Thursday, August 18, 2005

Kilgore's Cabinet....

I just read a post by Norman over at One Mans Trash and it got me thinking. I think George Fitch would be an excellent choice for Finance Secretary within the Administration. He has done a wonderful job in Warrenton and I honestly thought he was a syand-up guy in the primary. Fitch did the right thing by running within the party system as opposed to pulling a Potts. I also though about another primary loser, good ole Chairman Connaughton. Of course we are all big fans over here. But, I think he would be an absolutely excellent choice for Transportation Secretary. He has led the way in No Va in building transportation and getting projects early and under-budget. Why not? If chairman Connaughton weren't a good fit I would suggest Mayor John Mason(If he loses the Delegate seat). Mayor Mason is an excellent professional with DECADES of experience in transportation. He is probably the most qualified person in Virginia for such a position. Just some thoughts. Feel free to discuss.

30 Comments:

At 8/18/2005 10:16:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I support this. We need someone who commutes up here down there!

 
At 8/18/2005 10:48:00 PM, Anonymous NoVA Scout said...

Sean would be an excellent Transportation Secretary, but that's a tough job to do well with. Hats Off to Whit Clement and Pierce Homer for advancing the ball. My personal hope is that Sean finds a lot of time to practice law in the next couple of years. He's a very good lawyer and I'd like to see him with time to thrive in private practice. He has been very unselfish in his contributions to Virginia and Prince William County. I'd like to see him pay a little attention to himself and his family before he gets back in the barrel.

 
At 8/19/2005 11:10:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You sound like his mother!

 
At 8/19/2005 12:25:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

C'mon. If it'll get him out of the business of raising my taxes, I'm for it!

 
At 8/19/2005 12:28:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

I agree with mr jms on Fitch, too. In a year when the nomination was a foregone conclusion, his message probably didn't get the kind of hearing that it should have. He was certainly better on taxes, i.e., he took the pledge, than Kilgore.

 
At 8/19/2005 01:01:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So if Fitch signed the taxpayers pledge and Kilgore didn’t, where were the taxpayers groups in the primary? I don’t remember seeing an endorsement.

 
At 8/19/2005 02:00:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I voted for Fitch, despite the fact that he signed "The Pledge", not because of it. James Young is living in a very simplistic world indeed if he equates signing the pledge with being "better on taxes." What made Fitch better on taxes was that he, along with Connaughton, were the only statewide candidates who had had any direct success dealing with tax issues. Kilgore just hadn't had any responsibility on this important part of the machinery of government and said nothing during the primary to indicate he had much grasp of the issues. Signing the Pledge to me is usually a good sign that the candidate doesn't
know diddly (or doesn't care) about tax/fiscal policy and is just trolling for cheap votes. Fitch seemed to have a very good sense about these issues, so I view his siging of the Pledge as anomalous. I still think he was an admirable candidate. If Kilgore can put him to good use, we'll all be the beneficiaries.

 
At 8/21/2005 08:01:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Jim Young - you got almost three hundred thousand in equity for a couple of hundred dollars in taxes. Stop whining and enjoy the prosperity - you will need something to live off of when you retire.

 
At 8/22/2005 02:00:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

It is a mystery as to what Anon 2:00 means with "direct success dealing with tax issues" since Connaughton raised taxes, while Fitch lowered them. It is apparent, however, that Anon equates "simplicity" with disagreement with Chairman Sean's tax-and-spend policies. Refusing to sign the Pledge is, to me, usually a good sign that the candidate has an insatiable appetite to spend the money earned by the taxpayers.

Why is it you tax-and-spenders are never willing to answer how much is enough?

Coward 8:01 apparently equates disagreement with the individual to whom he or she is a sycophant with "whining."

And BTW, since Coward 8:01 apparently believe that all good in PWC springs full blown from the toe of Chairman Sean (notwithstanding the fact that it is a regional real estate boom), and denies me the opportunity to respond with personal attack in kind by cowering in anonymity, if my wife and I never realize that "three hundred thousand in equity" because the real estate market collapses, can we blame Chairman Sean for that?

 
At 8/22/2005 07:25:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Both Fitch and Connaughton lowered taxes significantly. The jurisdciionts are quite different so comparisons are imperfect. Warrenton is small compared to Prince William County. It is true, however, that in both jurisdictions, individual tax bills went up in many cases because of rising values. I've never regarded that as "raising taxes." That kind of reasoning is just campaign nonsense thrown at Fitch and Connaughton by opponents who don't have records of their own on the tax issue. It works with gullible people, folks who don't understand public administration, and those who vote on the fly. Both tax-cutters failed to dislodge the Richmond boys, so we just blunder on and hope for the best.

