The lack of School Board accountability is manifested in historical numbers that staff provided to the County Board at their March 9 budget work session. For the schools, one of the columns contained cost per pupil data for FY 1998 through FY 2011 that you can access here.

The cost-per-pupil for FY 1998 was $9,330 while the cost per pupil will be $17,942 for FY 2011 that begins July 1, 2010. Using the U.S. Department of Labor’s CPI inflation calculator, we learn that if the School Board had maintained the cost per pupil to no more than the the rate of inflation, Arlington County taxpayers would see a cost per pupil of only $12,406 rather than $17,942, a difference of $5,536. For the 20,933 students expected to enroll in the fall, APS will receive a windfall of over $115 million in FY 2011.

While the School Board can undoubtedly explain where some of the $115 million sent, e.g., lower class size, Arlington County taxpayers need a better system of accountability from the Arlington Public Schools. However, the question is how much more productive are the Arlington Public Schools because of the $115 million windfall?

“Federal income tax rates would have to be more than doubled across the income spectrum if Congress were to close the deficit in fiscal year 2010, according to a new report from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Instead of taxing joint filers with rates ranging from 10 percent to 35 percent, tax rates would have to start at 24.3 percent and reach up to 84.9 percent.” (emphasis added)

William Ahern, the Tax Foundation’s director of policy and communications introduces the study by saying:

“As usual, the one number that everyone talks about is the budget deficit, and sober, nonpartisan fiscal experts are agog at the Administration's toleration of previously intolerable deficits. Everyone has a slightly different idea of how high the federal deficit can be in an ordinary year and still be "sustainable," but in recent testimony to Congress, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke said that the structural deficit was sustainable at 2.5 to 3 percent of GDP.

“At no point in the next ten years, according to the Obama Budget, will the deficit ever shrink to as little as 3 percent of GDP. According to the CBO, it will never even get as low as 4 percent. And the dire deficit predictions of reliable nonprofit groups like the Pew Trust and Peterson Foundation are even more alarming: the deficit won't even shrink to 5.5 percent of GDP in their analysis.

“'Mind boggling' is the term Martin Sullivan of Tax Analysts uses to describe the tax and spending changes that would have to occur just to get the deficit down to 3 percent of GDP.

"Our gridlocked, dysfunctional Congress simply cannot bring itself to absorb these types of painful shocks," says Sullivan. "Given these unprecedented pressures I believe that within the next decade there is more than a 50-50 chance there will be an upheaval either of the political system or the economy."

Add that warning to Moody’s warning earlier this week, as reported by the Christian Science Monitor, March 16 “that it would consider downgrading the triple-A rating for US Treasury Bonds if Washington continues to pile up record deficits,” and you have to wonder why Congressional approval ratings haven’t hit zero.

To explain just how large the War on Party was, Rector writes:

“Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $16.7 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, all the military wars in U.S. history have cost a total of $6.4 trillion (also in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).”

And what has our nation gained from this massive expenditure? Rector says:

“. . . When Lyndon Johnson launched his war, he declared that it would strike “at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty.” He added, “Our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it.”

“In other words, President Johnson was not proposing a massive system of welfare benefits, doled out to an ever larger population of beneficiaries over time. In fact, Johnson declared that the War on Poverty would enable the nation to make “important reductions” in future welfare spending. Johnson’s goal was an increase in self-sufficiency: to create a new generation of individuals capable of supporting themselves.

“On one hand, it is true that, since the beginning of the War on Poverty, the material living conditions of the poor have improved; even the federal government cannot spend $16.7 trillion without having any impact whatsoever. But, in terms of reducing the “causes” rather than the “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed utterly. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of prosperous self-sufficiency than it was before.”

Looking towards the future, Mr. Rector points out:

“The original goal of the War on Poverty — to reduce both poverty and dependence on government — has been abandoned and forgotten. While occasional lip service is sometimes still paid to reducing government dependence, ironically, this concept almost always appears as a justification for new government spending.

