Real Estate Tax (part 2)

In my earlier post (February 15, 2007), I explained why the real estate assessment-taxation process is inherently unfair. I argued for the repeal of this obsolete tax and its replacement by another source for local government revenue. I realized that this repeal would not take place soon, so I proposed the following fix to make the real estate tax more equitable:

1- All assessments are frozen at their current level (or preferably rolled back to their January 2006 level);
2- Owners of real estate pay taxes based on the current assessment until either they sell the property or refinance to access their equity in the property;
3- Sellers or owners of refinanced property pay a real estate surtax at settlement based on the increased value of the property;
4- After sale or refinance the assessment will be adjusted to the sale price or the appraisal that is the basis of the refinancing.

I received a comment from somebody who calls himself the Yankee (I assume that means s/he is a member of some New York sports team.) The Yankee said,


"If you sell your property at a profit, you will owe real estate taxes based on the idea that the value of the property actually increased some time earlier and you weren't taxed at that time on the increased value. Is there a fair way to calculate this belated tax?

"Let's say that you lived in the house for 20 years. If the value was constant for the first 19 years, and then jumped in the last year, the tax should have risen only one year ago. If the value went up in the first year, and then was constant for the last 19 years, the tax should have been higher for 19 years. Since there's no way to figure out how long the house was under-assessed, there's no fair way to calculate the surcharge."

The Yankee misinterpreted my proposal. I did not propose that the entire amount of taxes that would have been paid under a yearly reassessment should be paid when the house is sold. I proposed a one time surtax of five or ten percent of the profit that the homeowner realizes from the sale.

"There are other issues as well. What happens if the property becomes so valuable that the owner can't afford to sell and incur the surcharge? And how does the city stay solvent when revenue falls behind inflation, because 95% of properties cannot be revalued in any given year?"

Since the surtax will only be a percentage of the profit the property owner realizes in selling the property, the property will never get to valuable to sell. As far as the revenue flow to the local government, the Yankee needs to realize that the real-estate tax a property owner pays is only partly dependent on the assessed value. The local government, whether it is a county board of supervisors or a city council still must establish a tax each year. For example, the 2006 tax rate for the City of Richmond was $1.29 per $100 of assessed value. Presumably, if the projected revenue in any year is insufficient to operate the local government, the board of supervisors or city council can raise the tax rate.

"Wouldn't it be fairer if valuations were fixed in constant-value dollars (that is, indexed to inflation) until the property is sold? That would allow the community to maintain its revenue stream without making homeowners pay taxes based unrealized gains caused by a rising real estate market."

This might help a bit. However, when the rate of inflation is one or two percent but the annual assessment rate is going up fifteen or twenty percent, as it has this year in Virginia, indexing will not cure the problem.

"Of course, if the property itself changed (such as by adding another story to the house), a change in the real estate tax would be appropriate. But such a change should be based objectively on the change in the property, not on market prices. For example, if you added a floor to your house, the city might calculate the percent increase in floor space, and then increase the assessment by some fraction of that percentage. That would allow people to improve their property without being slammed by huge tax increases based on rising market prices."

The City of Richmond has a tax abatement program that delays the reassessment of certain property when the homeowner makes improvements. If the house is more than twenty years old and the improvements increase the value of the property more than 20% the homeowner may defer all or part of the increased value for up to ten years.

"If at any time a property owner thought that the calculated valuation was higher than the actual value of the property on the open market, he ought to be able to apply for (and, if successful, lock in) a downward adjustment."

In Richmond, any property owner who disagrees with a reassessment may appeal. However, the burden is on the taxpayer to prove that the assessment was wrong. It may be difficult to establish that the assessment was in error.

"Finally, the valuation would have to be adjusted based on the actual market value of the property whenever the house is sold. In most cases, the new valuation would be the actual sale price. But the city should also do a traditional assessment, and if the city finds that the market price is far too low (perhaps more than 10% below market), it should use its own valuation instead. To prevent unpleasant surprises after the sale, the city should provide a document stating the valuation before closing."

I have to disagree with the Yankee. The sale price that a willing seller and willing buyer agree on is the fair market value of the property. It is not relevant that other properties in the neighborhood may be selling for a higher price. The problem with using the sales of other properties as a basis for assessment is that no two properties are identical. Houses differ in size, model, and age, and each house has a different location. The actual sale price of the property is its fair market value.

Fair Tax?

There is a fair tax movement afloat in the land. Fair tax? Is that an oxymoron? I thought the only fair tax is one my neighbor pays but I don’t. LOL.

But, really, what is this fair tax stuff? I’m always a little suspicious when somebody labels something as “fair.” It’s sort of a propaganda ploy. It’s like conservatives labeling the federal estate tax as the “death” tax. Or a former candidate and then governor of the Commonwealth labeling a portion of our property tax as the “car” tax. Of course, there is no “death” tax or “car” tax. But, it surely helps to convince people by using this kind of labeling. Who could possibly object to a “fair” tax?

Let me first explain the fair tax proposal. It would eliminate all federal income-type taxes—individual and corporate income tax, payroll tax, self-employment tax, capital gains tax, gift tax, alternative minimum tax—and replace them with a twenty three percent federal sales tax on new retail sales of goods or services in the United States. In essence, the fair tax proposal would substitute a tax on consumption for our current taxes based on income. The twenty-three percent is the level at which the sales tax must be set to produce the same revenue for the federal government as the income-type taxes that are being eliminated.

So, if the proposed new tax is fair, I must assume that the old income-based tax is unfair. But, is it? The Internal Revenue Code is huge; it contains hundreds of pages, thousands of sections. The implementing regulations, issued by the Internal Revenue Service, are bigger still. Our federal tax system is an adversarial game between the taxpayers and the IRS. The taxpayer’s goal in the game is to pay as little tax as possible; the IRS’s goal is to make the taxpayer pay as much as possible. And, because the rules of the game—the Code and regulations—are so complex, the taxpayer who has the best accountant, tax lawyer, tax service, or tax preparation software, ends up paying the lowest tax. The basic unfairness in the system is that two taxpayers can have identical incomes but will pay different amounts of taxes depending on how well they (and their people) play the tax game. So, if the fair tax proposal eliminates the tax game, it’s got to be fairer than the current system, right?

Wait, wait, wait! Twenty three percent seems like an awful high sales tax. That means for every dollar I spend, I have to pay another twenty-three cents to the federal government. But it’s not that high, the fair-taxers tell me. For one thing, under the current system more than fifteen percent of the retail cost of the goods and services I buy represents federal taxes paid by the manufacturers, middlemen, and retailers. With the federal income and related taxes gone, these costs will be saved, and the pressures of the market will guarantee that these savings are passed on to me, the consumer. That means that the effective rate of the federal sales tax will be only about eight percent. And, don’t forget that I will no longer be paying federal income-type taxes so my take-home pay will be significantly higher. So, an eight percent sales tax is not that high.

Okay, but I thought that a sales tax is very regressive. Since economically disadvantaged people spend a much higher proportion of their income on subsistence consumption, charging everybody the same sales tax rate results in a regressive tax. Poor people will necessarily pay a larger part of their income on the sales tax than will wealthier people. Does the fair tax program provide an exemption for food and other subsistence items to reduce the inequity of the regressive rate? No, there are no exemptions for any kind of purchase. That would make the system too difficult to administer. Instead, the fair tax proposal includes a "prebate" for poor people. In my opinion, this is the weakest part of the fair tax proposal.

