Did Pat Herrity vote to raise taxes?
By D.J. McGuire | Thursday, May 27th, 2010 | Politics
One of the biggest issues driving the Republican primary in the 11th District is Pat Herrity’s voting record on taxes, and for good reason. Supporting tax increases is usually problematic for any Republican; in the current environment, it can practically be the kiss of death. Naturally, as soon as Fimian supporter Mason Conservative raised the issue, Herrity supporters are insisting that his vote to raise the tax rate was not a vote to raise taxes, because assessments on property had fallen. Herrity’s mantra is, essentially, that average homeowners were largely spared a tax hike, so therefore, he is not a tax-hiker. For the most part, Fimian backers call it all balderdash.
The reality is more complicated – and yet at the same time simpler – than either side is conveying.
As a former candidate for County Board of Supervisors myself (Spotsylvania, 2009), I have some knowledge of what is and is not considered a tax increase. What matters in years where new assessments are taken (every two years in Spotsylvania, every year in Fairfax) is the equalization rate, i.e., the rate at which the change in assessment is matched by an equal and opposite change in the rate.
For example, this year in Spotsylvania, property values fell by more than 20%. So while the old rate was 62 cents per $100, the equalization rate was at the much higher 83 cents. That was the rate where local government was essentially getting the same amount of money from taxpayers that it got last year (of course, that wasn’t enough for my Board. Let by my victorious opponent, they raised the rate to 86 cents – a tax increase by any definition).
The problem with Fairfax’s way of calculating the tax effect of their rates is that they focus on residential property (homes), not all property. Since commercial, office, and industrial property usually hold their value better the residences, ignoring them in your calculation can lead to a rate above actual equalization (in plain English, when a local politician says the average homeowner won’t pay more taxes, he’s raising taxes on businesses, hoping you don’t notice).
So in order to figure out the tax effect of the now-famous 2009 Fairfax rate rise from 92 cents to $1.04, we need to calculate the actual equalization rate for that year. As it turns out, Page 8 of the Fairfax General Fund Overview gives us the overall property value reduction. Plug that in to the equalization calculation method (seen here on page “67″), and one finds an equalization rate of . . . $1.04.
In other words, Pat Herrity’s vote was for the equalization rate, and thus, in and of itself, was not a tax increase.
That’s the good news for Herrity. Here’s the bad news: he cast other tax votes that can’t be explained away so easily.
In fact, mere minutes after he voted for the equalized tax rate, a new tax of one cent per $100 – for a newly created stormwater service district that included the entire county except for Fort Belvoir – came up for a vote. In effect, this was a vote to increase the rate from $1.04 to $1.05. This tax increase was passed 10-0, and Pat Herrity was one of the ten (see the bottom of Page 5 of the minutes).
As if that wasn’t bad enough, exactly 52 weeks before this, when the FY09 budget was being discussed, a new tax of 11 cents per $100 was imposed “on commercial and industrial property for transportation purposes” (4/28/08 minutes, page 5). Once again, because homeowners were not mentioned, this didn’t get the attention it should, but a tax increase is a tax increase. Once again, this tax hike passed 10-0 (page 6), among the “ayes” were two candidates for the 11th District seat in 2010: Gerry Connolly and Pat Herrity.
That’s not company I would keep.
So, to sum up . . .
Did Pat Herrity raise taxes when he voted to move the rate from 92 cents to $1.04? No.
That aside, has Pat Herrity raised taxes? You bet your a** he has.
Therefore, for whom should low-tax, limited-government conservatives in the 11th District vote on June 8 and November 2? Keith Fimian.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Former candidate for Board of Supervisors in Spotsylvania, current blogger, economics teacher, and long-rumored windbag. There are two causes closest to the heart: steering the country away from the social democratic nonsense that is sinking Europe, and convincing the rest of the "rightosphere" that the NBA really is a joy to watch.
Comments
10 Responses to "Did Pat Herrity vote to raise taxes?"
[...] Cross-posted to Bearing Drift [...]
DJ, as I explained to you before, the stormwater tax was not new and was not raised. It was one cent before FY2009, and it was one cent after FY2009. The only difference is that it became a standalone rate, rather than being wrapped into the property tax rate.
Yeah seeing ‘DJ’ on the comment is really gonna throw me off for a while
VA Blogger,
The verbiage is trumped by the numbers. The old combined property tax rate was $0.92. The equalized rate was $1.04. Taken together, the new combined rate was $1.05. That is one cent above equalization, and thus a tax increase.
Additionally, there is the commercial-industrial tax increase of the previous year, which I notice you did not address. That is most certainly a tax increase.
My problem with the equalization formula is that over the entire decade home values rose and because of it people paid higher property taxes. Where was this equalization argument then because the math works both ways? Using this equalization tool to argue that a tax rate increase does not raise taxes during times of decreasing assessments is disingenuous unless the same logic is also used to lower the tax rate during times of increasing assessments. I am a Loudoun resident, and while I don’t know the whole history of Fairfax County tax rates, I highly doubt that the property tax rate was lowered every year from 1999-2008 as the equalization formula would have calculated.
Ryan,
Of course they didn’t equalize the rate when assessments were rising, which means even if they the lowered the rate, they still raised taxes.
Again, using Spotsylvania as an example, in 2005, the rate was 89 cents. The assessments in 2006 rose so high that the new equalization rate was 62 cents. One Supervisor tried to argue for 63 or 64 (if memory serves), saying, in effect, “hey, we’re reducing the rate a whole bunch.” The Board majority rejected that logic and set the rate at 62 cents, because they understood that anything above 62 cents was a tax increase.
That Fairfax politicians refused to acknowledge this (and voters apparently let them get away with it) is just one more reminder that folks in NoVa are not necessarily smarter than the rest of us after all.
Meanwhile, Herrity wasn’t on the Board during that time (1999-2007). We can only look at his record on the Board (2008-10), which, as I have painstakingly noted, includes votes to raise taxes.
Yep, Herrity raised taxes. And Fimian’s tv commercial is awesome!
[...] a new TV ad highlighting Pat Herrity’s record on raising taxes. Also, D.J. McGuire over at Bearing Drift has a great piece up about Herrity’s tax record as [...]
While I agree with your premise about Herrity raising taxes for the stormwater and transportation districts, I take issue with your characterization of the equalization vote. That is an increase in the tax rate, even if it does not generate new revenue for the county.
I expect that all politicians–and particularly my Republican cohorts–understand that when times are tough (assessments falling is a good indicator of that), you tighten your belt to live within the new reality. As individuals we cannot continue to enjoy fat paycheck growth and office perks when our employers aren’t doing well and no government should either. Thus, if you vote to increase a tax rate (even if just to net you the same amount of money you had before), you are raising taxes. Now, if Pat Herrity had done the right thing and opposed a naked cash grab by his fellow Supervisors, then this would not be an issue.
Excellent and substantiated review of the topic. Thanks to DJ
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.