“The current goal in welfare is simply to “spread the wealth” for its own sake. The War on Poverty has become a system of permanent income redistribution, which will only increase over time.

“According to President Obama’s budget projections, federal and state welfare spending will total $10.3 trillion over the next ten years. This spending will cost more than $100,000 for each taxpaying household in the U.S. Most of it will be funded by borrowing from future generations and foreign nations.

“This spending is unsustainable. Our nation can no longer afford the War on Poverty spending colossus."

It may be abandoned and forgotten, but the federal worthies continue plundering America’s taxpayers. An essay worthy of inclusion in your "keeper folder."

    ~ John C. Calhoun, 7th Vice President of the United States and U.S. Senator

HTs On Power.org, American Thinker

• County employees per 1,000 residents. In 2002, there were 19.1 county employees per 1,000 residents, but that number decreases to 17.8 employees in FY 2011.

• School employees per 1,000 students. In 2002, there were 163.0 school employees per 1,000  students, but the number of school employees per 1,000 students increases to 186.4 students in FY 2011.

The bottom line? The county-side of Arlington County government is 6.8% more efficient and economical while the schools-side has become 14.4% less efficient and economical than it was in 2002. When the County Board and the School Board hold their joint budget work session (currently scheduled for Thursday, April 8 from 3:00 to 5:00 PM), will the County Board ask the School Board to explain why the Arlington Public Schools are now operating less efficiently and less economically than they were in 2002?

   ~ Mark Twain

“Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”

    ~ Mark Twain

HT OnPower.org

With those tools handy, taxpayers can compute how some of the indicators have changed from 2002 to 2010 based upon changes in population and inflation on a per capita basis. Several examples:

• General fund spending. In FY 2002, general fund expenditures were $612.8 million, or $3,172 per resident. In the FY 2011 proposed budget , general fund expenditures are budgeted for $946.8 million, or $4,414 per resident. If the County Board had controlled general fund spending at the increases in population and inflation, spending per resident in the FY 2011 proposed budget would have been $3,821 per resident, or $649 less per resident.
  

• Bonded indebtedness. In FY 2002, bonded indebtedness was $426.9 million, but will grow to $753.9 million in the Manager’s FY 2011 proposed budget. On a per resident basis, bonded indebtedness was $2,209 in FY 2002 and will be $3,514 in FY 2011. If the County Board had controlled bonding to grow no more than the rate of inflation, it would have grown from $2,209 per resident in FY 2002 to only $2,661 per resident in FY 2011, increaseing only $452 per resident rather than $1,305 per resident.
  

• Total debt service as a percentage of General Fund Expenditures. According to the County’s own numbers, debt grows by 30%, going from 8.0% of General Fund expenditures in FY 2002 to 10.4% in the FY 2011 proposed budget.
  

• Metro subsidy and debt service as a percentage of the General Fund. Again according to the County's own numbers, this percentage goes from 2.1% in FY 2002 to 3.1% in the FY 2011 proposed budget, an increase of 47%.

Time for a new set of five worthies?

“No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”

Let’s first take at a bit of Arlington County budget history. In the County Manager’s message in the FY 2006 proposed budget, he told the County Board that because “Arlington is once again extremely fortunate to have a thriving economy that has resulted in high incomes, low unemployment, and increased values in all classes of property.” As a result of skyrocketing real estate assessments, the Manager told the Board, “Due to these increased property values, $33.6 million is recommended for tax relief,” which would create, among other measures:

“A new homeowners' grant program – equivalent to one-half cent -- to provide additional relief of approximately $500 to households earning $72,000 or less ($2.2 million).”

Well, now that the economy has gone south, you might think the Board would be ready to pull the plug on the homeowners’ grant program. But the Manager is only recommending reducing the program, writing in the welfare section (oops, the Human Services department) of the budget:

“The Homeowner Grant Program, which provides a grant to homeowners meeting income and asset requirements, will reduce grant awards from $600 to $300 for incomes up to $55,120, and from $300 to $200 for incomes up to $77,407.  In addition, there will be a reduction in the asset limit to $240,000 for all participants (the current limit is $340,000 depending on income level).