Under the prebate, the Social Security Administration will mail to every family in the country with an income lower than the poverty level a monthly check to offset the costs of the sales tax it pays for subsistence consumption. The amount of the prebate is based on an annual consumption allowance that varies with the size of the family. For example, a single-adult household with three children has a consumption allowance of $20,650, while a two-adult household with four children has a consumption allowance of $34,340. The first of these families would receive a monthly prebate of $396; while the second would receive a monthly prebate of $658. According to Americans for Fair Taxation, if the fair tax proposal was enacted now, 113 million United States households would qualify for prebates in 2007.

In the opinion of this maven, the prebate constitutes a serious flaw in the fair tax proposal. For one thing, it is an invasion of privacy; it requires families to publicly declare and prove their poverty. Worse than that, however, is the fact that the federal government will be disbursing 113 million payments per month. Although the fair taxers were smart enough not to create a new agency to administer the program, payment of prebates will place a significant extra administrative burden on the Social Security Administration. It is a needless burden, because it would be much simpler to simply exempt food and other subsistence consumption from the federal sales tax than to collect the tax and then return part of it to 113 million households in the form of a monthly check.

Doesn’t the fair tax proposal have loopholes? Can’t an American citizen avoid paying the tax by making purchases outside the United States? If I were a rich man, and I wanted to buy a $5,000,000 yacht, I could avoid paying the federal tax by purchasing my yacht in Italy and then sailing it home. This loophole must be plugged.

Further, the proposal will be disruptive of the planning of many American families. Millions of families, in purchasing homes, have counted on a yearly tax deduction for the mortgage interest they will be paying. Under the fair tax proposal there will be no federal income tax and therefore no deduction for homeowners. This will make home-ownership more expensive because the federal government will no longer be subsidizing part of the monthly payment.

The proposal may also have disastrous effects on the ability of charities to raise funds. Will people continue to make contributions to charities if the federal government is no longer providing a subsidy in the form of a tax deduction? Fair taxers say it won’t make much difference. I’m not sure.

If you want to know more about the fair tax proposal go to fairtax.org, the website of Americans for Fair Taxation. The site has plenty of propaganda explaining why the fair tax proposal will save America.

The Real Estate Tax Must be Fixed

Real estate assessments are skyrocketing and the natives along both banks of the James are getting restless. Governor Kaine supports an amendment to the Virginia Constitution that would allow local jurisdictions to exempt as much as 20% of the value of a home from real estate taxes. Mayor Wilder has proposed that increases in property assessments be limited to 10% per year. The Richmond City Council is considering a proposal that would allow homeowners to defer payment of any annual real estate tax increase in excess of 5%. Unfortunately, none of these proposals go far enough in dealing with what is perhaps the most oppressive tax we have to pay.

Although real estate taxes have been the predominant means of local government financing in Virginia for hundreds of years, the tax on real estate is the least fair of taxes. The tax is unfair because it bears no relationship to the ability of the taxpayer to pay or to the level of municipal or county services that she or he receives.

I bought my Richmond home only two years ago. Since then, the assessed value of my property has gone up more than $60,000. My assessment notices have not explained how the assessor determined the basis of this increase. The Code of Virginia and the Richmond City Code requires the assessor to assess for tax purposes all real estate in the city “at its fair market value.” There is, however, only one way to actually determine the fair market value of property—to put it on the market and see what price the seller and buyer agree on. Any other determination is only an approximation based on recent sales of property that may be different in style, condition and age and may be located some distance from the property being assessed.

Even if the assessment does approximate the actual market value of the property, taxes levied on the assessment are unfair. If I bought my house for $200,000, and then a neighbor on the next block sells his for $230,000 and another neighbor sells hers for $225,000, I have gained nothing. To me, my house is worth no more than what I paid for it. My neighbors may have sold their homes at a profit but I received no part of their profit. It could be argued that the equity in my home has increased, but until I sell my house, or refinance it to get access to the equity, it is merely a hypothetical gain. It is grossly unfair to increase my real estate tax when I have gained nothing from the property sales in my neighborhood.

Further, it is terribly unfair for taxpayers in a jurisdiction to pay different amounts in taxes for the same municipal services. In the City of Richmond, a citizen receives the same level of city services whether he or she pays $2,000 or $4,000 or more per year in real estate taxes.

Of course, our elected representatives—whether supervisors or council persons—love the real estate assessment process. It provides them with significant increases in revenue to spend each year without ever having to vote to increase taxes. In fact they can appear to be heroes by cutting the tax rate by two or three cents, and still have most of the increase revenue.

In the interests of fairness and to avoid further alienating citizens who are suffering significant hardships in paying constantly rising real estate taxes, our legislators need to act to fix the real estate tax. Unfortunately, none of the existing proposals provide the necessary fix.

Governor Kaine’s proposal, if fully implemented, would leave homeowners still paying taxes on 80% of the assessed value of their property, and would have no effect on rapidly rising assessments. Also, because it relies on a constitutional amendment, it cannot be implemented quickly.

Mayor Wilder’s proposal would necessitate a change in state law. Currently, Title 58.1, section 58.1-3201, of the Virginia Code requires real property to be assessed at 100% of its fair market value. The City’s Assessor has no authority to restrict assessment increases to 10% as suggested by the mayor. Further, even if authorized by the General Assembly, under Mr. Wilder’s proposal homeowners would still face yearly increases of 10% in their real estate taxes.

The proposal in the City Council would merely allow homeowners to delay the pain of paying taxes on the constantly increasing assessed value of their property. The taxes would continue to accrue and eventually the homeowners who chose to defer would have to pay the entire amount of the deferred tax, plus interest.

The only real solution to the inequity of the real estate tax is for the tax to be eliminated and for some other mechanism for financing local government to be found. It is not likely that this will happen any time soon. In the mean time, the General Assembly and the Richmond City Council need to take action to rein in real estate assessments. I suggest the following approach:
1- All assessments are to be frozen at their current level (or preferably rolled back to their January 2006 level);
2- Owners of real estate will pay taxes based on the current assessment until either they sell the property or refinance to access their equity in the property;
3- Sellers or owners of refinanced property will pay a real estate surtax at settlement based on the increased value of the property;
4- After sale or refinance the assessment will be adjusted to the sale price or the appraisal that is the basis of the refinancing. The owner of the property will then pay taxes based on the new assessment.

I certainly am not an expert on the law of real estate taxes. I do not know whether my proposal needs a constitutional amendment, a law passed by the General Assembly, or an ordinance passed by City Council. I urge Governor Kaine, Mayor Wilder, members of the General Assembly, and members of the City Council to get serious about the tax hardship being faced by homeowners. Only a change in the assessment process can fix the real estate tax.

Mayor Wilder, again

Mr. Mayor,

I am deeply disappointed by your press conference yesterday, in which you suggested that spending by Richmond Public Schools is somehow related to increased real estate assessments in the City. Mr. Mayor, you know as well as I do that real estate assessments, by law, are based on a determination of the fair market value of property. These assessments have nothing to do with spending by RPS or any other city agency. Yet you are using obvious citizen dissatisfaction with their increased assessments to stir up public outrage against RPS. I believe your statement, which seems deliberately misleading, is highly irresponsible.

