Warner ascends on myth’s wings
Published: August 25, 2008
A party whose constituency includes rock stars is perhaps bound to conceive them as politicians. Among Democrats so affected is Mark Warner, the former Virginia governor who will deliver the keynote address tonight on Day Two of the Democratic National Convention. Warner is Virginia’s Jonas Brothers and presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama is America’s. But can they govern more skillfully than they sing?
In the case of Warner, we are sure to learn more on this question. In the U.S. Senate race, he holds an insurmountable lead over Republican Jim Gilmore by complementary measures, fundraising and in the polls. Warner will win decisively. This is attributable primarily to two factors, the first, Gilmore’s inefficacy as governor and the second, his lack of appeal on other grounds.
Warner’s supporters, some blinded by his starry glow and others by partisanship, will tell you that his gubernatorial record plays the larger part in his ascendancy. This is true only if one believes myths, as is Democrats’ wont.
With Aesopian propensity, Warner perpetrated these, starting with the campaign promise that he would not raise taxes. In fact, on the campaign trail in 2001, he issued a declaration in triplicate: “I will not raise taxes! I will not raise taxes! I will not raise taxes!” Well, OK then.
Taking cues from Bush the 41st, Warner followed in 2004 by proposing the largest tax increase in state history — $1.1 billion over two years. Senate Republicans led by Finance Committee Chairman John Chichester would not be outdone, and proposed an increase almost four times as large. This led to compromise, principally of conservative principles, and a $1.4 billion increase, signed by Sen. Emmett Hanger among others of the Jell-O-knees set in the GOP.
Tall tales rarely stand on their own, and so Warner told others to support his fibs on taxes. He blamed the increase on Gilmore’s car tax cut, which he said plunged the state into the red. Warner also claimed that he slashed $6 billion in spending but still needed to raise taxes to close the gap. But facts exist, even if they are ignored.
The state ended fiscal year 2004 with a $400-million surplus, and this without benefit of the tax increase. Spending hit a record $26 billion that year and continued to swell until Warner’s departure in January 2006 in favor of kindred spirit Timothy M. Kaine, who has extended the spending trends. Neither a deficit nor spending cuts drove Warner’s tax increase. His is the heart of a quintessential tax-and-spender.
Now he seeks entry into the Senate on the wings of another fable. Warner wants to increase by five times spending on research into renewable energy. This accords with the falsehood peddled by the Democratic Party, that renewables can replace fossil fuels within 10 years. Science and reason demonstrate that such is not possible, even fueled by $10 billion in annual research.
Virginians consumed Warner’s dross once, and still must pay. He soon will be called upon to represent the Old Dominion again. Republicans are to blame for failing to offer a compelling alternative. They have fed the rock star myth of Mark Warner. That will be on stage tonight. So, too, we suspect, will be more untruths. In the case of Warner, hearing is disbelieving.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Brilliant..the most literate editorial writer in the state of Virginia.
Those of us who have lived in Virginia for more than a year know a little about Jim Gilmore’s “car tax cut,“ which is nothing more than us paying money in state taxes to then reimburse ourselves for what we’re supposed to pay in local car taxes.
This “car tax cut” has pushed additional state spending and at the same time put pressure on localities, who have no one else to pass the buck to other than local taxpayers.
And yet somehow the apologists say it would work only if we’d give them a chance. Well, let me explain the inherent problem with the Gilmore “car tax cut” so that even recalcitrant, starry-eyed ultraconservative newspaper editors can understand it.
If I write myself a check from my checking account for $100, and then go to the bank and cash it and put the money back into my checking account, I am no wealthier than when I started on the exercise in the first place. And in fact, I’ve spent more in time and gas money going to and fro than to justify going about the charade.
There, in a nutshell, is the problem with Gilmore’s “car tax cut.“ It costs us more to administer than it cuts, and that is borne out from even a cursory review of state budget numbers. One has to conduct this review (which is not what we call reading press releases from the Gilmore campaign) to be able to develop an understanding of the ins and outs of the issue, of course.

Advertisement