Afp Va Budget

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY
VIRGINIA
A Spending Problem or
A Revenue Problem?
An Americans for Prosperity -Virginia Report on the 2010-2011 Budget.
Commonwealth of
Virginia
www.afpva.org
VIRGINIA
A Letter from the

Virginia State Director
Benjamin Marchi
Dear fellow Virginian,
Over the course of the last decade, you and I have watched as politicians in Richmond let
spending grow at an unsustainable rate. As the General Assembly enters its 2010 session, we
find ourselves facing a more than $4 billion budget deficit and frankly, we just don’t have enough
money to pay for certain programs, bureaucratic positions, and other items that until now have
escaped the hatchet of legislative budget cutters.
The General Assembly is faced with tough choices this year: Whether to act responsibly and cut
wasteful spending, returning Virginia to a more sustainable spending path; or whether to shirk
their responsibilities as stewards of your hard earned money and resort to tax and fee increases
as a means of closing the budget gap. Very simply, those are the choices they have.
It is our hope at the Virginia Chapter of Americans for Prosperity, that they will make the tough
choices, cut the necessary spending, and not rob working Virginia families at a time when they
can least afford it.
It is for these reasons that AFP-VA produced this budget overview for the Commonwealth of
Virginia. We hope that you will use this to educate others about the tough choices that lay ahead.
For legislators, we hope this will act as a road map of sorts and provide a starting point from
which to move toward a budget that is more sustainable for all Virginians.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Marchi
State Director
Americans for Prosperity – Virginia
2
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................. 4
Executive...................................................................19
Legislative................................................................. 25
Judicial Department...................................................31
Independent Agencies.............................................. 39
Administration........................................................... 43
Agriculture and Forestry.............................................51
Commerce & Trade.................................................. 55
Education.................................................................. 64
Finance..................................................................... 83
Department of Health and Human Resources.......... 89
Natural Resources...................................................105
Public Safety Department......................................... 113
Technology..............................................................127
Department of Transportation.................................. 131
a project of

VIRGINIA
3
Introduction
Virginia stands on the precipice
of historic budget cuts.
Estimates of the ‘shortfall’ range as high as nearly
$4.0 billion. How did a state with a history of fiscal
conservatism and only one of seven states with
an AAA bond rating find itself facing such a crisis?
It doesn’t take much common sense to see that
this was a case of self inflicted pain. While revisiting
the past is often an exercise in futility in this case it
is instructive for budget policy for the state when
looking forward to the next decade.
4
A Revenue Problem or a Spending Problem?
Many politicians and bureaucrats in Virginia will tell you the current fiscal crisis is caused by a revenue shortfall.
That argument is tantamount to a child who upon receiving their allowance immediately spends the entire amount
each week claiming that the issue with their having no money is an allowance problem. However when you raise
the allowance amount the child continues to spend the whole amount and there is never enough to address
every short term want or need. Sounds simplistic? Sadly it is exactly the behavior that is exemplified in the recent
fiscal policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Actually, in fairness to children, they look slightly more fiscally
responsible than Governor Kaine and the Legislature which passed a budget last year that may actually have
incorporated deficit spending.1 The following chart shows this ‘spend every penny approach.’
刀攀瘀攀渀甀攀猀瘀猀 ⸀ 䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀
␀㐀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㌀㔀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

