ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, November 21, 1996 TAG: 9611210071
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: RAY L. GARLAND
SOURCE: RAY L. GARLAND
ANXIOUSLY awaiting the end of the presidential election were two gentlemen with every reason to be more concerned about next year, when a new governor of Virginia will be chosen. They were the usual suspects, Republican Attorney General James Gilmore and Democratic Lt. Gov. Don Beyer.
As the dust settled Nov. 5, both were readying competing proposals to hand out more state aid to those enrolling in state colleges. Beyer also borrowed from President Clinton's playbook to tweak Gilmore for not enlisting Virginia in the legal assault on the tobacco companies.
For the record, Gilmore would spend up to $24 million a year giving $2,000 college-tuition scholarships to all high-school students who make good grades and behave themselves. This might be viewed in the context of total state spending on higher education, including what's paid by students, of about $3.5 billion a year. Not to be outdone, a Beyer spokesman said the lieutenant governor's yet-to-be-unveiled plan would "reward any student willing to work hard in school."
These proposals recognize two facts. First, in order to make ends meet and find money for other pressing programs, students and their families have been required to put up a larger share of college costs. Second, poll after poll shows voters want to hear promises of not only more but better opportunities in all aspects of education. But maybe not if higher taxes are required to do it.
Earlier this year, Virginia Tech's Center for Survey Research asked 1,168 adult Virginians if they would support higher state income taxes to provide more funding for both public schools and colleges. About half said yes and about half said no. The problem with all such polls is they don't tell us who are the more likely voters or which side will be the most motivated to advance its cause.
Considering the vast expansion of all aspects of education in the past 30 years - and its phenomenal cost - it's somewhat difficult to understand why people should be in such a lather. Well, maybe not. Politics is a sphere of merchandising where buyers and sellers want a limited menu of choice. One year it's crime, the next it's high taxes, etc. There's nothing worse in politics than pushing last year's hot button.
Gilmore is wise in refusing to yield the education issue to Democrats, who have seemed lately to own it. You may recall that in 1995, Gov. George Allen tried to set the stage for a Republican legislative majority by proposing various tax cuts and spending reductions to pay for them. This gave Democrats an opening to depict the GOP as willing to cut education in order to give scant tax relief that people really didn't need (state taxes were already low) nor particularly want. They rejected the governor's proposals across the board and held a narrow majority of seats in the election that followed.
In that campaign, Democrats played the education card while Republicans featured Allen's appeal to give his party a legislative majority that would cut taxes, get tough on crime, etc. You have to wonder what the result might have been had the governor taken the education issue by the horns and told voters that under his administration more money than ever was being spent on education - that his priority was to spend it more effectively.
Would voters have been impressed by what we are actually spending, and how much it has grown over the past 25 years? Just the other day, the General Accounting Office reported that from 1981 to 1995, average college tuition grew by 234 percent, or three times the rate of inflation!
Political consultants will tell you, as they are almost certainly telling Beyer and Gilmore, that you must never confuse voters with too many facts - keep it simple. Besides, the minute you talk about how much we're spending, some will get the idea you think it's too much. Far better to say, "No matter what we're doing, it isn't enough."
The legislative session convening in January will be marked by jockeying for advantage in the upcoming election. Democratic leaders are certain to try to take credit for finding additional money for education and a few other popular causes. Republicans are likely to vie for credit, and there will be scant sentiment to use any surplus to reduce taxes.
When the 1996-98 budget was being prepared a year ago, revenues were predicted to grow 3.7 percent a year. But in the first three months of the new biennium, revenues actually grew 5.8 percent. Some believe a stronger-than-expected economy will allow the assembly to increase spending by more than $150 million in the fiscal year beginning next July 1. That should be seen in the context of state spending now exceeding $17 billion a year.
But the size of any increase doesn't diminish the political advantage that seems to arise from being able to boast of adding "millions" for education, etc. Just remember all the fuss Democrats made over Allen's refusal to accept $6 million in federal Goals 2000 money. That represented less than one-tenth of 1 percent of what the state and localities are spending to support public schools.
Beyer and Gilmore are capable if somewhat colorless politicians who have yet to register with many voters. Millions in advertising can change that, of course, as Mark Warner just proved. Unlike the recent Senate race, neither candidate begins as a clear favorite. Gilmore will be hurt to some extent by Allen policies that have angered state employees and educators. But the governor remains a popular figure who seems to want to end his term on a less partisan note, stressing his record as super salesman of economic growth.
The two most recent state elections - 1995 and 1996 - show the generic Republican or conservative vote still fairly strong, though not quite so robust as it once was. It is also a fact that not since 1973 has the party holding the White House won the Virginia governor's race.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times columnist.
LENGTH: Medium: 100 linesby CNB