sobel and Crowley “found that for every dollar of federal money that’s transferred to the state government, that raises future taxes by 40 cents,” Norcross reported.

Why is that?

“Once you undertake a public works project and the stimulus money goes away, you still have to finish that project. You have to pay for those workers [and] you might have to issue bonds to complete the project. In other words, they may have expanded commitments that they now have to fund themselves.”

2011 state elections

Eileen Norcross

In 2011, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, and Virginia will be holding state legislative elections, and these budgetary issues may have an effect on their outcomes but, Norcross cautioned, “that’s going to depend on the pain that the electorate feels.”

She said the case of New Jersey is “interesting,” because recently “when property taxes got so onerous on the average homeowner, [voters] actually turned out in force during the school budget election and they voted down a lot of school budgets in New Jersey.”

The number of school budgets rejected was “the greatest number since 1976,” she said, “because they were really voting against a tax hike.”

The results of next year’s elections, Norcross concluded, is “really going to depend on the extent to which the electorate is feeling the pain today or whether legislators are engaging in that kind of fiscal evasion, trying to buy more time, [and] pushing that debt onto future taxpayers.”


Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on December 4, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives: Balanced-budget gimmickry hides states' fiscal crises, says Eileen Norcross

Balanced-budget gimmickry hides states' fiscal crises, says Eileen Norcross
December 4, 2010 12:58 PM MST

Economist Eileen Norcross, who specializes in state and local budgetary policy at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Northern Virginia, spoke to the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner on December 1 about the impending crisis in state budgets.

She explained that states are experiencing persistent budget deficits, often as the result of ballooning pension obligations.

She noted that these budgetary shortfalls are taking place even though most states have a constitutional requirement to balance their budgets.

Balanced-budget 'gimmickry'
This happens, Norcross explained, because “it’s possible to have a balanced budget yet to grow spending every year.” There are different answers to the question, “What does budgetary balance mean?”

Norcross pointed out that “while on the books they can claim budgetary balance, they also engage in a lot of gimmickry, what I call ‘fiscal evasion.’”

Eileen Norcross

She explained:

“For years, states have been finding ways to balance their books without having to raise taxes directly, so they take on more debt, they dump trust funds into the general fund, they defer their pension obligations: That’s how some of these states have been balancing their books. It gives them the temporary illusion that they’ve met their commitments yet they really haven’t. That’s revealing a structural instability in these revenue streams.”

Noting that “Virginia is doing relatively well compared to the other states,” Norcross added that “there are a few things that concern me.”

For one thing, the Virginia state government “deferred [its] pension payment this year. It’s not a good practice.”

This is not unique, she said.

Pension obligations
“All the states have undervalued the size of the obligation that they owe to their public sector employees by an order of magnitude. What they claim on their books looks bad, but what they actually owe is far greater.”

In Virginia and other states, Norcross continued, “what concerns me is when [they] defer their pension obligations, they’re basically passing the buck [or] kicking the can down the road, but that’s not going anywhere. They’re going to owe those public sector workers” eventually.

In the third part of this interview, Norcross looks at which states are doing a better job, and whether fiscal matters will affect the behavior of voters in 2011 state legislative elections.

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on December 4, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives: Mercatus Center economist Eileen Norcross notes state budget ‘fiscal evasion’

Mercatus Center economist Eileen Norcross notes state budget ‘fiscal evasion’
December 4, 2010 12:43 PM MST

On December 1, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University hosted its annual holiday dinner, this year featuring novelist Christopher Buckley as after-dinner speaker. About 300 people attended, also hearing pre-dinner remarks from GMU economics professor Russell Roberts, co-creator of the viral video, “Fear the Boom and Bust” with rapping versions of F.A. Hayek and J.M. Keynes.

Economist Eileen Norcross is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center who closely follows state and local budgetary policy. Two of her recently published working papers are “Fiscal Evasion in State Budgeting” and “The Crisis in Public Sector Pension Plans.”

At the cocktail reception preceding the dinner, Norcross spoke to the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about the crisis in state budgets across the country.

‘Persistent budget deficits’

State and local budgets are an important research topic, she said, “because so many state and municipal governments are experiencing persistent budget deficits. They’re finding it difficult to balance their books and it’s projected that states are not likely to find fiscal balance until 2013.”

There are common reasons for this situation that cross state lines, Norcross explained.