䄀挀琀甀愀氀匀琀愀琀攀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀
␀㈀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
匀琀愀琀攀䜀攀渀攀爀愀氀⼀一漀渀最攀渀攀爀愀氀刀攀瘀攀渀甀攀猀
⠀攀砀挀氀甀搀椀渀最琀爀愀渀猀昀攀爀猀 ⤀
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀ⴀ
䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㈀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㌀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㐀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㔀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㘀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㜀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㠀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㤀
Already we hear bureaucrats and some elected officials talking about raising revenues through tax increases.
Gov. Kaine has said “that his budget may include new revenue, either in the form of higher taxes or the repeal of
tax breaks.”2 Virginia legislators should not expect its citizens, who are already feeling the effects of the recession
in their personal finances, to make up a deficit of this magnitude with increased burdens. State and local
governments already impose a heavy enough tax burden on Virginia residents with approximately 10 percent of
their income committed to just those entities.3
Fixing the mess once it is already upon us is more difficult than preventing it, but our Commonsense Model
Budget has a myriad of ideas that if applied would help Virginia move forward despite the pressing weight of the current
revenue problems. However, it is instructive to look at how we got here to begin understanding the problems.
Virginia’s graduated income tax contributed to the financial crisis by creating a boom of revenue and spending
during prosperous economic times. In periods of rapid growth like we experienced prior to the recession, income
tax revenue increase as businesses and individuals experienced the rebound from the recession. Just as has
happened in every past ‘boom,’ legislators were pressured to increase state spending with new or expanded
programs to match the growth in available revenue. This ‘revenue equals spending’ mentality is equivalent to the
child’s approach to budgeting with the same long term effects.
1. News Channel 11, Reporter George Jackson, published December 13, 2009
2. Dailypress.com Friday December 11, 2009
3. Tax Foundation State and Local Tax Burden as a Percentage of Income 2008, www.taxfoundation.org
a project of

VIRGINIA
5
Spending increased 6.39, 5.59, 10.91, 9.34 and 9.7 percent, in the last five budget cycles prior to the recession,
which created an unsustainable level of spending in Virginia government as agencies expanded programs and
government spent every penny of the increased revenues. Inevitably when a boom finally comes to a period
of recession state revenues are greatly reduced. In a recession, income tax revenue falls more rapidly than
government expenditures as individuals lose their jobs and businesses close. Politicians typically have offset
these shortfalls with “temporary” taxes, fees, debt and/or repeals of tax decreases such as the car tax just as we
currently see some counseling for in this upcoming legislative session. That additional revenue is often built into
permanent spending programs, and these “temporary” fixes rarely if ever disappear.
The opportunity to learn from past mistakes and make the corrections needed to ensure the prosperity of Virginia
should not be taken lightly by the current legislature. Informed choices will need to be made on how to utilize
limited resources. The errors of the past should be avoided even though they may appear to be the easy way out.
This is a historical opportunity to position Virginia in the competition for businesses and jobs ahead of the other
49 states and indeed much of the globe.
How to Move Virginia Back to the

Forefront of Economic Prosperity
Properly instituted spending constraints can set the stage for much needed reform in Virginia fiscal policies,
helping prevent the sort of huge deficits we currently faced. Applying spending controls would ultimately
allow income tax rates to be lowered to reduce the heavy tax burden on Virginia citizens. Growth generated
by the transfer of businesses to Virginia would allow property tax levies to be lowered to reduce property
tax burdens. This would continue to improve the business climate, attracting even more new investment
and jobs and mitigating some of the effect when a particular industry is hit with hard times. In the long run,
not only would Virginia experience smaller deficits in recession periods, but also higher rates of economic
growth in good times.
Increasing Virginia’s state spending has now ended up holding politicians – at least those still serving – accountable
for the spending spree that they now are attempting to maintain. The first step to understanding how the burden
impacted Virginia is to provide some transparency in how this uncontrolled spending brought us to this point.
The major culprit in higher tax burdens on Virginia citizens is the income tax as the following chart shows. The
state has an individual income tax with three brackets. The top rate of 5.75 percent kicks in at an income level of
only $17,000 effectively making it the rate that most citizen’s pay. Couple that with the low dollar amount for the
personal exemption allowed and you have a very aggressive taxing rate. However, even those onerous rates are
not enough for tax and spend bureaucrats. Gov. Kaine’s office has supported a 1 percent surcharge which makes
the Virginia rate an even more aggressive graduated rate. Increasing the tax rate by over 17 percent on Virginia’s
most productive citizens during a recession is indicative of how little tax and spend politicians understand the
free market. Every tax increase incentivizes the movement of capital to lower tax jurisdictions.
6
䜀攀渀攀爀愀氀刀攀瘀攀渀甀攀㨀㈀　　㌀ⴀ㈀　　㤀䄀挀琀甀愀氀 ☀ ㈀　㄀　ⴀ㈀　㄀㈀䘀漀爀攀挀愀猀琀
匀漀甀爀挀攀㨀䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀✀猀䈀甀搀最攀琀戀漀漀欀猀㈀　　㐀ⴀ㈀　㄀㈀
␀㄀㈀Ⰰ　　　⸀　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　⸀　
䌀漀爀瀀漀爀愀琀攀椀渀挀漀洀攀
䤀渀搀椀瘀椀搀甀愀氀椀渀挀漀洀攀
␀㠀Ⰰ　　　⸀　
䤀渀猀甀爀愀渀挀攀瀀爀攀洀椀甀洀猀
␀ 椀渀洀椀氀氀椀漀渀猀
␀㘀Ⰰ　　　⸀　匀琀愀琀攀猀愀氀攀猀 ☀ 甀猀攀猀
圀椀氀氀猀 Ⰰ 猀甀椀琀猀 Ⰰ 搀攀攀搀猀 ☀ 挀漀渀琀爀愀挀琀

