In an effort to keep both of our readers happy, here is Dillard's original message:
Do you really feel you have to lie to get your points across. You know as well
as I do that Golden did not play a role in my decision not to seek re-election.
You may recall that I had promised my wife that I wo/ quit at 30 and only w/ her
acceptance did I run again to help get Virginia the necessary revenues to meet
our fiscal responsibilities to fund our core services. You guys don't have a
clue about the responsibilities of running a state. You may also recall that
"Republican" Golden ran against the Republican incumbent and I soundly defeated
him. One of the few things you have said about me that is correct is that I
always let my constituents know my position on issues and I thank you for that.
I told the voters that if you elect me I am going to raise your taxes .
Incidentally I never said that I wanted to raise the gas tax 10 cents and didn't
put in a gas tax bill. I realize that writing to you is a waste of time because
you guys w/ continue to distort the truth whenever it suits your purpose. Jim
To which Rodokanakis responded:
Dear Jim:
Thank you for your message. I firmly believe that we can better understand each other by initiating a dialog outlining our respective positions; in this regard, I'm thankful that you took the time to write to me.
And in this spirit, I would like to take the opportunity to answer the points you raised in your message:
1. Did Golden play a role in your decision not to seek re-election?
Well Jim, I don't profess to be a mind reader. But reasonable people can agree that we can infer things from the positions we espouse publicly. As far as the record shows, you went to Richmond in January and you had made no announcement of your impending retirement. If you intended on retiring during the 2005 term of the legislative assembly, that must have been the best kept secret in Richmond--which usually leaks like a sieve.
The facts as I recall them were that Golden kicked off his campaign in December 2004--an extremely well attended function by the way--and soon thereafter Mychele Brickner who was thinking about running for your seat announced that due to family considerations she would be unable to enter the race. When the 2005 session started in the General Assembly, to my knowledge everyone expected you to run for office again. As a matter of fact, Golden was initially campaigning against you (see my OpEd column "The Taxpayers Nemesis" at http://pac.virginiaclubforgrowth.org/news/121204PRcommentary.htm).
It wasn't until early February I believe, when out of the blue Golden got a call from an aide to Speaker Howell advising him of your decision not to run again and inviting Golden to an event sponsored by the Republican caucus. This was the first time most of us heard that you told anyone you planned to retire.
So perhaps it was coincidence on your part, but from our perspective you only made this decision after you saw first hand that Golden's campaign was catching fire. Whichever the case, you certainly cannot make the claim that everyone knew that you planned to retire this last session, because that is simply not the case.
2. Your noble sacrifices in running for office with the unselfish goal of securing Virginia the necessary revenues to meet our fiscal
responsibilities:
Well Jim, some people never change no matter what fiscal realities they face. I have to give you credit for being consistent in being a tax-and-spend liberal, a true unadulterated RINO--unfortunately, you're also consistently wrong!
It's hard to believe that you can still espouse this sort of mantra in the face of burgeoning budget surpluses. The "sky is falling" cries from your side that got us saddled with the largest tax increase in the history of Virginia last year, were completely discredited--proven to be nothing but lies. You raised taxes by more than a billion dollars in the face of a $1.5 billion budget surplus.
And did you do the right thing afterwards when the tax increase was proven to be totally unnecessary? No, you just spent it all, never bothering to return a penny to the taxpayers you stole the money from.
Jim, I'm sure you've noticed that in the last few years tax increases (both local and state taxes) have been growing at double digit rates, while personal incomes are only growing by about 3 to 4%. In other words, tax increases can't continue year-after-year to outstrip the growth in personal incomes, because if you carry out this argument to its logical conclusion, eventually taxes will eat up 100% of personal incomes. What will the government do then to feed its insatiable appetite?
3. Funding core services:
What do you define as core services, Jim? Is funding the Virginia Department of the Mattresses really essential? (Why do we need a Department of Mattresses anyway?)
How about the Wilder report, Jim? Do you recall any of Doug's recommendations to cut back spending by $1 billion? How come you always want to stick it to the taxpayers, instead of streamlining government for a change?