“States have growing pension obligations that they have not funded. These bills are coming due. They’re going to have to contribute more to their pension systems to pay public sector workers. This is going to crowd out their ability to meet their growing Medicaid obligations.”

Workforce cutbacks

Eileen Norcross

Moreover, with state revenues falling, their spending grew “in the decade leading up to the recession,” she said. “They’ve built commitments into their budgets that they’re now finding it very difficult to cut. That means cutting back on the public sector workforce and other things have become very challenging for states.”

Even with money from the federal government, the situation is still serious.

“With the stimulus drying up they don’t have much to go on here,” Norcross said. “They’ve either got to raise taxes or find other places to cut.”

In the second part of this interview, Norcross answers questions about constitutional requirements for balanced budgets, deferred pension obligations, and the negative effect of stimulus money on state budgets.


Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on December 4, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives: Va. Senate candidate Jamie Radtke hopes her message resonates with libertarians

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on April 21, 2011. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Va. Senate candidate Jamie Radtke hopes her message resonates with libertarians
April 21, 2011 2:17 PM MST

U.S. Senate candidate Jamie Radtke is carrying her message that “something has to be done” about spending and the debt to Republican unit committees, Kiwanis clubs, Tea Parties, and Rotaries around Virginia where, she says, “people get it. I don’t know if politicians get it, but people get it.”

Radtke was campaigning April 20 at the 63rd Annual Shad Planking in Wakefield, along with two of her opponents for the 2012 GOP Senate nomination, George Allen and David McCormick. Standing at her campaign’s booth in unusually warm spring weather, she answered questions from the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about the issues she is emphasizing and what she would do to attract the votes of Virginia libertarians.

In her campaign, she explained, “we’re talking about a constitutionally limited government [and] what is the role of the federal government.”


'Right in line' with libertarians

“Our message is right in line with the libertarian vote,” Radtke said, especially “as far as the spending and the debt and getting the fiscal house in order. The PATRIOT Act is another one that really irritates the libertarian people. Infringing on civil rights is an issue with me, as well. All those things are important.”

She said that when talking about the budget, “you’ve got to look at entitlements” and, from a libertarian point of view, entitlements “should be consumer-driven. People should have skin in the game.”

Things like that, Radtke explained, “resonate with people in the Libertarian Party.”

Even defense spending should be on the table, she said.

“The priority, the absolute priority, 100 percent should be our military and our veterans,” she said, “but the size of the Defense budget is so astronomical that even the Department of Defense is talking about places where there can be savings” without adversely impacting current troops or veterans.

“All of those things,” she concluded, “are things that we have in common” with libertarian voters.

Budget deal 'horrible,' 'sham'
The budget deal worked out in Congress earlier this month is “horrible,” Radtke said.

“I think that promising $100 billion in cuts and then ending up at $68 billion and then saying it’s $38 billion and then it really being $353 million is a complete sham,” she complained.

“I don’t think that that’s what people are looking for” in terms of congressional action on the budget, she added.

“When you look at Standard & Poors coming out and downgrading our outlook to negative, saying you have two years to do something, [but] our big idea is to cut $353 million and start talking about raising the debt ceiling, that is the absolutely wrong message to be sending.”

Radtke also believes there needs to be fundamental tax reform.

“We have a tax system that’s all about special interest loopholes,” she explaind. “We need to get to a place where everyone has skin in the game, not only half of America.”

Prefers Fair Tax
The options she sees are a flat tax or the Fair Tax. “One or the other. Not this optional flat tax thing where [you] try to make everyone happy and straddle the fence. You’re going to have to have a flat tax, or have a Fair Tax.”

Radtke’s preference is for the Fair Tax. “I think it’s good to tax consumption and not tax income,” she said, but added that she has talked to economists “who say that you can structure a flat tax that sort of acts as a consumption tax. My preference is taxing consumption.”

She worries, however, that politicians cannot be trusted to do the job right.

“My fear with the Fair Tax is politicians,” she explained. “That’s my fear with the Fair Tax, because you know you have to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment in order for the Fair Tax to work. I don’t trust politicians that they’ll pass the Fair Tax” without first repealing the Sixteenth Amendment and the result that “all of a sudden we’ve got a consumption tax and an income tax, combined.”

Radtke acknowledged that the original Fair Tax bill, which was introduced by former Congressman John Linder of Georgia, has sequential requirements of first repealing the income tax amendment in the Constitution and then instituting a consumption tax, but that does not allay her fears.

