Giesen Perspective

THE GIESEN PERSPECTIVE

The National Election, State Election Activities, and The Money Committees Gear up for 2005

DATE: November 19, 2004

The Presidential Election and Other Thoughts

Many newspapers labeled our recent presidential election as, “…the most divisive election in American history.” This seemed to resonate with many individuals who supported the Kerry-Edwards ticket. They are threatening to leave the country. On one talk show this week a New Yorker called in and indicated he was already packing to move to Canada.

Other media writers have stressed the “mud slinging” was the worse “they had ever witnessed!” Some have even indicated with the President winning re-election, “…the poor will get poorer, the rich will get richer and the middle classes in the U.S. will be in jeopardy of loosing all their retirement savings!" And so the rhetoric goes.

History might bring some of these comments into better focus. There is a rather interesting history called, The Founding Brethren. Its opening chapter describes two boats crossing a misty river to Weehawken, N. Y. The scene took place on July 11, 1804. It is of some note that this year the 200^th anniversary of that crossing went almost unnoticed. There seem to be few modern political media writers or commentators who are interested in history that is more than a decade old! Yet as the sun broke the horizon and the mist cleared on that day, two of our “founding fathers” settled their personal and very different political views.

Can you just picture Alexander Hamilton saying how divisive the politics of his day were, just before the sitting Vice President, Aaron Burr put a bullet in his chest finishing one of the most fervently fought political feuds in our history. The former Secretary of the Treasury succumbed the next day.

Oh yes, this final chapter in the hostilities between these two Revolutionary heroes, was Hamilton’s publications which vilified Burr during his 1804 race for the Governorship of New York (this even while he was the sitting Vice President—see how things have changed). Hamilton noted Burr as “a dangerous man, and one who ought not to be trusted with the reins of government.” Burr lost to Hamilton’s candidate by a three to two margin (gee, that wasn’t even close!). Burr demanded an apology, Hamilton refused and Burr challenged him to a duel. Hamilton accepted, perhaps a fatal mistake.

Another factor you should remember about this period in history. Burr and Jefferson had both received 73 electoral votes in the 1800 election. This, of course, threw the election into the House. Both Burr and Jefferson were Democratic-Republicans. The balloting in the House went on for 34 ballots before Jefferson was selected President and Burr became the Vice-President. The circumstances on the 34th ballot—Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist, persuaded the Federalist representatives from Vermont and Maryland to cast blank ballots, allowing the Republicans to cast the states’ votes for Jefferson and changing the course of history. Now these were our Founding Fathers. Do you really think “backroom politics” went on in those days?

Now fast forward to the election of 1960. The media referred to this as “the most divisive national election in modern history.” At least for this election they only related it to “modern history!” People who supported Richard Nixon threatened to leave the country. Most mentioned Australia as a good place to go! There were many who knew the Catholics under the guidance of Joe Kennedy had stolen the election in Illinois and probably Ohio and cost Nixon the Presidency. Now they were absolutely convinced the Pope would start running the U.S. of A. and they had to escape! You may remember this was probably the closest election in terms of popular vote with Kennedy getting 49.7% and Nixon 49.5. In electoral votes, Kennedy secured 303 to Nixon’s 219. But then, of course, some of Kennedy’s were “tainted!”

History has taught us that the country didn’t “go to hell in a hand basket” as some predicted after Kennedy’s election. Fortunately, as far as I know, very few who threatened to leave the country after his election did so. Hopefully, any of you who felt this was a preferable course than living here for “Four More Years!” might want to reconsider. As history has shown, The United States has great resiliency. The pendulum will swing back and the country will survive. Just wait and see!

VIRGINIA’S ELECTION RETURNS

Politicians and political pundits have been examining the Virginia returns for the past two and a half weeks. Why? After all, Bush carried the state as has every Republican Presidential candidate since 1964. Kerry only received 45.4% of the vote while Bush received 53.7%. By “modern standards” that is a land slide!” But did you know Kerry received 232,000 more votes than Gore did in 2000? Now, you do realize, Bush got some 278,000 more than he did four years ago! There were also some interesting local results.

Petersburg remained solidly Democratic, Kerry received 81.66% of that city’s vote. But then not too far away, Poquoson citizens cast 77.29% of their votes for Bush. The other big Kerry supporters by % of votes cast included Charlottesville (72.08%); Richmond (70.27%); Arlington (67.89%); and Alexandria (67.09%).

In the Bush column after Poquoson came Colonial Heights (74.53%); Rockingham (75.09%); Augusta (74.47%); and, Powhatan (73.73%).

Some of the more interesting “changes” in their vote support was where the voters of Fairfax County for the first time since 1964 went for the Democratic Nominee, while Caroline County switched (barely) to the Republican column. Albemarle and Prince Edward counties voted for Kerry this year after supporting Bush in 2000, but then Southampton County, the city of Suffolk and Russell County all switched to Bush after the majority of their votes went for Gore in 2000. What does all this mean? The political scientists will be studying that until 2008! Then they will give us the answers. It does show there is a shift in political thinking in some isolated areas, but generally the state voted as expected!