␀㐀Ⰰ　　　⸀　䘀攀攀猀
䴀椀猀挀攀氀氀愀渀攀漀甀猀
␀㈀Ⰰ　　　⸀　
␀ⴀ
䘀夀ⴀ㈀　　㌀䘀夀ⴀ㈀　　㐀䘀夀ⴀ㈀　　㔀䘀夀ⴀ㈀　　㘀䘀夀ⴀ㈀　　㜀䘀夀ⴀ㈀　　㠀䘀夀ⴀ㈀　　㤀䘀夀ⴀ㈀　㄀　䘀夀ⴀ㈀　㄀㄀䘀夀ⴀ㈀　㄀㈀
The corporate income tax has a rate of 6 percent that is applied at all levels of income with a franchise tax of
1 percent of net capital.4 It is understood by almost everyone on both sides of the aisle that corporate taxes in
effect pass through to consumers.
Following the recession cycle that preceded the current recession, state expenditures in all most every
department grew at unsustainable rates. Revenues from the Commonwealth’s sources decreased when the
2001 recession hit, but then recovered with the economy. Even with the recovery from that recession and before
this current downturn, revenue growth was insufficient to fund the spending projected under current policies.
The budget actually incurred overspending that resulted in the state having a deficit in spending as shown in the
Revenues versus Expenditures Chart in FY-20105. One must conclude that, in the long run, the structural deficit
in the state budget is due not to a lack of revenue, but rather to unconstrained growth in spending. In periods of
rapid growth the structural deficit is obscured by rapid growth in revenue. But, when recession hits, as it did after
9/11 and again in this current budget cycle, the structural deficit emerges as revenue falls and the state cannot
sustain the high levels of spending.
It should be clear to anyone with basic fiscal common sense Virginia’s fiscal policies create a built-in structural
deficit that will be punctuated by periods of fiscal crisis. Solving Virginia’ fiscal crisis in the long run requires the
elimination of this structural deficit, or we will continue to experience these overly severe booms and busts. The
only way to accomplish that objective is to constrain state spending to keep within the revenue constraints the
economic cycle will create. In good times we must limit new programs and existing program growth to avoid the
sort of budget ‘holes’ that we currently face. However, since the cat is out of the bag this budget proposes ways
to bring the structural deficit under control, which may require more difficult decisions than would have been
available had legislators applied basic fiscal prudence over the last decade.
What Would Have Happened Had Virginia

Adopted AFP’s Approach?
It is clear to both sides of the aisle in Richmond we are in a fiscal crisis. Would AFP’s approach of spending
restraints have made a difference? It is instructive moving forward to look back and see what might have been
had the Governor and Legislature adhered to those policy suggestions. As the following chart shows, a surplus of
$701 million would have existed in FY-2003 coming out of the 9/11 recession growing to $6.7 billion in FY-2010
instead of the actual deficit that occurred.
4. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/230.html#state_corp_income_rates-20090701
5. News Channel 11, Reporter George Jackson, published December 13, 2009
a project of

VIRGINIA
7
If Virginia had instituted a controlled spending approach as AFP has advocated the difference would have been
pronounced for state government finances. It should be noted this estimate is very likely well below what actually
could be expected. With just eight years of spending controls the cumulative amount of funds that could have
been returned to taxpayers would have been in excess of $35.9 billion (see following chart). By returning these
excess funds each year through an approach where every individual taxpayer receives a percentage of their taxes
paid back each year from the savings, the legislature will in effect have created an honest form of ‘pork’ for their
constituents and districts. No longer will special interests and back room deals decide where the taxpayer’s money
goes. This infusion of cash into the economy would have generated additional tax revenues for the state coffers
while strengthening Virginia’s private sector economy to weather the recession. It is obvious that putting government
growth and special interests ahead of fiscal prudence has created a problem that was easily avoidable.
匀琀愀琀攀刀攀瘀攀渀甀攀猀挀漀洀瀀愀爀攀搀琀漀㨀匀琀愀琀攀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀

愀渀搀匀琀愀琀攀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀眀椀琀栀匀瀀攀渀搀椀渀最䌀漀渀琀爀漀氀猀
␀㐀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　䄀挀琀甀愀氀匀琀愀琀攀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　匀琀愀琀攀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀眀椀琀栀

匀瀀攀渀搀椀渀最䌀漀渀琀爀漀氀猀
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　匀琀愀琀攀䜀攀渀攀爀愀氀⼀一漀渀最攀渀攀爀愀氀
刀攀瘀攀渀甀攀猀 ⠀攀砀挀氀甀搀椀渀最琀爀愀渀猀昀攀爀猀 ⤀
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　
㈀
㈀
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
　㄀
　㄀
ⴀ㈀
ⴀ㈀
ⴀ㈀
ⴀ㈀
ⴀ㈀
ⴀ㈀
ⴀ㈀
ⴀ㈀
ⴀ㈀
ⴀ㈀
ⴀ㈀
䘀夀
䘀夀
䘀夀
䘀夀
䘀夀
䘀夀
䘀夀
䘀夀
䘀夀
䘀夀
䘀夀
8
䔀砀挀攀猀猀刀攀瘀攀渀甀攀猀眀椀琀栀匀瀀攀渀搀椀渀最䌀漀渀琀爀漀氀猀
␀ ␀ ␀
㘀Ⰰ 㘀Ⰰ 㘀Ⰰ
㘀㤀 ␀ 㔀㤀㜀　
␀㠀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　　Ⰰ 㘀Ⰰ ㄀Ⰰ 㤀Ⰰ
㐀㘀㈀㤀㈀㜀㠀㄀
㘀Ⰰ ㈀Ⰰ ㌀Ⰰ 㠀Ⰰ
㐀㠀㤀㈀㐀㄀㤀㤀
␀㜀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　㄀㘀Ⰰ 㐀　
㜀㤀
␀ 㠀
㐀Ⰰ
␀㘀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　㔀㐀
㜀Ⰰ
㠀　
㌀Ⰰ
␀ 㤀㈀
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　㌀Ⰰ 㠀
　㤀
㔀Ⰰ
㤀㔀
␀㐀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　㌀Ⰰ
㄀㔀
　
␀
␀㌀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　㄀Ⰰ
㈀㜀
␀ ㈀Ⰰ
㜀　㄀㔀
␀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　㄀Ⰰ 㐀Ⰰ
㈀㘀㄀㤀
㠀Ⰰ 㤀
㠀㄀
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　㔀
␀ⴀ
䘀夀ⴀ㈀　　㌀䘀夀ⴀ㈀　　㐀䘀夀ⴀ㈀　　㔀䘀夀ⴀ㈀　　㘀䘀夀ⴀ㈀　　㜀䘀夀ⴀ㈀　　㠀䘀夀ⴀ㈀　　㤀䘀夀ⴀ㈀　㄀　
Source: Governor’s Budget Books 2002-2010 with spending controls calculated using BEA CPI and Census Bureau population numbers
The question now is will Virginia legislators ignore the lessons of the past and move forward with self-imposed
spending controls?
Principles that Provide a Roadmap to Fiscal Stability

Achieving any constraint in government spending is much more difficult than it seems at face value. The
complexity of the many state agencies’ funding sources and programs make it difficult for our elected officials to
discern where the unnecessary expenditures lay. Typically advocates for every program will provide legislators all
sorts of information that will validate their continued existence. Special interest groups will wear out a path to the
legislators’ doors to make sure any program that benefits their group stays in place. How can Virginia taxpayers
and legislators see through the fog of partial or misinformation? AFP has put together a comprehensive budget
that provides a principal based fiscal philosophy that any legislator can apply to the process of spending taxpayer
funds, and taxpayers can use to judge their legislators’ adherence to spending their tax dollars prudently.
A Commonsense Model Budget for Virginia

