But, as countless Virginia observers (and a bunch of angry lawmakers) have noted since then, supporters of the Gilmore car tax cut were sold a bill of goods. It turned out almost immediately that repealing the car tax was unaffordable, since the short-term surpluses that made the tax cut seem feasible were, well, short-term. And Gilmore’s tax cut has been a political football in the state’s budgeting process ever since.

Now, Gilmore has decided to make another run at statewide office, and is running against Mark Warner for the US Senate seat being vacated by John Warner. And he’s finding out what happens when a snake-oil salesman tries to fool the same people twice: it doesn’t work.

The Washington Post reports this week that Vincent Callahan, a Republican lawmaker who was instrumental in the initial passage of Gilmore’s car tax cut, is endorsing Gilmore’s Democratic opponent, Warner, in this fall’s race. The reason, according to Callahan: Gilmore’s misleading advocacy of the car tax cut last time around.

Callahan said Gilmore, Warner’s GOP opponent, misled legislators and the public about the state’s finances and the cost of his signature effort to eliminate the car tax when he was governor from 1998 to 2002. ‘The figures Gilmore used were so utterly erroneous and far-fetched that they were mind-boggling,’ said Callahan.

Of course, revenue forecasting is often more of an art than a science. But in retrospect, there’s little disagreement (from anyone except Gilmore himself, that is) that Gilmore lowballed the cost and the affordability of his car tax cut .

A Washington Post editorial noting Gilmore’s razor-thin primary win over a relative nobody for the GOP nomination offers a scathing review of Gilmore’s fiscal policy record:

At the heart of the Gilmore legacy was his insistence on ramming through a tax cut whose dimensions dwarfed his cavalier initial estimates, and his simultaneous approval of heavy increases in state spending, a strategy — if it can be called that — suggesting that Mr. Gilmore assumed that the boom times in Virginia would never end. He pursued his signature tax cut, a phased repeal of the levy on personal vehicles, even after it became crystal clear that the repeal would drain hundreds of millions of dollars from the budget and cripple state finances. He insisted on his course despite being warned — by fellow Republicans, among others — that it would eventually force deep reductions in spending on core state priorities including transportation and education. And he shrugged off specific, repeated and well grounded forecasts that Virginia was heading for an economic slowdown brought on by the bursting of the technology and stock market bubble — a slump Mr. Gilmore simply denied.
In Mr. Gilmore, Virginia had its very own Herbert Hoover. “State government is in sound financial shape,” he declared sunnily in August 2001, even as state lawmakers from both parties predicted a $500 million revenue shortfall in the commonwealth’s $25 billion budget — about 10 times Mr. Gilmore’s own projections and, as it turned out, itself an underestimation of the state’s actual woes. Mr. Gilmore’s allies
sometimes argue that no one could have foreseen the economic effects of the Sept. 11 attacks, which occurred four months before he left office. True enough, but also irrelevant: The problem had swollen to major proportions well before the attacks, and Mr. Gilmore ignored it.
He did so in part by budgetary gimmickry and sleight of hand of the sort seldom seen in Virginia, with its stodgy custom of fiscal prudence. When it became plain that the state’s revenue growth had hit a wall, a condition that Mr. Gilmore himself had said would preclude a further rollback of the car tax, he proposed a novel solution: conjuring revenue by borrowing against a one-time legal settlement with tobacco companies. That scheme, which encapsulated Mr. Gilmore’s poor judgment and fondness for budgetary trickery, elicited groans from Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike.
Today, Mr. Gilmore innocently states that on leaving office in 2002 he bequeathed a balanced budget and $1 billion in reserves. But the balanced budget was a fiction that papered over a yawning deficit with shenanigans such as requiring retailers to prepay their sales tax and employers to prepay their withholding tax. And the reserves, for which Mr. Gilmore bears no responsibility — they were statutorily required — did nothing to forestall the state’s fiscal crisis. It fell to Mr. Warner, who succeeded Mr. Gilmore as governor, to fix what quickly mushroomed to a nearly $4 billion problem.

