DEMOCRATS UNDERMINE GOVERNOR GILMORE'S CAR TAX RELIEF |
The
budget bill signed by Governor Jim Gilmore on April 14, 1998 presents a
good news/bad news situation for Virginia taxpayers. The good news is
that Virginians will get some measure of the car tax relief they
demanded in last year's elections. The bad news is that the Herculean
efforts exerted by some legislators to derail car tax relief resulted
in a final budget that contains watered down tax relief offset by
unnecessary new spending.
First, the good news: The car tax
relief plan eliminates the tax on vehicles valued at less than $1000
immediately and for 90% of all vehicles by the year 2002. The plan pays
$447.2 million in car tax reimbursement to taxpayers over the next two
tax years. Taxpayers will receive reimbursement for car tax paid on the
first 12.5% of their car's value below $20,000 in 1998, 27.5% in 1999,
47.5% in 2000, 70% in 2001, and 100% in 2002 and beyond.
And
now for the bad news: The limited relief detailed above did not come
easily, and it did not come without a price to taxpayers. As noted by
Gordon Lubold in the March 19, 1998, Fairfax Journal, Democrats in the
General Assembly made every attempt to torpedo car tax relief. Their
tactic was to "bluff, stall, talk, and finally have their way in the
end."
One novel idea was to propose abolishing the sales tax
on selected food items. For a party that has controlled the General
Assembly for decades, why did Democrats wait until now to offer
Virginians some measure of tax relief? The answer is simple. The sales
tax proposal was floated solely to undermine the more substantial car
tax relief demanded by the voters last November. Fortunately for
taxpayers, the sales tax "red herring" did not carry the day.
A
plan to make Virginia taxpayers responsible for local school
construction could not be stopped, however, as Democrats insisted on
increased spending for this traditionally local function in exchange
for their votes to support car tax relief of any kind. Instead of
forcing local school districts to exercise fiscal responsibility in
meeting their own construction needs (as advocated by FCTA President
Arthur Purves in an April 2, 1998, article in the Fairfax Journal),
Democrats insisted on this new spending.
Fairfax County
taxpayers have several local legislators to "thank" for this increased
spending and diminished tax relief, including Del. James M. Scott,
D-Merrifield and Del. Kenneth R. Plum, D-Reston. In particular, Mr.
Scott, a member of the House Finance Committee, voted repeatedly
against car tax relief until it was coupled with increased spending of
Virginians' tax dollars.
Because the car tax relief for
Virginians must be included in each new two-year state budget, this
process will no doubt be repeated in the year 2000 budget process.
Taxpayers must remain ever vigilant to fight efforts to diminish car
tax relief through increased government spending and alternative taxes.
The FCTA will continue to publicize events in Fairfax County and
Richmond that threaten the limited successes achieved by taxpayers in
1998.
By Mark Collins - FCTA 2nd Vice President
COMPUTERS IN SCHOOLS: WHAT HAVE WE GAINED?
Fairfax
County Public Schools (FCPS) has made a substantial investment in
computers. This year, the school system is spending $18 million on
technology. Next year, the schools want to up the budget to $22
million. This $22 million budget request is $2 million more than was
planned only one year ago.
How has education improved in FCPS
due to all this technology? No one knows. There have been no
evaluations of academic achievement as a result of technology being
used in the classroom. In addition, administrative efficiency has not
been looked at. The School Board's Integrated Technology Plan addresses
many issues in generalities, but does not address specific costs per
student for the specific programs and provides little assessment of any
technology currently used.
Fairfax County is not alone in
this way of spending on technology for education. Buying computers and
software for schools without proper examination of the costs and
benefits occurs nationwide. Many people throughout the US have now been
studying the effects, or lack of effects, of computers used in schools.
Their findings are simple, but significant:
1. Teachers are inadequately trained in the use of computers and software.
In Fairfax County, it is not generally known how much training has been
provided or if it is adequate. The new FCPS Superintendent, Dr. Daniel
Domenech, has suggested that up to half of the funds for technology
should be used for training. Nationally, most experts suggest that
about one-third of the funds be used for training. For this year's
school budget, the amount should be at least $6 million (one-third of
$18 million, the budgeted amount less the proposed increase). But the
FCPS technology plan does not address this.
2. Inappropriate hardware and software.
Technology should be dictated by the curriculum. Teachers should not
have to figure out how to fit computers into their lessons. Teacher
input is rarely involved with software selection. Instead, a few
centrally located people choose the software. The FCPS technology plan
does not address this. Effective use of all the computers and programs
has not been studied.
3. Teachers don't have time to plan their lessons to include computers.
Teachers have little time to prepare for the next day's schoolwork. The
FCPS technology plan does not address how teachers will get more time
to incorporate computers in their lessons.
