Jeff Shapiro: "What does Tim Kaine know that we don't?

As usual, it's fascinating to hear what Jeff Schapiro's thinking. As Norman Leahy writes, "To understand where Official Richmond stands, one reads Jeff Schapiro. Or watches his short videos, like the one [above]." So, I did that, and it provoked a few reactions.

1. I'm not sure if Jeff Schapiro is playing devil's advocate or simply stating Tim Kaine's line du jour, but I completely agree that "too many people depend on the state to just cut, cut, cut." At this point, after billions of dollars in previous cuts, we're pretty much at the point of slashing into muscle, sinew and bone. In other words, with all the relatively easy trims made to state spending, it's going to be painful from here on out. We're talking layoffs, closures, larger classroom sizes, fewer cops on the street, fewer rest stops when you're on the road and are running out of gas, etc. That's the reality of what happens when balancing the budget ONLY means "cut, cut, cut," without any additional revenue sources to fund the programs most of us know and rely on.

2. I agree with Schapiro that "budgets are more than dollars and decimal points, they're political documents" I know, it's shocking, SHOCKING! that politics is going on in Richmond, but that's life. The real question is, will Kaine's "political statement with his final budget" be effective or not? Will the "target audience" be receptive to Kaine's message that "government is supposed to be a force for good...supposed to help those who need it?" Finally, will it "force McDonnell to make tough choices, substitute deeper cuts in popular programs, tax giveaways for powerful interests" and hurt McDonnell politically? It's possible, but I'm highly skeptical. Over the past four years, we have seen essentially ZERO evidence of Tim Kaine being able to frame the issue in a way that hurts Republicans. True, in 2007 Democrats picked up 4 seats each in the House of Delegates and State Senate, but we lost the House seats - and more - right back in 2009. In addition, I'd argue that we could have and SHOULD have won a lot more seats in 2007, and that we didn't in large part because Kaine failed to frame the issues properly. In particular, I am talking about the "transportation monstrosity" which Kaine should have vetoed but instead, foolishly (many of us warned him at the time, so this is NOT "Monday morning quarterbacking"), signed into law. Given that avoidable policy and political debacle, I am highly skeptical of Kaine's ability to corner Republicans and make them pay a political price. But here's hoping that, as he heads out the door, Tim Kaine wins one for a change (the image of Lucy and the football springs to mind).

3. I also have to ask, as Jeff Schapiro does, "Where has Kaine been?" The focus of my question is a bit different than Schapiro's, though. What I want to know is where Kaine's been in terms of explaining to the public that we need more revenues, not only cuts in services? In particular, where was Kaine when he should have been vetoing the foolish estate tax repeal that costs our Commonwealth $120 million or so per year in order to help a couple hundred super-rich families? Isn't that the core of progressivism and Democratic values, the concept that the wealthy should pay a greater share of the costs since they have reaped a far greater share of the benefits from the system? In contrast to "Mark Warner Part 1" (aka, Mark Warner), who vetoed the estate tax repeal, "Mark Warner Part 2" (aka, Tim Kaine) signed it into law, putting a major hole in our budget and also undermining a core progressive and Democratic principle. Now, three years after the estate tax repeal, we've probably lost something like $360 million in revenues, yet now Kaine's talking about raising taxes in the middle of a nasty recession? I dunno, maybe Kaine and his advisors are just a lot smarter than I am, but I can't figure out the logic here at all. Which leaves me with the question that Jeff Schapiro asks at the start of this video: "What does Tim Kaine know that we don't?