This bill originated because of my participation in the Climate Change Commission. Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas and landfills are a large untapped energy source. By making methane mining eligible for public-private partnership methane can be used to produce electricity for local communities. In Maryland several companies have entered into contracts with Baltimore Gas and Electric to supply electricity from methane mined from large landfills. These companies mine methane gas from local landfills, burn it and use the energy produced to supply electricity to local communities. This bill will reduce greenhouse gas, produces energy and has the potential to save the Commonwealth millions of dollars. A win-win for everybody

I don’t agree with some of May’s votes, particularly his actions in 2004. However, he is a very affable guy, and probably one of the brightest in the statehouse, holding more patents than Thomas Jefferson himself. His failed 2005 LG bid was a real shame, but he’s really proving his worth in the house these days.

On the actual policy, what a great idea. Not only would localities benefit from the sale of the gas, helping to offset the amount of aid needed from the state, but it would also cut down on emissions from the landfill and remove a public hazard (no kidding, they actually have to have pipes all around our county landfill to vent the gas in order to avoid explosions).

At the core of the agenda is government transparency, which as anyone who has spent more than, say, five minutes on my blog knows is an issue that is very close to my heart. Senator Ken Cuccinelli is carrying SB936, which would require that the state put up a searchable database of all state expenditures, revenues and appropriations. The bill has the support of Bob McDonell, the GOP’s presumptive nominee for Governor, and Bill Bolling, the incumbent Lieutenant Governor. Such support indicates that transparency and limited government may in fact become a cornerstone of the Republican’s 2009 efforts.

TQ even has Senator Chap Petersen from deep blue Fairfax carrying the measure. You would think that a bill with bipartisan support would have plenty of support in and around Capitol Square….

However, Norm Leahy over at TQ’s blog is hearing whispers that some in state government are opposing the measure on the grounds that it would cost too much. However, Norm (one of my all time favorite bloggers) points out that experience proves otherwise:

* The federal government’s budget transparency site,www.usaspending.gov, cost about $600,000 to create and launch. It tracks contracts, grants, loans and other spending throughout the federal government. If the feds can manage to put their $2 trillion in spending into an online, searchable and highly-detailed format for just $600,000, surely Virginia could do the same for its $78 billion budget.

* Alaska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina were able to create budget transparency sites and spent no new money to do so. Nebraska’s site will cost $39,000 and Mississippi’s will cost almost nothing because they will be using free transparency software available from the federal government.

* Texas spent $300,000 on their transparency site, but since its creation, they have used it to identify $2.3 million is savings by consolidating contracts and eliminating duplication between agencies.

Methinks that the opposition of bureaucrats may not be based so much on moral duty to the taxpayers as fear that their pet projects might just fall under public scrutiny.

“President-elect Obama has told us that his stimulus package is intended to put millions of Americans back to work. I’m sure that Governor Kaine is working with the new administration to secure many billions of dollars for Virginia to help us improve our infrastructure. If federal money comes pouring into Virginia, it is imperative that the General Assembly ensures that we are indeed creating jobs for our citizens and not countless thousands of illegal aliens,” Gilbert said in a prepared statement.

Gilbert’s House budget amendment to Governor Kaine’s budget would make certain that anyone receiving even one dollar of the federal stimulus construction funding will have had his or her citizen and legal residency status confirmed utilizing “E-Verify”, a computer database operated jointly by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration. As of yesterday, January 15, 2009, all federal government contractors and subcontractors who receive direct federal money are already required to verify the legal status of their employees using this system. Delegate Gilbert believes those same requirements should apply when the state spends federal dollars on these upcoming state projects.

Bravo, Delegate Gilbert. This is the sort of innovation and vigilance we need on this issue: if the federal government is going to be weak on it, the states have the responsibility to push for action through measures like this. 

Slowing economic growth combined with an overly optimistic revenue estimate led legislators to spend billions more than the state will collect in tax revenue this year.

The problem is deeper than that, according to Gilbert.

“The problem with the state budget crisis that we find ourselves right now is that the growth of the budget has grown far in excess of the needs of the citizens of the commonwealth of Virginia,” he said.

Both Democrats and Republicans have been part of the problem, Gilbert said.

Republicans have “prided ourselves in being able to stop tax increases, but that’s only half the equation,” he said.

“In years where we’ve had booming tax revenues, we’ve done what politicians collectively try to do — be all things to all people,” he said.

As drawn, the proposal would put a hard cap on tax revenue and budget growth at the rate of inflation and the rate of population growth combined.

“Those two markers are the most accurate measures of the true needs of how the budget should grow,” he said.

Taxes collected in excess of the growth limit would go two places — 75 percent would be refunded to individual taxpayers, with the balance deposited in the state’s “rainy-day” reserve fund.

Using Gilbert’s formula, Virginia’s budget would have been capped at about 28 percent growth from 2000 to 2006.

Real appropriations grew some 49 percent over the same period, according to data compiled by the Legislative Audit and Review Commission, the legislature’s investigative arm.

Certainly I think the proposal has a great deal of merit and puts government in the position it should be in: only spending the money it has and being, first and foremost, responsible to the people who are giving them that money in the first place. However, I have some concerns with the practical outcomes of the bill. In Colorado, which has had TABOR in place since 1992, we have seen a steady progression from red to blue, with many observers blaming TABOR, the thought being that it puts too great of a strain on essential services when people were looking for more, more, more. Certainly, though, I’d like to hear more about the proposal. 

There is another budgetary bill that I DEFINITELY gung-ho about, though, and it’s also from Delegate Gilbert. That is HB2356, which would require that all future budget processes begin with zero-based principles. Simply put, that would mean that rather than just throwing another percent onto the budget each year, government departments would start at zero and fill in the blanks, meaning that departments would be required to justify each and every expenditure.

For those of you who aren’t familiar, “oversight” is not a word that most Richmond bureaucrats are not familiar with. Budget sessions don’t focus around the efficacy of individual programs but rather a department should get a 4% or a 5% increase, regardless of the performance of each and every program. This allows some absolutely ineffective and duplicative offices to continue their work unabated, as they are able to ride on the “essential” nature of other offices. Again, there are some questions here: Would legislators be able to effectively conduct the sort of oversight needed in the context of being part-time? I think that needs to be addressed; as it stands, though, I’m all in favor of anything that requires government officials to justify their existence. People have to do it in the private sector all the time–why not them?

Sen. Mark Obenshain, R-Harrisonburg, said Monday that he plans to introduce a bill that would require the state to unload the 331 liquor outlets and wholesale wine distribution business.

While the finer points are still being worked out, previous studies have found the commonwealth could realize some $700 million in new revenue — or 23 percent of this year’s budget shortfall — every year.

“ABC sales aren’t that impressive,” Obenshain said. Virginia’s stores made a profit of about $104 million last year, roughly equal to the amount of wine and liquor taxes the stores took in.

Taxpayers could do much better by letting the private sector take over, he said.

Farming out the operation of ABC stores was just one of hundreds of recommendations of a 2002 report on government efficiency and effectiveness chaired by former Democratic Gov. L. Douglas Wilder.

I have long been a fan of this proposal. I agree wholeheartedly with Louderback’s simple summation:

I don’t believe that the government should be in enterprises that the private sector can do.

Certainly I understand the argument that by keeping sales under strict control of the government has the potential to keep it out of the hands of chronic alcoholics and youth. But does it really? Increasing technology has made it nearly impossible to credibly fake an ID in many states. Law enforcement and independent training by businesses has done more than anything to ensure the that youths and alcoholics do not have ready access to alcohol. With the sort of cost savings that are possible under the switch to private sales, now is high time for a change.