nice try but nobody is suggesting entire programs would be eliminated this is pure political fear mongoring

In FY2007 the Virginia Budget general fund 16.779 billion
In FY2008 the Virginia Budget general fund 16.982 billion

There are several solutions. 

If we freeze the rate from FY2007-FY2008 thats 203 million.
or 250 million would require a 1.4% across the board reduction

I'll do one example for ya

In scenario 1 UVA would get 156,137,827
  scenario 2 UVA would get 156,416,498

Oh no the world is going to end NOT.  In addition these two scenarios assume across the board cuts.  If we look hard enough I am sure we could find 1.4% waste in the budget.  Heck we might even find 2% waste and then UVA could get more funding.

Remember its aboud choices and compromise. 

Fear mongoring does not help anyone.

of the types of cuts the Republicans are going to force in essential programs.  As Governor Kaine said, "You know, $250 million is like the combined budget of the state police, all of the state's emergency management operations and all of our veterans services."  I'm just playing off of that statement.

At the Town-hall meeting in Chantilly held by Delegate Chuck Caputo and Senator Mark Herring yesterday the discussion in the meeting and in the lobby before and afterward was VERY VERY strongly against raiding the general fund.  Also there was several comments on the fact that the "Trust" needs to be put back in the Transportation Trust Fund so those funds ONLY go to transportation as they were intended.  Several members of the audience spoke up quite strongly on these subjects and interesting to me was that the people that did were from BOTH parties.... Specifically several Republicans that I know that spoke, chose to attend Chuck's meeting (probably because he had the State Secretary Of Transportation there)and didn't stick around to express their concerns to Republican Senator Ken Cuccinelli who came in the same room after Caputo's meeting, because they said they figured it would do no good based on Cuccinelli's stand and votes in Richmond. This topic is really turning a very very tradionally RED district of Virginia at least a lot more "Purple".

If the sentiment you describe is as intense as you dsecribe, and especially if it is widespread, it could be big trouble for Republicans this election year...

Ok here is the rub.  People don't like cuts and people don't like tax increases. 

Instead of relying on one or the other a compromise was floated

Unfortunalty, the net side effect is now you have the people who dont like cuts and the people who dont like tax increases (basically everyone) annoyed and angry

So, now we need cooler heads to prevail and instead of shooting the messenger offer up suggestions and tweaks so maybe instead of cutting 250 we go to 150 and then we increase fees/taxes by 100.  Or throw out those numbers and use Kaines numbers drop the taxes by 100 and offset the budget by cutting 100. 

Most of the people on this blog are propably holding out for full embrace of Kaines plan.  That may be a risk you are willing to take but I still say its your move to adjust Kaines plan.  As a compromise start possibly by what I suggested in the last sentence of the previouc paragraph.

Of course this would assume there isn't any politics behind all of this and of course we know that isnt the case. 

done out of panic at their electoral prospects this November.  Let's see what happens when they open it up to the rest of the world...

throw away all of this plan (as Lowell points out, this "compromise" was actually a Republican-only compromise behind closed doors) and get to the heart of the matter.

The transportation problem is a direct result of road usage.  So rather than talk about raiding funds of other services or taxing property, put the focus where it belongs - on road usage.  Yes, that means an increase in the gasoline tax. 

This solution not only makes sense but is fair.  The more time a person spends on the road the more gasoline they will use - and therefore the more tax they will pay.  Someone who spends little time behind the wheel will use less gasoline and pay less tax (and contribute less to congestion).  The users of the resource are paying for what they use in proportion to how much they use it.  This is a simple principle  - people paying for what they use.

Problem is no one ever wants to pay more taxes.  The trickery with this "compromise" is that only commercial real estate and home purchases will be taxed.  That makes us average Joe's think that we're not paying (how often do you buy a house?). 

This off-load-the-tax-to-someone-else sounds great because we don't have to pay a new tax and we get our roads fixed.  Ignoring the raid aspect, this compromise will no doubt have strong support from politicians and the public.

But we'll still pay eventually when we do buy a new house.  And the business who are paying the new taxes will find a way to pass that extra cost onto us - so don't think we're getting away without paying. 