“Knowing how deals get made and things get added to the bill at the last minute,” she is concerned that Congress “would pass the Fair Tax [while] the income tax was still in existence.”

Radtke reiterated that, as she talks to voters around the state, “the key issues are spending and the debt, talking about entitlement reform and what has to be done.”

Her warning to Congress is this: “You can talk about spending and debt all you want but if you’re not going to talk about entitlements, then you’re really not serious about spending and the debt.”

From the Archives: Kennedy Center chief Michael Kaiser touts economic benefits of arts education

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on April 5, 2011. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Kennedy Center chief Michael Kaiser touts economic benefits of arts education
April 5, 2011 8:47 PM MST

Michael Kaiser

Academy Award®-winning actor Kevin Spacey set off a minor stir in the Twittersphere on April 5 when he Tweeted “Return on investment of 1 billion of arts funding (from base of 167 mil from National Endowment) is 29 billion for local & State coffers.”

Someone must have objected to his assertion, because he later followed that up with “For those who [question] the stats I have Tweeted about return on arts funding, I am getting proof u require & will Tweet it soon.”

By the time this article went to press, however, he had not provided the statistics to back up his claim.

Spacey is not alone in thinking that government funding for the arts has concomitant benefits.

Different emphasis
One who takes that position, with a slightly different emphasis, is Michael Kaiser, president of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C.

Last month, at a luncheon following the annual season announcement at the Kennedy Center, Kaiser responded to a question posed by the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about the message he takes to policymakers – such as Members of Congress – when he meets them in the course of his job.

Kaiser first pointed out, as a disclaimer, that he is not allowed to lobby Congress on behalf of the Kennedy Center -- a condition of its congressional charter -- so he talks to legislators “about the arts, in general, almost exclusively.”

More particularly, Kaiser said, he focuses on “arts education more than I do on performances or exhibitions because, frankly, the money they can provide for arts education [and] the leadership they can provide is more important.”

Changing economy
Kaiser gave an overview of the 21st century American economy to explain why arts education deserves more attention.

The United States, he said, “is not a manufacturing economy anymore” – although, as Richard Lorenc pointed out in The Daily Caller on April 4, “U.S. manufacturing output grew 120 percent from 1970-2009 and 10 percent in the past ten years. American manufacturing output totaled about $2.1 trillion in 2009 compared to China’s manufacturing output of around $1.5 trillion.”

As a result of what he claimed is a decline in manufacturing, Kaiser said, “we need a different kind of work force.”

This has ramifications for politics, too, Kaiser argued.

“I believe all the political anger we see,” he said, has to do with “the fact that there’s a whole part of America that used to have their whole family income came from manufacturing, from working an assembly line, where you didn’t have to be particularly educated, but you made a very good living.”

At that time, Kaiser went on, “fathers had that living and their sons had that living and that’s gone. That part of America, that part of the economy is gone. Those people who were part of that don’t know what to do and they’re mad. I really think that’s where so much of the political anger comes from.”

The point, Kaiser continued, is that we have “to train people to participate in the creative economy,” which requires that students “exercise their creative muscles in schools" through arts education programs.

That, he said, is “something we can do very inexpensively. To save a few bucks here and there per student and to cut out everything that doesn’t allow them, I think, to become fully functioning members of our economy, I think is really crazy.”

Budget cuts
That is the message Kaiser takes to Members of Congress and other policymakers.

The new, Republican-controlled House of Representatives is making cuts in arts education that Kaiser thinks are ill-advised.

“The big area that we’re worried about specifically is arts education and VSA” (Very Special Arts, a program aimed at the disabled), he said. “In the first version of the budget came out, we lost $16 million.”

Kaiser said that he and his colleagues are “hopeful, not optimistic,” that some of that money will be reinstated “but it’s very scary.”

Congressmen, he said, “don’t even know what they’re cutting. I talk to members of the legislature and say, you know you’ve cut this and they say, ‘We did?’ And I say, yeah.”

The arts education funds are “embedded in other things,” Kaiser explained, so Congress is “cutting in big chunks and they don’t really know. It’s a scary time for us.”

Scary topic
Kaiser is not really worried about the Kennedy Center itself.

“This is a building that they own. They can’t let it fall apart.”

That is why, he said, “I’m mostly scared for the education of our children, much more than I’m scared for the Kennedy Center.”

