Virginia's GOP Senate Nomination Battle: Marshall v. Gilmore

While we're awaiting election results in Texas and Ohio, let's get to a couple of closer to home stories here in Virginia, which happen to be related to each other.

First is a story in yesterday's Washington Post on the growing support amongst GOP insiders for Delegate Bob "Taliban" Marshall's bid for the party's nomination to run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by John Warner. (See "New Face Winning Hearts In Va. GOP.")

Second is the Virginia Supreme Court's ruling invalidating a significant portion of the bastardized funding mechanism the General Assembly set up last year to support much needed transportation projects. (This is related to the story above because Marshall was a lead plaintiff in the lawsuit that succeeded in getting the funding mechanism declared unconstitutional.)

If the WaPo is to be believed, Marshall has a shot at upending the plans of former Governor Jim Gilmore to get the GOP nod to face off against presumed Democratic nominee Mark Warner for the open Senate seat in November. That's pretty ironic, because Gilmore outmaneuvered another potential opponent--retiring congressman Tom Davis--by persuading the Republican state committee to make the selection at a state convention rather than via a primary. Davis, a moderate, would've had a better shot in an open primary with independent voters participating, whereas Gilmore, a staunch conservative, figured he had things locked up in a convention.

But along came Marshall, who we've nicknamed "Taliban" because of his propensity to sponsor bills that would heavily regulate your social life, including your sex life, to fit his views of what's moral and what's not. Marshall is one of those social conservatives favored by the hard core evangelical Christian right. It just so happens that Virginia's Republican Party has a lot of those types at its inner core, especially amongst the activists who tend to show up at a state convention, so Gilmore may be in for a fight.

We'd still put our money on Gilmore, but we'd love to see Taliban Marshall pull the upset and make for a twistedly interesting November match-up.

Now, about that Virginia Supreme Court ruling engineered by Mr. Marshall. We don't agree with ol' Taliban on much, but here we did agree. The General Assembly put together a horrific "compromise" of a transportation package last year that never much passed the smell test.

The problem, of course, is that the rabid anti-tax wing of the GOP wouldn't go along with anything that looked like a tax to fund roads. Instead, they were willing to let at least some of their colleagues support a series of "fees" that were, in fact, taxes on Northern Virginians. So we're glad the Supremes struck most of it down, although it does further delay and complicate the critical issue of getting roads and other transportation infrastructure built.

Now the problem with Mr. Marshall is that he isn't proposing any alternative. He hails from Stafford County, which is about midway between Washington and Fredericksburg. If you've ever tried to drive down there on just about any weekday afternoon or evening, you know what a traffic nightmare it is in that region.

But Marshall could care less, as long as you're not using birth control and you are fornicating in the missionary position. He's anti-tax and anti-regulation, unless the regulation is of your social life. He'd just as soon turn Virginia into a theocracy--and if he did, it would like Taliban Afghanistan: bad roads and public executions in soccer stadiums.

The purpose of a body politic, such as the Commonwealth of Virginia, is to provide for the common good where it makes sense to do so publicly. Roads, bridges and other transportation infrastructure are generally considered one of those services better provided by the state via a taxing mechanism. The alternative is to let the private sector do it. Where does Marshall stand on this? Does he believe Virginia should plan for and invest in its future with appropriate funding for transportation, especially in fast-growing Northern Virginia? Does he believe the state should get out of the business and leave it to the private sector (which would still need laws to facilitate the process)? Or is he just in favor of letting it all go to hell (where he assumes most of us are headed anyway)?

Marshall proclaims himself to be "pro-life." But what kind of life is it when your parents are on the road, stuck in a massive traffic jam twice a day? (Oh, we forgot, the womenfolk shouldn't work--then there'll be a parent at home.)

The Virginia General Assembly needs to go back to square one on transportation. It's important--if they can't get this done, then there's no point even having a legislature. This time, they should do it right: increase the gas tax by a few cents a gallon (the tax, as a proportion of the price of gas, is now at a historic low) and invest that money directly in transportation.

Virginia Transportation Plan Begins To Unravel

It wasn't that long ago that Virginia's political leaders, on both sides of the aisle, were applauding and backslapping over passage of a long-awaited, long-debated transportation bill that would provide billions of dollars for overdue transportation projects.

It was not a terrific bill. It looked like a donkey with elephant ears and trunk and a pig tail. It was a "compromise" that pretended to avoid raising taxes, while actually doing so in a most inequitable manner. Nonetheless, most citizens of the state initially were pleased simply because, at long last, there would be money for projects that already are way behind. Governor Kaine backed the bill, with all its flaws, figuring it at least solved the transportation crisis.

Not surprisingly, however, the Rube Goldberg funding mechanism behind the bill is beginning to unravel. Two pieces are in significant danger in the courts. The first is the enormous fines imposed on "bad" drivers--up to $3000 for a traffic violation. The explicit purpose of these fines is to raise money, not punish bad driving. (We're all for cracking down on bad driving; but this mechanism, which falls disproportionately on lower income citizens and will clog the courts with traffic cases, is not the right way.) Two courts have now found that provision unconstitutional, under the equal protection clause, because the fines do not apply to out of state drivers. (We're not sure that rationale will hold up on appeal, but there are other legal attacks as well.)

The second is the taxing authority handed over to the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority--a transparent effort by Republicans to avoid responsibility for tax increases. Loudoun County supervisors have voted to challenge the constitutionality of the Authority's new authority, and now another group of conservatives, including Prince William GOP Delegate Bob "Taliban" Marshall, have initiated a wider ranging suit as well. (See "Lawsuit Adds To Roads Bill Challenges" in today's Washington Post.) This aspect of the transportation bill is clearly vulnerable in the Virginia courts. (For Marshall's nickname, see our post, "Virginia's Taliban: Bob Marshall")

All of which gets back to a more fundamental issue: Virginia, particularly NoVa and Hampton Roads, clearly needs greater transportation funding (Richmond is fine, having robbed the rest of the state to build many a road project). Typically, when there is such a need, government raises funds, through taxes on the folks who will benefit from it, to pay for it. That's the "common good." The conservative wing of the Republican Party in Virginia, however, is so tied up in the dogma of low taxes that it has become dysfunctional when it comes to simple issues of good government: getting the best services for the least money.

The proper solution would be for party leaders on both sides to step up to the plate and say, "y'know, we have a problem--we need more roads; and the solution is to increase the gasoline tax by a few cents a gallon to pay for it." Yes, it's a tax increase, and there would be a bit of moaning and groaning. But given that Americans have fairly quickly adapted to $3 gas, without abandoning their SUV's or starting a depression, people would adjust in an instant. And at least there would be a nexus between the tax and the service (transportation projects).

That may happen someday, but not as long as the current myopic gang in the General Assembly is in power. Let's hope that changes in November. (It won't be Marshall and his cronies who get voted out--it will be more moderate Republicans facing wrath from their more moderate constituencies.)

Battle of the Engineering Consultants On Tysons Tunnel

Proponents of a an underground rail line through Tysons Corner have produced reports from their consulting engineers predicting that a tunnel will cost no more than an above-ground line and take no more time.

Governor Kaine, who so far opposes a tunnel (but who we believe is probably open-minded), has now released a report from his consulting engineers stating that a Tysons tunnel will cost more and take longer to build than an above-ground rail line. (See Washington Post story here.)

As anyone who lives inside the Beltway is well aware, you can always find a consultant to say whatever you want. You could even still find a couple people with scientific degrees who would dispute that smoking is harmful to health.

So, who to believe?

Let's start with the Tunnel's proponents. Clearly, they want a tunnel and they're going to hire consultants who'll come up with figures to support their plan. That's not to say they're dishonest. Rather, they suffer from a significant optimism bias. You can see that in the report of the Governor's consultants, who note that it's not practical to run a tunnel boring machine (like the one pictured here)24-hours a day without some maintenance delays.
They also note that the advanced tunnel boring technology advocated by the Tyson Tunnel proponents has not been used on tunnels as large as those for Metrorail. So, let's just say that the Tunnel proponents are presenting, at best, a very rosy view. Experience shows that with complex high tech construction projects, such rosy views almost never prevail.

That said--and before you tunnel proponents hit the comment button to skewer us--the Governor's report doesn't make a terrific case for the above-ground version. The Governor's engineers say it will cost roughly $160 million more (at a minimum) for the tunnel, and add six months to the project's construction timetable (they add more time for non-construction delays). IF a tunnel would cost only $160 million more on a $4 billion project, and IF it would delay things only another six months, then WE think the tunnel is a viable option.