In your conference you also indicated that you intend to spend taxpayer money for a second audit of RPS. You apparently made this decision despite the fact that the city auditor just completed an audit which resulted in a report that is 149 pages long and contains over 50 recommendations. For you to procure a new audit is a total waste of public funds. As a taxpayer, I object to your wasteful spending.

Finally, I am very upset that you continue to try to divide the citizens of Richmond with your inflammatory language. When you were elected mayor, I expected that you would be a unifying force. Instead, I see you as the great divider. Mr. Mayor, please stop playing politics with the Richmond Public Schools. For those of our children whose parents cannot afford to move to the suburbs or to put their children in private schools, our public schools our the only hope they have to succeed in life. Your constant attacks can only harm our public schools and our children.

Hurray Airport; Boo USAir

Well, it's getting harder and harder for a maven to maintain his credibility. Just after I wrote my blistering attack on Richmond International Airport, I was called by the top dog at the same. He apologized for my baggage experience but told me that it was the airlines, rather than the airport, which handled baggage. He added that some of the carriers at RIA, to cut costs, are hiring low wage inexperienced people to unload their planes. He told me that many fliers, including some Chamber of Commerce types, are not happy with the services provided by the airlines.

Okay, so USAir, it was you that had me and my wife waiting at the airport until nearly 11:30 last night. We, and the many other passengers at the baggage carousel, are not happy with your service. Instead of concentrating all your efforts on gobbling up Delta, you need to start taking care of your customers. There are other airlines, you know.

Richmond International—Get it Right!

They’ve been spending many millions on redoing Richmond International Airport. (I don’t know how they call it International; I have yet to see any flight on the arrival or departure board entering or leaving the country.) They say they are turning it into a first-class airport where flying will be fun and easy. After years of construction inconvenience the place is really starting to look great. But—

Last night, my wife was flying in from Charlotte (that’s a REAL airport). Her plane arrived at the gate at 10:40 PM. I met her and we went to pick up her baggage. Hundreds of other people, from five or six arriving flights, were already gathered around the baggage gates. Nothing was happening. To make our long late-night story short, the baggage from the Charlotte flight was not unloaded until after 11:20!

How can it possibly take forty minutes to unload a plane? Why spend millions making your facility look nice, if you can’t even get baggage from the plane to the baggage carousel? How can you talk about running a first-class airport if you can’t provide the most basic of services?

When you arrive at the parking facility at RIA, the sign says that if you park in the hourly garage the parking is free if you stay 30 minutes or less. What a meaningless promise! How can you possibly stay for less than 30 minutes if it takes 40 minutes to get your luggage?

Come on, RIA, you are embarrassing to the Greater Richmond Metropolitan Area! You need to start providing decent service or people are going to go back to flying in and out of Dulles, or Norfolk, or Newport News, or Williamsburg, or Stafford Regional Airport, or…

Sorry, Mr. Mayor

For the past several days I have been rather harsh with the mayor of our fair city.

This morning I was teaching Sunday school. My class and I were studying the commandment to love your fellow person as yourself in chapter 19 of Leviticus. My students explained to me that loving your fellow person meant treating him or her as you would wish to be treated. As they were explaining it, I realized that I have not been showing love to Mayor Wilder. I certainly wouldn’t want someone to treat me as I have been treating him.

So, Mr. Mayor, I am sorry. I will try to dialogue with you in the future in a more civilized manner.

Even a Maven must learn from his students.

Still Dreaming

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Martin Luther King, Jr., August 28, 1963.

I have always been moved by these words. First, because Martin Luther King, Jr., was such a brilliant speaker, and when I read his words I can still hear him speaking. Second, because Dr. King’s words are so consistent with the words of Moses in Deuteronomy 16:20: “Justice, justice shall you pursue.” In the Hebrew, the repetition of the word “tzedek, tzedek” makes it clear that justice is not something we can just sit around and wait for—we must go out and seek it. To me, a nation in which we judge people without reference to their race, ethnicity, nationality or religion, would be a truly just society.

Unfortunately, last weekend we found out that even though more than forty years have passed since Dr. King’s speech, we are nowhere near having a color-blind society. As the results of the two NFL conference championship games were discussed, it was stressed that history was being made. The coaches of the two teams—Lovie Smith of the Chicago Bears and Tony Dungy of the Indianapolis Colts—are both African Americans and therefore the winning coach of the Super Bowl will be African American.

There was little discussion of the brilliant seasons these two coaches had: No talk of their strategy; nothing about their ability to motivate their players; nothing about how hard it is to get their teams to the Super Bowl. No—the only thing relevant was that both coaches are African Americans.

The same day we were told that the Pittsburgh Steelers had hired Mike Tomlin to be their coach for next year. The story stressed that Tomlin will be the Steelers first African American head coach.

Sorry, Dr. King, your dream is still unfulfilled. We still judge people by the color of their skin.

Does this make sense in football? I can just imagine a 210 pound quarterback looking across the line of scrimmage at the four huge 320 pound defensive linemen who intend to break every bone in his body as soon as the ball is snapped. Then he looks at the five men on his offensive line and thinks how nice it is that his linemen are 40% Caucasian, 40% African American, and 20% Pacific Islander.

Are you kidding? All he cares about is whether those five guys are willing and able to protect his body from the oncoming horde. Any quarterback who concerns himself with the color, ethnicity, nationality or religion of his offensive linemen will probably end up on his butt in great pain.

We need to stop labeling people. We need to stop referring to each other as hyphenated Americans. We need to fulfill Dr. King’s dream and stop measuring people by the color of their skin, their ethnicity, their religion, or any other group identity. We need to recognize that Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy are great football coaches. Period!

Oh, I hope it is a wonderful Super Bowl.

Stop it Mr. Mayor, You're Hurting the City

Today I sent this email to Mayor D0ug Wilder:

Mr. Mayor,

I read with dismay your statement in the January 21 Mayor's Visions Newsletter "School Money Cannot Continue to be Wasted." Coming after your similar comments in your "state of the City" message, I can only conclude that your statements are intended to inflame public opinion against the School Board, the Superintendent of Schools, and others in the Richmond Public Schools administration. I consider it extremely irresponsible for the mayor of a city, whose job should include uniting the various factions in the city, to try to stir up so much animosity against decent public servants.

Your assertions that the school administration is wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer money while getting little in the way of results, is extremely misleading. The fact that you do not agree with some of the actions of the School Board does not mean money is being wasted. To assert that the Richmond Public Schools is not making progress in improving student achievement ignores that our schools have improved significantly in the past few years.

I am sure that the members of the School Board and the Superintendent are not satisfied with the progress that the schools are making. They are doing what they can to improve the quality of the schools.

You, on the other hand, can do nothing other than criticize, limit the City's share of school funds, exclude schools from your City of the Future and dispossess the School Board from its offices. In your January 20 speech, as reported in the Times Dispatch, you said you were not trying to pick fights with school officials. You said that "this has nothing to do with personalities" and that you have no desire to run the Richmond Public Schools. Unfortunately, your statements and actions make it hard to believe that your intent is innocent.