“IMPACT:  Homeowners will receive less assistance to help with their real estate tax bills. In CY 2009 approximately 1,180 households received grants, with 52% receiving the higher grant amount.”

That would reduce tax support for the homeowner grants by $428,000, but why even continue awarding the grants when the economic reasons for initiating them no longer exist. Not to mention reducing staffing by as many as 4 FTE, which were hired in 2005 to process the paperwork submitted by grant applicants.

Will the Arlington County Board prove The Gipper wrong? Let’s hope so.

The county issued nearly 229,000 tickets, and warnings, in FY 2009, and collected almost $7.4 million. According to the Acting Manager, the $10 would “generate $1,520,000 in additional revenue, which would be offset by $20,000 in so-called non-personnel costs.”

The additional revenue wasn’t included in the FY 2011 proposed budget, but was advertised “to allow the County Board additional flexibility with revenue decisions for the FY 2011 budget.” How thoughtful to provide the Board with additional flexibility? Serving the County Board. of course.

Tell the Board your thoughts on whether to increase not only the above fines, but also the real estate tax rate. Write them at:

    countyboard (at) arlingtonva.us

According to the study, “Nonpaying status used to be a sure sign of poverty or near-poverty, but Congress and the President have changed the tax laws to pull much of the middle class into the growing pool of nonpayers.”

The number of “nonpayers” averaged 21% from 1950 until 1990. Since 1990, however, that percentage has increased. The Tax Foundation writes:

“Since it was enacted in 1913, the income tax code has contained provisions that exempt low-income workers or greatly reduce their income tax burden. These provisions include the standard deduction, personal exemption, dependent exemption, and the earned income tax credit (EITC). Between 1950 and 1990, the percentage of tax filers whose entire tax liability was wiped out by these provisions averaged 21 percent.

“Since the early 1990s, however, lawmakers have increasingly used the tax code instead of government spending programs to funnel money to groups of people they want to reward. Credits have been enacted to subsidize families with children, college students, and purchasers of hybrid cars, just to name a few of the most well known. In terms of tax revenue, the most significant of these socially targeted credits was the $500 per-child tax credit enacted in 1997. The 2001 and 2003 tax bills doubled the value of the credit to $1,000 and added a refundable component.”

Here’s a graph of the growth from the Tax Foundation’s study:

Sure seems the time has come to reform the tax system!

• “Adjust STAR back-office” transit “efficiencies in operations and program management practices to improve the overall cost efficiency of the local transit program.” Management anticipates minimal customer impact.
  

• Implement minor adjustments to route schedules and span of service on ART routes 61, 62, 51 and 53. Management again anticipates minimal customer impact.

Guess you don’t have to be efficient when it’s other peoples’ money you’re spending.

Norm cites this Virginian Pilot story to ask whether the bill involved a tax hike based on the following:

“Whipple's legislation was directed at online hotel booking companies such as Orbitz and Expedia.com, which book rooms at discounted rates and resell them on the Web. They now pay retail sales and hotel occupancy taxes only on the discounted price they pay the hotel - not on what they charge the customer.

“That's not fair, Whipple reasoned: A customer who books a room directly with the hotel pays tax on the full retail rate. So the Arlington County Democrat introduced a bill, SB452, requiring that the tax be computed on the full price of the room. The measure would also mandate that the tax be clearly delineated on the customer's invoice.

“The bill was approved by the Senate, 40-0, and a House of Delegates subcommittee, 10-0, advancing it to the full House Finance Committee.”

And here’s where the blindsiding comes into play. Responding to one lobbyist who claimed a similar measure has levied such a tax, Sen. Whipple said:

“It is not a new tax," Whipple countered. "The question is, what amount is it levied on? It's not complicated. It's a tax on the retail value of the room. Virginia is losing tons and tons of money because of this loophole."

