Blogging About Base Budgeting
Bear with us here. This is a post about something called "base budgeting."
Mark Warner's budget chief gave a presentation to House delegates Monday in which he said his staffers are assuming that next year's budget will not include a transfer of about $290 million from the state's general fund to its transportation fund.
In documents and testimony, budget chief Rick Brown said the "base budget" for Virginia -- which includes all required spending and none of the frills -- will not, by default, include the transfer. The decision, he said, will be made separately by Warner later.
(Stay with me.)
Republican lawmakers flipped. What!? they said, their voices tinged with outrage. How could Warner "take" that money out of transportation at a time that traffic congestion is so bad. They accused Warner of robbing $1 billion from transportation over six years.
Is that true?
As usual, it depends on how you view the facts.
It's true that lawmakers voted in 2000 to require that some money the state gets from insurance taxes be used for transportation. It is also true that lawmakers and Warner agreed earlier this year to make the transfer during the current year. And it's true that if the decision stands, the money would be used on textbooks, police salaries and other things instead. By that logic, the Republicans are right. Transportation seems like a potentially big loser because of Brown's decision.
But hang on.
Warner's staff says GOP lawmakers are blowing this out of proportion. The "base budget" is nothing more than a working document, they said, a snapshot of the work-in-progress among budget staff. The $290 million was not included in the base budget because it's been a controversial item since the 2000 law was enacted, and staffers assumed Warner would want to examine the question separately.
In fact, while the 2000 law "required" the money to be used for transportation, it's been done only once, in 2003. Even this year's transfer became a political hot potato during budget talks and the amount of money used for roads was less than the law requires.
Warner has made no decision, his aides say. In fact, they claim he never even saw the "base budget" document that Brown presented to lawmakers. Warner presents his buget formally on Dec. 16, and he might very well include the transfer then, they said.
What does any of this have to do with election-year politics?
Republicans are sure that Warner wants to keep the insurance money out so that he can grandly put it back in later, claiming credit. They also want to know whether Tim Kaine, the Democrat running to succeed Warner, should get blame for what they say is a transportation snafu.
Warner aides believe the GOP is scrambling for ways to embarrass Warner and Kaine by making a mountain out of a molehill.
From the length of this post, they may have succeeded.
By Michael Shear |
September 21, 2005; 11:22 PM ET
| Category:
Democrats
, Republicans
Previous: Recipe for a Melee? |
Next: Piggin' out at the Fair
Posted by: Will Vehrs | September 24, 2005 08:53 PM
Will, I just wanted to let you have the first word....you know how I love having the last word.
I was wondering -- have you received any responses from your posting earlier inviting people who worked under Jerry Kilgore when he was Secretary of Public Safety to weigh in?
Posted by: SoccerMom | September 25, 2005 10:45 AM
No, I haven't, as you can see if you've been checking regularly. Apparently, not that many people are reading the comments at this blog.
How are you coming on convincing Anonymous II to vote Kaine? Have you got your Blue Dog questions ready for Russ Potts?
Posted by: Will Vehrs | September 25, 2005 05:45 PM
I'm headed to Anonymous II next. I'm ready for Mr. Potts ... I wish he were not intent upon setting himself up as the anti-Kilgore/anti-Kaine.
At least when Ross Perot made his mad dash into politics, the man stood for something other than NOT being one of the "mainstream" guys.
What does Potts really stand for?
Posted by: Soccer Mom | September 25, 2005 07:57 PM
I was certainly open to a third party candidacy, but Senator Potts has been disappointing. He seems to stand for business as usual--tax and spend, without any real reform or new ideas. "Everything is on the table" sounds good until you try to find out how big the table is and examine the things on it. There isn't much detail.
Many voters and pundits dismiss Kaine and Kilgore, but the two major party candidates do have ideas that are much more innovative than anything the Senator has presented. We may not agree with their ideas, but at least we know Kaine and Kilgore have policy teams that are seeking new solutions.
Posted by: Will Vehrs | September 26, 2005 08:21 AM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
Isn't it amazing that the one post about a possibly substantive issue generates zero comments in the first three days it's up?