These ideas take on added significance with a new Governor, the deepest financial recession in 30 years; the need to reform our state’s spending habits and design a system that makes future budgeting a bit easier. The General Assembly looks as if it will approve outside audits of all major agencies of state government. Hopefully these audits will inform agencies on how their programs may be outsourced to the private sector and provide examples of how similar efforts worked in other states and major cities. Such a report would be a huge asset to any long-term government reform effort.

Over the years I have worked with Alan Louderback, both when he served in the General Assembly and afterwards. He is a known budget hawk, a mindset very much needed right now.  These ideas come from him and are in no particular order, but they do make good sense.

Create the position of Auditor General with the authority to review programs, their effectiveness and offer recommendations on how to improve the efficiency of these programs including mergers or sending them to the private sector. Agencies and departments that are performing functions which are not a core responsibility of government should be eliminated. No government operation should compete with private business.

Our new administration needs to establish measures of success in health and welfare areas to determine how many recipients are being successfully helped and at what cost. The same needs to be done with the twenty-some job training programs scattered over several agencies.

Pay the Commissioners of Revenue and Treasurers a commission to collect and forward sales tax; pursue delinquent taxes and accounts receivables. The Tax Department can be downsized as a result.

Move the Office of Substance Abuse to the Department of Health. Eliminate the Virginia Agriculture Research Council function — research can and will be done by state universities and the private sector. Sell the government warehouse operation and building that will likely net $32 million. Merge Military Affairs and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Eliminate all government service jobs which can be performed by the private sector: plumbers, electricians, landscaping, printing, etc. should be provided by the private sector. This will begin to reduce long term retirement liability, personnel and human resource responsibilities as well as reducing staffing levels.

Rail, public transit and road funds should be merged together so our state government is forced to prioritize transportation projects and use these funds more economically.

All government fees should cover the cost of that particular service provided by the government and no more. For instance, state parks should operate on entrance fees that cover the cost to run each park or the operation of these parks should be contracted out under a careful lease arrangement so that the taxpayer’s interests are maintained. Park entrance fees should not pay for costs not associated with our state parks.

Surplus assets should be identified and sold. The state should sell all government buildings except those in Capitol Square and rent office space from the private sector which will add to the tax base of localities. Rental office space needs to be reviewed and renegotiated by bringing all state agency offices in a particular area together into one location.  It makes no sense to have state agencies spread all over a city or town. This also applies to vacant land and other assets.

Analysis is needed of private pay versus public pay by locality. Two major studies published in USA TODAY in the past eighteen months have shown that nationally, public employees are paid more than the private sector and their tax paid benefits are far better as well. A careful analysis of Virginia public employees and their private sector counterparts is needed in order to properly analyze state government employees.

The state should change its mileage reimbursement calculations to react more quickly to gas price changes and not rely on federal standards that currently results in overpayment of expenses. The length of time that state vehicle are kept before replacing them should be extended. The state should require carpooling to work sites instead of state workers driving individually in state owned vehicles.

Museums should not close on holidays and Sundays when families and tourists are most likely to visit. Days closed should be during the week. Revenue will increase with more convenient hours.

Finally, future budgets should incorporate prior year actual budgets in order to compare outlays with proposed spending. This would allow a move toward zero based budgeting.

There are a lot of other ideas for reforming state government but these will give the readers a taste for what can and ought to be done as a beginning effort to rein in government spending for the long run.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

It is time to hit the reset button on Tenth Amendment Jurisprudence and Virginia has an opportunity make that push.

Many of America’s Founding Fathers were concerned that if the federal government were too powerful, it would become tyrannical. For this reason, many checks and balances were put on the federal government’s power. One of these was that Washington should be restrained by the powers of the states, which would retain a high degree of sovereignty.

James Madison, yes, a Virginian, and known as “the father of the Constitution,” wrote in The Federalist, No. 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce…. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

I wish.

The reach of the federal government has stretched so far, the ability of the states to control their own destinies seems to have completely disappeared. Take, for example, a small stream near our home, Accotink Creek. It meanders through a largely suburban community, often flanked by major roads (e.g., the Washington D.C. Beltway), dumps into a man-made lake, discharges over the dam, wanders through more homes, enters two different military installations and then discharges into the Potomac River.