Norm notes the action of the lobbyists has some folks upset, specifically Arlington County Treasurer Frank O’Leary. Here’s how the Virginian Pilot describes it:

“Arlington Treasurer Francis O'Leary, who suggested the bill to Whipple, said the committee's action will cost Virginia and its localities some $33 million in lost taxes this year - $5 million in Virginia Beach alone - at a time when the state is scrambling to plug a $4 billion-plus hole in the budget and cutting hundreds of millions from public education and health care.

“This stinks," O'Leary said. "These people are stealing our money, and then when we try to get it back, they hire high-priced lobbyists to fight us."

Guess Mr. O'Leary wasn’t at the hearing discussed in yesterday’s Growls when the government officials and their lobbyist marched to the General Assembly to lobby against taxpayers’ interest. Of course, when Arlington taxpayers travel elsewhere, local government officials in those localities happily tell those taxpayers the  taxes collected from Arlington County travelers will reduce their taxes.

The bill passed the House of Delegates 86-13 on February 4, but was defeated in the Senate on a party line vote, according to Norm Leahy blogging at Tertium Quids.

Norm also provides a video that shows several local government officials, including an official from the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) for which Arlington County taxpayers pay about $36,000 annually, “lobbying against the interests of taxpayers, or in this case, taxpaying property owners.” The bill has “fiscal implications,” which are spelled out in the Department of Taxation’s 2010 Fiscal Impact Statement:

“This bill would have no impact on state revenues. To the extent that shifting the burden of proof to the locality results in more appeals, this bill may increase the costs to localities of defending local tax appeals. To the extent that shifting the burden of proof to the locality results in more successful appeals, this bill may result in a decrease in local tax revenues.”

Although the shifting of the burden of proof may increase the cost of defending appeals, it’s seems the higher responsibility of the local government should be to correctly assess a taxpayer’s property. Consequently, it was disconcerting to watch local government officials lobbying against the interests of taxpayers.

While visiting the Tertium Quids blog, you can join the Tuesday Morning Group and/or signing up for the TQ Email Updates. And for anyone who believes the claim of the VACo lobbyist that the assessment process is "user-friendly," please contact ACTA.

Both Virginia Senators Mark Warner (D, score of 11%) and Jim Webb (D, 13%) received an F grade. Scores less than 16% received an F, which NTU describes as Big Spender. The average score for Democrats in the Senate was 9% and the median score was 6%.

Arlington County’s other member of Congress, Rep. Jim Moran (D). also received an F with a score of 2%. In fact, Moran scored lower than Virginia Representatives Gerald Connolly (D) with 6% and Bobby Scott (D) with 4%. The Democratic average in the House was 8% and the Democratic median was 4%.

Communicate with your Congressional representatives:

• Senator Jim Webb (D) -- write to him or call (202) 224-4024

• Senator Mark Warner (D) -  write to him or call (202) 224-2023

• Representative Jim Moran (D) -- write to him or call (202) 225-4376

• The Manager’s Office would eliminate one of the six issues each year of The Citizen. That plus reducing the number of brochures and flyers printed would save an estimated $27,180. Why not just  eliminate the cost of printing and postage, and send The Citizen electronically? For those few people who affirm they don’t have e-mail available, paper copies could be continued for a few more years. So instead of saving $27,180, Arlington’s taxpayers could save over $100,000 annually.

• The Acting Manager proposes some “transit service adjustments,” -- described as “minor” and the impact as "minimal" -- to the “route schedules and span of service on ART routes 61, 62, 51 and 53.” These “minor” adjustments would save an estimated $54,000 annually. Why wait to implement them until FY 2011? Why not implement them immediately?

When it’s taxpayers money they’re dealing with, it must be difficult for the county worthies to act quickly.

For the complete list of proposed FY 2011 budget reductions, see the County Manager’s Message in the FY 2011 proposed budget.