Time to Change the Frame

August 8, 2011 by David Toscano

August 8, 2011

Watching the recent debt ceiling debate in Washington was discouraging, not just because of the vitriol pervasive in the exchanges, but the nature of the discussion itself. We have now come to the point in this country where our focus is not on how we can rebuild our economy and create jobs in a fiscally responsible manner, but on how quickly we can defund proven programs that the American people support without asking all portions of our society, particularly the wealthy, to share the pain in putting our financial house in order.

Our national political debate has shifted away from a policy discussion about jobs, investments, and economic recovery to cuts and deficit reduction. It is time to change the debate.

Remember how we got here. When Bill Clinton left office, we had a budgetary surplus in this country. After eight years of President George W. Bush, with his legacy of massive tax cuts for the wealthy, a new prescription drug benefit that was never properly funded, two wars paid for by massive borrowing, and an economy heading into a recession deeper than anything experienced since the Great Depression, this country had a budget deficit of $407 billion and a debt of $10.6 trillion.

To think we could be pulled out of this ditch without a massive change in direction was fanciful. The stimulus program (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA) brought some measure of relief, especially to states like our own, but the economy still lags. Now, the recent actions of Congress, and worse yet, some proposals yet to be realized, run the risk of further depressing job growth at a time when we need it more than ever. For example, Republicans in the House of Representatives are now proposing to dramatically cut transportation funding. All that will mean is that thousands of well-paid jobs will be lost and our infrastructure further ignored. That will be the consequence of a cuts-only approach to our budgetary challenges.

What does this mean for Virginia? Our governor recently praised this year’s so-called state budgetary “surplus,” but failed to acknowledge that we could not be in the black this year without our receipt of ARRA monies from the federal government (a program he decried), cuts to education and the social safety net, and “borrowing” from our state retirement plan (VRS). Because our state’s economy is so dependent on federal spending, we will likely lose jobs and revenues because of the debt ceiling deal, thereby putting greater pressure on our budget.

Even before the federal deal, a report from the independent think tank, The Commonwealth Institute, projected a budget shortfall for Virginia in the next budget biennium approaching $800 million. And a recent study by George Mason University documents the Commonwealth’s inadequate investment in our transportation network, a dynamic which depresses job growth and hurts our competitiveness.

Unless we change the debate and begin discussing ways to close budget gaps without solely resorting to further cuts, the Commonwealth could look very different in five years than it does at present.

What could we do to enhance revenue in Virginia? If we reformed our tax structure to reduce the rate to 5.6% for those who make less than $75,000 a year and increase to 6.85% the rate for those who earn over $400,000, we could raise an additional $300 million in 2013*.

And even if one is skittish about reforming the income tax, what about closing some tax preferences for some of Virginia’s largest industries? If we were to eliminate special tax preference for the coal industry, which costs Virginians $94 million per year**, we could reduce the tax rate for all Virginia corporations by one-half percent, providing them all with monies they could reinvest in factories and jobs, while creating additional tax revenues of approximately $26 million per year to help fund schools and public safety.

Most Virginians recognize the way to address budgetary challenges is through a balanced approach. They recognize the need to further invest in education and transportation to create jobs and a high performing workforce. They realize that helping those most in need, whether they are the elderly in nursing homes or children with inadequate access to health care, are central to what it means to be a Commonwealth. And they believe that everyone should share in the gains of economic growth and the restraint necessitated by fiscal discipline.

In this country and in our Commonwealth, we are at risk of losing our balance. The only way to restore it is to change the nature of the debate.

Sincerely,

David

Reminder: The City Democratic Firehouse Primary for City Council and Clerk of Court is Saturday, August 20, 2011. This is likely to be THE ELECTION for City Council, so I hope we will have a big turnout. If you want your voice heard, vote between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. at Burley Middle School.

* This proposal was made in HB 2588 a 2009 bill patroned by Delegate David Englin and which I co-patroned. The bill was tabled in the House Finance Committee.

** This represents $44.1 million of credits claimed under the Coalfield Employment Enhancement Tax Credit, and an estimated $50 million claimed under the Virginia Coal Employment and Production Incentive Tax credit, as estimated by the Virginia Division of Legislative Services. The exact amount for the latter is not released by the Department of Taxation because three or fewer companies actually claim the credit.

New Laws go into Effect July 1, 2011

July 1, 2011 by David Toscano

General Assembly Update (7/1/11)

Today marks the effective date on hundreds of new laws passed by the 2011 General Assembly. I am proud to have passed several bills this year that will promote solar energy generation, make mortgage refinance easier, and streamline adoptee’s access to birth records, among others.