Mr. Mayor, I suggest that you keep eating the stuff that is already on your plate and allow the School Board and the Superintendent to do their jobs.

Mr. Wilder, Stop Playing Politics With Our Children

An article in the January 17 Richmond Times-Dispatch says that the leaders of Mayor Wilder’s commission on education are unhappy about “feuding” between the Mayor, the school administration and the city’s elected School Board. In my opinion, however, the article seems to place most of the blame on the School Board and ignores the fact that any feud that exists originated in Mr. Wilder’s efforts to force the School Board to follow his orders.

Since he has taken office, Mr. Wilder has been acting as if his election was an anointment and his inauguration a coronation. He insists on having his way and has waged war on any person or entity that refuses to go along. Whether it is the Performing Arts Center, a new stadium for the Braves, his battle with the City Council over whether it or the mayor has the power to legislate for the City, moving bus lines so that riders do not sit on the steps of his State Library, euthanizing the Maymount bears without his permission, punishing Creigh Deeds for opposing legislation Mr. Wilder proposed as Governor, or many other issues, King Doug’s rule has been “do it my way or not at all.” He reminds me of a kid we had at the school yard when I was young. Although we had a stick, the ball was his, and if we wanted to play stickball we had to play by his rules. If we refused, he took his ball and left.

His Excellency Mr. Wilder finds it unacceptable that, despite his huge election win, Title 22.1, Chapter 5, section 22.1-28 of the Virginia Code provides that “The supervision of schools in each school division shall be vested in a school board selected as provided in this chapter” rather than in the mayor. It is unthinkable to Mr. Wilder that any entity in the City of Richmond is authorized to operate without his control. So, just as he spent much of his first year in a power struggle with City Council, Mr. Wilder is now out to force the School Board and the school Superintendent to do his bidding.

Mr. Wilder fires all the shots. First he announces that Richmond Public Schools will not receive any more City funds for its operations in this year’s budget than it received last year. Then he announces that he is eliminating new school construction from his City of the Future because the School Board is not closing schools before their replacements are built as he demanded. Finally, he reminds the School Board that he is evicting them from their offices at City Hall at the end of the current school year. Mr. Wilder even tried to purge independent thinkers from the School Board by supporting opposing candidates in last November’s election.

The one thing that His Excellency doesn’t seem to care about is that the real victims of his vendetta against the School Board are the children of Richmond. Mr. Wilder must have his way, no matter who suffers. It is time that Mr. Wilder stops playing politics with the futures of our children.

Wrong Analogy, Mr. Hargrove

For those of you who noticed, I have not written since November. This corresponds with my being afflicted with some mysterious, nasty, devastating malady. Now that I am on the mend (or at least I hope I am) I take up the pen. I have been provoked by the statement made by the honorable Delegate Frank Hargrove, Republican, from Hanover County, that asking the Commonwealth of Virginia to apologize for slavery is like asking “the Jews to apologize for killing Christ.”

I think Mr. Hargrove misspoke. I’m sure what he meant to say was that asking the Commonwealth to apologize for slavery was like asking Christians to apologize for eighteen centuries of perpetuating the hateful lie that “the Jews” killed Jesus. This calumny enabled the church (both Roman Catholic and Protestant) to justify treating Jews as somewhat less than humans. It justified massacres, murder, rape, beatings. It justified burning Synagogues and destroying Jewish sacred books. It justified forcing Jews to live in walled ghettos, forcing Jews to wear identifying badges, excluding Jews from most occupations, expelling Jews from many countries, and generally keeping Jews in a state of subjugation for more than eighteen hundred years. All of this was done in the name of a god of love. It created an attitude of anti-Jewish feeling in Europe that eventually climaxed in the murder of nearly six million Jews, including more than a million children, by the Nazis. It contributed to the almost inexplicable fact that nearly all of the perpetrators of the Nazi Holocaust (all of those who pulled the triggers and all of those who herded naked victims into the death chambers) were born as Christians.

I think that because Mr. Hargrove probably had no ancestors who were held in a state of life-long bondage in our beloved Commonwealth and had no relatives who were murdered in Europe it is easy for him to advise African Americans to just get over it and to accuse Jews of being thin-skinned. And, it would be relatively harmless for him to express these views in private. However, it is totally unacceptable that he express them from the floor of the House of Delegates. Mr. Hargrove has embarrassed his constituents in Hanover County in particular, and the citizens of the Commonwealth generally. I hope the voters in Hanover County let him know in November that such conduct in a public official is not acceptable.

Don't Discourage Responsible Developers

The lead editorial in today’s Richmond Times Dispatch, titled “Charettes”, demonstrates the TD’s inability to understand that land developers have responsibilities other than making money. For those of you, like the Maven, who have never heard the word before, charettes are community meetings held to get public input concerning a specific project. The TD sees charettes as a form of market research that can increase the profits of investors. The TD also sees them as good public relations, giving neighbors of the proposed development the feeling that they have some influence in the final project.

However, the TD objects to charettes if they, in fact, allow neighbors of the project to have any say in the development. In the TD’s words, charettes are a problem if they give the impression that those affected by the project “ought to have as much of a role in making the final determination as investors. But, while developers are wise to welcome input from anyone who is interested, the final decision belongs to those who have put their good money down.”

The TD’s “the public be damned” attitude is very fitting for the late nineteenth century. It is the kind of attitude that when applied to land development creates all the nightmares that our friends in Northern Virginia are living now. After spending ten or more hours each week just getting to and from work, I am sure the Virginians up north are so happy that developers were never required to be responsible to the community.

Let me put this in terms that the TD understands—dollars. The taxpayers of Virginia will inevitably have to pay billions of dollars to fix the transportation mess that uncontrolled development has caused in Northern Virginia. Further, if we have uncontrolled development in Henrico and Chesterfield counties, the taxpayers will have to put down more money to fix those problems.

Unfortunately our less-than-great metropolitan daily is too blinded by dollar signs to recognize that developers can, and should be, responsible to the community in which they choose to build. Kudos to the developers of Three Acre Farm for their desire to be responsible developers and good neighbors.

Let’s Talk about the Democratic Party of Virginia

The Maven rarely admits that there is something he doesn’t know. Mavens are supposed to be all-knowing experts. So saying “I don’t know” or “I don’t understand” is particularly embarrassing. Besides, it’s bad for business. Who wants to use a maven that doesn’t know? Despite the risk, I have to admit that I have no idea what the Democratic Party of Virginia does.

I know it has a website. I know it has a staff. It even has a platform, adopted in 1995. But what does it do?

The first paragraph of its platform, entitled “Statement of Common Purpose”, says,

"We exist as a party to elect Democratic leaders of character, integrity, ability and vision at all levels of government in Virginia."

This is an admirable mission statement, but what does it have to do with reality? I’ve been watching, and I don’t think the Democratic Party of Virginia elects anybody!

But Maven, didn’t the Democrats elect Jim Webb to the Senate this year?