Obviously, this creek is not a lane of commercial transportation. Notwithstanding that, the military permits only military personnel within its borders. The creek itself is crossed heavily with down timber and its depth is insufficient to maintain trout year round. It is possible to canoe down parts of the creek, but, as one professional canoeist put it, “It is better for wading than boating.” The fishing enthusiasts also have opinions. “The locals poach the trout immediately after they are released, and the legal take is usually zero. My advice, don’t go there.”

In other words, although this creek connects navigable waters, and although it is possible to float a boat in it, there simply is no interstate commercial value to this stream.

But EPA doesn’t care about that. Rather, it wishes to impose new, draconian controls on how much water will be allowed to enter the stream.

Now, keep in mind, we are talking about water, not some pollutant.

EPA thinks too much water will scour the side of the stream and cause dirt to cover the stream bottom, making the river less amenable to fish. This is possible, but the local authorities are already aware and have taken countless steps to maintain this stream, in keeping with their budget, other land uses, the needs of the locale and the importance of this stream in light of all the others in the area.

EPA doesn’t really care about this balancing of needs and interests. It simply wants that stream to be the home for fish and it thinks that control of water flow is necessary.

Now, lets think about what EPA demands in reality. EPA suggested that the percentage of impervious surface within the Accotink Creek watershed should be reduced to between 10 and 14 percent in order to reduce the amount of water entering the stream, all in order to prevent further watercourse erosion and degradation of the bugs that live on the bottom of the stream. Such a criterion, even if expressed as a goal, is not technically, economically or politically practical. In the words of one elected official, “That is just stupid.”

As Fairfax County explained to EPA, the Accotink Creek watershed is from 78 to 83 percent developed (depending on analytical approach). Further, this highly suburbanized watershed, the vast majority under private ownership, is transected by numerous major transportation corridors including Interstate Routes 66 and 495. Fully 15 percent of the developed area in the watershed is in transportation – alone producing 11.7 to 12.5 percent impervious surface within the watershed. To meet an impervious surface criterion of 10 percent is impossible absent removal of roads. To meet a 14 percent impervious surface criterion would require removal of nearly all private homes and commercial buildings, and associated drives and parking surfaces. Even if that were possible, it would still be necessary to remove most of the churches on this watershed. That is disallowed by law.

After public comment, EPA dropped the impervious surface approach, replacing it with a “maximum flow” criterion that has the identical effect – lose the houses, churches, roads and put it back the way it was the day Virginia Dare took her first breath.

In the simplest terms possible, EPA wants to decide how Virginia and Fairfax County make land-use decisions.

This effort by EPA to supplant the most traditional of State powers is simply not constitutional.  The tension between the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment needs to be reexamined at law as a pure constitutional matter and now is the time for Virginia’s new Attorney General to join the gathering state effort to re-invigorate Tenth Amendment rights.

As a Virginian, I wonder if George Mason was right to be angry at the Constitutional Convention.  Although they eventually accepted his bill of rights, they left off several additional “rights” he proposed, one of which was: “No Navigation Law, or Law for regulating Commerce, shall be passed without the Consent of Two-Thirds of the Members present in both Houses.”  If we had that provision, EPA’s arrogant trampling of state authorities would not happen. But it has, and it’s time to haul them into Court and hit the reset button.

With the unemployment rate at 10 percent and expected to go higher, it would seem that Congress should again extend the length of time that unemployed workers can receive benefits.

If you take into account people who are working part time when they prefer a full-time job, the discouraged workers and others who are marginally attached to the work force, then the unemployment rate is really 17.3 percent in the nation. With many firms still laying off workers, it’s taking longer for the unemployed to find jobs. The average duration of unemployment was 29.1 weeks in December, according to the Department of Labor.

In Virginia, recipients of unemployment insurance are typically eligible for up to 26 weeks of benefits.

Last year, Congress passed a bill that included four federal extensions. If a person in Virginia qualifies for all four extensions, it is possible for him to receive 86 weeks of unemployment benefits. The expiration dates for these extensions vary, with the last extension for benefits expiring at the end of July. Extending unemployment insurance seems like a good policy. But could it be contributing to the higher unemployment rate?