Here is a summary of several other interesting bills that are now law. Please share your thoughts on these with me by email or facebook.

Persons in dating relationships are now eligible to obtain protective orders. In the past, abused spouses or those in a familial relationship with an abuser were eligible but those in dating relationships that did not live with their abuser or have a child with him or her were not. My bill on this subject, HB 2422 was incorporated into the final legislation (HB 2063).

Localities can now permit school systems to install video cameras on school buses to detect vehicles that illegally pass stopped buses that may be picking up or dropping off children (HB1911).

Victims of sexual abuse now have 20 years–up from two years–to file lawsuits against their alleged attackers. As a member of the Courts of Justice Committee, I heard hours of testimony on this bill which, while not perfect, provides more time for victims to come to terms with their traumatic experience and initiate civil court proceedings (HB1476).

Motorcyclists, mo-ped operators and bicyclists can now proceed through steady red lights after two light cycles or two minutes if their vehicle doesn’t trigger a light change as long as they exercise due care (HB1981).

Restaurants licensed by the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board can permit customers to bring in and consume their own wine and can charge a corkage fee (SB1292).

Individuals who have cast absentee ballots but who die before Election Day will now have their ballots counted (HB1568).

State workers will receive a 5 percent pay raise in exchange for being required to pay 5 percent of their salary toward the Virginia Retirement System, which was recently found to have a $17 billion “unfunded liability.” (Read more about that issue here)

Producers selling agricultural produce or eggs in farmers markets and roadside stands will be exempt from the sales and use tax if the seller’s annual income from sales does not exceed $1000.

As always, it is an honor to serve you in the General Assembly, and I hope you have a wonderful Fourth of July Weekend.

Sincerely,

David

Redistricting & Attacks on Sustainability

June 20, 2011 by David Toscano

General Assembly Update (6/20/11)

On June 9, 2011, I returned to Richmond for a one-day session to discuss redistricting of Congressional Districts in the Commonwealth. Two competing plans have emerged, one from the Republican-controlled House and one from the Democratic-controlled Senate. While not perfect, the Senate’s plan is superior in that it would create more competitive districts and divide fewer communities. The plan proposed by the House was written to protect incumbents and does not represent the public’s desire to draw districts that are contiguous and represent communities of interest. This will be finalized in the coming weeks as a conference committee of members of the House and Senate meet to resolve differences.

While redistricting discussions are occurring in Richmond, a debate rages in Albemarle County about sustainable growth and a $1 million grant that the City, County and University of Virginia recently obtained from HUD for joint planning initiatives. This grant would assist these groups with regional planning and is designed to measure environmental impacts in the community and to develop a single map to depict land uses in the region. The grant will also assist planners in the County with the update of the Comprehensive Plan, thereby saving taxpayer monies that would otherwise be spent from the County budget. During the grant’s implementation, recommendations for each jurisdiction are to be developed, but there is no requirement that any entity embrace any specific change in zoning, land use, or other policies.

While the goals of the grant seem reasonable, the Jefferson Area Tea Party raised concerns and caught the interest of Supervisor Ken Boyd. In May, Boyd raised questions about whether the County should participate in the grant (despite voting unanimously months earlier to support it), and suggested the County withdraw from the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), claiming that the group has “infiltrated” county staff. This led to a five-hour public hearing on June 8, 2011, where words like “socialist,” “Marxist,” and “state central control” were used by various members of the public to describe the goals of the grant.

The debates over sustainability, urban planning and climate change are similar to those that occurred in Richmond last session. For example, a bill offered by Delegate Bob Marshall (HB 1721) became a vehicle for questioning the reality of climate change. The bill would have undermined the development of Urban Development Areas, a planning tool supported by many Democrats and Republicans designed to concentrate housing and infrastructure in specific areas within jurisdictions, thereby lessening sprawl, the costs of maintaining services to localities, and impacts on the environment. The concept of the Urban Development Area was introduced into the Virginia Code in 2007 through a much celebrated bill (HB 3202), initiated by House Republicans in hopes of addressing some of the Commonwealth’s transportation challenges. Marshall’s 2011 bill would have gutted the UDA legislation, and, in testimony in support of the bill, a number of climate change skeptics and conspiracy theorists argued that ideas like climate change and sustainability are part of a political agenda promoted by the United Nations and a worldwide network of people who would take away private property rights of Americans. Marshall’s bill passed the House but died in the Senate, and it is illustrative of the degree to which the deniers of climate change have entered the public debate. I previously reported on some of these debates in an earlier update.