But that's irrelevant in the bigger picture - if people think someone else is paying the tax then they will support it, which means the politicians will support it.

So there you go - a suggestion on how to fairly deal with our road problem.  But there's not a snowball's chance in hell that this type of suggestion will go anywhere, so we can get back to raiding other budgets and levee-ing idiotic taxes.

You know what Eric I agree with you except for one major thing and a couple minor tweaks.

Land use and settlement patterns also play a big role in our transportation problem.

Check out Bacons Rebellion for more on that.

So by solely having a gas tax the underlying problem isnt fixed.  Its just business as usual and in 2026 there will be another transportation crisis.  (Additionally ideally cars will continue to become efficient further reducing the effectiveness of a gas tax Kaines ideas are generally fairly decent) 

Since I am a Republican I would add two quick tweaks to your plan. 

Add a transit tax so transit riders pay more of their share pay as you go similar to auto drivers and the gas tax.  The understood notion that transit shouldn't totally pay as you go because transit is more efficient in high traffic corridor areas by taking cars off the road.  Cost benefit analysis could be performed to calculate an appropriate percentage for transit users to pay.

Reduce some arbitrary number from the general fund and transfer it to transportation as a starve the beast tactic 

With those two additional things and a strong landuse policy maybe this could be a realistic option

P.S. As long as we are dreaming would you be open to tolls instead of a gas tax or congestion pricing tolls maybe some form of both?

about land use and other issues that contribute to the transportation problem.  The gas tax suggestion doesn't really address that - it merely addresses how to get funds. 

To tackle the problem as a whole we need money.  That's the way world works.  So step one is to lock down sufficient funding.

Step two - funds for what? 

To build more roads?  That doesn't work very well since more roads usually lead to more construction, which leads to more cars on the road, which leads to transportation problems.  This solution only makes things bigger and more spread out - it doesn't really solve much.

I'm really not sure what the best answer is in terms of what should be funded.  Doing the same ole thing is very likely to leave us in the same position.  Let's face it, there are no easy answers and we'll need new and innovative (and possible uncomfortable in some cases) solutions.

But no matter where the money comes from, I don't have a lot of faith that these new and innovative solutions will be implemented.

As for tolls - I'm mostly against them because they introduce blockages/slowdowns and they focus only on specific sections of road.  If you use them push people off to other roads then those secondary roads will be jammed while the primaries are clear - which doesn't really solve the problem.  They're not the worst idea, but I think the solutions we need are much broader than could be implemented with a toll booth.

FYI Vivian Watts had a major role in this as well. 

Interesting to see how it plays out as always enjoy the rest of your Sunday

We should just "get over" all the stuff you listed off Lowell, it is 2007 after all, who needs a "University Education" or "State Police and Emergency Management Operations?"

"I don't want to comment on this specific Republican plan at least until they can get all the Republicans on board.  What is  important to me is that whatever plan is  developed doesn't pit education against transportation from the general fund.  I hope Sen. Cuccinelli will join me in opposition to any plan that does so."

George Barker of Clifton, running for the Democratic nomination in the 39th State Senate District, has this to say on the Republican transportation "compromise" deal:

You hit on two big issues with the latest transportation proposal. First, it is not clear what would be affected by using general fund money. Second, bonds can be a legitimate funding mechanism, but only as long as it is clear how they will be paid. Local governments routinely use them for capital projects, such as schools, public safety facilities, parks, and sometimes transportation. Prince William had a transportation bond referendum last year and Fairfax will have one this year. A potential issue with the proposed state bonds, however, is the source of funding for the payments to be made on the bonds. Last year the Senate passed a bill to provide the matching funding for Metro that would have met the test of Tom Davis's legislation but the House Finance Committee killed it. How the bonds would be repaid needs to be understood.

Another issue is whether the approach is politically viable. The two major Republican controlled local governments (Loudoun and Prince William) have already made noises to indicate they will not implement what is being proposed by their brethren. If that is the case, this proposal cannot work.

In addition, there are real questions about whether either house will pass this as proposed. We will have to wait and see.