Budgets too big for our britches

Last week, the Virginia General Assembly was all over the national news. Unfortunately, our legislators made the news with a proposal to fine people for showing their underwear. At least Republicans are not primarily to blame for this embarrassment. The bill to ban the exposure of “below-waist undergarments in a lewd or indecent manner” came from a Democrat, Del. Algie Howell of Norfolk. (No word yet on whether or not Del. Howell plans to criminalize wearing baseball caps backward.)

But even though the bill’s patron was a Democrat, it received plenty of support in the House from Republicans, including Dels. Morgan Griffith (Salem), William Fralin (Roanoke) and David Nutter (Montgomery). The bill died a mercifully quick death in the Senate Courts of Justice Committee, to be followed, I hope, by an equally quick disappearance from late-night talk show monologues.

Since the “big pants” bill is already dead, I would not mention it again, except that its brief stint of notoriety underlines a disquieting trend among Virginia Republicans, both state and federal: the emerging belief that government can be a force for good in the right hands, and therefore, the Republican principle of limited government may be set aside when Republicans themselves have power.

Regulating the droopiness of people’s drawers was comical, but the budgets submitted by the House and Senate this session are far more serious matters. The House has gone on record recommending the continued phase-out of the car tax (although the renewed phase-out would not even begin for two years), and the Delegates would accelerate a very small drop in the food tax. The Senate Republicans do even less for taxpayers. Neither Republican-controlled body even considered proposals to return the budget surplus, now exceeding $1 billion.

It gets worse. Gov. Mark Warner, taking a break from the hard work of attending the Super Bowl, issued a statement commending both houses for their budget proposals. Even more depressing, the spokesperson for Virginia governmental employees is “extremely pleased” with the Republicans (although she allowed that she would be a lot happier with more money.) Republicans in Richmond also pleased Warner’s Transportation secretary.

When state employees start coming in first before the state’s employers (that is, the taxpayers), it is clear that the Republicans need to do some rereading of their own statement of beliefs. They could start with this pearl of wisdom from Virginian George Washington: “Government is not reason and it is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master.”

House Republicans are also placing so-called “cultural attractions,” such as the science and history museums, ahead of the taxpayers. They would do well to recall the words of another Virginian, Thomas Jefferson: “Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have.”

Even U.S. Sen. George Allen, Jefferson’s successor in Richmond, is showing a startling attachment to government money. When President George W. Bush proposed his fiscally responsible budget last week, Allen’s first public response was to complain about “cuts” to the aeronautics research program at NASA-Langley in Virginia. Allen gave what I’m sure he considers good reasons for more money for NASA-Langley. Morgan Griffith told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that the budget surplus is being spent on “good things.”

Allen, Griffith and my fellow Republicans in Richmond are missing the point. Many government programs can be justified on some level. Many government agencies can point to positive things they are doing with tax money. One can even make a good argument that people shouldn’t display their underwear. But the right question to ask is, are these government actions desirable enough to justify curtailing the incomes, or the freedom, of taxpayers?

Legislators in Richmond and Washington should think of tax money as the “food” of government. To tell someone he or she needs to lose some weight is not the same as telling them that food is a bad thing, or that particular foods are bad, taken in moderation. But government can only “eat” by taking food away from the rest of us. The standard of usefulness or desirability needed to justify taking food from those who produce to those who don’t should be much, much higher than the one Virginia Republican politicians seem to be applying. Otherwise, they are exposing themselves to charges that they are forsaking their principles for votes. And they’re exposing the taxpayers to bipartisan abuse.

So where are those proposals to ban indecent exposure when we really need them?