Trouble All Over
Lots in this morning's papers, including:
The Senate Finance Committee is facing industry opposition to its transportation funding plan, says The Free Lance-Star. Senators who back the package are pushing back.
'..Sen. Charles Hawkins, R-Pittsylvania, said it will be impossible to fix the state's transportation problems without providing a reliable funding stream to do so.Gov. Tim Kaine turns columnist for a Times Community paper and hits on a theme that got him elected:
"When I go to a restaurant and I order a meal, no, I don't want to pay for it. But I've got to pay for it if I want the meal," Hawkins said. "Worst-case scenario, we put a Band-Aid on transportation, declare victory and go home. A Band-Aid does not fix this. We need long-term funding."'
'Our current system, in which local governments make land use decisions, and the state follows behind with transportation planning and funding creates a situation where the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. And every Virginian is paying the price for that failed arrangement, in terms of longer delays and growing frustration.'And The Washington Post lets the chronically divided GOP know that it's time to put up:
'Republicans may prefer user fees, tolls and a collection of the state's most obscure taxes, or any combination thereof, to pay for the improvements that Virginians demand. But squirming uncomfortably is not an option. Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter, a Prince William Republican, acknowledged that the other day, telling The Post that Republicans planned (at last) to offer a "very robust" plan.
We're waiting.'
posted by Anonymous @ 8:08 AM
4 comments
.jpg)
4 Comments:
I'd prefer a plan where every Virginian pays, preferably according to their use, rather than a plan where some Virginians pay, or some Virginians are punished.
Any plan that is inequitable will cause mor problems than it cures.
A Washington Post editorial supporting higher taxes in Virginia -- not exactly headline news!
I still haven't heard anyone from Governor Kaine on down explain just what this added revenue would buy in terms of measurable service improvements on specific transportation facilities. We have federal and state laws regulating the types of disclosures that must be made before a company can sell stocks or bonds. Why not a prospectus for tax increases? Why not Service Level Agreements for specific projects?
I agree toomanytaxes. Why are citizens asked to pay for something without a clue of what IT is? Would the state just throw money my way if I send in a blind request? I think not.
Pie in the sky, I promise it will work, is not going to get it. If they have a plan and they need the money, let's see it!
TMT: I love your arguments. I don't always agree, but I love your arguments. How about if you give EMR some lessons?
OK. Try this. I bounced this off of Bob burke and he declined to respond.
According to the usually used cost of community services analysis, the average new home valued at less that (some huge figure, the last I heard was $800,000) does not pay its own way in taxes.
EMR has said everyone should pay their own location dependent costs.
PEC says farms pay 300% of what they owe in taxes.
EMR says rural residents should pay something like 10X more.
You say new residents should pay their own costs for the (new) services they require.
You say, that business taxes have not incresed as fast as residential taxes.
(tongue far in cheek) Apparently, nobody but farmers are paying their fair share, and they are losing money hand over fist.
Also apparently, the average homeowner is paying nowhere near his full costs.
Do you suppose if the average homeowner paid his full costs for a few years, until we catch up on the baclog of infrastructure requirements, that maybe it wouldn't be such an onerous burden when somebody new shows up, who is also not paying their own way?
Post a Comment
<< Home