I’m not blind (yet). I know Webb won the election. But the Democratic Party of Virginia did not elect him. Webb had his own campaign organization, composed of professional political marketers and volunteers. It raised the money, it decided on strategy, it ran the TV ads (except for those from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee), it staged rallies, it canvassed voters, in short, it won the election. The only party involvement in the campaign that I saw was a “paid for by the Democratic Party of Virginia” on a Webb lawn sign.

But, what about the Democratic Representatives that were reelected to the Congress?

I’m sorry. They too were reelected by their own campaign committees, not by the Democratic Party.

But, what about last year? The Democrats elected Tim Kaine as Governor.

Wrong again! Governor Kaine was elected by his own campaign committee.

But, Maven, if the Democratic Party of Virginia doesn’t elect candidates, what does it do?

Please don’t answer a question with a question!

Let me tell you about political parties. I grew up politically a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away (Brooklyn, N.Y.). In New York, we had a Democratic Party that was organized from the bottom up. In every precinct there was a precinct captain who lived there. When he or she came to your door asking you to vote for Democratic candidates, it was one neighbor asking another neighbor for a favor. The basic organizing unit for the party was the state assembly district. Each assemblyperson was responsible for getting out the vote for all party candidates in every election. We didn’t have candidates with their own campaign committees; every candidate relied on the party to get him/her elected. Even in assembly districts in which the incumbent was not a Democrat (I prefer not to use the “R” word), the local political club ran the campaign. The party campaigned for slates. The name of every candidate from governor down to alderman or sheriff was contained on every piece of campaign literature distributed.

But, Maven, you’re not suggesting we do things that way in Virginia, are you? It would never work.

Maybe you are right. But think of a Democratic Party that is organized from bottom to top in Virginia, from the delegate level up to the state-wide level. Think of a party that campaigns on behalf of all candidates, not letting a particular candidate lose because of poor name-recognition or lack of money. (It was outrageous that the party did not do more for Leslie Byrne last year.) Think of a party that can elect candidates not only at the state-wide level but in local elections all over the Commonwealth. Think of a party that never concedes an election but nominates and campaigns actively for candidates in every congressional district, in every state senate district, in every House of Delegates district, in every county supervisor district, in every city council district. Think of a party that operates full time to get its message to the people of Virginia. Think of a party that relies on the sweat of volunteers rather than the money of corporations and interest groups to get candidates elected.

Maven, wake up!

I must have been dreaming. What were we discussing? Oh yeah…

Does anybody know what the Democratic Party of Virginia does?

The New Teflon Kid

What do these three names have in common? Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, Eric Cantor. They were all involved in raising millions of dollars for Republican members of Congress.

What do these three names not have in common? Jack Abramoff is going to jail. Tom Delay was forced to resign from the House of Representatives. Eric Cantor has been reelected to his fourth term in the House.

It makes you wonder what 64% of the voters in the 7th District of Virginia were thinking. Were they even thinking? Money and politics are so mixed in the electorate’s mind that they don’t seem to care any more.

It’s kind of strange. The polls indicate that the Congress is the only institution in the United States with a lower approval rating than President George. Yet, even in this “historic” election, more than 80% of the House incumbents running for reelection won. It seems that the voters believe that everyone in Congress is worthless except for their own Representative.

So the new Teflon kid has dodged the K Street lobbying scandal, at least for now. We are stuck with him for another two years. Of course there is always the consolation that Eric won’t be Assistant Majority Whip in the next Congress.

Okay, It’s Over, But Who Won?

It’s three days after the election and I am still analyzing the results. All the other pundits say it was a great victory for the Dems and a disaster for President George and the GOP. Even the President called it a “thumping,” and, because he always accepts responsibilities for what goes wrong, he fired Don Rumsfeld.

I think what these paid analysts forget is that we kicked out the Brits. We do not have a parliamentary system in our country. Our citizens don’t vote for parties, they vote for individual candidates. Many of these candidates do not identify their party affiliation in their campaign literature. In many states candidates are not even identified by party on the ballot.

The media and the press have been reporting for weeks that a significant majority of the American electorate supported transferring control of the Congress from the Republicans to the Democrats. That’s a meaningless statistic. I don’t remember seeing on the ballot any place where I could vote to change control of the Congress. All I could do was vote for one of two candidates for the Senate and for one candidate or a write-in for the House (my representative, Bobby Scott, ran unopposed). At most, I could only vote to change the occupants of two seats. I am sure that, except for those who voted “early and often,” no voter in the United States was able to affect more than two seats.

So what we had on Tuesday were 468 separate elections—435 in the House and 33 in the Senate. Although the broadcast networks and all the cable networks reported as if it was a single election, it was not.

So, who won?

I’m looking at a list in the paper of the election results as reported by the Associated Press. It lists the 426 individuals who won (9 elections had not yet been decided.) There’s another list showing the 33 winners in the Senate elections. Although I haven’t counted, I can see from the list that the vast majority of incumbent Representatives running for reelection won. Same thing in the Senate—most of the incumbents who ran for reelection won.

So, who won? Mostly incumbents.

Let’s forget the rest of the country (just for today). Who won in the Commonwealth?

A large majority of the voters ignored my advice and approved the so-called "marriage amendment.". I think the entire Commonwealth will lose because of this vote. The proponents of the amendment need to be praised, however. They marketed the vote as a referendum on marriage. Not too many people are against marriage, at least in principle, so many voted for the amendment probably without even reading it. This was a clear case of appealing to voter’s emotions rather than to their reason. It worked.

As for the congressional elections, the Republicans won.

But Maven, don’t you know that Jim Webb beat Senator George?

Of course I know that Jim Webb, who used to be a Republican, beat Senator George, who is still a Republican. But Webb didn’t win because he ran as a Democrat. He won despite it.

I hear people saying that Virginia is now a purple state, rather than a red one. Well, I looked at the map of the election broken down by county in the paper Wednesday morning and it showed a huge sea of red, with a few blue islands. Now those islands do hold a whole lot of people, but the commonwealth still looks red to me. Besides, that map was based on the senatorial election. Let’s look at the representative elections.

Virginia has eleven members in the House of Representatives. Before the election, eight of those seats were held by Republicans and only three by Democrats. And after the election? Eight held by Republicans; three held by Democrats. Surprise! All that campaigning; all that money spent; all those nasty signs erected, and we get back the same eleven people!

But, Maven, what about last year? Didn’t the Democrats win?

No!

Tim Kane, a Democrat was elected governor. That’s true. But, the other two state-wide offices were won by Republicans. And, the Republicans retained their control over both houses in the General Assembly.

So I’m afraid that Virginia is still a red state. A candidate running as a Democrat can be elected to state-wide office, if s/he runs a brilliant campaign. But s/he will have no coat-tails. The Republicans will win most of the other elections.

But, Maven, must this be a red state forever?

I’ll talk about that soon.

Signs (part 2)

I was driving around yesterday and I saw city workers harvesting the abundant crop of political signs. I will be glad to see the signs go, but I am not at all happy that the city chose not to enforce the anti-sign ordinance weeks or months ago. I presume that when a legislative body enacts a law, it intends for the law to be enforced. The ordinance, which is codified in Chapter 19 of the City Charter entitled “Nuisances and environmental control,” was enacted, I presume, to avoid the visual pollution in the city caused by everybody putting up signs all over the place.