4. Insufficient technology support.
The cost effectiveness of supporting various computers and software has
not been addressed. Obsolete computers and lack of technicians have
become critical issues. Planning and setting priorities appear to have
been inadequate.
Fairfax County Public Schools has put the cart before the horse. Changes
in education have been pushed ineffectively because the right questions
weren't asked first: questions like "How will computers improve
academic achievement?", "How will the Internet improve academic
achievement?", "What computer skills should high school seniors be
proficient in?", and "What computer skills (if any) should
first-graders be proficient in?". Like a broken record, the FCPS
technology plan does not address this.
Not all technology
funds are for classroom computers. Last year's technology budget
included $2.7 million for a student database, which is now having
problems just being set up. This year's budget includes $4.3 million to
continue the project.
Schools have spent a lot tax dollars on
computers, with no gain in academic achievement. Do you think it's
worthwhile upping the budget another $4 million for computers? If not,
contact your County Supervisor, and tell them to hold the line on the
school budget.
By Doug Barylski - FCTA board member
FAIRFAX GOVERNMENT SPENDING INCREASES COST THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD $2000 PER YEAR IN HIGHER TAXES
The average Fairfax County household pays just over $3000 per year in taxes.
This includes real estate, property, sales, and utility taxes. If the
Fairfax County Board of Supervisors had not allowed County spending to
increase twice as fast as inflation and population during the 1980s, the average household would be paying $1000 per year in taxes, or $2000 less than the current rate.

In fact, as the accompanying chart shows, the average household would have been paying $2000 a year less every year since 1988. Thus, higher taxes have cost the average house-hold $20,000 over the last ten years. (Amounts are in inflation-adjusted 1998 dollars.)
County
spending increases were documented in the Summer 1997 issue of this
newsletter. It was reported that since 1975, while inflation increased
200%, Fairfax County per-capita spending increased 390% and per-student
spending in the Fairfax County Public Schools increased 475%. It was
also reported that tax and spending increases doubled the size of the
County budget. The County's budget is $1.8 billion per year. If
spending had not increased faster than population and inflation since
1975, the County's budget would have been $900 million this year. (See
"How Are Tax Increases Spent". also in this newsletter.)
The
accompanying chart also shows that if County spending had not increased
faster than population and inflation since 1975, average household
taxes (adjusted for inflation) should have decreased from $2600 per
year in 1975 to $1000 per year today.
There are two major
reasons why household taxes should have decreased: a substantial
decrease in the number of school-age children as a percent of County
population and a substantial increase in commercial taxes.
In
1975, the number of children attending public schools was 25% of the
County's population; today that number is only 16% of the population.
Public schools are the largest single item in the County budget. This
decrease should have reduced household taxes. Instead, the schools
almost doubled the amount spent per student (adjusted for inflation).
(See "Test Results That The School System Does Not Publish" also in
this newsletter.)
Also since 1975, the number of businesses
in Fairfax County increased 4 times faster than population and the
commercial square footage (on which commercial real estate taxes are
based) increased 2.5 times faster than population. If the Supervisors
had not increased spending faster than population and inflation then
residential taxes could have decreased as shown in the accompanying
chart.
-By Arthur Purves -President FCTA
HOW ARE TAX INCREASES SPENT?
The Question the Supervisors Haven't Answered..
A
Fairfax County Taxpayers Alliance analysis offers an answer to a
question that the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors has yet to
answer: How does the Board spend the extra $300 million it gets each
year as a result of tax increases that occurred during the 80s?
In the FY1998 budget, approximately $334 million in tax increases were spent on the following County programs:
?$159 million: ?Health and Welfare
?$84 million: ?Public Safety
?$42 million: ?County Debt Service
?$23 million: ?Administration
?$13 million: ?Public Works
?$9 million: ?Community Development
?$4 million: ?Parks and Recreation
This
is in addition to the $597 million of tax increases that is spent on
the Fairfax County Public Schools. As the accompanying charts show,
school spending increases dwarf County spending increases.
Last
summer, the Fairfax County Taxpayers Alliance wrote the School Board
and the Board of Supervisors to ask how they are spending $900 million
of tax increases arising from the County's tax and spending hikes of
the 80s.
School Board Chairman Kristen J. Amundson provided
an itemized list of school programs that had increased faster than
enrollment and inflation since 1975 (see the FCTA's Fall 1997
newsletter).
However, Board of Supervisors Chairman
Katherine K. Hanley responded with only a partial list of programs
whose funding had increased faster than County population and inflation. She also failed to provide the cost of the programs she did mention.
Hence, the FCTA undertook its own analysis to get an answer. Here are the FCTA's findings.
Employee benefits account for over $50 million
of the $334 million. The benefits cost per employee increased 70% since
1975, from $5800 per year to $10,000 per year (in inflation adjusted
1998 dollars). This was not mentioned in Chairman Hanley's letter.
