Finally the Democratic Party have ditched they're election-year disguise of opposing tax increases and are back in their usual tax-increasing form.

Unlike what happened last year, when Republicans pushed through a package of "fee" and regional TAX increases?  Unlike what happened under Mark Warner, when the Republican-controlled House and Senate agreed to a responsible, much-needed tax package that raised revenues for our state?  And now, the Republicans' answer is what exactly?  Let the roads, bridges, trains, etc. collapse because there's no money to fix them?  Slash spending on education and public safety in order or scrounge up money for this purpose?  Or borrow, borrow, borrow, and spend -- the Republicans' favorite course of action at the federal level (see record deficits under Bush and Republican Congress) and state levels?  Wonderful.

But was not the neccesity of the increase born out of a revision to the methods of accounting used in government obligations as well as the forecasting model that was approved by both Rep and Dem under Warner after Gilmore.  The package certainly raised revenues but once the surplus was created exactly where were those funds allocated---thats the issue in my view--b/c it certainly was not towards transportation as a means of staying ahead of the curve. It will never be cheaper than today to solve the problem. It will only use up more of our revenues the longer we put it off. Will the Republicans come back with a cost-cutting plan for the State Budget in a proposal that would prevent such tax increases requirements.

Democrats should identify major road projects in vulnerable Republican house districts that will not be funded due to obstruction of new funding.  

Democrats need to identify the 5-6 most vulnerable delegates and go after swing voters in their districts.

If they're going to be total obstructionists, which is what they're being, they deserve to bear the full political consequences.

Who are the 5-6 vulnerable delegates?

Based on 2007 election returns, I used these criteria:

I looked in the NoVA area and Hampton Roads for Republicans.

If (R) opposed, lowest margin of victory over the (D):
Rust (53%)
Lingamfelter (55%)
Hugo (57%)
Marshall, Robert (58%)
Frederick (59%)

If (R) unopposed, how many write-ins against the candidate:
Albo (12% write ins)
Hamilton (6.8%)

I guess something else you could look into is to see how well funded the (D) opponent was.  Some campaigns operate on a shoestring, and perhaps with some more funding a 55-45 election for the (R) could be swung to a 52-48 (D), especially if traffic sucks and the (R) is seen to be partially responsible.

An effective tactic may be for the Republican leadership to "assign" the right to vote for a transportation funding proposal to the most vulnerable delegates, but not enough to actually make a difference in the outcome.  Maybe I'm too cynical.

MSP

on this and not partisan BS.  Obama is post-partisan, he's moving past the 200+ years of American political history.  This partisan bashing is the politics of the past.  And as an Obama supporter, should we not be walking in his footsteps?

I read Pierce R. Homer's Revised Revenue Forecast.  The big dips are the loss of the abusive driver fee and the slow economy.  Is it a bright idea to increase the grantor's tax when real estate sales are at a low?  And what do home sales have to do with road maintenance (it's a stretch even if you want to argue that certain developments contribute to the problem)?  Also, increase the Motor Sales and Use Tax when auto sales are abysmal?  

The only real loss of revenue at the state level is the abusive driver fee.  The rest of the reported 7-year, billion dollar gap is attributed to the slow economy (recession as some folks might call it).  And Lowell, I know you know this.  When sales fall, when the economy slows, sales and excise tax revenues are going to fall too.  But it is not going to stay that way indefinitely.  

What I want from Governor Kaine, and we should all want this, is an explanation of the math that VDOT is using in their projections.  Projections make a lot of assumptions and we need to know what those are.  Because we can be absolutely certain that if we increase the tax rates, the economy turns around, and the Transportation Fund is flush with money; the state is not going to refund that money.  If this isn't systemic and it is a cyclical deal, it isn't a crisis and we don't need to do much over HB 3202 (which Kaine lauded as bipartisan solution).

As to the RTAs, it was Kaine who amended much of the taxation authority in HB 3202 to be under the RTAs and not the counties.  It was this act that the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional.  The only thing we need to do to get that money back is go to back to the original wording that authorized the counties to impose the taxes.  

I don't think we should demonize Republicans when they aren't the only problem here.  McDonnell and Albo had some interesting ideas buried in their statements about this.  Albo with indexing the Gas Tax and vehicle registration.  And McDonnell with congestion pricing, tolls, user fees.  Are you going to argue that increasing the Grantor's tax is a better idea?

We are back to shoring up maintenance funds again and I thought HB 3202 was supposed to solve that.  So, I am perplexed as to why Kaine is asking for money again.  And it isn't for new construction money, it is just to prevent a raid on existing construction funds.  So, let's not fool NoVA and HR residents that this going to mean new roads, less congestion.