Shaun Kenney yesterday wrote an excellent post on why the Virginia House District 28 race is effectively over for mainly political reasons.
In a nutshell, House Speaker William Howell’s fundraising numbers put him awash in cash to do whatever he wants this last week when compared to the paltry numbers raised by his challenger, former Chairman of the Stafford County Board of Supervisors Susan Stimpson. Putting it in perspective, Howell is first and Stimpson is 89th in cash on hand of all House candidates. Howell also has 25x more cash to spend than Stimpson.
Kenney also points out that the Fredericksburg Free-Lance Star endorsed Howell, and, most telling, all Republican members of the Stafford Board of Supervisors endorsed Howell.
All well and good, but from a public policy perspective it’s that last endorsement that deserves a bit more unpacking.
In their endorsement, the supervisors write:
“Mrs. Stimpson also often boasts about her record on the Board of Supervisors. But in many cases, the accomplishments are not hers to claim. They were the result of many years of work by other board members.
“For example, Mrs. Stimpson claims to have downsized Stafford County government, but the truth is that more than half of those cuts were planned and prepared before her first meeting as a board member.
“She also often claims credit for cutting taxes and repealing the business, professional and occupational license, or BPOL, tax. The truth, however, is that these efforts were spearheaded by other members.”
Ouch. And here’s the crucial statement:
“Mrs. Stimpson’s record isn’t what she claims it to be. We’ve worked with her and have seen firsthand that her idea of leadership does not work.” (emph. added)
When you read such direct criticism of a colleague – particularly one from the same political party – it has to set off alarm bells.
And, when you also recognize that Stimpson’s entire campaign has been a referendum on fiscal discipline, one wonders about the genuineness of her message.
During her campaign for the GOP nomination for lieutenant governor, a letter was circulated that detailed her record on the Stafford Board of Supervisors. This letter included links to public archives that recounted her record of voting against tax cuts, increasing Stafford’s debt, and taking credit for the actions of others.
Specifically, the letter relates how Stimpson, in an April 2010 vote, voted against a tax cut.
The letter also said that she “pushed through hundreds of millions in new debt (maxing out the county’s debt capacity)” and coming within $83k of their debt limit in 2020.
Her pet projects?
– $67 million for a new high school in her district instead of renovating the old one (p. 83)
– $3.3 million government administration building (p. 40)
– $9.5 million park in her district – at a cost of nearly $2 million per baseball field (p. 22)
Of all the debt Stafford incurred during her time as supervisor, 50 percent were for projects in her district, the letter claims.
As for taking the credit of others?
The 2013 letter claimed, regarding BPOL, that Stimpson did not support its elimination until being forced to do so as a condition of support for her campaign by the sitting Republicans on the Board. This makes sense because at a January 2010 presentation – Stimpson’s first as a board member – a slide states, “The Board has directed the staff to assume the repeal of BPOL.” (Slide 3) That statement didn’t appear because of Stimpson; it had to have been a policy other supervisors supported before her arrival that they now could take action on because of her election. That’s not a bad thing…but did she single-handily enact the policy? Of course not.
The 2013 letter also supports the supervisors’ assertions of her taking credit for budget and staff cuts, as well as increases in the county’s cash reserve. These actions began long before her arrival. You can see in the same 2010 presentation on slides 28 and 29 that between 2008-2010 the county cut $10.4 million and reduced general fund and non-safety positions by 13 percent (a reduction of 73 positions). The presentation also states that “reserves and interest are still available to maintain desired fund balances.”
The 2013 letter also provides links to Stimpson’s role in supporting government use of eminent domain and increasing spending on school administrative costs at a far greater rate than in classroom instruction.
So why bother bringing this information to light again given that Shaun, accurately, has portrayed this race as being over?
Because of the false claims and rabid negativity from the Stimpson campaign.
Because of this belief that somehow she is this bastion of fiscal discipline and will take a TEA party cleaver to state government; an absolute myth, when given her record on the Board of Supervisors.
Because taxes are still too high and government is too big, but fiscal conservatives need to be rational in who we select for public office – not people who are trying to hoodwink us because they have a quest for electoral glory.
Conservatism is about making rational and responsible choices. It’s about advancing down the field a few yards at a time. Getting first downs. Achieving some successes. And eventually making it to the promised land.
Conservatives don’t win by throwing desperately down the field with candidates who are not ready for prime time.
Merely believing and hoping that something is true doesn’t make it so.
If we learn anything from this election, let us learn that.
