Developer Tom Rust Gives Immunity to Out of State Drunk Drivers?It is unconscionable to draft and adopt legislation that discriminates against residents of the Commonwealth in favor of out of state drivers?
Jay Donahue, Democratic candidate for Delegate from Virginia's 86th District (Herndon/Sterling) reacted strongly today to the so-called "abuser fee penalties" enacted last session by the Virginia Assembly. The proposal was written and initially introduced by Delegates Tom Rust, (R-86) and David Albo.
?It is unconscionable to draft and adopt legislation that discriminates against residents of the Commonwealth in favor of out of state drivers?, Donahue said. ?The fact that a drunk or reckless driver from New York is able to escape penalties that Virginia drivers must pay is an insult to fairness and common sense. I support stern penalties for irresponsible drivers who refuse to respect our laws. But with our interstate highways filled with large numbers of out of state drivers, we must require the same standards we demand of ourselves.?In response to a question on the feasibility of charging out of state drivers, Donahue replied, ?Legislation that does not apply fairly to all should not become law. The Republican majority refused to follow Governor Kaine's lead on the plan to finance transportation funding. The abuser law, as written, is just another quick patch to avoid a long term, thoughtful approach to transportation planning.?
Donahue's campaign manager Steve D'Amico criticized Delegate Rust's defense of the bill, supposedly modeled after a New Jersey statute. ?But New Jersey forces all drivers to pay the increased penalties, not just in-state residents?, D'Amico said. ?It is the favoritism toward out of state drivers at the expense of Virginians that makes Delegate Rust's legislation particularly ill-advised.?
Interesting, looks to me like the Democrats have been handed a powerful issue on a silver platter by too-clever-by-half Republicans. And that could put some Republican seats, heretofore not considered competitive, into play. Like Tom Rust's seat, for instance. Now, what about a write-in campaign against Dave Albo while we're at it?
Kaine also spent a good deal of time on WTOP last week talking about the abuser fees, the audio of which is available here: http://www.governor....
Why are you guys trying to make the Governor's life so hard on him? Don't you realize this constant drumbeat is also hurting him and every other Democrat who supported this policy? Lowell has inferred I'm not a good Democrat because I like Tom Rust, but how can a "good Democrat" spend so much time at cross-purposes with the Governor and the Democratic legislative delegation?
But I'll summarize: 90% of this problem is the House Republican's fault (of which Rust is one) because they insisted on doing transportation their way. Their way or no way at all. Kaine's "rewrite" had precious little wiggle room and the House Dems had virtually no say whatsoever. But I do save 10% of the blame for everyone else (the Gov, the Democrats, the Senate Republicans, and the people of Virginia) - mostly because they didn't take a stronger stand against those House Republicans, even if it meant no bill.
As for making Kaine's life hard, we've been hearing that one since the early days of Raising Kaine - it didn't hold water then and it doesn't now.
You say the abuser fees were part of Kaine's "rewrite" of the Republican bill, which is flat-out false. The fees were part of what he initially proposed when he took office in 2006 to deal with the transportation funding crisis. He put them forward again in 2007.
I have no problem with the fees, as I've said before. I was sitting there when he introduced this thing, I supported it then, and I support it now. I think you all are asking for trouble if your line is "take back the abuser fees and give us a gas tax." How well do you think a gas tax is going to go over when people are paying upwards of $3.00 a gallon? The Governor was smart enough not to even propose that because he knew it was a non-starter with everyone - not just the GOP.
2. Even Jay Donahue has not said that he would repeal the fees. Read his release carefully - he supports the concept.
I still think you are putting good Democrats in a very untenable position.
I, and a good number of others, feel that it is not so difficult to tell what came first - Kaine's hands were tied from the beginning. So whether it was this year or last year doesn't really matter - he had to discuss funding options other than the responsible gasoline tax if he wanted a transportation bill passed.
How he presents it is also in question. Regardless of exactly how much he actually likes specific parts of the bill, I'm pretty sure Kaine is happy that he was part of getting a transportation bill passed. With that in mind, it would be difficult for him to rip one of the aspects of the bill because he was, as you and others point out, part of it. But there is no way to tell if he really likes that aspect or if he is merely going along with it because that's how people sell their efforts. Saying he supports it is the safe route and I get the impression he is taking a cautious approach to this whole matter. Ripping the abuser fees may (or may not) be how he really feels, but it would certainly be risky to say so.
And I didn't mean to say that the abuser fees were only part of Kaine's rewrite - sorry if it came out that way.
As for the gasoline tax - are you kidding? With price constantly in flux no one would notice a nickel or dime tax increase. Virginia's tax is 39th in the U.S. last I checked at a minimal 17.5 cents per gallon. That's nothing compared to $3 or even $2 per gallon at the pumps. The tax would go almost unnoticed in the ever fluctuating prices at the gas pumps.
Furthermore, this is the most responsible means of paying for transportation that I've seen. Perhaps you know of others - I'm all ears. This idiotic abuser fee is bad to begin with and, IMO, belongs in the realm of public safety, not public funding. Perhaps a major overhaul and a change of venue and I'd be ok with it.
Back to the point - gasoline taxes are a direct link to road usage so they are closely tied with the notion of paying for what one uses. I know that's a crazy concept for some people, but those who feel any sense of responsibility should be comfortable with paying their own way. There are some minor differences based on fuel economy, but vehicle choice is a driver preference so I have no sympathy for those who drive SUVs paying more for the same miles driven as a gas sipper.
So if you have a better alternative fund idea I'd love to hear it. Otherwise I'm sticking with the gasoline tax as the best way to deal with funding the transportation bill.
Governing the entire state is quite different than legislating or representing one district.
Kaine has a responsibilities to the entire state to see that something gets done on transportation. It has been clear from the beginning that the ONLY thing holding up progress has been the House of Delegates. It has also been clear from the beginning that one of the few solutions that the HOD would agree to was abuser fees.
I assume Kaine thought that his best opportunity to make something happen was in an election year. It is also clear is that Governor Kaine included this proposal in his budget as a concession in an attempt to get something done for the Commonwealth.
He clearly could have vetoed the entire proposal, but in his judgment, he felt that getting something done NOW was more important than standing on principle and delaying transportation funding another year.
Many of us disagree with that judgment and think he should have vetoed the bill entirely, but accepting a Republican proposal for the purpose of compromise does not make abuser fees the Governor's idea, a Democratic idea, or necessarily the right thing to do. It is clear that it was simply the lesser of many evils that he was forced to accept if he wanted to accomplish anything.
Just like Sophie's Choice - that doesn't make the choice he made necessarily right.