Studies show that unemployment insurance lengthens the duration of unemployment. A 1990 study by Bruce D. Meyer, for example, showed that a job-seeking worker’s chance of finding a job improves dramatically the week his benefits run out.

It should not be too surprising that the job seeker becomes more motivated to find a job as that final unemployment check is looming. Neither is it surprising that many studies have found that the amount of money received in unemployment insurance benefits affects the duration of unemployment. That is, the higher the proportion of weekly earnings that are replaced by unemployment insurance benefits, the longer the length of unemployment.

States vary in the amount of unemployment insurance benefits they offer. However, all states have a minimum and maximum payment. The minimum benefit typically provides a higher replacement ratio of wages for lower-paid workers than high-wage earners. Consequently, it motivates workers with lower wages, including younger workers who don’t have much experience, to remain unemployed longer. Unemployment rates reflect this phenomenon.

One study suggests that reducing the replacement ratio by 25 percent would reduce the average length of unemployment by three to four weeks.

So, the question remains, should politicians again extend the length of time that unemployed workers can receive unemployment insurance benefits?

Reprinted with permission from the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Judge Dillon is a great American.

Now, I know what you are thinking: “Sure, there goes old Craddock again, dissing local governments, wanting to curtail their powers.” Well, setting aside my thoughts and views about the proper role and scope of local government, or any level of government for that matter, my affinity for late Judge Dillon has little to do with the power and scope of local governments in Virginia because the Dillon Rule is not about how powerful local governments are, and changing the Dillon Rule would in reality not have the effect that its detractors claim.

To be sure, when you ask some folks about the power of local governments, you are bound to get an answer to the effect that local governments in Virginia are constrained by the Dillon Rule because it curtails the powers of local government and if we just repealed that evil Dillon Rule, all would be great and Virginia would prosper.

There is a reason that Virginia has been consistently ranked as the best state in which to do business. Today, debates concerning the legal authority localities have or don’t have, are debated in the General Assembly, which has sessions that last 60 days one year and 45 days the next. Whatever the General Assembly decides, there is generally a consistent policy set throughout the Commonwealth.

Consistency is very important to a business knows, it means it knows what the “rules of the game” are in whatever localities they may choose do business. Can you imagine what the business climate (and Virginia’s national and international competitiveness) would be like in the Commonwealth if the battleground for business issues was in more than 100 localities, 365 days a year?

Let us take a gander at the words of Judge Dillon himself as quoted here in Clinton v. Cedar Rapids and the Missouri River Railroad:

The true view is this: Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights from the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so it may destroy. If it may destroy, it may abridge and control. Unless there is some constitutional limitation on the right, the legislature might, by a single act, if we can suppose it capable of so great a folly and so great a wrong, sweep from existence all of the municipal corporations in the State, and the corporation could not prevent it. We know of no limitation on this right so far as the corporations themselves are concerned. They are, so to phrase it, the mere tenants at will of the legislature.

The key point of the Dillon Rule is not that local governments’ powers are limited as a matter of course. It is not a matter of power. It is simply a tool of how we craft and interpret state law with respect to local governments. We interpret the law to mean that local governments only have the powers they are given by the state. There is absolutely nothing in Judge Dillon’s fine quote above or the general notion of the Dillon Rule regarding the power and scope of local governments. The Dillon Rule only concerns itself with how those powers are enumerated; it is a question of manner and not scope. You can have powerful local governments in Dillon Rule states if a state so chooses.

Because Virginia is a Dillon Rule state, state laws regarding local governments generally read as laws that require local governments to do one thing or another or give them discretion to do certain things. To be sure, there is a fair dose of conditions placed on those powers, and there is language that gives some direction in terms of shape and form. Anything outside those words of empowerment is generally considered to be off limits.

If local governments want a specific power, all they have to do is ask the General Assembly. If they are unsuccessful, it is not the fault of the Dillon Rule; it is a choice made by the General Assembly. Certainly, if there was a great cry for more local government power from the people, they could elect legislators more sympathetic to those who want increased powers for local governments. But, the fact remains that the General Assembly has for the most part been very leery of granting increased powers to local governments.

