Forus on major issues

lewleadbeater.com

notes from the edge

Home

Email Me

				THE
Column Archive				VIRGINIA GAZETTE
				WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA
Focus on Major Issues				January 22, 2003

Political questionnaires are always instructive, in that they seem to be concocted by political dimwits for what they conceive to be uninformed political nitwits. Stroking the egos of the loyalists to whom they send their questions, the parties and politicians always make it clear that they desperately need their constituents’ opinions in order to frame their political and social agendas. In actuality, the thrust of these questionnaires is toward the lucre politicians need to wage campaigns. Hence usually appended to the blatantly preaching-to-the-choir type questions is a request for a contribution.

Such I thought would be the case with the questionnaire I recently received from Sen. Tommy Norment. Much to my surprise, however, Norment was not beating the bushes for money, but seemed to be genuinely interested in what I thought about issues facing the new legislative session of the General Assembly. Most of the questions go into some detail about the issues involved and offer the respondent more than the usual yes or no options.

However, as I began to read the questions, I realized that the questionnaire was more instructive for what it omitted than what it contained.

The first question, for instance, deals with cascading state revenues and what actions need to be taken to balance the state budget. Yet the only possibilities Norment offers in this area are further cuts in state programs, suspending the reduction of the car tax, or dipping into the rainy day fund.

Nowhere does he even hint that he or the legislature might be fascinated enough with the oozing budget morass to revisit the state tax code and perhaps do away with giveaways and loopholes that allow millions of dollars to flee state coffers. Nor does he mention the possibility of raising the state income tax, which is ridiculously low compared to other states. No, the lassitudinous legislature will instead tinker around the edges and make noises about raising “sin taxes,” which are only a drop in the bucket when it comes to keeping vital state programs going.

Another glaring omission in the questionnaire is any direct mention of the destitute state in which our institutions of higher learning find themselves. There is a question about how best to improve “public education,” and another dealing with “basic aid to education,” whatever that might be, but the only question dealing with the state’s colleges and universities asks whether we should limit the number of out-of-state students coming into the state university system.

Apparently oblivious to the fact that the amount of funding given to our colleges and universities is an embarrassment to the state, the legislature will resort to quick fixes and allow the evisceration of our institutions of higher learning to continue unabated.

Even more telling is the fact that Norment omits completely any mention of the state’s transportation woes. Buoyed by the fact that voters rejected the poorly formulated transportation referenda, our soporific legislators are more than happy to slog their way to Plan B, which is to do nothing.

Yet these are the areas – tax code revision, funding for higher education, and transportation – in which the legislature should be totally engrossed during this session, and certainly to the exclusion of the social tinkering in which they seem to revel.

If Norment’s questionnaire is any indication of what will go on in Richmond, there is little doubt that issues relating to sexuality and abortion are high on the list. Indeed, there are no fewer than 21 bills in the hopper now relating to abortion. Yet Norment’s question about partial birth abortion seems to imply that at least he is willing to bow to the Supreme Court and extricate himself from the quagmire in which this issue wallows. His colleagues, however, will determinedly press on with it.

As they will press on with the question of parental permission for a minor to have an abortion. Or of parental notification if a minor contracts a sexual disease or engages in “promiscuous sexual behavior.” Or if someone 18 or over “carnally knows” a teen of 15 or older, whether the relationship be consensual or not. Still another bill would raise to a Class 3 felony “consensual sex acts” with someone over 13.

The point is that, while questions relating to sexual conduct may have some validity, they are not what the state legislature should be about this time around. Yet our legislators seem more psychotically enamored of things orgasmic than willing to deal with the larger issues with which they should be concerned.

In the end, I thank Senator Norment for his questionnaire, and I urge him to follow the advice given in his second answer to the partial birth control question: “Focus on other issues for this session.” And, I might add, other issues of critical importance to the state.