 
At 8/22/2005 08:17:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Under Young's argument, George Bush and Ronald Reagan are tax raisers because incomes and assets increased in value but tax bills paid are higher as well. We have become truly lost when good news is considered bad news and success is considered failure.

 
At 8/23/2005 09:43:00 AM, Blogger MR JMS said...

Shhhh. Don;t crush a fellow Republicans argument by pointing out that our hero W does the same thing.

 
At 8/23/2005 09:48:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Anon 7:25 -- Thanks for the info; it appears that I was misinformed on Fitch. But please don't misrepresent the record. Neither Fitch nor Connaughton "lowered taxes significantly." Both lowered TAX RATES significantly, while relying upon increased valuations to increase per capita taxes significantly to feed their appetite for increased per capita spending (in Connaughton's case, far exceeding inflation and population growth; don't know about Fitch).

And it's really too bad that you dismiss people with whom you disagree as "gullible," ignorant ("don't understand public administration"), or frivolous ("vote on the fly"). That's an arrogance which I've more frequently seen in the far Left, but is increasingly popular among Repubmocrats. And of course, that's a whole lot easier than addressing the argument that government spending and growth, even under some Republican administrations, is out of control.

As for Anon 8:17, no, that's not the case, as your comment fails to make a distinction between income taxes and property taxes. It is perhaps presuming too much, but I've frequently noted that distinction before. Under Bush and Reagan, taxes per capita and/or as a proportion of income went down, while under Connaughton and, apparently, Fitch, taxes per capita and/or as a proportion of income went UP.

 
At 8/23/2005 10:16:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The State should follow Prince William County's lead and LOWER income tax rates so that they don't take in more of my money because I got a raise at work for working 60 hours a week!

Instead our whole Republican ticket this year has promised to pay for new roads, a new university, higher teacher salaries, more cops, etc. without raises taxes because of higher revenues. That is code for: the folks in Northern Virginia are making money hand over fist and we're going to steal it from them and redistribute around the State so us downstaters can get elected to office. HOW DO WE STOP THEM (and their supporterd like Young) FROM STEALING OUR MONEY?!!! Why can't the State be more like Prince William?

 
At 8/23/2005 12:53:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why does Jim Young just make this stuff up? Per capita taxes have not gone up in Prince William when adjusted for inflation. Please show us a real reference for your assertions and numbers!

 
At 8/23/2005 02:10:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Anon 10:16: Thank you for demonstrating that you, too (or still, since neither you nor Anon 8:17 have the courage to attach your names to your misrepresentations/misapprehensions), do not understand the difference between income taxes and property taxes.

Anon 12:53: "Just make this stuff up"?!?!? Bold talk from someone who cowers in anonymity and asserts that "Per capita taxes have not gone up in Prince William when adjusted for inflation," but doesn't provide numbers, and demands "Please show us a real reference for your assertions and numbers!"

But if you'd like, I'll be happy to send you a copy of a column of a couple of years ago with numbers, when you provide me with your identity and e-mail address. Of course, per capita spending has increased far faster than inflation in PWC, and Craig Gerhart's numbers clearly demonstrate that.

 
At 8/23/2005 03:25:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is this the Jim Young that works for that liberal watchdog group? Who let you on a conservative blog?

 
At 8/23/2005 05:56:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Yeah, I'm that one. The well-known Leftie. As in, "Southpaw."

 
At 8/23/2005 09:25:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He works for a public interest group that advocates for greater government control and involvement in the marketplace. His organization litigates if it can't get the government to do its bidding. As a result of groups like his, the federal government taxes us for things like pensions (social security), health plans (medicare), and occupational health and safety programs. The government should not be involved in dictating and regulating the conduct of private parties in the marketplace like like - it is anti-capitalist, actually, it is socialist. I think he is a lefty.

 
At 8/24/2005 07:59:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Southpaw" Young's group is made up of big businesses who want the taxpayers to foot all the bills for employee benefits. They are costing us billions. Thanks "Southpaw"!

 
At 8/24/2005 09:43:00 AM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

All I know is that both my property tax rate AND my property tax liability both went DOWN this year in Prince William County. We're paying $200 less this year than last year in property taxes.