The biggest variable is whether going for a tunnel would also jeopardize $900 million in federal funding, without which nothing will be built. We don't think folks should sit around and speculate about this--instead, there should be a sit-down with the right people. If the feds are open to a tunnel--and we think they may be--then the tunnel option should be back on the table. (Yes, we know, this is a reversal of our position a few weeks ago; we've been trying to read up since then.)

That said, we also don't buy the doom and gloom predictions about the consequences of having an above-ground rail line through Tysons. Arlington County Board member Chris Zimmerman, who also sits on Metro's board, is correct that this is "once-in-a-generation" issue, i.e., one with major consequences for Northern Virginia over the next 30-50 years.

All things being equal, a tunnel through Tysons would probably be better than an above-ground line. But the above-ground line is hardly a disaster. Tysons would do just fine with such a rail line--it would prosper and grow and incorporate the design into its future.

Our bottom line: the burden is on Tunnel proponents to establish that a Tunnel will not endanger federal funding, nor will it unduly delay the entire process. If they can get by those hurdles, then the Tunnel is the way to go.

Legislature Stiffs NoVa on Transport Bill Conference

It's getting down to the wire in the Virginia legislature, with the House and Senate passing significantly different versions of a bill to fund desperately needed transportation improvements in the state.

The two competing bills, which are of greatest interest to the large and ever-growing population of Northern Virginia, have gone to a conference, where representatives of the House and Senate will meet in private to see if they can somehow make a sausage out of this hash.

So, what did the leaders of the two GOP-controlled houses of the Virginia Assembly do to make sure NoVa's voice is heard on this critical issue? Basically, they gave NoVa the finger.

Eleven conferees have been appointed. Only ONE is from NoVa, Tim Hugo from Fairfax County. Meanwhile, the Norfolk/Hampton Roads/Virginia Beach region--which also has a big stake in the legislation--has FOUR representatives.

What a snub to NoVa, which under both bills is expected to tax itself to pay for improvements. The big difference is whether--under the House version--NoVa will also suffer cuts in other important programs as money is diverted from the general fund.

For all you Northern Virginians, especially in Fairfax, Loudon, Prince William and Stafford Counties, who have Republican reps in the General Assembly: take note. If you're tired of sitting in traffic day-in and day-out, you need to replace your rep with a Democrat. Otherwise, you're just sending your state tax dollars down a drain in Richmond to help out the rest of the state.

Gas Tax: A More Rational Plan For Virginia Transportation Funding

Today's Washington Post reports that a bipartisan group of Virginia state senators will offer a transportation bill funded largely by a sales tax on gasoline.

This is a much more sensible proposal than the lame "compromise" outlined a few days ago by Virginia house Republicans. Some of Virginia's Republicans, especially those in the House of Delegates, have this thing about taxes. In their view, no matter what the issue, taxes should be off the table. That's an unproductive view that has led to an unproductive stalemate on transportation funding.

After underfunding transportation for years, Virginia legislators now face voter wrath from folks, especially in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, who are mired in all-day traffic jams on inadequate roads. When a problem is caused by underfunding, one of the solutions has to be raising taxes.

Instead of taxing gasoline, however, Virginia's house Republicans would raise revenue through a hodge-podge of measures, some of which have little to do with roads. They would also steal $250 million from other existing state programs and shift it to roads, creating new problems in the process.

Placing a sales tax on gasoline to fund roads is a direct solution with several major advantages. First, out of state motorists who use Virginia's highways will contribute to funding those roads when they purchase fuel in the state. Second, higher gas prices will help discourage wasteful exurban development by penalizing drivers with the longest commutes--the same people who use those expensive roads the most. It will also encourage behaviors--carpooling, use of mass transit--that take cars off the road and thus decrease the need for additional highways.

In addition, higher gas prices will also encourage Virginians to switch to vehicles with better gas mileage, which will improve our energy security and reduce carbon emissions.

Imposing a 5 percent sales tax on gasoline--the measure proposed by the Senators--will add $1.25 to a $25 purchase of fuel. That's not an unreasonable cost for all motorists to bear for an adequate road system. Furthermore, it would still leave gas prices far below the peaks they reached last summer. True, prices may rise again. But that's not a bad thing--higher gas prices will encourage the development of alternatives that, in the end, will be far better than relying on ever increasing amounts of foreign oil.