Look at the bright side. Now that you guys have a DemocRAT in there, he will figure the only way to counteract the budget shortfall is to raise taxes! That's what happens every time the DemocRATs get into power.
Posted on 11/16/2001 1:23:51 PM PST by cogitator
Edited on 07/20/2004 11:45:51 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A disappointed Gov. Jim Gilmore finally conceded yesterday that the state can't provide full car-tax relief next year, which he'd promised to do when he ran for office.
He said the state will have to struggle mightily just to make up an $890 million budget shortfall.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesdispatch.com ...
Perhaps Governor Gilmore should have listened to the Virginia Senate Republicans last January. And if he had, we might be talking about Governor Earley and not Governor Warner right now.
Like it or not, Virginians, Governor Gilmore has to shoulder some of the blame for the budget problems and Warner's election. On the night of the election, he said "Governor elections are local politics" or something similar when asked about how the election of Warner and McGreevey reflected the GOP's overall prospects. Well, the budget impasse was local politics -- and it was a big factor in the election of Warner.
The silver lining in this dark cloud is that Warner will be struggling with the budget and won't be able to do much else.
Look at the bright side. Now that you guys have a DemocRAT in there, he will figure the only way to counteract the budget shortfall is to raise taxes! That's what happens every time the DemocRATs get into power.
I'm in Maryland, but I doubt that the Republicans in the Virginia Senate and Assembly (both controlled by large majorities) would let Governor Warner raise taxes unless he could show a legitimate reason to do so.
Or he could suggest a statewide referendum on a tax increase...
You're exactly right. Gilmore doesn't like it. And, the worst part is he knew how bad the numbers were during last year's session.
Still he comes out and says "the election had nothing to do with me." Yeah, right.
Have to ask the Virginians to be sure, as I haven't lived there for a decade. But it's basically a tax on the value of your car. If you own a more expensive car, you pay more.
The think that I remember hating the most about the car tax was that it was due on December 1 (or December 31st); just when people are getting ready to pay for Christmas shopping. Bad timing.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. If the car-tax repeal hadn't been funded to 70%, which cost $700-800 million, then that would have been $700-800 million in the Treasury. That's why I called it +$750 million.
To put it another way, the budget shortfall is $890 million and the revenue reduction due to the 70% car-tax repeal is $750 million (or so). If you don't have that revenue reduction, then the shortfall is only about $140 million, as I said earlier.
I pretty much doubt that Virginians will be in favor of a retroactive increase in their car-tax, so the incoming governor is stuck with the current numbers.
Which begs the question as to how this problem came about in the first place. Republicans dominate both houses of the assembly ... plus the governorship ... and they still can't keep spending under control.
Why is that? Very simply: both political parties are full of whores - i.e. people who spend other people's money in order to "buy" votes ... indirectly, of course.
If the Virginia Experiment in full-GOP governance fails, the GOP is going to have a very difficult time convincing people that the Republican Party is really about fiscal restraint and responsibility.
Probably more appropriately labeled "personal property tax" but is applied locally (city or county) based on the assessed value of your vehicle.
Different localities have different deadlines. I pay in June.
The fundamental problem with the car tax cut to begin with was not just that the state was cutting from their budget. The car tax goes to the localities. So the plan worked out that the tax would be reimbursed or not assessed to individuals and the state then pays the localities for the lost revenue. In essence it worked out to the state paying everyone's car tax. So the problem was that it wasn't just eliminating state taxes, it was adding additional state expenses.
If he has a Virginia address and Virginia tags, they'll find him. :-)
In the meantime, he can check with his local Commissioner of the Revenue.
Whores would go out of business if there wasn't a demand for their services. Trouble is, there always has been a demand for services provided by whores, hence the "oldest profession" moniker.
I'm not sure the electorate shouldn't share some of the blame in these kinds of things. Many of the recent elections at the state and national level seem to fall to those salesmen (pimps?) who promise the people the most material benefit, i.e., free stuff from de gummint. In many places, the electorate looks to their government for more and more things. Maybe the politicians would look for a different profession if they perceived that the people did not demand their "services" as much...? Just a thought.
Funny how they call reducing taxes a cost. That's not how I would identify a cost. 
It's because the state reimburses local governments for the loss of car-tax revenues. As someone else in this thread pointed out, the car-tax was "repealed" by the mechanism of the state paying the money to the local governments that they would have collected from the car tax, so the citizens wouldn't have to pay the tax. The mechanism works as long as you've got the revenues to pay for it. If you don't... you have a hole in the budget.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.