Also not mentioned in Chairman Hanley's letter are: $43
million of increases for the Social Services and Health Departments; a
$48 million increase in transfers to the Community Services Board; and a $9 million increase for the Facilities Management Division.
The
Office for Children accounts for $26 million. Chairman Hanley did state
that the County now runs 118 child care centers, compared to only eight
in 1975.
The sheriff's office accounts for $22 million. Chairman
Hanley's letter does state that the number of prisoner days in County
detention centers increased over 550% between 1975 and 1998. She also notes that in 1975 the County had no Juvenile Detention Center.
Computer
spending, which was not reported as a separate item in 1975 now costs
about $27 million. About $10 million of this is offset by reductions in
other County administrative functions, such as the Office of Research
and Statistics, the Mapping Division, and Office of Manpower, which
appear to have been eliminated. Other offsetting reductions occurred in
the Office of Finance, Personnel, Public Affairs, and the Electoral
Board. The Department of Tax Administration received a $4 million
increase. Overall, computer spending appears to have increased net administrative costs by $17 million.

Fire
and rescue accounts for $20 million and police accounts for $14
million. Chairman Hanley stated that these increase in proportion to
the number of businesses and households, which increased faster than
population. While this may be true for fire and rescue, there is the
possibility that police would increase to cope with higher crime rates.
Chairman Hanley's letter states that between 1975 and 1998 police
calls increased 232% compared to a 98% increase in the number of
households.
Spending on transportation appears to account for only $20 million of the increase.
Because
of these spending increases, the County has collected $3 billion more
in taxes since 1975 than was required to keep up with population growth
and inflation. This November, the supervisors are asking voters to
approve a $187 million bond referendum. It should concern taxpayers
that the supervisors have collected $3 billion in tax increases, have
not told taxpayers where the $3 billion was spent, and now seek $187
million in new bonds.
By Arthur Purves - FCTA President
WILL THE SUPERVISORS CUT TAXES?
Both
the Washington Post and the Connection Newspapers recently reported
that next year, which is an election year, the Democrats on the Board
of Supervisors may cut taxes.
This is ironic, given that Democrat
(and two Republican) supervisors defeated a recent motion by
Supervisors Bob Dix (R-Hunter Mill) and Michael Frey (R-Sully) to cut
the real estate tax by one cent, from $1.23 to $1.22 per $100 of
assessed property value. Recall that just after the last
supervisors' election, the Democrat supervisors (Katherine Hanley - At
Large; Sharon Bulova - Braddock; Dana Kauffman - Lee; Penelope Gross -
Mason; Gerald Hyland - Mt. Vernon; and Gerald Connolly - Providence)
increased the tax rate by 7 cents to $1.23 from $1.16.
A
one cent reduction would save the average homeowner $20 in taxes and
would reduce county revenue by $7 million. This is considerably less
than the extra $2000 in taxes the average household pays and the extra
$900 million the County collects due to the County's tax and spending
increases during the 80s.
The supervisors should propose
a multi-year plan to reverse the tax and spending increases of the 80s.
The plan should specify substantial spending cuts.
The County
spends $70 million per year on interest for bonds. The supervisors
should stop selling bonds and use this $70 million for tax cuts. It
will take twenty years for the County to pay off its $1.3 billion of
indebtedness.
Finally, the supervisors must specifically promise not to raise taxes after the next election, as is the normal pattern.
TEST RESULTS THAT THE SCHOOL SYSTEM DOES NOT PUBLISH
Every
August the Fairfax County Public Schools publishes a press release
announcing the average SAT scores for the preceding school year.
However, this press release only announces the results of the SAT
verbal and math aptitude tests (now called SAT I tests); it does not
announce the results of the SAT achievement tests (now referred to
as SAT II tests). The following chart shows the missing results, i.e.,
the Fairfax County Public Schools' 1997 average scores on the SAT II
achievement tests for English Writing, Math (Levels I, II, and IIC),
American History, Chemistry, And Biology. The percentile results were
obtained by comparing scores provided by the school system with
percentile tables on the Educational Testing Service's website.
The
number of students taking the achievement tests is: English
Writing-3,143; Math Level IIC-1,346; Math Level IC-1,338; American
History-944; Math Level I-466; Chemistry-420; and Biology-420. The
school system also does not publish the SAT I percentiles, which in
1997 were 60th for verbal and 62nd for math.
Since 1975, the
school system has received $6 billion more than was required to keep up
with enrollment increases and inflation. Even with this extra funding
and even though Fairfax County is one of the wealthiest counties in the
United States and has one of the best educated work forces, Fairfax County Public Schools average SAT scores are below the 65th percentile.