Kaiser noted that “everyone says we want to cut the deficit in order not to saddle our children with the deficit. I would rather also give them an education and give them a chance to earn and be productive members of an economy. That’s a big concern I have. We’ll see.”

He concluded, ominously, “It’s a scary topic.”

Chris Isaak on Restraining Government

In his introductory comments about performer Chris Isaak in Sunday's Washington Post, interviewer Joe Heim says

Chris Isaak may be the closest thing popular music has to a Renaissance man. The moody singer-songwriter's résumé includes stints as television and movie actor, talk-show host, artist, surfer, fisherman and Golden Gloves champion.

Isaak also has a disarmingly self-deprecating honesty. When Heim asks him about solving California's budget crisis, the musician replies:

I don't think we want a remedy for it. The less the government has to spend, the better off we'll be. But I should say that I, and the rest of entertainers, don't know a god-durned nothing about policies. We're too busy self-aggrandizing to come up with any solutions. It's amazing how many entertainers can find time between adopting children to tell you how to live your life.

Set aside Isaak's modest demurrer and focus on that second sentence:

The less the government has to spend, the better off we'll be.

That's the cutout quote for the future; that's what will end up in Bartlett's -- or at least should do so.



Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!

Interview with Tom Davis

This article is scheduled to appear in this weekend's edition of The Metro Herald. (While I call this a "partial transcript," it is virtually complete; I just left out a few vocal pauses and repetitions.)

This interview was conducted on May 15, a week before the Washington Post editorial board endorsed state Senator Creigh Deeds (D-Bath County) for Governor.

Tom Davis Speaks with The Metro Herald
Rick Sincere
Special to The Metro Herald

Former U.S. Representative Tom Davis (R-Virginia), who represented the 11th Congressional District for 14 years and before that was chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, was the featured speaker at the undergraduate convocation of George Mason University’s College of Humanities and Social Sciences on May 15. Rick Sincere of The Metro Herald caught up with Congressman Davis backstage before the ceremony and captured an exclusive interview. Here is a partial transcript of that interview.


Metro Herald: What are you going to be talking about in your remarks today?

Tom Davis: Well, I’ll just be talking a little bit about the future and the challenges that they face and try to humor them a little bit with what I call “Davis’ Five-Step Process for Life After College.”

Metro Herald: What’s your handicap of the Democratic gubernatorial primary?

Tom Davis: My gut is that it is [Terry] McAuliffe and [Brian] Moran, depending on the size of the turnout. [R. Creigh] Deeds is just from the wrong part of the state that produces votes in a primary. But they haven’t really started their ads, at least the other two candidates. So we’ll see. Anything can happen in the last week. I’d handicap it that way.

I think [Republican candidate Bob] McDonnell is the favorite simply because Virginia, being what we call a countercyclical state, they vote against the president in power, and for governor it’s been eight straight times.

Metro Herald: What do you think is going to happen in the House of Delegates races?

Tom Davis: The Republicans should hold the House. I don’t think you’ll see a major shift but they should hold, maybe pick up a seat or two.

Metro Herald: Back on the governor’s race. Do you think Brian Moran’s unique stance on repealing the Marshall/Newman Amendment [which bans same-sex marriage and civil unions] will affect him either way in the general [election] or the primary?

Tom Davis: I think it’ll probably help him up here in general. A lot of people feel strongly about that issue. What we found in the general [election] is that it doesn’t really play in partisan politics. Buchanan County had the largest percent for the marriage amendment last time [2006] and yet George Allen lost it.

Metro Herald: Anything you’d like to say to our readers? We’re based in Alexandria.

Tom Davis: It’s an exciting time to be out of office. What worries me is the debt. We’ve stacked up more debt here in the first five months of this year than we did in the previous 200 years. Just this year the debt that has piled up – just this year – you take thousand-dollar bills, stack them from the floor, they’ll go 60 miles high. That gives you a perspective.

Metro Herald: Is there any way that we can overcome that?

Tom Davis: The only way you’re going to do it over time is you’ll have to attack the entitlement programs, and it’s a very tough lift without getting both parties to the table to take the hit. Whatever you do is going to be very unpopular.

Metro Herald: What about prescriptions for economic growth? What would you suggest?

Tom Davis: Well, I’m always a great believer that the nation needs to attract capital and that means not over-regulating and not overtaxing because there are other places companies can grow. I think the Administration’s idea of trying to “close these loopholes” on overseas income is the wrong direction. I think it will actually drive capital away.