Similar claims about the United Nations, property rights, and climate science were made during the Albemarle public hearing on the planning grant. In the view of those who argued against accepting the grant, the threat of climate change, as a human-made and highly threatening phenomenon, is at best an exaggeration and, at worst, an utter hoax. Fortunately, the County Board rejected the climate change deniers and reaffirmed its support for efforts to jointly plan with the City and University, though they voted to withdraw from ICLEI.

Allowing these claims into these local policy debates is counterproductive. There is broad scientific consensus, both in this country and around the world, that climate change is real and is enhanced by human activities. National academies of science in over 30 countries have passed resolutions supporting the view that climate change is caused by human activity. While there may be debates about how to address it and how active government should be in this arena, there is little doubt about the facts.

In the past 100 years, the world’s temperature increased 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century”

Sea levels have risen six inches during the 20th century and some models predict increases of up to 23 inches during the 21st century. If this occurs, the increase would inundate approximately 10,000 square miles of land in the US, the equivalent of the combined size of Massachusetts and Delaware.

The oceans are growing in acidity as a result of human activity, affecting marine life and fishing economies associated with coasts.

We live in a University community where vigorous debate and discussion is supported and respect for science and scholarly inquiry is encouraged. In fact, much of our country recognizes the importance of scientific inquiry and technological advancement. My concern is that reasonable debates about the proper role of government are being undermined by distortions of the truth. It has frequently been said, “While we are all entitled to our own opinions; we are not entitled to our own facts.” It is my hope that we can return to this tradition in America, so that scientific facts can guide the development of our opinions and policies, rather than the other way around.

TOSCANO POSTSCRIPTS TO JUNE 20, 2011 UPDATE – October 17, 2011

A recent encounter with a group of citizens from the Jefferson Area Tea Party (JATP) reminded me again of why I chose public service, as well as what continues to drive me to seek the best for our region, Commonwealth, and country. The group had come to express concern about a recent posting on my website related to climate change. They took offense at some of the language that I had used, which they thought was an attempt to limit their First Amendment rights of free speech. I had not intended it that way, but upon re-reading the sentence and further reflection, I saw their point; I had written the sentence in the way that could have been easily misinterpreted. I told them that I never intended to stifle public discourse, and attempted to assure them of that.

As I told the group, there is room for all views in a public debate, and I have a special responsibility, as an elected official, to encourage that public debate, even if it may bring forth views that are contrary to my own. When I was first elected, I campaigned on being a voice for the voiceless. I initially believed that the “voiceless” were mostly the poor and disadvantaged. But during my time in office, I have been convinced that feelings of powerless are experienced by citizens from all walks of life. Many in our society feel that they have no power and are disenfranchised by the political process. In my view, the best way to counter this is by engaging all citizens in a transparent process of governance.

My encounter with this group also re-enforced my views about the importance of civility in public discourse. I continue to believe that name-calling and ideological stridency – from wherever it emanates – can distort the democratic process by discouraging citizens from participating and by undermining efforts to compromise for the common good. I continue to be suspicious of conspiracy theories and those who disregard facts that question their political agenda, the most recent version of which involves allegations that scientists are “conspiring” to distort facts related to climate change.

Politics can sometimes be messy and heated; even our founders were not immune from what we might perceive to be “dirty” and uncivil politics. But our most effective leaders have always found a way to work together to move the country forward. While we cannot legislate civility, we must encourage it at every opportunity. And while we should not stifle the sometimes shrill voices of controversy, we should strive harder for civility in our discourse and think carefully about the words we use as we make our points in the public domain.

Redistricting Finalized

April 29, 2011 by David Toscano

General Assembly Update (4/29/11)

After a series of stops and starts, the Virginia House of Delegates and the Virginia Senate agreed on a redistricting plan for the 100 Delegate and 40 Senate districts of the Commonwealth. It passed with veto-proof majorities in both chambers, 32-5 in the Senate and 63-7 in the House.

Map of Virginia's 57th House of Delegates District as redrawn in 2011. — The 57th District as redrawn in 2011 (change will take effect in 2012).

Map of Virginia's 57th House of Delegates District as it has been since the 2000 census. — The 57th District as it has been since the 2000 census.

In early April, the House and Senate passed a bill that was subsequently vetoed by Governor McDonnell. The Governor’s veto was targeted primarily at the Senate districts, which, not unlike the House, were drawn to protect incumbents. Over the last week, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have worked on a compromise plan that would adjust the districts somewhat in order to obtain the Governor’s approval. The House plan has not changed much from its original proposal. The Congressional Plan is not yet complete, and we will need to return to Richmond to complete work on this on July 11.