How can you run a $60 billion enterprise without having in place any independent auditing and investigative controls? Is it responsible to always ask from more in taxes, yet take no steps to institute any accountability in government spending?
Jim do you realize that, as my friend John Taylor says, it took Virginia 386 years to reach a $30 billion bi-annual budget, yet it took you guys only another decade to double it to $60 billion?
Will you ever reach the point to admit that we cannot continue increasing spending at the present rates?
4. "Us guys" having no clue about the responsibilities of running a state:
Do Senators Ken Cuccinelli, Bill Bolling, Jay O'Brien, Mark Obenshain, and others have a clue about such responsibilities? Or what about the majority of the Republican Caucus in the House of Delegates--including the Republican Leadership--that voted against the tax increase?
When it comes to taxes and increased government spending, I doubt that you agree with any them. Are you the only one that knows what's best? And are your only solutions based on keeping your greedy hand in our wallets? I certainly don't recall you ever talking about government accountability--just more spending and more taxes.
5. Republican Golden running against you, the incumbent, as an independent:
Jim, as the old saying goes, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!
Given the fact that you donated money to John Kerry and supported him for President over the Republican nominee George W. Bush, I wouldn't be questioning anyone's loyalty to the Republican Party.
Furthermore, when did you discover that your long time Republican legislative aide, David Marsden, had been masquerading all along as a Democrat in Republican clothing?
And what about the Republican donations you raised over the years that are now finding their way to Democrat Marsden's political coffers?
But I guess the essential question on this matter is: Will you Jim as a loyal Republican, support Michael Golden in the November elections? Will you renounce Marsden for switching parties and for hoodwinking you into giving him $10,000 from the political donations of hardworking Republicans?
6. You never said that you wanted to raise the gas tax
You know, Jim, I'm a strong supporter of term limits. I believe your statement that you never wanted to raise the gas tax makes a good case in point as to why guys like you should be restricted from serving in the Legislature for more than three of four consecutive terms.
After all the years you've been drinking the Richmond Kool-Aid you've either forgotten your own record or have bought into the many lies and falsehoods you've spewed over the years.
That's why I'm here for--to keep the record straight, so let me refresh your memory.
At an Orange Hunt Estates Civic Association meeting in late 2003, you floated the idea of raising the gas tax by up to $0.10/gallon.
In the 2004 session, you then co-patroned a bill (HB60) with Harry Parrish--another bastion of fiscal accountability--to increase taxes on gasoline, diesel fuel, and alternative fuels by 6.5 cents per gallon.
Now who is propagating lies, Jim? Did you already forget the bills you patroned in 2004? Or is it that you can't keep straight the many different versions of the stories you tell to different groups?
Since you obviously have a convenient memory, let me refresh your recollection about some the bills you sponsored/co-sponsored in 2004. You supported bills to increase the sales tax, gas tax, taxes on fishing licenses, prepaid calling cards, income taxes, and taxes on new homeowners (deed tax), among others, and to stop the promised rollback of the car tax. Now that's got to be a record, even by your own standards.
You also actively supported legislation to increase local taxes and/or increase the authority of localities to tax (e.g., hotel taxes). And you opposed legislation that would have required localities to secure voter approval via referendum before increasing certain taxes.
Do you have any other answers, Jim, other than to always propose tax increases? This one-trick pony of yours is getting kind of old, don't you agree?
I can go on and on, but I think that for our first exchange this covers all the essential points you raised in your message. I look forward to many more similar exchanges with you and debating the issues. However, I would appreciate if you stuck to the facts and didn't try to reason by asserting mendacities. Who knows, maybe some day we can publish our exchanges, perhaps under the title of "Point Counterpoint: Shining the light on Liberal Myths and Other Falsehoods."
With my warmest regards,
Phil
That last "warmest regards" part is my favorite. That's the entire e-mail exchange, as I got it from Paul Jost. I haven't added or subtracted anything. Can anyone figure out why the Club for Growth feels compelled to spend so much time debating a retiring delegate who supposedly quit rather than face their chosen opponent?
