WMATA Needs Anthony Williams

Share this article on:

In today’s Washington Times, Congressman Frank Wolf (VA-10, Retired) and Thomas Jefferson Institute President Derrick Max discuss Metro’s importance to the region, its near billion dollar deficits, its growing burden on local and state budgets, and the need for an empowered CFO to get Metro on solid financial footing. They also reject any discussion of a dedicated “Metro Tax” until substantial reforms are in place.

They write: “Metro’s financing troubles are well known. Billion dollar annual operating deficits are looming, billions in federal pandemic relief are ending, ridership has collapsed, and local jurisdictions are buckling under the annual bailout payments needed to keep the system afloat.”

“To avoid bankruptcy and to restore faith in Metro, WMATA needs a data-driven, results oriented CFO with unfettered powers, the ability to rewrite contracts, and to think outside the box for additional revenue.”

The authors compare WMATA’s financial troubles to those of Washington, D.C. in the early 1990s and call for the same person to right WMATA’s books as he once did successfully for our Nation’s Capital — former D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams!

The authors conclude: “Anthony Williams’ abilities are well known. He has a record of accomplishment that put Washington, D.C. on sound financial footing, and he has recently spelled out a credible path to do the same for Metro. WMATA needs you, Mayor Williams! Let’s make Metro work.”

Read Wolf and Max’s timely and insightful commentary in the Washington Times by clicking here.

Posted in Transportation | Comments Off on WMATA Needs Anthony Williams

Will Virginia’s Vote for President Disappear?

Share this article on:

As anyone with an email address or cell phone knows, Republicans and Democrats have ramped up their November battle.

The near-term focus has meant Democrats concentrating on Getting Out the Vote and Republicans placing a new emphasis on Election Integrity.

What conservatives are ignoring, however, is the Left’s look over the horizon with a progressive plan to ensure future Republican presidential defeats.

That plan and its future implications will be discussed by Save Our States Distinguished Fellow Michael Maibach at an October 1 Federal Policy Dinner in Tysons Corner. You can register by clicking here.

The progressive National Popular Vote proposal would make Virginia part of an interstate compact in which Virginia would be forced to give its Electoral College votes to whoever wins the national popular vote – regardless of how Virginians vote in future presidential elections.

With more than half of America’s population in just nine states, it would mean Virginians cede their decision to states like California, New York, Illinois, and Michigan. New York City alone, with a population larger than 39 states, would have an outsized influence on choosing the president.

This is precisely one of the reasons America’s Founding Fathers organized presidential elections with an Electoral College: To prevent the power of larger states from overwhelming the influence of smaller ones.

That balance has worked well for 237 years, even if the victor didn’t always receive the most votes. Five times, presidents have been elected with less than a plurality; 19 times with less than a majority … including John Quincy Adams, John F. Kennedy, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and a fellow named Abraham Lincoln.

Now ostensibly, the case being made by progressives is one of fairness: Americans should be able to vote directly for their president.

But few Western nations offer that opportunity. Of the 27 European Union countries, only two – Cypress and France — provide for direct elections. The others utilize a parliamentary system in which the head of government is chosen based on the composition of that nation’s legislature: Winston Churchill was never on the ballot for Prime Minister.

Direct popular elections have instead been the domain of such countries as Iran, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Russia, and a host of smaller countries.

Those looking to “democratize” the election would more appropriately duplicate Maine and Nebraska’s “split-vote model,” allocating one electoral vote to whoever wins each congressional district.  Yes, the Republican nominee would gain some electoral votes in places like California and New York, but the Democratic nominee would garner electoral votes in states like Alabama and Texas.

But don’t hold your breath. Fairness isn’t the Left’s goal. Victory is … and at all costs.

That’s why Maibach’s talk on October 1 is so important.

NPV organizers are trying to dramatically tear up the method of electing a President without even first obtaining the benefit of a national legislative consensus or even agreement by a majority of states.

A system created by the U.S. Constitution would be ripped apart without going through the annoying trouble of changing the Constitution. Their proposal simply requires a majority of states, representing 271 electoral votes, to agree to give their electoral votes to whoever gets the most national votes.

It’s a proposal guaranteed to exacerbate divisions in the country.

And it will be even worse to administer. Because it does not set a uniform standard and has none of the rules, guidelines, and protections that would exist in a truly nationalized election, results will set off a flurry of lawsuits.

