Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, January 19, 1995 TAG: 9501190074
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-15 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RAY L. GARLAND
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
But from his own service in the House of Delegates, and from watching Democrats gleefully redistrict him out of a seat in Congress, Allen believed they would do him no favors, and yield only to a superior will, skillfully deployed. He hit the ground running and has never looked back.
Democrats have been forced to revise their former opinion of Allen as a lightweight. But their problem is the lack of a leader of statewide stature behind whom they can rally. Moss, Cranwell and Andrews are hardly household names. Besides, these worthies project the image of having spent too much time cutting deals to be really serviceable in fighting a mood of anti-government hysteria now sweeping the country.
Their logical choice would be Lt. Gov. Don Beyer, the sole survivor on the Democratic ticket of Allen's '93 sweep. But Beyer is still a pale figure to most Virginians, and he can't seem to make up his mind whether he wants to be a hero to the foot-stomping zealots in his own party or cast himself in the moderate-conservative mold that might be more expedient in his quest for the governorship in 1997.
In responding to Allen's speech calling for major cuts in both spending and taxes, Beyer tried to claim the middle ground: "As leaders, we must think about the future. ... I reject the idea that words like `compassion' or `responsibility' or `the environment' should be out of favor because of some rolling national tide." He added that he could support tax cuts "if we can make them responsibly."
Allen wants to increase the personal and dependent exemption on the state income tax from the current $800 each to $2,400 over five years. When fully implemented, this would save a typical middle-class couple with two children about $400 a year. This would cause a reduction in state revenues during 1995-99 of $1.3 billion.
The governor also proposed abolishing the local tax on business sales and the fees of professional practitioners, such as doctors, accountants and engineers. The lost local revenues would be replaced with state grants for the first five years at an estimated cost to the state treasury of $750 million.
All tax-reduction measures now on the table, when added to special tax breaks for those over 65 pushed by Democrats at last June's special session, and combined with the $340 million needed to settle with federal retirees (if it can be settled for that now), plus new money for prisons and state pensions will require numerous cuts in existing appropriations. They also will mean a much slower rate of growth in spending than state agencies traditionally have enjoyed.
This is precisely the scenario Allen wants: Cut the legs from under the robust revenue growth that fueled a 200 percent increase in state spending in the past 15 years and force future governors and legislators to adjust to it.
Will it work? Believing it will requires an act of faith, as the governor admitted in a recent candid interview. He realizes, for example, that nobody knows exactly where the jobs will come from for the 48,000 welfare recipients who would lose benefits after two years. But he remains confident that, facing cuts, either state bureaucrats will find ways to do more with less or the private sector will take up the slack.
Logically, Democrats should make something of a comeback in this year's midterm election for all 140 seats in the House and Senate. Two years ago, with the incubus of an unpopular governor on their backs, Democrats still held a majority in the House of Delegates. And even at the nadir of Douglas Wilder's fortunes in 1991, their majority in the Senate held. Allen did roll up an astonishing victory, and opinion polls show him still enjoying wide public support. But he is accumulating enemies certain to look for ways to strengthen the hand of his opponents in the legislature.
That suggests Democrats should pull up their socks and dig in their heels. But it will take a steady nerve and a persuasive spokesman on the point to buck the populist agenda Allen has laid down. It's doubtful Beyer is up to the task, and there may be too much difference of opinion among legislative Democrats to agree upon a common riposte.
At least one panel led by a senior Democrat has already met Allen part of the way on his proposal to abolish the local gross receipts tax. A House Finance subcommittee chaired by Del. David Brickley has proposed that all businesses with receipts under $100,000 a year pay a flat annual fee of $50 in lieu of the tax. While this would remove a large number of small enterprises from the tax rolls, it would have a relatively small impact on revenue.
But the reduction in future state revenues caused by increasing the personal exemption is the much larger ticket. The obvious political gambit for Democrats, as Beyer suggested, is to concentrate tax relief among low-income families. But Allen has cleverly pitched this not to tax rates but to exemptions, which have always been uniform. In the absence of very courageous opposition, this is likely to pass in a form close to what the governor wanted.
While Democrats dither, Allen will persist in pointing out the enormous increases we've had in state spending, and the fact that even if all his cuts are enacted, spending will continue to increase.
Those flowing with a tide of history generally prevail. With opponents divided, the old quarterback sees running room ahead. Even if blocked in some of his proposals, Allen is confident the message he is preparing to take to voters in November will fall on receptive ears. If it doesn't, he knows better than to expect any mercy.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times & World-News columnist
Keywords:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1995
by CNB