The model for the Commonsense Model Budget for Virginia came from the Freedom Budget, a state budget
published by the John Locke Foundation, a free-market think tank in North Carolina. This budget follows their
approach but applies a more broad-ranging examination of every function Virginia state government attempts
to perform. AFP’s budget shows legislators opportunities within individual departments that make real tax cuts
possible for Virginia taxpayers. AFP has gone beyond the traditional cursory examinations of state spending
where the stock solutions are merely eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and/or rooting out duplication. All of these
are good ideas, but by themselves will inevitably fall short of generating the savings needed to balance budgets.
This budget points out spending that meets those definitions and recommends its elimination. You cannot close
multi-billion dollar funding gaps or finance hundreds of millions of dollars in tax cuts while continuing to invest
significantly in infrastructure, public safety and the other essential functions of government with such a limited
approach. Reducing problem areas coupled with a more comprehensive approach and real reform is not only
possible, but far easier to enact than those who favor the status quo are willing to admit.
a project of

VIRGINIA
9
The 9 R’s of Fiscal Responsibility
The Locke Foundation set out what they called the “9 R’s of Fiscal Responsibility” – a simple set of principles
that provide a readily applicable fiscal philosophy which policymakers can apply to the complex budget issues
that confront them. Citizens can use these same principles to wade through the disinformation that bureaucrats
and tax-and-spend politicians use to defend their policies. An informed citizenry is the ultimate weapon against
spending policies such as those that have put Virginia in this state of fiscal risk.
Reform Entitlement Programs

State programs to provide cash assistance, medical care, or other services to the disadvantaged exist to provide
a basic “safety net.” Even philosophers of limited government have justified such programs as needed to ensure
order and protect public assets and spaces. But these programs must be carefully structured to minimize
dependency and encourage personal responsibility. When the state pays nursing home bills for the parents of the
middle class, subsidizes the day care expenses of affluent families, and perpetuates social pathologies such as
out-of-wedlock births, it strays far from its constitutional moorings. One of the biggest contributors to any state’s
budgetary problems is rapid growth in the state’s Medicaid program and Virginia is no exception. The counter-
cyclical nature of this program leads to Lawmakers expanding Medicaid programs to provide new entitlements
(and create new dependents) in good economic times that cannot be sustained when downturns in the economy
and state revenues occur. This budget outlines spending controls and reduces entitlements to non-poverty recipients
that will result in cost containment, and ensures the availability of quality services for the truly disadvantaged.
Require More User Responsibility

It is inappropriate to require those who receive core state services, such as law enforcement or public education,
to cover a significant share of the cost of those services. But for many other state agencies, their programs or
services are not constitutional entitlements or responsibilities. If the state is to continue involvement in these
enterprises, it would be appropriate to ask those who benefit to shoulder more of the responsibility of paying for
them. Services for which this budget recommends additional user responsibility include state museums, historic
sites, parks, colleges and universities, some social and health services and the accommodation of prison inmates.
Redirect Spending to Higher-Priority Uses

This principle requires sorting out which expenditures within a given department are central to the core mission
of government and which are not. The Commonwealth is obligated to perform its basic functions efficiently while
leaving to the people as much of their hard-earned money as possible. This budget recommends that in periods
of increased state revenues the Commonwealth fund a ‘rainy day’ fund. After the funding of the safety net the
remaining revenues should be returned to Virginia taxpayers by reducing the overall individual income tax rate.
In times of budget shortfalls such as Virginia is currently facing legislators need to take a hard look at the
necessity and efficiency of every program that the Commonwealth funds. Not only should they examine its need
to exist but to whom it provides services and how efficiently the program provides necessary services. This
budget includes numerous examples of programs that should be examined and efficiencies that can be gained.
This budget also provides guidance on how legislators can identify programs that are not ‘delivering.’
Reorganize State Government

Government bureaucracies grow exponentially much like cell division. Not only do individual agencies increase
their programs and employment but often agencies are ‘spun’ off from within larger agencies to become stand
alone entities. Unlike public sector spin offs these are not market driven but usually motivated by political issues.
10
Government bureaucracies suffer from a number of inefficiencies and high costs because of the archaic nature
of public sector management philosophies. Public sector benefit plans tend to be more costly than private sector
counterparts and less friendly to the modern work forces mobility. Directors’ and upper level managers’ salaries
are often determined by political whim with little regard to the quality or efficiency of the services the agency for
which they work provides.
Revive Free Enterprise