The law declares all signs on public property to be nuisances, and provides that both the individual who erects the sign and the person or organization on whose behalf the sign is erected are guilty of violating the provision. The ordinance provides for a fine of between $10 and $25 for each sign posted, for each day that it is posted. It also states that if the city is forced to remove the signs it can collect the cost of removing the sign from the person or organization who posted it.

From the fact that the city did not enforce the ordinance with respect to political signs erected during the recent campaign, I must assume that the city government is flush with money. Why else would it deliberately refuse to assess fines or collect the cost of removal from the various campaign committees that planted all the signs? When the next budget cycle comes around, let’s all remember the thousands of dollars that the city did not collect this election year.

I’m Back

For those of you paying attention, the Maven has been silent for more than a week. It seems that my Muse, who puts these weird thoughts into my mind, took a vacation. I certainly don’t blame her. The level of nastiness prevailing during the week before the election must have really worn her out. I must confess that I wasn’t the picture of moderation and politeness in my ravings during the election season. But, I assume that you probably wouldn’t bother reading if I was all reason and no emotion.

Now, I intend to get back to saving the Commonwealth. (Please don’t ask “from what?”)

John Kerry, Why?

I know you're a war hero. You are an outstanding leader in the Senate. I voted for you two years ago, and I'm sure we would be better off if you had won.

But Senator, you have no talent for delivering one-liners. Your badly delivered joke has allowed the Republicans several more days to avoid dealing with their abysmal record.

Come on, John, let's not self destruct!

Male Bovine Excrement!!!

I CAN’T BELIEVE THE AUDACITY OF THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE! WHAT GALL! WHAT NERVE! WHAT CHUTZPAH!

(Maven, you’re shouting. Calm Down.)
(I DON’T WANT TO CALM DOWN! THIS TIME THEY HAVE GONE TOO FAR!).
(Maven, take a deep breath. Relax)

Okay. I think I’m rational again.

Not only are they polluting the air waves with their political lies, now, they are smelling up my mail box. It’s a huge over-sized post card and it says “Tax-and-spend liberals have a message for you.” TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS? Then they show pictures of John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean. Next it says, “If the Democrats win, they will roll-back the Republican tax cuts—and that means higher tax bill for everyone.” It concludes with “Don’t let the tax-and-spend liberals win.

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS?

Male Cow Poop!

Can we look at the facts? In the four fiscal years from 1998 through 2001, the United States Government, with a Democratic President, a Democratic Senate and a Republican House of Representatives, reduced the national debt held by the public by $394.6 billion.[*] In the five fiscal years from 2002 through 2006, the United States Government, with a Republican President, a Republican Senate and a Republican House of Representatives, increased the national debt held by the public by $1,503.9 billion.

Let’s look at this again. While the “tax and spend” liberals controlled the White House and half of the Congress, the Federal Government spent $394.6 billion less than it collected in revenue. While the “fiscally responsible” Republicans controlled the White House and the Congress, the Federal Government spent $1.5 trillion more than it collected in revenue. That is an average annual deficit exceeding $300 billion.

The Republicans keep lying and lying about spending. It is the Republican Congress and the Republican President that have continued to spend money at a deficit rate year after year after year. The “fiscally responsible” Republicans with their reckless spending have made future tax increases inevitable. It will be our children and grandchildren who will have to pay for the Republican spending binge.

Citizens of Virginia, the cradle of American democracy: Would Thomas Jefferson stand for these lies? Would Patrick Henry tolerate such rubbish? Would George Washington accept such trash? When in the course of human events it becomes necessary to get rid of our Republican oppressors, I know not what course others may take; but as for me, throw the anuses out!

[*] The debt held by the public represents the total national debt less that portion that the Government owes to the Social Security Trust Fund, the Civil Service Retirement Trust Fund and other government funds. The information I use comes from the Bureau of Public Debt website. publicdebt.treas.gov/

Lies, Fear and Smear

The Democrats want to lose in Iraq. The Democrats want to raise taxes. The Democrats want to destroy marriage. The Democrats are in favor of pornography. If the Democrats win control of the Congress, al Qaeda will attack us here at home. If the Democrats win control of Congress, the economy will collapse. The Democrats owe no allegiance to the people of America. Every Democratic candidate is under the control of those left-wing Liberals Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and John Kerry. A Democratic victory will mean the end of American civilization. I’ve got a list of 250 communists in the Democratic Party. Oops, forget the last one; I forgot what year it is.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” So said Joseph Goebbels, the propaganda minister of Nazi Germany. Murray Chotner used the big lie technique to bring us Richard Nixon. Karl Rowe used it to bring us George W. Bush. And now President George and his Republican buddies are using the big lie technique in a desperate attempt to hold on to power for the next two years.

Whether it’s the political ad trumpeting the lie or the stump speech stirring up fear, the one thing the Republicans don’t want the voters to look at is their record over the past six years. The campaign strategy is simple: make the Democrats look so evil that the voters will reelect us even if we have done a terrible job. We have to make the people afraid to vote for a Democrat.

This lie-fear-smear strategy appeals to the most basic of human emotions. It is based on a desire to get people to vote from their gut rather than from their mind. It is based on an elitist mentality that says that the American people aren’t smart enough to deal with issues. It’s based on a suspicion that if the electorate actually voted on the issues, they might vote against our side. Therefore, lie to them, terrify them, cover your opponent with slime. But at all costs, don’t let the voters think.

Citizens of Virginia! Isn’t it about time that we told the purveyors of lie, fear and smear that we don’t fall for this outrageous campaign tactic? Go to the polls next week and show them that we Virginians can vote with our minds, not with our instincts. Show them that we are not too stupid to understand issues. Show them that despite their smokescreens we can see that “the Emperor is naked.” Six years of Republican mismanagement is enough. Vote Democratic.

Book burning

It’s not only our junior senator who is attacking Jim Webb’s writing. Now the book-burners are out in full force. Before you even think of voting for Allen next week, think of how it will be: the only book at the public library will be a dictionary—abridged, of course. And then the thought police will come knocking on the door to see what is on your book shelf.

Get the Red Out!

I grew up in the 1950s, so to me the color red is particularly troubling. In my schools they taught me that there were the good guys—us—and the bad guys—the REDS. So, when the media divided the country, I was (and still am) very upset that they put me in a Red State.

Even after the end of the Cold War, the Red States to me are Viet Nam, China, North Korea, and . . . Virginia? Being called a Red State is a blot on the partially flawless image of the Old Dominion.

It’s time we did something about this! We need to make Virginia “True Blue”. It’s time to get the Red out.

Vote Democratic!

George is getting to be an embarrassment

Our beloved junior senator has said time and again that he wants this election campaign to turn on issues rather than on attacks on character. Of course, he only meant this rule to apply to Jim Webb. It is clear that Senator George doesn’t think he can win on his record, so like any good loyal Bushite he’s gotta fling manure. But this latest attack on Webb based on the fiction he has written is absolutely surrealistic.

George, the books Jim Webb wrote are FICTION. In case you don’t know what that means, HE MADE THEM UP. And, George, when somebody makes things up, they don’t represent his or her character. They’re just a story.