Wow.

Link to the original site

First from FactCheck.org and Newsweek:

A TV spot claims Obama once voted for a tax increase “on people making just $42,000 a year.” That’s true for a single taxpayer, who would have seen a tax increase of $15 for the year – if the measure had been enacted. But the ad shows a woman with two children, and as a single mother, she would not have been affected unless she made more than $62,150. The increase that Obama once supported as part of a Democratic budget bill is not part of his current tax plan anyway…

The TV ad claims in a graphic that Obama would “raise taxes on middle class.” In fact, Obama’s plan promises cuts for middle-income taxpayers and would increase rates only for persons with family incomes above $250,000 or with individual incomes above $200,000.

And on separate Spanish and English-language radio ads:

A Spanish-language radio ad claims the measure Obama supported would have raised taxes on “families” making $42,000, which is simply false. Even a single mother with one child would have been able to make $58,650 without being affected. A family of four with income up to $90,000 would not have been affected…

The [English-language] radio ad claims Obama would increase taxes “on the sale of your home.” In fact, home-sale profits of up to $500,000 per couple would continue to be exempt from capital gains taxes. Very few sales would see an increase under Obama’s proposal to raise the capital gains rate.

Lots more analysis from FactCheck and Newsweek here (under “analysis”).

Really, this graph from the Urban/Brookings Tax Policy Center analysis is probably one of the best illustrations of the presidential candidates’ tax proposals because it illustrates the stark difference in priorities.

Sen. Obama’s tax relief is overwhelmingly focused on the lower and middle brackets while raising taxes on the wealthy (over $250,000). Sen McCain’s tax plan is sharply regressive, lowering taxes the most in percentage terms for the wealthy and the least for lower and middle-income brackets.

And how will the candidates’ respective proposals affect the federal budget deficit? The Washington Post ran an analysis under the misleading title “Obama’s Tax Plan Would Balloon Deficit, Analysis Finds.” While the article does discuss an interesting debate over whether it’s better to evaluate a spending proposal against a budget baseline (assuming current fiscal policy remains unchanged) or just compare proposals to one another in terms of their effect on the national debt, the headline will leave a misleading impression for casual readers who do not delve into the details of the article. This is because it’s actually the case that if all McCain’s tax proposals were implemented, they would balloon the national debt significantly more than Obama’s proposals.

As Media Matters for America notes:

The article stated in its third paragraph that “[a]ccording to a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Obama’s tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt, including interest, by 2018.” The 10th paragraph stated that “[a]ccording to the Tax Policy Center, McCain’s tax plans would increase the national debt by at least $5 trillion over the next 10 years.”

So not until the 10th paragraph of the article did the Post see fit to tell its readers that McCain’s plan is actually worse for the national debt. There’s some “fair and balanced” journalism.

Link to the original site

The Republican-led House quickly announced that it was having none of this. Their reason? Economic development:

[Virginia House Speaker William] Howell and [U.S. House member Eric] Cantor argued that a cigarette tax hike would send the wrong signal to other states, which might be more inclined to raise their cigarette taxes. That could lead to job losses in the tobacco industry, especially in Virginia.

The most obvious response to this rationale is that they’re trying to close the barn door after the horses have gotten out. State lawmakers have looked–and continue to look, right now– to cigarette taxes as their favorite source of new tax revenue for years now. The idea that other states are waiting for the official sanction of tobacco-producing states before further jacking up their cig taxes is pretty far-fetched.

But the more interesting question is why Howell views the tobacco industry as the most vital component of Virginia’s economic development strategy going forward. (To say nothing of why Cantor, who after all is a member of the US Congress, not Virginia’s legislature, is weighing in on this point.) Tobacco consumption has been falling for decades nationwide. Not just on a per capita basis either– we’re just collectively purchasing fewer and fewer smokes every year, as public knowledge of the immense healthcare costs associated with smoking increases.