What does this mean for you? For those in the 57th District, if you live in the Ivy, Jack Jouett, or a very small portion of the Free Bridge precincts, your representation will change beginning in 2012. Ivy and Jack Jouett will become part of the 25th District, now represented by Delegate Steve Landes, and part of Free Bridge will become a part of the 58th District, now represented by Delegate Bell. Cale, Woodbrook and a part of East Ivy precincts formerly represented by Delegate Bell in the 58th district will now be in the 57th, the district I represent. Delegate Bell also loses the Belfield precinct to Delegate Landes, and his district moves to the north and west by gaining a large portion of Rockingham County. The City of Charlottesville remains entirely in the 57th District. After these lines are complete, the 57th District will have approximately 80,000 people. Of all the districts representing portions of Albemarle, the 57th will have the largest percentage.

The Senate districts will change as well. If you live in the Agnor-Hurt, Branchlands, Dunlora, Free Bridge, Georgetown or Keswick precincts, your are now in the 17th Senate District, presently represented by Senator Edd Houck. The 25th Senate District, represented by Senator Creigh Deeds, will lose the previous precincts and gain precincts that were formerly in the 24th District, represented by Senator Emmet Hanger (Crozet, Free Union, and Brownsville). Voters in Jack Jouett, Stony Point, and Woodbrook will be split between the 25th and 17th districts. Click here for a map of the current and new House districts.

From the beginning, I have supported a non-partisan approach to redistricting, a position that was not embraced by the General Assembly as a whole. The approach that emerged was a partisan process that primarily benefits incumbents. I am honored to represent the 57th District in its various configurations. I will be sorry to lose my voters from Ivy and Jack Jouett, but am pleased to add Cale and Woodbrook, and I will always keep the entire region in mind when I cast my votes in Richmond.

Thank you for your input throughout the redistricting process and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
David

Redistricting & the Veto Session

April 19, 2011 by David Toscano

General Assembly Update (4/19/11)

A funny thing happened on the way to a redistricting plan — Governor McDonnell’s veto. This action has created a level of uncertainty that may eventually lead to a court challenge and may force Delegates and Senators to run elections in two (three for Delegates) consecutive years.

How did we get to this point? I have always supported nonpartisan redistricting so it should come as no surprise that I voted against the House Republican plan which passed handily in early April. The House plan is largely an incumbent-protection plan which did not incorporate the work of nonpartisan map-drawing teams like those of the Governor’s Redistricting Commission or maps from student winners of the Virginia Redistricting Competition. In the House plan, entire districts were moved to other parts of the state to make it difficult for certain Democrats to run for re-election, including, notably, House Minority Leader Ward Armstrong. The plan creates districts which are less contiguous than presently drawn and divide more cities and counties than do present districts.

Map of Virginia's 57th House of Delegates District prior to 2011 redistricting.

In the House plan, my district would have lost voters in the Ivy and Jack Jouett precincts and would have picked up Cale, Woodbrook and part of East Ivy. The Governor’s veto now makes this uncertain. You can see a map of what the 57th looks like currently and under the House plan on my Facebook page.

The Senate redistricting plan takes a similar approach — protect incumbents and, given that the body is Democratic, make districts more favorable to Democrats. That is what happens when you have a partisan redistricting process.

Many commentators believe that the Governor’s veto is targeted against the Senate Democrats and has little to do with nonpartisan redistricting. He could send us a bill based on one of the nonpartisan maps drawn by his Commission, but that is unlikely to occur. This is a rapidly evolving situation, so I will update you as more information becomes available. General Assembly committees are meeting this week and the full body will convene on Monday, April 25 to assess the situation and potentially vote on a revised plan.

The redistricting dispute has now largely eclipsed the recently convened veto session which occurred on Wednesday, April 6th. In a long, 11-hour session, we considered more than 85 changes to the budget, vetoes and the Governor’s amendments to legislation. The highlights of this session included rejection of the budget cuts proposed by the Governor to important initiatives like foster care and public broadcasting. My comments in the debate about decreasing support for foster care are posted at YouTube.

The Governor’s veto of the medical malpractice stabilization bill was handily rejected by both the House and the Senate. A bill that provides limited health care coverage to children with autism was able to survive Governor McDonnell’s amendments and will become law. The only major veto sustained by the General Assembly was to the bill that would have required schools to provide physical education. I received many thoughtful emails on this measure; the argument that this was an unfunded mandate on schools eventually won the day, and the veto was upheld.

I appreciate your input and patience as we deal with this complicated and sometimes confusing process, and I hope you will feel free to contact my office with any questions or concerns you may have. Please also feel free to contact my office if you need assistance in dealing with state agencies such as DMV, VEC, DSS and others. My number in Richmond is (804) 698-1057 and you may reach me by email at deldtoscano@house.state.va.us.