Metro Herald: Would you be in favor of something like the Fair Tax [national sales tax] and eliminating the income tax?

Tom Davis: It’s a heavy lift. I work for an accounting company so that’s not a fair cop to the question. I can’t speak against interest.

Metro Herald: Thank you very much. Good luck today.

Read my blog on Kindle!

Bullish on Budget Transparency

There is good news from Richmond with regard to making the state budget more available -- and more comprehensible -- to citizens and taxpayers.

I earlier wrote about attempts to create a searchable database of the Virginia state budget through legislation introduced by Delegate Ben Cline and state Senators Ken Cuccinelli and Chap Petersen.

The good news is that the final version of these bills has been passed by both houses of the General Assembly -- in each case by a unanimous vote.

According to Ray Reed of the Lynchburg News & Advance:

A bill that will let people look up state expenditures online won final passage on a 40-0 vote Wednesday in the Virginia Senate.

Its sponsor, Del. Ben Cline, R-Rockbridge, said the measure improves an existing online database, called Commonwealth Datapoint, by speeding up the information the state had planned to post there.

Originally, Cline’s HB 2285 would have directed state information-technology officials to create a new searchable database for the state budget.

“Instead, the bill is trying to improve an existing database” managed by the state auditor of public accounts, Cline said.

“My bill puts it on steroids,” Cline said.

The data to become available will include line-item expenditures and spending on projects, according to the bill.

Order numbers, invoices and receipt information will be included so the public can “identify all supplies of goods, commodities and other services to the Commonwealth,” the bill said.

MSNBC picked up this story with an amusing typo in the headline: "General Assembly approves bulls to track state spending online" -- which brings all sorts of snorting and hoofing images to mind.

Oddly, Richmond Sunlight shows that both Cline's and Cuccinelli's bills on budget transparency have "failed." My guess is they were folded into other pieces of legislation that have different numbers, but I'd be curious to learn those details from readers with better information than I have.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!

Americans for Prosperity Dinner in Richmond

On February 10, the grassroots activist group Americans for Prosperity held a full day of briefings, rallies, and lobbying at the state capitol in Richmond.

The day was capped with a gala dinner featuring former Governor (and Senator) George F. Allen as its keynote speaker. Members and friends of AFP also heard from Delegates Ben Cline and Brenda Pogge, former Delegate (and AFP-Virginia chairman) Paul Harris, Americans for Prosperity national president Tim Phillips, and former Circuit City CEO Richard Sharp. The theme of the dinner was "Defending the American Dream."

I captured most of the pre- and post-dinner speeches on video. Some segments are a bit shaky because the staff at the Richmond Marriott continued to serve dinner courses during the early speeches. (This, I guess, was the organizers' way to keep everything running on time, accommodating the many activists who arrived in Richmond early in the morning on buses from all corners of the state and who wanted to get back home at a reasonable hour.)

Here are Delegate Brenda Pogge's opening remarks. She is introduced by Ben Marchi (as are most of the other speakers).

Delegate Ben Cline was the next to take the stage. His remarks included news about what was happening in the General Assembly, including the news that his bill calling for better budget transparency had passed the House of Delegates and was on its way to the state Senate.

Pogge and Cline were followed by Tim Phillips, the national president of Americans for Prosperity, whose home is in Virginia even if his office is in Washington, D.C. Phillips took aim at Capitol Hill in D.C. and spoke about AFP's nostimulus.com efforts. He specifically mentioned the 305,000 signatures on a "stop the stimulus" petition that had been gathered on that web site in about 25 days. (Between Friday and Tuesday, the number of signatures grew from 69,000 to 305,000. The number must be even higher by now.)

The leaders of AFP -- Marchi, Pogge, Cline, and Phillips -- then took time to recognize Suzanne Curran as "Volunteer of the Year." Curran accepted the award and encouraged AFP's other 13,000 members in Virginia to "keep up the work."

After dinner, the lights were dimmed and a short video about George Allen's years as governor was shown. (It appeared to have been prepared for use during Allen's 2000 campaign for the U.S. Senate against incumbent Chuck Robb.) Then Rick Sharp gave some introductory comments and Governor Allen -- with all the energy of a politician in full-campaign mode -- delivered his stump speech.

Allen's remarks are divided into four parts.