Responding to economic challenges, some policymakers have concluded that state government should take
a more active role in attracting investment and guiding development through tax credits, cash subsidies, and
other incentive programs. This is a mistake. The available public policy research on state economic development
does suggest that overall tax rates, especially the marginal rates on individual and corporate income, do have
a measurable impact on state economic growth rates. By eliminating incentive programs, marketing subsidies,
and other encroachments on free enterprise, we can achieve a reduction in marginal income tax rates. These tax
changes would improve economic competitiveness across the board far more successfully than any incentive
program for individual businesses can accomplish. The AFP Budget believes in putting those dollars back in
the hands of taxpaying Virginians to invest and spend as they choose. We believe this cash infusion estimated
at approximately $35.9 billion over the last eight years would have had a far greater impact on economic
development than any incentive program for an individual industry over the course of any economic cycle.
Restore Civil Society

Nonprofits and charities form a “third” or “independent” sector that delivers important services and benefits that
neither governments nor profit-seeking businesses can deliver as effectively. The state should be careful not to
supplant these institutions of civil society and in fact should seek to create ‘public-private’ partnerships when
ever possible to utilize the strengths of these organizations. With limited funds available for social programs this is
the perfect opportunity for legislators to allow the private sector an opportunity to help in providing for those needs.
Remove Advocacy, Waste, and Race-Based Programs

Laws and programs that invoke racial or ethnic discrimination violate a basic principle of moral government. All
such programs should be ended immediately. Similarly, State funds should not be used to subsidize groups that
advocate policies or ideas before government bodies. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for the propagation
of ideas with which they may disagree. Government is instituted solely for the good of the whole, not for special
interest groups that use taxpayer money to advance their agendas. This also applies to state agencies that
routinely send employees to lobby legislators for funding. The funding for these positions should be removed
from the agency’s budget.
Reshape the State-Local Government Relationship

Local control should be a central theme whenever possible in the relationship between state and local
government. The diverse demographic nature of Virginia leads to problems in application of some state programs
using a centralized planning approach. For example, a program like Medicaid should be tailored to fit the most
pressing needs of the disadvantaged citizens it serves. However, the health issues of rural Virginia and the large
metro areas are often not the same. For example, any expansions of the existing Medicaid program could be
both funded and targeted at the local level. The state’s Medicaid program should serve only to administrate
the matching of federal funds with the local dollars and let local authorities target the expenditures to their
communities needs. In this time of limited monies the more precise allocation of health care dollars is paramount.
a project of

VIRGINIA
11
Reduce Biases in the Tax Code
Like most states, Virginia has had its state tax code distorted by lobbying pressure from special interests rather than
using broad tax reform principles to build a coherent and efficient system. As a result, a variety of special rates,
exemptions, exclusions, deductions, and credits litter the code. In the corporate tax code, special tax credits for
job creation, research and development, machinery, worker training, and other expenditures limit corporate income
taxes the state collects and gives advantages to individual industries over others. These aberrations in letting the
free market determine winners and losers are borne at taxpayer expense. Government’s long track record of failure
in anticipating consumer demand suggest that a better approach is to return the billions of dollars to individual
taxpayers so they may determine which industries prosper based on their consumer decisions.
Some Commonsense Steps for a Budget Crisis