The Dillon Rule is a key part of the fundamental legal structure that makes Virginia such a pro-business state, the best in all the country. I do not think we should change that. The Dillon Rule is clearly the better choice.

Public charter schools are designed to be independently operated – where educators are given the freedom to design instructional programs that best serve their student population. In return, those schools are to be given strong accountability systems and oversight for student performance.

To create more quality charter schools, Governor Bob McDonnell proposes allowing charter school applicants to receive a quality pre-certification – and to offer those who are rejected by their local School Boards the option to appeal to the State Board of Education.

Although McDonnell has long advocated the innovation and excellence coming from quality charter schools, his proposal has an added impetus this year: federal dollars.

In laying out the conditions for the competitive $4.35 billion Race to the Top funds, federal Education Secretary Arne Duncan made it clear that states had better have a strong charter school law – including “real autonomy for charters combined with a rigorous authorization process and high performance standards.”

At stake for Virginia is $350 million in new federal funding.

Does Virginia’s law stand up?

The Center for Education Reform’s Charter School Law report gives Virginia an “F” – second worst in the nation.

More importantly, the rankings of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools focus the elements most likely to make a school successful in teaching kids: accountability and performance. There, Virginia ranks 35 out of 40 states.

The reality “on the ground” is no better.

When Hampton University, one of Virginia’s Historically Black Colleges and Universities, developed a charter proposal it was approved by the Hampton School Board. The university then obtained grants totaling nearly $200,000, invested $500,000 of its own money in renovating a building, and set aside $1 million for the school’s first year budget of $1.9 million – only to see the School Board pull the rug out from under them and refuse to fund the rest, as they had agreed.

Despite student scores higher than the school division itself, the Roanoke City School board shut down the Blue Ride Technical Academy. Although a real charter school would have sought out private funds, built a strong parent group, sought waivers from expensive bureaucratic regulations and aggressively sought out new students, Blue Ridge Technical Academy wasn’t able to do any of that, and the school was killed off – right after their federal start-up grants ran out.

We’ve seen charter school applicants told they couldn’t talk to local school board members about their idea before submitting it; schools that received rigorously competitive federal grants told by the local school board it wasn’t good enough; and one that sought to replicate a successful school for at-risk kids in one school division by opening it as a charter school in another — turned down.

This process is what the Virginia School Boards Association calls “one of the best charter laws in the nation.”

Hardly. And the world is paying attention. The Washington Post noted last year that “Virginia is badly out of step in not welcoming schools that have fostered innovation and shown success with at-risk students.”

This decision-making monopoly – combined with laws preventing charters from operating with any autonomy – has resulted in quality charter school operators like KIPP Academies, Aspire Schools and Amistad Academy choosing not to come to Virginia.

Those same laws have too-often fostered hostility by restricting the process and discouraging cooperation and collaboration between those who want to start a charter to help at-risk kids and the school system – with the result that many charter applications are poorly written and home-grown quality charters never get off the ground.

Clearly, Virginia has successful schools. Just as clearly, it could benefit from high-performing charter schools that target educationally at-risk kids. The KIPP Academies, for example, operate 66 middle schools where 81 percent of the students are low-income, but where 93 percent graduate high school and 85 percent go on to college.

One local Virginia School Board member was asked: Would he approve a quality charter school like this for his school division? His answer:  a resounding “NO.”

Yet, his is a school division where 40 percent of 6^th and 8^th graders cannot read on grade level, 64 percent of 7^th graders cannot do math on grade level, and 40 percent of the students don’t graduate on time.

And that’s the problem. For him, no matter how bad the kids in his schools may be doing, form is more important than substance.

And that’s wrong. What’s at stake in the battle to improve Virginia’s charter school law isn’t merely a matter of $350 million, as important as that is.

It’s a question of whether we will do whatever we can to ensure that every child in the Commonwealth has an opportunity to achieve the best they can, graduate high school, go on to post-secondary school and take their place as contributing members of society.

This article is reprinted with permission; it was originally published in the Richmond Times Dispatch on February 16, 2010.