In the Interests of Honest & Open Government

We have passed the halfway point of the session and the House of Delegates has completed action on all bills that originated in this chamber. As a body, we will now address only bills that have been transferred to us from the Senate. Certainly it's a time to look ahead to the new measures that face us, but I also can't help but spend a few moments assessing the bills we have sent to the Senate. In many cases I am confident the House of Delegates acted wisely and prudently. There are, of course, always bills that pass in which I disagree, but the issues receive a thorough, open debate and I simply end up voting in the minority. That is part of the process. This session, however, there are a few measures that were dispatched with less than a forthright approach.

First, the House of Delegates in a close vote (52-48) agreed to weaken the Freedom of Information (FOI) statute by exempting the General Assembly and allowing closed-door legislative meetings. The arguments on the floor for passage of the bill included statements like: “We do not intend to meet on legislative business behind closed doors, but in the interests of uniformity with other government bodies we need this authority” or “This is merely a precaution for the future should unforeseen security issues arise.” There is no question that sometimes it's easier to discuss and make decisions without the glare of the press and the public, but we are not here to make easy decisions.

During moments of candor when speaking with citizens or constituents, I hear their accusations that politicians are devious and refuse to honestly address controversial issues directly, making it difficult for citizens to determine what is actually happening, or to effectively access the political process. In my experience, the majority of legislators try seriously to confront issues and they are willing to take the heat for decisions they make, although I can appreciate that at times the process does appear secretive and cloaked in mystery. For that reason, I believe strongly the legislature must go out of its way to discourage actual or perceived closed-door policies. The concept of open government is a bedrock principle and should not be abused on a theory about what might happen in the future. Even though the actual cases are few, there are concrete incidents when politicians have violated the public trust, and even the perception of trying to hide information is at best a mistake, at worst a breach of the pledge we make to Virginians to uphold the laws and constitution of the Commonwealth. I intend to follow the FOI exemption bill as it makes its way through the Senate process, and I am hopeful they will, in the end, agree with me that open government is a requirement in a free society.

A second action of misleading rhetoric and broken faith with the public involved a new tax initiative that passed the House of Delegates in the final days before crossover. Since the beginning of the 2004 session of the General Assembly, there have been carefully orchestrated daily speeches on the floor of House vilifying any tax increase with collaborating data to prove that no tax increase was needed. There is no disagreement that the Commonwealth is facing a budget deficit in excess of $1billion, and this deficit is on top of the $6 billion in red ink that the General Assembly has had to make up through cuts over the past two years.

The House majority, however, has vigorously argued that this upcoming deficit could be successfully met with further budget reductions. There were, this session, almost 40 separate tax increase initiatives introduced in the House of Delegates. Some addressed the need for revenue in piecemeal ways through additions to user taxes—cigarette and fuel tax hikes. Others bills focused more comprehensively on tax reform through changing the withholding structure or raising sales taxes or income taxes. I carried a measure that would have raised the sales tax with ½ of the proceeds going to local schools and ½ going to higher education. All of us who presented bills before the House Finance Committee felt seriously about the need to increase revenue to meet current deficits and counter what could be a tragic future for Virginia if fiscal needs are not met and the Triple A bond rating is lost. Every bill was dispatched in Committee without discussion and rejected as a block on pure party lines. There was no recognition that additional income was in order. The mantra from the majority leadership remained the same—no tax increase.

Then only days after every single tax initiative had been unceremoniously killed in committee, the House leadership, faced with ever-clearer fiscal proof that normal economic growth and more draconian cuts could not successfully meet the core needs of the Commonwealth, initiated a brand new, unseen revenue initiative placing the entire revenue burden on the state's largest corporations. The House of Delegates endured nearly four weeks of unrelenting rationalization against revenue increases only to be assailed with a sudden, last minute appeal for increased revenue laid squarely at the foot of big business. As I have stated before, there is uncompromising evidence that without additional revenue the state cannot meet basic obligations and stands to lose our coveted Triple A bond rating. I believe strongly that we must accept the situation and plan for the future.

But instead of having an array of measures to weigh against needs and methods, the House has only one legislative vehicle as a foundation for funding severely under-funded programs and projects. Our only option is to ask USAirways, as they emerge from bankruptcy, to provide additional revenue dollars to fund our schools and roads. The House bill levies further stress on the hard hit coal industry working to sustain sales after layoffs and losses, as a pipeline to support the state's healthcare and mental illness needs. The House measure kills incentives to industries that are fulfilling environmental abatement plans for cleaner air and water; and even eliminates company meals that some employees may receive while on the job. In the face of a sudden about face on revenue increases, one bill aimed at the state's corporations is our only choice.

I am concerned about the ramifications of saying first that economic growth is our best hope for fiscal stability in the future, and then following it with a proposal to financially assess the very industries who hold the promise of growth in order to pay for the present and the future. I believe we should all be concerned about the inequity of the proposal and the potential reaction of our current state industries and those we hope to attract into Virginia.

The sales and tax exemption bill passed the House of Delegates along party lines and awaits action by the Senate. The Senate early on endorsed the need for general revenue increases and chose to consider several different measures during their deliberations. I will be following closely how they respond to the one, narrow idea set forth by the House.