2008.01.29
Discuss Tuesday's editorials
Driver fees won't end painlessly
Replacing the revenue should be easy, but House Republicans will make sure that it isn't.
Nearly everyone in Virginia's Capitol agrees the abusive driver fees were a bad idea. Lawmakers are poised to eliminate them, but their task is not as easy as applying Wite-Out to the law books. They must also have to figure out how to replace the money and how to deal with drivers already sentenced to pay thousands of dollars.
Read more.
Bagging Dillon's rule
The question isn't one of paper or plastic, but state or local control.
A story in Monday's edition, "Paper or plastic? Or neither?" raises the question that stores and customers are asking throughout the country: Which way of toting home groceries causes the least environmental damage?
Read more.
RSS feed 
"Drivers penalized since the fees took effect last summer are victims of bad timing and a worse law."
Yeah, their own bad driving behavior had nothing to do with it.
Comment by C Ramsey — January 29, 2008 @ 9:12 am
You might want to think ahead a couple of steps on revoking this Dillon rule.
You
Comment by terry — January 29, 2008 @ 9:54 am
Since we never took in any money, why do we need to replace it?
Comment by Henry — January 29, 2008 @ 9:57 am
Henry,
It's called a budget. You estimate expenses and you estimate income. If you cut the estimated income by doing away with the abusive driver fees, you need to replace it, or you won't be able to pay the estimated expenses.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — January 29, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
Why don't you cut the estimated expenses?
Comment by Henry — January 29, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
Sure, Henry, go ahead and cut the estimated expenses. Then what? Close the very real highways and bridges because there isn't money to keep them safe for capacity?
Comment by L. Traud — January 29, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
Henry, you won't get anywhere discussing this with Luann and Dan. They spent the last eight months saying the fees would be woefully ineffective at producing revenue. Now that the fees are to be eliminated, they see an opportunity to push their agenda and argue that the only way we can prevent our roads crumbling into ruin will be to raise the gas tax to fill the vacuum created by the eliminating the fees.
Comment by C Ramsey — January 29, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
Luanne,
As far as I know, transportation isn't the only expenditure in the budget.
Why not cut some things that are not only unneccessary, but are downright detrimental such as black studies or women's studies programs at state universities?
Comment by Josh — January 29, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
Some days, Josh, I am so glad I came to work to learn new things. I hadn't realized that funding any studies programs were included in the TRANSPORTATION package. Thank you for your insight.
Comment by L. Traud — January 29, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
Yes, C, you are correct. We did say the fees would be inadequate, which, indeed, they were on track to be. Even if the abuser fees weren't repealed, there would have been a budget gap because of over zealous estimates. We've made no secret of our desire to find a steady, sustainable source of funding. A gas tax would do that.
How would you pay for transportation, C?
Comment by L. Traud — January 29, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
Mr Traud
It's called "living within your means". Sometimes you have to put off what you want because you can't afford it. There are always cuts that can be made. Citizens will have to make cuts to pay for that gas tax. Where do you think they will get the money?
Comment by Henry — January 29, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
"How would you pay for transportation, C? "
I believe we are already paying for transportation. There already is a gas tax.
Comment by Henry — January 29, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
I just Hope Virginia doesnt get the bright idea like NC did to tie the gas tax into the wholesale price of gas. That led to one of the highest state gas tax rates in the country and the reason why our neighbors to the south are paying 20-25cents more a gallon then we are here in VA or even in TN. Meanwhile the idiotic Democrats in NC continue to lament oh dear we never meant for this to happen but yet nobody had the guts to undo what they did. The reality is when tax rates are increased nobody ever seems to want to cut them back afterwards and are more hten happy to find some pork barrel project to spend the money on. (yes we know this happens in VA also)
Comment by David Jewel — January 29, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
The problem, Henry, is that the decades-old tax isn't keeping up with the demands of today's travelers or Virginia's growing population.