 
At 8/24/2005 10:18:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Cowards 9:25 and 7:59 --- Yeah, and if you believe that, I'll tell you another. Your assertions are rather odd, too, since "my group's" agenda (Right to Work), is part of the Republican platform. In fact, George W. Bush put it there in 2000.

In truth, though, your comments reveal your true colors, since they repeat the most scurrilous lies propagated by labor unions.

And Jim 9:43, we've had this discussion before. You know as well as I do that your situation is the exception, not the rule, and that you ignore the prior four years of tax increases under Chairman Sean.

 
At 8/24/2005 11:21:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Southpaw - George Bush also supports illegal immigrants; does that make him a conservative? The problem is that liberals use our lingo to make us think you are one of us but actions speak louder than words ... leftie.

 
At 8/24/2005 12:02:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I always suspected Young was a liberal - you know the old adage, "Thou Dost Protest Too Much ..."

 
At 8/25/2005 08:51:00 AM, Blogger MR JMS said...

Mr. Young. Jim really isn't the exception. Where you aren't honest is in the fact that the vast mjority of the 58% increase in revenue(which you then say is a 58% tax increase) is fueled by new homes that are worth almost $200,000 more than homes built prior to 2000.

Honesty.

 
At 8/25/2005 09:23:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Young is a lawyer - honesty and integrity are not high on their list!

 
At 8/25/2005 09:56:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

mr jms. "Honesty." Yeah.

First, I never said that a "58% increase in revenue" is "a 58% tax increase." What I have repeatedly said -- and what you don't even try to rebut -- is that the average homeowner in PWC has seen a huge increase in property tax liability during Chairman Sean's tenure. Jim's comment -- I believe it to be true -- cites only one year, and he has conceded elsewhere that his property tax payment has risen substantially over those five (now perhaps six) years. I question neither his integrity, nor his figure, but rather, his choice of snapshot, which is far less reflective of the County's profligate spending over Chairman Sean's tenure than reference to the entirety of his term.

Second, I doubt that it's an "exception," insofar as it may have happened for that year for many PWC taxpayers. One wonders whether it will be an "exception" for Jim and others now that Chairman Sean's ambitions for statewide office have been frustrated. Time will tell.

As for Coward 9:23, I would note that riley, not o'reilly, too, is an attorney, so I suppose your attack is upon him, too. As for my honesty and integrity, I suppose that my AV rating by Martindale-Hubbell (recognition "for the highest levels of skill and integrity"; http://www.martindale.com/xp/Martindale/Lawyer_Locator/Search_Lawyer_Locator/search_result.xml?PG=0&STYPE=N&LNAME=Young&FNAME=&FN=&CN=Springfield&CTY=&STS=51&CRY=1&LSCH=), as well as my reputation for those attributes among those who don't cower in anonymity speaks louder than the plaintive whining of one who cowers in anonymity.

 
At 8/25/2005 10:29:00 AM, Blogger MR JMS said...

I would quickly push back and say Mr. Young that your bill has in no way grown at the same rate as your home value.

Furthermore, while your income tax rate has either fallen or stayed the same(in the case of the state) your tax bill has also gone up. Would you therefore accuse Pres. Bush of being dishonest for lowering rates while the average bill has risen?

 
At 8/25/2005 05:18:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't get this bickering. Income, property, sales, and a host of other taxes are ad valorem taxes, that is, the tax is a percentage of the value or revenue. The market determines the value. The rate determines the tax actaully paid. Government's raise and lower the rate, but not the value. The simple fact is that governments only control the rate and a lowering of the rate is a reduction in taxes paid for that value of good.

The issue you all seem to dance around is whether ad valorem taxation is fair or not. Debate that, but stop the insanity.

 
At 8/26/2005 09:25:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

mr jms says "your bill has in no way grown at the same rate as your home value." That is correct, and that is a good thing. However, my tax bill has increased far more than population growth and inflation would justify, too. That strikes me as not "fiscally conservative" by any reasonable measure of that term. That's "government growth," by any reasonable measure of the term.

mr jms asks "Would [I] therefore accuse Pres. Bush of being dishonest for lowering rates while the average bill has risen?" Your premise seems to be that notwithstanding rate reductions, my tax bill has risen, and assumes that my income has risen sufficiently to result in an increased total federal tax bill. The answer is no, because my tax bill as a percentage of my income has gone down (a reduction in marginal tax rates), and therefore, the burden on my family budget has been reduced. Anon 5:18's comment addresses this point.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home