Part I includes Sharp's introduction, as well as Governor Allen's acknowledgment of many friends and supporters (the "A-Team") in the audience:

Part II continues Allen's remarks, beginning with a Ronald Reagan quotation, "If not us, who? If not now, when?":

Part III includes Allen's comments on the state of the U.S. economy:

In Part IV, Governor Allen concludes his remarks, with an emphasis on the importance of energy:

(It is in this segment that Allen answers the question, What are Americans addicted to?)

Finally, AFP-Virginia Chairman Paul Harris, who once held the same seat in the House of Delegates that had previously been held by George Allen and Thomas Jefferson, rose to present former Senator Allen with -- what else? -- the 2009 Thomas Jefferson Award from Americans for Prosperity. Before presenting the award, Harris asked former First Lady of Virginia Susan Allen to join them on stage.

The dinner ended shortly before 10:00 p.m. and several hundred local, grassroots political activists went home happy but tired from a long day of participating in the political process.




Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!

Budget Transparency in Virginia - Take Two

Last year, a bipartisan coalition of delegates and state senators supported legislation to bring more transparency to the Virginia budget, by requiring state agencies to post all their revenues and expenditures on-line in an easily searchable (and Googleable) format. Under current conditions, even members of the General Assembly -- other than Finance Committee chairmen -- are sometimes forced to make a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain budget data from state agencies. (Imagine how much more difficult it is for average citizens to find out how their tax dollars are being spent.)

Unfortunately, last year's proposals failed to win approval by the General Assembly, so this year new bills are being introduced for the same purpose.

The bills are patroned on the state Senate side by Republican Ken Cuccinelli and Democrat Chap Petersen (both of Fairfax County)with SB 936 and on the House side by Delegate Ben Cline (R-Amherst) with HB 1360.

Yesterday there was a news conference in the state Capitol building in Richmond, sponsored by the statewide advocacy group, Tertium Quids, at which Cline, Cuccinelli, and Petersen spoke about the legislation. Tertium Quids president John Taylor -- who also hosts the monthly Tuesday Morning Group Coalition meetings -- introduce the legislators and also spoke about other legislative initiatives that Tertium Quids is supporting during this year's General Assembly session.

Taylor noted that similar budget transparency legislation at the federal level was pushed through Congress by the efforts of then-Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who reiterated his support for such transparency last week when, as President-elect, he gave a major speech on economic matters at George Mason University.

Obama had cosponsored the federal legislation with Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn. When the searchable database went live in late 2007, Obama made these remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate (from the Congressional Record, December 13, 2007; pp. S15456-S15457):

Mr. President, I am very pleased to celebrate today's launch of USAspending.gov. This is an important day, an important milestone on the path to greater openness and transparency in the Federal Government. This site helps us to achieve a very simple and powerful vision: a vision that, in a democracy, the people ought to know what their Government is doing: how the Government is raising and spending money, how it is making and enforcing law, how it is supporting projects, how decisions are being made, and how results are being evaluated.

It is not a Democratic vision or a Republican vision. It is a commonsense vision of Government transparency and accessibility. It is a vision that rejects the idea that Government actions and decisions should be kept secret or classified. It is a vision that believes that information is at the heart of democracy and that we all must resist the dangerous trend of withholding or classifying or burying information that the American people have a right to know and need to know if they are to hold their leaders accountable.

I have been very troubled by the extent to which America has become a nation of government secrets. More and more information is kept secret or made intolerably complicated and inaccessible. More and more decisions are made behind closed doors with access limited to insiders and lobbyists.

USAspending.gov along with watchdog groups will give us all tools to help buck that trend. It will help by opening Government processes up to public view. It will provide a window into the Federal budget so all Americans can see how their tax dollars are being spent--how their Nation's resources are being used and obligated, where money is going as well as where it is not going. We will be able to see which grantees and contractors are receiving money and the congressional district where the contract's services are performed. We will see which agencies are purchasing what, from whom, and where. Technology makes it possible for every American to know what is happening and to hold elected officials accountable.

If Government spending can't withstand public scrutiny, then the money shouldn't be spent. If a Government agency isn't willing to be held accountable for the grants or contracts it awards, then that agency shouldn't have control over Federal resources. Whether you believe the Government ought to spend more money or spend less, you should certainly be able to agree that the Government ought to spend every penny efficiently and transparently. Democrats and Republicans can all agree that wasteful spending is unacceptable, whether it is by FEMA, HUD, DOD, or any other Federal agency.