So, if you wish to keep revenue stagnant, you are going to have to decide which roads to allow gridlock and which to allow the rate of accidents to increase -- both are consequences of demand exceeding capacity, and you will need to decide which bridges to close and require detours or which to allow open but crumbling and risk failures.
Perhaps, for you, the penny or two saved on a gallon of gas is worth the number of lives that will be lost through a failing transportation network.
I'm not sure how the math works on that.
Comment by L. Traud — January 29, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
On a note about the Dillion rule theres more to it then what some make of it. Look at the stupidity of Blacksburg and their fight over the Walmart store. The city council all swears and complains its about local government not being able to regulate things properly according to their claims for wanting to appeal their loss in court. The fact is the city council lost on the premise of trying to pass an ex-post facto law which are not only against the VA Constitution its against the US Constitution. Last time I checked all these council members swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. I mean if they really want to be specfic then they should all resign for violating their oath of office. You cant retroactively apply laws to change stuff you dont like and to undo things already legal at the time. Somebody needs to send these idiots in Blacksburg back to Civics 101.
Comment by David Jewel — January 29, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
Luanne,
In case you didn't know, specific revenue is rarely applied to specific expenditures in government. It's all one big pot, honey.
Comment by Josh — January 29, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
Wow Mr Traud. Are you trying to tell me there is no waste in state government? Maybe we could cancel one university building project and use that money to save lives over in transportation. Aren't the lives of our citizens more important than a new English building?
I'm rather shocked that Virginia can't afford to fix the killer roads on our current budget.
Comment by Henry — January 29, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
Well L.,
I think there are several alternatives to increasing the already exorbitant price of gas.
First, an amendment to the State Constitution to allow a percentage of traffic fines, to go toward transportation, rather than reserving the entire amount for the literary fund. Then increase the fine for speeding by $3 for every mile per hour over the limit.
Second, implement a measure to require drivers who cause accidents to pay at least part of the costs incurred as a result of the accident. You know, property damage, road repairs, EMS/Police response, etc.
And while we are talking about accidents, please cite one instance of a traffic related fatality in Virginia that was caused by roadway defect. I'm betting you can't.
Next, reinstate the vehicle tax, but rather than have it based upon vehicle value, base it on GVWR. That way the heavier vehicles that cause more wear and tear would pay a higher portion.
Next, increase the tax rate on liquor sales. Most people have to drive during the course of their daily lives. They don't have to drink. If they have the disposable income to spend on alcohol, they should be able to afford the increase.
Finally, implement a toll system for interstates and major throughfares.
Those steps should more than make up for the "inconsequential" revenue generated by the fees.
That said, I still love how the EB's argument flip flops when it suits your need. First the revenue would be too small to be worth it. Now that it will be gone, we must take steps to replace it. First the bullying police would issue more summonses to generate revenue. Then when the number of reckless driving citations actually declined, it was because the police were reluctant issue charges that would result in fees being assessed. But never once did anyone allow for even the possibility that fewer citations were issued because the fees actually deterred some dangerous driving.
If only we turn the RT's bottomless pit of hypocrisy into revenue.
Comment by C Ramsey — January 29, 2008 @ 10:24 pm
Josh: I find your sexist manner of addressing women incredibly insulting and disgusting. I doubt Ms. Traud considers herself your "honey".
Comment by Libby — January 30, 2008 @ 1:17 am
C Ramsey
All of your proposals involve burdening the poor with more taxes. We need to be more realistic. We cannot continue to rob the citizens of Virginia at gunpoint. At some point, we have to say "We simply can't afford that program right now". We can't afford a Pre-K program right now. We simply can't afford a new corridor around N Va right now.
Comment by Henry — January 30, 2008 @ 8:05 am
Henry,
I agree wasteful spending must be eliminated. However, there will still be costs to maintain the existing infrastructure, even with no new projects. I have no plans to run for office, but Luann asked what I would do. The intent of my suggestions was not to target the poor in Virginia, rather, to require the people who cause the most wear and tear on the highway systems pay the most significant portion of the costs.
Traffic fines are already in place and, whether any of us like it or not, will increase in the coming years. I simply want to use some of that already existing revenue for transportation.
Further, most any of the increases can be avoided by the "poor" individual if they choose to do so. Tolls on interstates hit the out of state drivers that everyone was so troubled over during the abuser fees flap.
Reimbursement for crash costs seems fair. If you drive recklessly and cause a crash, why should everyone in the Commonwealth pay the incurred costs?
A luxury tax on liquor affects those who choose to drink, and like it or not drinking is a choice, a choice that incurs significant social costs in the transportation realm.
The only tax that affects everyone is the vehicle tax, and again, it is weighted to most heavily tax the vehicles that cause the most wear on the highways.
Again, I thought of these proposals in about 5 minutes at 10 pm. There may be better solutions out there, but no one seems to be proposing any. And I still think they are preferable to a blanket gas tax increase that hits everyone and would still, according to the Times' own figures, would fall short of the projected budget needs.
You are correct about one thing though. When budgeting, if you have more projected expenditures than revenue, you have two choices. You must either reduce expenditures or increase revenue. Many times, you have to do both.
However, you are also mistaken. Reasonable and limited increases in taxes are not unrealistic. Unpleasant maybe, but not unrealistic.
Comment by C Ramsey — January 30, 2008 @ 9:18 am
Libby,
How dare you speak for Ms. Traud? For all you know, she's flattered at being addressed as "honey". Come to think of it, didn't you call me "dearie" or something a week or two ago? Sounds like you might be jealous.
Comment by Josh — January 30, 2008 @ 10:00 am
"A luxury tax on liquor affects those who choose to drink, and like it or not drinking is a choice, a choice that incurs significant social costs in the transportation realm."
"Sin Taxes" are a poor way to raise money. You eventually tax your way out of revenue. Plus they tend to burden the poor a lot more. You also need to encourage more people to drink in order to raise the revenue needed. You can't raise a tax and hope people don't pay it. That's counterproductive.
Comment by Henry — January 30, 2008 @ 10:01 am
No, Josh, I am not flattered by you calling me "honey." We had this discussion before, pal.
Your use of the word in this form is sexist and condescending, but whatever... it is soooo you.
Comment by L. Traud — January 30, 2008 @ 11:47 am
Now whose being unrealistic Henry? The cigarette tax recently increased from 2.5 cents to 20 cents and people still seem to be smoking. Have cigarette sales declined significantly? How much revenue has that raised?
And why exactly does a liquor tax burden the poor a lot more. Are you saying poor people drink more? Or are you suggesting that everyone is entitled to the same type of lifestyle regardless of income?
I'm saying we have to spend prudently and find new sources of revenue. Drinking is an option, not a necessity. If people can't afford to do it, then they have a choice to make.
The whole point of this is to require people who incur the most cost to foot most of the bill. I, for one, am tired of having society refuse to require personal accountability. I'm tired of society telling me that I have to pay to support other people's bad habits.
I am more than willing to pay my part, I just get a little irked at paying my fair share and the ne'erdowell's part as well.
Comment by C Ramsey — January 30, 2008 @ 11:47 am
C. Ramsey, I appreciate your efforts in identifying possible revenue streams, and I don't think that you differ much from us on this principle: The preferred method to pay for transportation would come from users.
I'm not speaking for the board here. I think that tolls are appropriate in some cases, but then I grew up a stone's throw from the Pa. Turnpike.
I find interesting proposals that would adopt a car tax based on road usage but have yet to see a fair way to track or assess this.
The important thing, C, is that you are -- unlike those who wish to have public works projects without public dollars supporting them -- thinking of methods to do so. And I thank you for this.
Comment by L. Traud — January 30, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
Whenever I go to a diner, I get called "honey" about half the time. All this while, I thought these waitresses were being friendly. I never realized, until Luanne and Libby informed me, that these women were really just sexist condescending.
I may go ask for my tips back.
Comment by Josh — January 30, 2008 @ 12:55 pm