Senator George, you’re supposed to represent the people of Virginia. Do you want the rest of the country to think that we are so dumb that we would vote against a guy because he wrote some fiction that you don’t like? I actually received e-mail from a friend in another state putting Virginians down because we elected someone who could say what you said. When you say things like that, George, you’re not only embarrassing yourself, you’re embarrassing each and every citizen of the Old Dominion.

So, Senator George, let’s cut out this mud-flinging and get back to the issues. Start talking about your record. How have you done on the war against al Qaeda? What about your forever support of our “nation-building” in Iraq? Explain how an increase of 48% in the national debt since you’re been in office represents fiscal responsibility? Tell us what you’ve done to save Social Security? Tell us how your head-in-the-sand attitude toward climate change has helped protect the earth. Explain to the tens of thousands of Virginians who suffer from pain and premature death from a wide range of diseases how they are helped by your vote against stem-cell research. Don’t forget to talk about your drugs for seniors program, which has increased profits for pharmaceutical and insurance companies but has left elders with huge donut holes in their coverage. You might also want to talk about why both North Korea and Iran have significantly increased their nuclear weapons programs since you have been in office. Finally, you can tell us why you have no solution to the immigrant problem other that branding millions of people as criminals and building a “Berlin Wall” on our southern border.

Reelect George Braxton

As long as I'm picking on King Doug, I might as well post a letter I am sending to the Richmond Free Press:

I was disappointed, although not surprised, by your reporting of Mayor Wilder’s not quite endorsement of Jerry Miller, who is running against School Board incumbent George Braxton in the city’s fourth district. Mr. Wilder was elected by a wide margin and took office expecting that he would run the City of Richmond as he saw fit. He didn’t anticipate that there were members of the City Council and the School Board who would actually have opinions of their own. Mr. Wilder has been in constant conflict with the Council and with the Board, and at times he has not prevailed. Mr. Wilder is so upset that he didn’t always get his way during the first two years of his term that he is trying to purge both the Council and the School Board of those individuals who did not support him completely. George Braxton is apparently one of those independent-minded members of the School Board with whom the Mayor would prefer not to deal starting in January.

I don’t know much about his opponent, but George Braxton, himself a product of the Richmond Public Schools, is a decent, smart, hard-working man who is dedicated to providing a first-class education for all of Richmond’s children. In his two years on the School Board he has faithfully represented the interests of his fourth district constituents. George Braxton is working to make the public schools of the City of Richmond the best in the Commonwealth of Virginia, if not in the nation. He is determined to stop the flow of young Richmond couples to the suburbs in search of what they think will be better schools. During his first term on the Board, Mr. Braxton has worked well with the Superintendent and with other members of the Board. His colleagues respect him so much that they chose him as Vice Chairman after only a year on the Board.

I urge Free Press readers in the fourth district to reward George Braxton’s hard work with another term on the School Board. Don’t let Mr. Wilder’s desire for a compliant Council and School Board ruin the career of this exceptional public servant.

Sign, Sign, Everywhere a Sign

I know it’s not spring ‘cause the days are getting shorter. It’s also getting pretty cold at night, which feels more like fall than spring. But, everywhere I look I see these colorful rectangular growths jutting out of the ground. Most are blue, some are white, and even some are red. And they have things written on them—people’s names. In this part of Richmond, the blue ones either say George Allen for Senate, Jim Webb for Senate, or Jim Nachman for Congress. The white ones either say George Braxton for School Board or Jerry Miller for School Board. The only red ones say Eric Cantor for Congress. It’s election time in Richmond

For a while, all the signs were the same size, maybe 18 inches by 30 inches (I’m just guessing). Now I’m beginning to see all these mega-signs. They are at least four times the size of the other ones. The first mega-signs I saw bore the names of Republicans George Allen and Eric Cantor. Why would you think Republicans need all these super-size signs? Can it be that they are lacking in vision? Or maybe they feel a bit inadequate. Maybe they have a need to brag that “mine is bigger than yours.” Or just maybe they have too much money to spend between now and Election Day. Oh, now one of our school board candidates, Jerry Miller, is also using these mega-signs. School Board elections are supposed to be nonpartisan, but the super- size signs lead me to the conclusion that Miller must be a Republican too.

And what’s with Eric Cantor? The National Journal says he is the second most conservative of the entire Virginia congressional delegation (including senators). And his signs are RED! When I was a wee lad, nobody would think of using red. Red meant commie. Hey, at the height of the Cold War, the Cincinnati baseball club changed its name from Reds to Redlegs so nobody would doubt their patriotism. Isn’t it weird that we refer to conservative strongholds as Red States? Back in the day, the Red States were China, the USSR and the countries of Eastern Europe.

I’m getting a bit tired of all these signs. They are everywhere—on people’s lawns, along the sides of roads, between sidewalks and the curb, on median strips. After a while they are just plain ugly. I guess if citizens wants to put up a sign on their own property they have a right to do so. But, what about public property? A part of that public property belongs to you and me. Should we be forced to have political signs on our part of the commons? I gotta check on this.

I’m going on line to my beloved internet and checking in the Charter of the City of Richmond. Hey, look here. Chapter 19 of the City Code deals with nuisances and Article II of that chapter deals with posting of signs. Section 19-22 is entitled “Posting of signs or advertising prohibited.” I must be getting close. Hey, it says that it is unlawful for anyone to post any sign, including a political sign, on public property. It also declares that any violation of the prohibition is a nuisance and that anybody is free to remove these nuisances from public property.

I don’t understand. If it is unlawful to post signs on public property, why are all these signs out there. Wait while I call a friend who might know. . . . Would you believe it, he says that Douglas Wilder, our beloved mayor, has instructed city employees not to enforce this ordinance before Election Day. I wonder—does the City Charter authorize the mayor to instruct city employees NOT to do their jobs? Aren’t we the citizens of Richmond entitled to a mayor who enforces the law rather than ignores it?

(Wasn’t it just yesterday that I said I had nothing much to say about His Mayorship?)

For Roger

My friend Roger who lives in Christiansburg, which is several hundred feet above Roanoke, asked me to write about three things: 1- the Redskins; 2- the live balls being used at the World Series; and 3; His Mayorship Doug Wilder.

1- Roger seems to forget that I am the James River, not the Potomac River, maven. I could write tons of stuff about “Your Richmond Braves,” but what can I say about the Skins? They suck? That would be unkind. So I will put it this way, there is nothing wrong with this team that cannot be fixed by turning back the clock and bringing in the Hogs, Joey Theisman and Riggo.

2- At my age, what do I know about live balls? (Hey it’s okay to tell age jokes about yourself.) I mean, really, if it’s okay for pitchers to use dark stuff, why not use live balls? The fans want to see lots of scoring; let them have homeruns.

3- Surprisingly, I have very little to say about King Doug these days. In times past I could have burned up cyberspace with the heat of my invective. But, hey, Doug actually endorsed a Democrat yesterday. Of course if he hadn’t been so vindictive last year and had endorsed Creigh Deeds, we might not now have an attorney general who embarrasses himself by saying that the second and third sentences of the marriage amendment will raise no legal issues.

How was that, Roger?

Saving Marriage?

They tell me that we need this amendment to save marriage. (I know I’m being a bit vague, but you know who “they” is). They say that if I vote against this amendment I must be opposed to marriage. They hint that if this amendment is defeated civilization as we know it is doomed.