In Virginia, for example, early voting started last Friday. But California early voting does not start until October 7; New York starts October 26. Will voters whose votes have been turned over to a majority decision made in other states have legal standing to sue? Will the type of voting machines state “A” uses give cause to further legal action by residents of state “B” using a different machine, since their votes will now have been decided by a state with different rules and different machines? Will recounts now have to be conducted not in one state but in all states?

If you liked the 2000 Florida recount or the accusations of a stolen election in 2020, you’ll love what the National Popular Vote scheme will do.

Yet, they are close. NPV organizers have secured changes in 18 states representing 209 electoral votes. Here in Virginia, it’s been introduced by Delegate Dan Helmer (D-Clifton). When enough states change their law to guarantee 271 electoral votes, the trigger will be pulled to impose the process on the country.

Trump supporters who contend the 2020 election was stolen haven’t provided the evidence. But in state after state, the election process was legally altered by, before the vote, changing laws and regulations governing those elections – usually without objection from the Republican Party or even the Trump White House. To paraphrase George Washington Plunkitt of Tammany Hall: “They seen their opportunities and they took ‘em.”

Progressives are thinking strategically, looking ahead not at this election but future ones, seeing their opportunities and taking them. Conservatives need to do the same, gather their arguments and make plans to stop the game plan before it moves farther.

Maibach will outline the threat and the strategy at the Thomas Jefferson Institute’s Federal Policy Dinner on October 1. It’s a good place to start fighting back.

Posted in Government Reform | Comments Off on Will Virginia’s Vote for President Disappear?

The Trade Policies of Both Candidates are Bad for Virginia

Share this article on:
One issue that is not getting enough attention in this election, especially for its impact on Virginia, is the growing “anti-trade” mentality of both major parties. In Tuesday’s debate, former President Donald Trump stated, “other countries are going to finally, after 75 years, pay us back for all that we’ve done for the world, and the tariff will be substantial…” Vice President Kamala Harris accurately responded that increased tariffs aren’t paid by foreign countries, but are really a sales tax on US consumers.

It is important to note, however, that Harris and the Biden administration have kept all of the increased tariffs from the first Trump administration in place. In May, they even raised tariffs on $18 billion of Chinese goods, including semiconductors and electric vehicles. The left remains committed to tariffs (sadly, often as a tool to force their green agenda) and the right is drifting against trade out of a misplaced “America First” mentality.

Even the Heritage Foundation, once a champion of free trade, in its much mischaracterized Project 2025 manifesto is waffling on free trade. In fact, Project 2025 contains two contradictory chapters — one by Peter Navarro entitled, “The Case for Fair Trade” and one by Kent Lassman entitled, “the Case for Free Trade.” It is clear that Heritage’s new trade philosophy increasingly emphasizes the need for “reciprocity and fairness” in trade agreements over open markets and increased trade.

This shift is not just bad for America generally, but is particularly bad for Virginia. International trade continues to play a vital role in Virginia’s economy, driving growth, supporting jobs, and enhancing competitiveness. According to the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, in 2023, Virginia exported $22.4 billion worth of goods, with key markets including Canada, China, and India. The agricultural sector alone contributed $1.5 billion in exports, underscoring its importance to the state. Additionally, over 7,000 Virginia-based companies are engaged in exporting, 85% of which are small- and medium-sized enterprises.

Trade accounts for roughly one in five jobs in the Commonwealth. These jobs span various industries, from manufacturing and agriculture to defense and technology. The state’s robust international engagement is further amplified by initiatives like the Virginia Economic Development Partnership’s VALET program, which has helped hundreds of businesses expand globally, contributing significantly to job creation and revenue growth.

Furthermore, improvements at The Port of Virginia, now one of the most advanced on the East Coast, have tripled its economic impact over the last two decades, reaching $92 billion in annual output. This has reinforced Virginia’s role as a critical hub for international trade. David White, Executive Director of the Virginia Maritime Association, is right when he argues that Virginia’s top spot on CNBC’s ranking of Top States for Doing Business is due in large part because of our robust shipping and maritime industries.

Rather than turning away from free trade, what Virginia needs now is a return to former President Ronald Reagan’s unwavering belief in free trade. Reagan rightly believed that trade was not just to expand America’s economic pie (which it has done remarkably over the last 30 years), but also to build wealth in our allies. It was viewed as an extension of individual liberty worldwide and a means of promoting peace and understanding between nations. In his view, when countries engage in mutually beneficial trade, they are less likely to resort to conflict.

During his Presidency, Reagan initiated the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations, which culminated in the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO), a global institution designed to oversee and regulate international trade. Reagan also signed the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, a precursor to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) now called the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which aimed to eliminate trade barriers between the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

Yes, Reagan sometimes overlooked inequalities in trade deals, but it was out of a hope of building wealth and peace and as a counter to the expansion of the then threatening eastern bloc. His policies worked.

Today, Russia is again on the move and China is rattling its sword towards Taiwan. We need friends and allies today, almost as much as we did back then! Free trade is an essential part of making those friendships a reality. It also is critical for our sustained economic leadership. In Virginia, as in the rest of the country, trade allows for greater wealth and economic security.

Leaders in both parties from Virginia need to press their respective leadership to keep America, and Virginia, open for business. This should be a bipartisan priority for the sake of Virginia’s economy.

Derrick Max is the President and CEO of the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy. He can be reached at [email protected].
Posted in Business, Economy, Politics | Comments Off on The Trade Policies of Both Candidates are Bad for Virginia

Two Tax Reforms a Stalemated General Assembly Could Agree To

Share this article on:

Then in 2024 the General Assembly stalemated over tax issues as Youngkin stymied a hard push from Democrats to increase several taxes, while Democrats spiked any efforts on the Governor’s part to expand on his tax cuts.  A final budget compromise that left the tax rules basically unchanged was the best possible outcome in that environment.

This stalemate environment will not have changed for the 2025 Assembly, Youngkin’s final one.  A legislative study commission that first met August 14 is heavily stacked in favor of Democrats, 9 to 3, and dominated by legislators who make all the spending decisions. Its work plan includes reopening the debate over expanding the sales tax to cover the digital economy, including the business-to-business provisions that were so controversial in 2024.

The data on the value of the Youngkin-era tax cuts come from page 14 of that work plan presentation. Most of the meeting was taken up with a primer on Virginia’s tax code. Legislators are usually better informed on how the money gets spent than on how it is raised by the state.

Along with the continued divide in goals between the parties – lower taxes for Republicans, more spending for Democrats – the national political environment also argues against major state tax policy changes in 2025. Virginia’s income tax rules are tightly tied to the federal rules, and most of the provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will expire soon. Virginia should make no major changes until the next President and Congress decide what to do about those expiring provisions.

That doesn’t mean Virginia’s leaders should not try to make additional progress now. There are a few key things on which they should be able to find broad agreement.

The meeting of the study committee followed the summer joint meeting of the two money committees to hear Gov. Youngkin report the results of the fiscal year that ended June 30. Despite the foregone revenue from the tax changes, and $2 billion in rebates in 2022 and 2023, the state finished the year comfortably in the black. Some of the credit for that goes to very conservative revenue projections, which were based on the prediction of a recession that never materialized.

Comparing the FY 2024 results to those of FY 2020, four years prior, total general fund revenue was up by almost a third. That happened despite the major increases in standard deductions and an earned income tax credit for lower income workers. Total personal income tax revenues rose by about the same amount, just under one-third. Corporate income tax collections were 90 percent higher than four years ago. The state’s various cash holdings have basically doubled in four years, to more than $30 billion at the end of June.

The concerning news – and it does demand attention – was the anemic growth of sales tax revenue. Despite a burst of strong inflation sales tax revenue grew only 21% over four years. One of the Youngkin tax cuts removed the state’s 1.5% tax on groceries, but that only contributed a bit to the slow growth of sales tax revenue.

The argument that the economy is changing, and more and more dollars are being spent on tax-exempt services, including digital services, is a better explanation. Revisiting all the exemptions for services and for digital products makes sense, and it should be possible to agree on some adjustments. But this expansion of the sales tax should not be undertaken to support an increase in state spending.

To prevent that, any expansion of the sales tax should be coupled with at least some targeted reductions elsewhere, preferably trimming the personal income tax. The first step, long advocated by the Thomas Jefferson Institute and long ignored by legislators, is to index Virginia’s tax rate brackets (unchanged since 1990) to inflation.

third presentation to this first meeting of the study committee, this one compiled by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, gave a strong endorsement to the idea that adjusting our state tax code to inflation would be a step toward fairness. Leaving the brackets untouched has allowed more and more working-class Virginians to see a higher percentage of their income taxed at the maximum rate year after year despite their actual inflation adjusted income going down.  The max tax of 5.75% kicks in at $17.000 of taxable income.

JLARC provided a very clear illustration of the “bracket creep” since 1990. Between 1990 and 2021, the median income tax filer saw their taxable income rise 108%. The tax they paid on that income, however, had risen 173%.

That is a major and very real tax increase just from inflation, a major hit to family budgets. It is the reason Virginia has become more and more reliant – too reliant really – on income tax for revenue.  The wave of significant inflation in the past three years has probably pushed that closer to 200%. Along with setting a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for the brackets, the state should also adjust for inflation other deductions and personal exemptions.

As JLARC pointed out, the changes the legislature did approve in Virginia’s standard deduction greatly improved the progressivity of the tax code. If Youngkin could cap his efforts with the application of a true COLA, even if it starts modestly from the current tax brackets and deductions, his legacy for major tax reform in a single term would be secure. This should be the focus.

Posted in Government Reform | Comments Off on Two Tax Reforms a Stalemated General Assembly Could Agree To

The Movie ‘Reagan’

Share this article on:

Those of us who had the privilege of working with Ronald Reagan know he was utterly unique—a true American original.

So it’s a delight to find Dennis Quaid, in the new movie “Reagan,” accomplishing a seemingly impossible task: bringing our 40th president to life in a way that makes you feel like you’re watching not an actor, but the real man behind that trademark grin.

That can’t have been easy. And Quaid has admitted as much in interviews about the film. He was wary of accepting the role because he knew he wouldn’t be introducing a movie character, but rather stepping into the shoes of a famous person audiences already know—or think they know.

And that’s really the point of this film: to see the whole sweep of Reagan’s life and figure out what made him tick—to see how the son of an alcoholic traveling salesman moved from a small town in Illinois to the bright lights of Hollywood, to the governor’s mansion in California, and finally to the pinnacle of power at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, across the River.

Reagan still inspires many who entered politics long after he left the political stage—even some on the Left, who oppose his policies. He’s hailed as the Great Communicator. And with good reason: Few politicians could match his rhetorical skill and his ability to articulate great themes that resonated with the American people.

But that’s where many stop. They don’t want to emulate his policies or his agenda.

They just hope that if they study his methods, a little of his “magic” will rub off on them.

To know and to work with Ronald Reagan was to appreciate a different person. One of my first personal encounters was in 1977 during my first year as President of Heritage when I called on the former Governor at his private home in Bel Aire, California.  His assistant invited me into the house to wait in his library for him.

What a library it was! A quick scan and I picked out a shelf with conservative classics by Friedrich von Hayek, Russell Kirk, Bill Buckley and other conservative thinkers.

I gingerly pulled down Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, flipped it open, and there were Reagan’s marginal notes on almost every page.

This man was not just a great communicator—he read, he understood, and then he communicated great ideas.

So it wasn’t just Reagan’s ability to communicate that endeared him to millions of Americans. It was the fact that he spoke to their most cherished beliefs and that he articulated them so well.

You weren’t going to get a poll-tested word salad from Ronald Reagan. No, it was:

·        Taxes are too high—let’s cut them.

·        Inflation is too high—let’s tame it.

·        The Cold War can be won—let’s do it.

The fable of many on the Left is that this was all smoke and mirrors.

But the facts tell a different story. Reagan took the “stagflation” mess his predecessor handed him and created an economic miracle.

After his three-stage tax cut and a reduction in government growth, our economy expanded. Americans of every class—rich, middle-class, and poor—saw their wealth increase.

It was our nation’s longest peacetime expansion in our history. By decade’s end, we had added the economic equivalent of a new Germany to our GDP. Inflation was cut by two-thirds, interest rates by half. Unemployment dropped to its lowest level in 15 years.

And, as President, he remembered his intellectual mentors:  I had the honor of presenting Heritage’s Distinguished Fellow Friedrich von Hayek, for a private meeting with the President in the Oval Office in November, 1983, and the honor of receiving the Presidential Citizens Medal from the President, simultaneously with Heritage’s other Distinguished Fellow, Russell Kirk, in January, 1989.

So, on our side, it’s because of his policy track record that so many politicians seek to portray themselves as latter-day Reagans.

To decide whether they deserve this mantle, however, let’s consider this quote from his farewell address:

” ‘We the people’ tell the government what to do; it doesn’t tell us. ‘We the people’ are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast.”

How many talk like that these days? Far too few, I am afraid.

If the new movie that bears his name encourages people to take a closer look at the man, at what he believed, and why–then it will have, to use one of his most famous lines, “won one for the Gipper.”

Ladies and Gentlemen, it was—and still is—with great pride when I hear a stranger, a friend, a colleague or a talking head say that “The Heritage Foundation was Ronald Reagan’s favorite think-tank.”

Thank you, for everything, Mr. President!

Ladies and gentlemen, let’s enjoy the movie!

Posted in Politics | Comments Off on The Movie ‘Reagan’