Transparency by itself is not enough, but transparency is the first step to holding Government accountable for its actions. Transparency is a prerequisite to oversight and financial control. We can't reduce waste, fraud, and abuse without knowing how, where, and why Federal money is flowing out the door.

USAspending.gov is a very good beginning. The Web site does not yet deliver everything that it is required to under the law, but its limitations and shortcomings are transparent, and it will get better and more complete week after week. I am also confident that people will use the site and will provide feedback directly on the site's community ``Wiki'' function for collecting and sharing public comments. This will raise the expectations of all Americans for greater transparency, access, and accountability. Now it will be up to us elected officials to meet those expectations.

It is important to point out that this site would not have been possible without the grassroots efforts of watchdog groups across the political spectrum who lobbied for passage of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, which Senator Coburn and I like to call the Transparency Act. The story behind the Transparency Act embodies the best of our democratic traditions--a bipartisan effort fueled by ordinary people who refused to accept that the Government couldn't make public information freely and simply available. Throughout this process, it has been an honor to work with Senator Coburn and to witness the dedicated work of the staff at OMB.

At Tuesday's press conference in Richmond, I was able to capture the remarks of Taylor, Cline, Cuccinelli, and Petersen on video. I posted the video to YouTube in seven distinct sections.

In Part I, John Taylor talks about Tertium Quids overall legislative agenda:

In Part II, Delegate Ben Cline discusses his budget transparency initiative:

State Senator Ken Cuccinelli takes his turn in Part III:

State Senator Chap Petersen offers his (brief) thoughts on budget transparency in Part IV:

In Part V, John Taylor takes to the lectern to summarize what's been said and then to open up the floor to questions:

Taylor, Cline, Cuccinelli, and Petersen take questions from the press and other attendees in Parts VI and VII:

Several news outlets covered the press conference. D.C. all-news radio station WTOP has a report by Hank Silverberg, who notes:

The bill has bipartisan support.

"I look at this bill kind of like that old Sy Sims commercial -- an educated consumer is our best customer," says Sen. Chap Peterson (D-Fairfax). "I believe that in politics."

A companion bill would also change state law to allow local governments to set up the same kind of database for their budgets. Fairfax, Prince William and Stafford counties have already expressed interest in doing that.

Both Richmond TV station WRIC (Channel 8) and the Lynchburg News & Advance covered the event, but I have been unable to find reports on their web sites. Perhaps those will be posted later today.

Update, January 14: I understand WRIC-TV used some images from yesterday's press conference on its noon news broadcast today, but I still haven't been able to find anything on the TV station's web site.

On the other hand, Cheryl Chumley has a report in today's Stafford County Sun, with a headline related to the news that the House of Delegates will now videostream its sessions on line. On the budget transparency issue, Chumley, a reporter with the News & Messenger, writes:

On Tuesday, two more Republicans united with a Democrat in a press conference at the Senate Building to promote and highlight upcoming legislation.

“Transparency,“ said John Taylor, from Gainesville, whose nonprofit issue advocacy group Tertium Quids was hosting the affair, “is an issue whose time has come.“

In attendance — and agreeing with that principle via sponsorship or support of various related pieces of legislation — were Sens. Ken Cuccinelli, R-Fairfax, and Chap Petersen, D-Fairfax, as well as Del. Ben Cline, R-Amherst. All are pushing to require Virginia’s budgets and expenditures be posted online.

“It will help us by putting millions of eyeballs on our budget,“ said Cline, who added his passion for the open government measure stemmed from seeing a lottery ticket showing Donald Trump’s picture.

“I know Donald Trump doesn’t do anything for free,“ he said, and following what he described as a lengthy inquiry process, he finally learned the cost for this licensing agreement. “It was a quarter-million dollars. That upset me. That upset my constituents when I told them about it.“

The cost for posting Virginia’s budget was figured at $300,000 last year, Cuccinelli said. But “that estimate is outrageously high,“ he said, as other states post the same without any price tag to taxpayers. This year’s estimate is not yet available, he said.

The idea of an online budget has been brought before the General Assembly in past years. During the last session, one such bill was shot down largely due to efforts of Sen. Edward Houck, D-Spotsylvania, who is also chairman of the subcommittee that deals with Freedom of Information Act issues, according to speakers and audience members who recalled the vote.