THE STATE ELECTIONS

In the early days of my political experience (no I was not at the duel between Burr and Hamilton, this was a little later!) the parties concentrated on the upcoming election. This is no longer true. While the public and the media concentrated on the Presidential and Congressional races during the past six months, there were many other state related political activities. Aspirants for the 2005 statewide offices—Governor, Lt. Governor, and Attorney General—are out seeking support and “officially” announcing their candidacies. More on these in a later Perspective.

Since May there have been other activities that have received scant notice in the media. Now, being a “legislative liaison” for non-profits, local governments, and educational institutions you don’t normally receive invitation to the fund raisers of sitting legislators (they know we don’t have any PAC money and very little personal resources—after all look at the groups for whom we advocate!). Nonetheless, there have been no less than 36 invitations received in this office since May to fund raising functions.

The creativity of legislators, and probably their fund raising consultants, in gaining peoples attention and getting their contributions is remarkable. Included with a host of golf tournament and breakfast invitations, there have also been opportunities (if you can just cough up a little cash—any where from $5000 for a group to $100 or $250 for an individual, depending on the event, of course!) to attend a fall gala, a grand prix, several Sporting Clay Tournaments, a go-kart plus event, a “party on the pier’, a picnic and ball game at the Diamond here in Richmond, and even an ice cream social.

These are all designed to put money in the coffers of these incumbents in anticipation of the elections in 2005 and 2007. This is not to belittle these efforts but rather to contrast them to how people approached campaigns some 40 years ago.

With the cost of running a campaign in the 21^st Century, incumbents and aspirants all have to go to these extremes.

In addition, several new PAC groups have sprung up relating to the Budget and Tax positions of various legislators in the 2004 extended session. One of these has sent out a “Wanted Poster” for 34 House and Senate Republicans who broke the budget impasse in May and supported the tax package which emerged in the compromise. This group has vowed to “raise millions” to defeat these “maverick Republicans.” In politics, when there is a push there is normally a “push back.” (Hopefully, in the 21^st Century this will not result in any gun duels, but it does look like it will involve a “duel in big bucks!”)

Now a business oriented group, chaired by former Republican Delegate Panny Rhodes and Republican activist Jimmy Hazel, has announced their intention of supporting these “maverick Republicans’. They have indicated they will be particularly interested in protecting the 17 House members who broke with the party leadership to fashion the compromise package which gave Virginia a 2004-2006 Budget. This group already has a million bucks in the bank, so they are ready to back up their words with hard cash. It wouldn’t be unusual to see a group who has been so successful already to also set their sights on making some other changes in the make up of the House. The 2005 House of Delegates races are going to be fun to watch.

MONEY COMMITTEES GEAR UP FOR THE 2005 SESSION

While all of this politic'n is going on, the purpose of elected officials, to govern once elected, in continuing. Both the House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Finance Committee held their annual “retreats” within the past two weeks. Interestingly, both held them in Charlottesville. Remember the votes listed above? Both committees are dominated by Republicans and both held their retreats in a location which had the second highest percentage vote for the Democratic Candidate for President. Go figure!

Here’s a brief word on the meetings, then more about them in my next Perspective (after I return from a sunny vacation). The reports to the members by invited economists and their staffs agree with the “leaked forecast from the Governor” on the potential for a surplus approaching one billion dollars. But each committee chair went to great lengths to discourage any “new programs which will make it difficult to fashion a 2006-2008 budget in the 2006 session. They encouraged their members to understand the mandatory demands on any funds over and above the forecast (estimated by the Senate Finance Committee staff to be at least $662 million) and to restrict their demands to “one time expenditures which will not put pressure on future operating needs of the state.”

There was one contrasting feature of the two retreats. The House Appropriations Committee barely mentioned the transportation needs of the state. At the Senate Finance Committee function, one major section of their time was devoted to TRANSPORTATION. The staff laid out the problems very specifically. (1) The state is fast transitioning from a “new construction to a maintenance” focused transportation system. (2) If projections hold true, by 2014 the Commonwealth will no longer be able to match Federal funds. (This would cause the state to receive less of the Federal Road allocation than it would be entitled.)

The staff presentation then emphasized, “one time use of general fund dollars cannot begin to address what needs to be done.” This puts the Senate Committee on a different course than the Governor who has hinted he is considering recommending part of the General Fund “surplus” be used for the transportation needs of the state.

From the presentations at their “Retreat” one would gather the Senate Committee may be more interested in closing the gap between the present funding for Higher Education and that needed to meet the Base Adequacy formula established by a legislative study committee several years ago. During the 2004 session about half of the identified needs of Higher Ed under this formula were funded. It would appear the Committee Members are leaning toward attempting to fund the other half with the extra funds from the “surplus” after the mandatory expenditures are met.

It will be most interesting to see what the Governor recommends when he presents his budget to the Money Committees on December 17!

___________________

Arthur R. Giesen, Jr., fondly known as Pete, served in the Virginia House of Delegates for over 30 years. He represented the citizens of the Central Shenandoah Valley surviving four different district realignments. During his career he represented Augusta, Bath, Highland and part of Rockingham County and the Cities of Staunton and Waynesboro.

Following his career as an elected official, Pete assisted Lt. Governor John H. Hager as his Chief of Staff.

Pete now keeps an eye on Virginia government and assists many clients with his unique perspective on the workings of the Virginia General Assembly and its relationship with the other branches of state government.