It’s a dying industry, a relic of the past. So why should Virginia, a state that has enjoyed a real technology boom over the past decade, want to reinforce the role of this industry in its economy? The Washington Post’s Pete Earley has a disheartening, but probably apt, answer: because Virginia lawmakers got paid to think this way. As Earley notes, virtually every member of Virginia’s tax writing committees in the House and Senate regularly take campaign contributions from the tobacco industry. You don’t have to be a Rod Blagojevich for these contributions to have a subtle influence on how you think and vote on economic policy issues.

At a time when we’re contemplating spending billions of dollars to prop up the US auto industry, it’s hard to get too sniffy about efforts to keep the Virginia tobacco industry going. But as Virginia confronts a major budget deficit, every dollar of tax revenue not collected from the tobacco industry is coming from somewhere else. And by refusing to consider hiking the cigarette tax on economic development grounds, Virginia lawmakers are basically asserting that any other interest that could be taxed– whether it’s manufacturers, small retail businesses, or individual wage-earners and consumers– are less vital to Virginia’s long-term economic growth than are tobacco farmers. And it’s hard to see any other explanation for this backwards approach to economic development than campaign contributions. As the late, great Mark Felt apparently never really said, “follow the money.”

Link to the original site

I am sure Barack Obama will deliver a stirring Inaugural address tomorrow. However, Obama’s most important remarks since his election came in an interview the other day with The Washington Post. There, he promised to convene a bipartisan fiscal summit in February. This has the potential to be the most important step of his Presidency. Yes, at least as important as fixing the immediate economic mess.

It is not the idea of a summit that is so critical—we’ve seen plenty of those in recent years. Nor was it his vow to use some of his copious political capital to confront the controversial issues of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. We’ve heard that promise before too. It was just four years ago that George Bush made precisely the same vow to tackle Social Security. And we all know how that one ended up.

No, it is neither the summit nor the confident commitment that is so important. It is instead, the language he used in his meeting with The Post.

In his discussion of Medicare, for instance, Obama was channeling Peter Orszag, his nominee for Budget Director. When he says, “You can’t solve Medicare in isolation from the broader problems of the health-care system,” that is pure Orszag. So is his talk of “bending the curve” of medical spending (econo-speak for sharply slowing the rate of health cost growth).

Orszag’s (and now Obama’s) diagnosis is on the mark. The cure, however, will be exceedingly difficult. 

And it will take a lot more than fine words.

On Social Security, for instance, Obama breezily told The Post, “Social Security, we can solve.” No problem.

Well, he’ll have to do a lot more than what he promised in the campaign, when his plan centered on rising payroll taxes for a handful of wealthy workers—two years after the end of his second term. That is no way to fix Social Security.

By now, I’m sure Obama knows that in any bipartisan deal, reducing promised future benefits will have to be part of the mix. Period. And that is going to seriously antagonize his friends on the left. On the other hand, Obama is correct when he recognizes that Social Security is the easy bet in the entitlement trifecta.

When it comes to Medicare, “bending the curve” means rationing care. It means, somehow, convincing Americans that the most expensive treatment is not always (or even often) the best care. It means telling them, for example, that Medicare is not going to pay for that back surgery because exercise and anti-inflammatory drugs work just as well, and at far less cost. That is going to anger patients and doctors.

Long-term fiscal reform also means sensible tax policy. And by promising to exempt  anyone making up to $200,000 from any tax increases, Obama has built himself something of a fiscal box. I’m sure Orszag and others have told him that by now as well.

Still, the post-election Obama sounds like he gets it, or, at least for now, he’s listening to people who do. Let’s all hope it lasts.  

Link to the original site

For a half century, the answer has been no. But The Washington Post’s Peter Slevin reported on Sept. 8 that a conservative group called the Alliance Defense Fund wants to change that.

Link to the original site