What kind of crap is this?[*]

What I want to know is what are we saving marriage from? What exactly is it that is threatening marriage? What is so dire an emergency that we need to amend the Commonwealth’s constitution to save us?

Although Virginia law already prohibits same gender marriages, they tell us that we need this amendment to make really sure that two men or two women, who love each other, can never claim they are married. Because if they do . . .

Is there something I’m missing? Is my marriage suddenly and severely threatened if a homosexual couple moves in next door? Will my wife suddenly demand that I move out because the two men or two woman living next door claim they are married? How many healthy marriages in the Commonwealth do they think will suddenly end if homosexual couples are permitted a relationship that resembles marriage?

But wait, maybe they are right. I can see it happening. A young innocent, defenseless married couple is sitting at their kitchen table eating dinner. Outside, two roaming homosexuals who claim to be married peek in the window. They sneak around to the back of the house. They silently open an unlocked window and creep into the house. They tiptoe toward the kitchen. Suddenly, they LEAP out and SIEZE the poor unknowing couple and shout out, “YOUR MARRIAGE IS OVER!” And another Virginia marriage bites the dust![†]

Nearly half of the marriages in this country already end in divorce or with two people coexisting although they can’t stand each other. Will the “marriage amendment” save those marriages?

We allow wife-beaters to marry. We allow child sexual-abusers to marry. For some reason, it’s only gays and lesbians that threaten the institution of marriage. Clearly we need to amend our Bill of Rights to stop the menace.

Look, I am pro-marriage. I am pro-people. I am pro-love. I will vote no on that inane amendment.

[*] Not that it is any of their business but I have been married, to the same woman, for nearly 40 years. Clearly I am not opposed to marriage.

[†] This is a cleaned-up version of a shtick by comedian Lewis Black.

Taxes

I really love the new ad from the Republican National Committee. It accuses all Democrats of wanting to raise taxes to pay for their outrageous spending. It says that, if the Democrats are elected, spending and taxes will go through the roof.

Huh! The Democrats are big spenders?

This one suddenly eclipses Senator John McCain’s outrageous statement that Bill Clinton is responsible for the North Korean nuclear test as my nominee for the October Chutzpah Award. (For those of you unfamiliar with the term, chutzpah is a Yiddish word meaning nerve or gall. An example of chutzpah is the teenager who kills both his parents and then asks for leniency from the judge because he is an orphan.)

Let’s look at the facts. Since January 2001, when Republican George Bush took office as president with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives and a split Senate, which became controlled by the Republican two years later, the United States Government has spent $2.8 trillion dollars more than it has received in revenue. That means that the “fiscally responsible” Republicans have increased the national debt, which you and I and our children and our grandchildren and probably our great-grandchildren will have to pay off, by about 48%. How can they blame this on the Democrats when they have controlled the White House and the Congress while this new debt was piling up? Let’s all recognize that it is the Republicans who are the big spenders in Washington.

The Republicans claim they are fiscally responsible. They claim they have lowered taxes. Come on RNC. Are the actions of Mr. Bush and his Republican congressional cohorts really resulting in lower taxes? Hell no! They have merely moved the tax burden from themselves to a future generation. Eventually some one has to pay off that debt. Their spend now-pay later philosophy is the farthest thing from fiscal responsibility I can think of.

Despite this the RNC has the chutzpah to blame everything on the Democrats. I suppose the big bad Democrats armed with assault rifles, thanks to the National Rifle Association, forced the Republicans to approve all those bloated appropriations acts. And what about Mr. Bush? Did he veto even one of those huge appropriations and insist that the Congress be fiscally responsible? Did he suggest that because we are in a major war perhaps we need to delay the tax cuts for his wealthy friends?

Returning the Republicans to power for two more years of uncontrolled deficit spending makes no sense. It is time to throw the rascals out

A traitor?

As Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and Mr. Rumsfeld have made clear recently, we are engaged in a war of biblical proportions between the forces of good (us) and the forces of evil (them). We need to stand united and must back the policy of this government. If we don't, if we dare to criticize the Administration's policies, we are endangering the future of all humankind. We must salute Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld and get on with their war. We must not give aid and comfort to the enemy by questioning anything this Administration does. I guess since I have serious questions of why we ever got into this war and how we're fighting it, I must be a traitor. I wonder if that is worse than being a Liberal.

Clearly, Mr. Bush and his friends in the Administration must believe in the philosophy of Joseph Goebbels, Propaganda Minister of Nazi Germany:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

President Adams, the elder, and his Federalist cohorts passed the Sedition Act to crush dissent against his government. I guess we should feel lucky that Bush and company have not yet made dissent criminal. So far, it is merely unAmerican.

Hello and Goodbye to George and George

My favorite incumbent U.S. president was in Richmond yesterday, tying up traffic, adding a pumpkin-worth of currency to the local economy, and raising many dollars more for the campaign war chest of my favorite junior senator. Not that Senator George really needs the money. He already has millions that he will bestow on our local media in exchange for the privilege of polluting our televisions with his ads. Senator George could do a lot more for the Virginia citizens he says he loves by just walking around the neighborhoods of Richmond and distributing money to everybody he sees.

In his speech, President George made it clear that, despite what everybody in the country seems to think, this election is not about him. That should be music to the ears of many Republican candidates around the country. Unfortunately, it won’t help Senator George very much.

Although George and George have made it clear that they are opposed to human cloning, their record during the nearly six years they have been in Washington makes me wonder. On almost every issue these two guys are as alike as any two of the thousands of acorns piling up in my backyard. Even their smirks are indistinguishable. And they are such rascally critters that I’m sure Dr. Seuss would refer to them as Thing One and Thing Two.

Thankfully, George and George have left Richmond. And, if my fellow Virginians do the right thing on Election Day, we will send Senator George back to California where he can find a less boring career. As for President George, at noon on January 20, 2009, we can be rid of him too.

Adieu sweet clones!

The Marriage Amendment--WWJD

I am very surprised by the Washington Post poll which shows that 53% of Virginia voters support the so-called marriage amendment. My initial thought was, “didn’t they poll any Christians?” Thinking Christians cannot possibly support this amendment.

1- When Jesus was asked what the great commandment in the law was, he replied “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” Matt. 22:37-40.

Does the “marriage amendment” demonstrate love of God? By outlawing some of God’s children, the amendment shows scorn, not love, of God. Can one love the Creator and yet hate His creation? The amendment violates what Jesus called “the great and first commandment.” It also violates the second commandment. One does not show love for one’s neighbors by taking away their rights.

2- Jesus taught, “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” He described as hypocrites those who criticized the perceived sins of others while ignoring their own behavior. Matt. 7:1-5. The “marriage amendment” is based on a judgment that the lifestyle of some people is not acceptable in Virginia. It violates Jesus’ admonition to not judge.

3- When faced with the punishment of a sinner, Jesus said, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." John 8:7 Are the supporters of the “marriage amendment” so pure that they can throw stones at those they consider sinners? Is not voting for this amendment casting the first stone?

The bumper sticker asks “WWJD?”—what would Jesus do? Based on his teachings, it is clear that Jesus would vote “no” on the proposed amendment.