Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, February 11, 1993 TAG: 9302110311
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-15 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RAY L. GARLAND
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
BARBS, BOUQUETS FOR HONORABLE MEMBERS
WHEN THE General Assembly enters the homestretch, it isn't easy to say what has been done, or will be done. Bills you thought dead are suddenly resurrected; those you believed sure of passage are derailed. And when committees of conference start meeting - allegedly to iron out differences between House and Senate versions of the same basic proposal - all things are possible. But it's not too early for barbs and bouquets.A barb to the Senate for sending up in smoke the eminently sensible proposal of state Sen. Elliot Schewel, D-Lynchburg, to establish a uniform, state/local cigarette tax of 20 cents a pack.
At first blush, an increase in the state cigarette tax from 2.5 cents a pack to 20 cents seems excessive even in these days of anti-smoking hysteria. But Schewel's bill would have abolished all local cigarette taxes. Actually, it would have resulted in a small cut in the tax on cigarettes collected in the five large cities of Hampton Roads that now impose a local tax as high as 25 cents a pack in addition to the state's 2.5 cents.
The beauty of Schewel's bill would have been statewide uniformity, with the state responsible for collecting the whole tax. Half the proceeds would have been kept by the commonwealth; the other half remitted to the localities. No locality would have received less under the bill than it was collecting from its local tax.
While there would have been a substantial increase in both state and local revenues under the bill, the most important consideration should have been a fair tax, fairly imposed. Now, only two counties (Fairfax and Arlington) have the right to levy a local tax on cigarettes, and that limited by law to 5 cents a pack. Cities generally have the right to tax cigarettes by charter. Quite a few of them have elected to impose little or no tax while others levy a local tax high enough to drive some consumers to nearby counties that have no tax. And each local tax requires its own apparatus of collection and enforcement.
A bouquet to the House of Delegates for having the sense to reject a bill that would have withdrawn a driver's license from students who fail to maintain at least a C average in high school. This was the brainchild of Del. George "Gimmick-a-Year" Grayson, D-Williamsburg. That it would be superficially appealing to many is a foregone conclusion. But administrative and enforcement difficulties aside, what has one thing got to do with another?
Another bouquet to the House for passing a bill allowing the Board of Optometry, rather than the Board of Medicine, to regulate the use of certain therapeutic drugs by optometrists. While this was a turf battle between optometrists and ophthalmologists that the former had greased with more than $65,000 in contributions to General Assembly campaigns during 1991-92, it was still a good outcome.
No one can seriously maintain that ophthalmologists, holding both a degree in medicine as well as certification in their specialty, aren't the highest and best source of care. But optometrists, in my experience, are also dedicated professionals. In some areas of the state, they may also be more available to the public, and perhaps at lower cost. If the state is going to trust them to perform eye examinations and prescribe corrections, it should not unreasonably deny them the use of those drugs that are the proper tools.
A barb to the State Council of Higher Education for marching up the hill with a brave report on the need for changes at public colleges and then marching halfway down again when it came under fire from Secretary of Education James Dyke and the presidents of Virginia's most prestigious colleges.
The report had called for an end to remedial classes at the state's four-year institutions, higher admissions standards and more time spent teaching. It also warned that, absent such steps, there wouldn't be enough money to accommodate an expected influx of students over the next decade.
In effect, the council backed off, voting to pass its report along to the General Assembly marked clearly as "preliminary." But if the council isn't in the vanguard, urging an end to business-as-usual at state colleges, whence will such leadership come?
Meanwhile, the University of Virginia announced that it would probably raise tuition for 1993 by 10 to 14 percent. As one board member said, "Isn't there any way to get a handle on this?" Not so long as college presidents such as UVa's John Casteen resist every outside pressure for change.
A barb to Del. Clifton Woodrum, D-Roanoke, for his superficially appealing bill requiring the assembly to appropriate, up front, part of the prospective cost of increased imprisonment likely to result from bills that establish new crimes or stiffen penalties for existing offenses.
If a penalty serves a legitimate public purpose, it ought to be imposed, regardless of cost. If not, let it be reduced. Undoubtedly, some are now serving too much time and others too little, but this bill is no proper approach to the problem. What is needed is a comprehensive, rational study of the entire schedule of punishment.
A bouquet to Del. Ford Quillen, D-Scott County. Quillen, who just announced that after 24 years in the House he would not be seeking re-election, brought a degree of civility and openness to sound argument that will be missed in a body increasingly driven by calculations of partisan and personal advantage. A veteran of long hours on the road representing a large district remote from Richmond, the Ford Quillens of Virginia politics get far less credit than they deserve.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times & World-News columnist.