Tight Times Still Ahead for Virginia and Its Localities
Published: August 2, 2009
With the economic data released Friday by the federal government that the nation’s economy contracted at a slower rate last quarter, there’s a glimmer of hope that the downturn may be bottoming out.
We can all hope.
But that doesn’t mean that the nation’s economic woes are soon to be behind us. Far from it. For local and state elected officials, the worst might yet be ahead.
It all comes down to tax revenues and how much — or rather, how little — might be coming into local and state coffers in the months ahead. Revenue trends and expected costs and expenses are still diverging at troubling rates.
At the state level, one of the big unknowns is how much in income taxes Richmond will collect in 2010.
New Feature
Sign up for our newsletter e-mailed to you at 8 a.m. each day Monday through Friday.
Just consider that in June 2008, the commonwealth’s unemployment rate was 3.9 percent. By June 2009, the percentage of the work force that was without a job had skyrocketed to 7.2 percent, almost an 84 percent increase year over year.
The numbers in Lynchburg are even grimmer. In June 2008, the jobless rate was 5.1 percent, but by June of this year, the unemployment rate had grown to 9.3 percent of the work force.
Those are people who are no longer paying payroll taxes, no longer spending as much or eating out as much, therefore lower sales and meals tax revenues. They’re perhaps putting off the purchase of a new automobile or truck and repairing, rather than replacing, the old washing machine in the basement.
All of that means fewer dollars for local and state government in the months ahead.
Fewer new vehicles bought and less gasoline purchased means less money for Virginia’s underfunded — let’s be real, broke — transportation system.
Fewer televisions or new stoves sold at the local appliance store translate into fewer sales tax dollars for public education.
It all points to the mother of all budget nightmares for the General Assembly next January and for local governments next spring.
And that’s not to say that devising state and municipal budgets in 2009 wasn’t a hair-pulling experience for politicians. It was, but the magical appearance of federal stimulus dollars put off the day of reckoning for many.
(For that you can thank President Barack Obama and Congress, the printing press operators at the Treasury Department and legions of Chinese bankers.)
Next year, it’s highly unlikely any dollars will rain down from Washington; that’s when the real pain, the pain put off from this year, will start.
This year, the General Assembly used stimulus dollars to keep from whacking Medicaid reimbursements to the state’s hospitals, rather than increasing the cigarette tax. Our advice to the tax-adverse wing of the Republican Party running the show in the House of Delegates? Don’t count on Obama to pull you out of the fire in ’10.
Stimulus dollars also gave local politicians the excuse to avoid making hard choices. The Lynchburg School Board, for example, was staring at the possibility of a multi-million dollar cut in state money. When federal money became available, division leaders pocketed the windfall and put off any serious reworking of business operations.
Next year, no one at any level of government will be so lucky.
All the bookkeeping tricks have been used. All the alternative revenue sources have been tapped. All the reserves emptied.
That will be when the real pain will start, forcing state and local leaders to make the hard decisions they’ve avoided for years, even this year of the Great Recession.
City councils and boards of supervisors across the state will have to start having the hard discussions with their constituents about what services they can realistically expect from government and how they’ll pay for those services. The message will have to be blunt: There’s no more free lunch, folks.
Will this be how it all plays out? Well, we hope so.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Subject: MIchelle Obama’s Excesses, At Taxpayers Expense
The god wife is also in on the rewards!!!
Recession, Depression, What, Michelle Worry?
July 7, 2009
Dr. Paul L. Williams
“In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much,” she said. “See, that’s why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, “ Michelle Obama
No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she doesn’t perform any official duties. But this hasn’t deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession. Just think Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil War.. And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary.
How things have changed! If you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Miz Michelle are the same as members of the national security and defense departments, and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by you and me:
1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Asst to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Asst to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 - Medina, David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652
There has never been anyone in the White House at any time that has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady’s social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President’s own pocket.
Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and “First Hairstylist” Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom travelled aboard Air Force One to Europe.
“Beware of the enemy from within!!!“
“IS IT CHANGE OR CHAINS?“
Time to cut taxes and let people and businesses invest the money back into the free market. As Americans have more of their own money they spend. When they spend two things happen. Businesses prosper and tax revenues increase. As businesses grow, they hire staff to meet demand. When they hire and pay staff, tax revenues increase. Increasing taxes (sales, income, healthcare, fuel, and utilities) takes money away from already struggling individuals and businesses. This necessitates spending cuts, staff cuts and even business closures. Let people keep with they earn and the economy will grow and the government coffers will benefit.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement