Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, October 8, 1995 TAG: 9510100048
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: G2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
To an unprecedented degree, at least for Virginia, Republican George Allen is trying to make the Nov. 7 General Assembly elections a midterm referendum on his gubernatorial administration. And to an unprecedented degree, legislative candidates of both parties are willing to see it that way as well.
The causes for the de-localization are not hard to discern, nor is the effect necessarily to be deplored.
One reason for the trend is the fact that the GOP at last is a genuinely competitive force at the legislative level. The party is only three seats from a majority in the state Senate; only three seats from a plurality, and four from a majority, in the House of Delegates. Those may not be easily acquired, particularly in the House, which was last elected just two years ago, compared to the Senate's four. But the governor and his party have much to gain from a turnover of just a handful of them. Virginia's Republican governors of the '70s, by contrast, had to work with overwhelmingly Democratic legislative majorities that were under no threat of displacement by the GOP.
Another reason for the trend is the presumed lesson of the 1994 congressional elections. The Republicans nationalized the election by making it a referendum on the first two years of Bill Clinton's Democratic presidency and, in House races, campaigning on a Contract with America. The upshot: The GOP took control of both houses of Congress for the first time since 1953.
Making this year's legislative elections in Virginia more than simply a basketful of local races could have the salutary effect of clarifying issues and adding a new measure of mandate and accountability to legislative and gubernatorial performance. Whether it will lead to GOP victory remains to be seen.
On several major policy points, it should be noted, the administration and the Democratic legislature have not been in fundamental disagreement.
On parole reform, the General Assembly went along with the Allen program that had been the centerpiece of his 1993 campaign for governor. The disagreement has come over how to finance it, with Democrats (joined by several Republicans) taking the fiscally conservative position of refusing to commit the state to future borrowing as heavily or as quickly as the administration wanted.
The administration's welfare-reform proposals likewise were approved. The argument, such as it is, is over who was first with welfare-reform legislation (answer: the Democrats, but with a less sweeping measure) and who can be trusted to stay the course.
On a third issue, the settlement with federal retirees on refunds of back taxes, not only did the General Assembly endorse the administration's position, but Majority Leader Richard Cranwell - otherwise the administration's bete noire - came to Allen's rescue by unfreezing negotiations with retiree leaders.
The deep disagreements have been over the governor's budget amendments introduced in the 1995 legislative session. Hunting for a way to cut taxes, Allen proposed sizable cuts from previously appropriated money for public schools, higher education, community mental-health services, museums, and social programs like Meals on Wheels for elderly shut-ins.
Assembly Democrats (joined, again, by several Republicans) successfully resisted, bolstered by public-opinion polls that suggested the unpopularity of Allen's proposals.
The budget proposals were ill-considered. But, in giving voters a chance to preview the budget approach he presumably will take if more administration loyalists are elected to the General Assembly next month, Gov. Allen performed a useful service. How useful may depend on how successfully this preview will be remembered amid the late-campaign ad blitzes almost surely on their way.
by CNB