The Commonsense Budget suggests several steps legislators can apply to solve not only the current budget
crisis but also help address the long term issue of making government more efficient in the expenditure of
taxpayer dollars.
Hiring Freeze
The Commonsense Budget proposes a hiring freeze for all Classified Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) positions and
the elimination of any budgeted FTE positions that have been unfilled for more than six months. Gov. Kaine’s
budget identifies 1,900 unfilled positions and this budget concurs with his suggestion but goes a step further.
Legislators should look very closely at where the limited funding to the various functions of government goes.
Even as the manufacturing, trade and services sectors of Virginia employment lost employees in the recession
government employment grew by 10,900.6 Public education and the government in general have not pared
positions as has the private sector. This employment imbalance ignores the fact that these jobs are for the
most part financed by revenues from the private sector. Roughly 10 percent of any state’s public employees
are either eligible for retirement or with a properly incentivized early retirement plan would retire allowing the
Commonwealth to reduce their costs without massive layoffs by targeting these groups. Agencies this budget
eliminates could have their FTEs moved to existing essential positions vacated by these retirees.
Agencies should be limited to only adding new employees when it is to fill an existing FTE opening resulting from
employees retiring, being fired, or leaving for other opportunities. And then only when this FTE position is deemed
an essential position to the core functions of government. This allows agencies to still keep all needed positions
filled, yet forces them to consider their allocation of FTEs between programs.
State salaries carry with them benefit costs that are disproportionately high when compared to the private sector.
For every dollar of salary the state pays additional payments for retirement, fringe benefits and payroll taxes
that typically exceed private sector costs significantly. Uncapped growth in salaries and benefits are annualized
costs that must be built into base budgets and will increase as seniority and merit raises are added each year
regardless of the status of state revenues.
This budget also believes all new hires should be unclassified positions, even when replacing a classified
position, thereby giving agency management more flexibility in allowing the dismissal of poor performers.
Common sense would suggest all these new hires be required to participate in a defined contribution that will give
them the same type of retirement plan that the private workforce enjoys. This would also result over the long term in a
6. http://dpb.virginia.gov/budget/buddoc10/pdf/parta/economicforecast2010.pdf A-6
12
significant reduction in the billions of dollars of Unfunded Accrued Actuarial Liabilities in the Virginia Retirement System’s
(VRS) archaic defined benefit plan as new unfunded liabilities will not be accruing to these new employees.
A hiring freeze, forced retirements for those qualifying and the elimination of unfilled FTEs will have some
immediate impact on agency’s budgets by providing savings that will help sustain needed programs. Older
employees retiring from existing positions that are deemed essential positions will be replaced by younger
workers who will have lower salary and benefit costs.
Even with budget cuts, there are ways agencies can fund pay raises for deserving employees. Agency directors
should challenge their department managers to propose plans that would result in the consolidation and
redistribution of duties. Most employees would agree to take on more responsibility if they were rewarded with
higher pay. Just as private industry rewards employees for their productivity, reducing the number of FTE required
to perform the same services provides excess funds to split between budget savings and providing pay increases
for those employees shouldering increased work loads.
Consolidations
Private business has learned the savings and efficiencies that can be gained by outsourcing and consolidation of
functions and we shouldn’t expect any less of our government agencies, which are financed directly or indirectly
by Virginia taxpayers. At the very least the accounting, data processing, and administrative support personnel of
each of these agencies should be reviewed for consolidation if not outsourcing.
Virginia taxpayers would receive a savings of at least 10 percent of each agency’s total administrative budget
if support functions such as accounting were consolidated and the layers of highly paid comptrollers and other
supervisory positions were eliminated. The savings compounds when you consider the reduction in workspace
requirements, computer hardware, software costs and other overhead costs of each of these positions. The AFP
budget points out in those individual agency write-ups where savings from consolidations should be instituted.
This budget encourages our elected officials to investigate the possibility of downsizing government starting with
their own support agencies.
Move State Jobs to Rural Areas

The Commonsense budget proposes that existing state agency functions should be examined for their suitability
for remote office environments. In this day of server-based operations, many private firms have moved jobs not
only around the country but overseas. Through the use of Virtual Private Network systems (VPN) we can move
state jobs into rural areas.
The VPN technology is safe, economical and battle-tested by tens of thousands of private companies who have
used this ability to place their support functions wherever it is most economical. The placement of agency jobs
in rural towns would provide an instant economic impact on those communities that received them. State jobs
have insurance and retirement benefits that exceed those normally available in the rural counties of Virginia.
State wage scales are really quite good compared to rural per capita incomes and would go a long way toward
propping up the economies of those rural communities receiving the jobs.
Not only would rural Virginia benefit but all Virginia taxpayers could expect a savings from such a move. A
review of government expenditures found a number of capital expenditures related to office space expansion
and building renovation. Our elected officials should consider rural Virginia counties contain many fine buildings
on their main streets that are either currently vacant or underutilized. The rent on these buildings is significantly
less than equivalent office space in Richmond and might actually be obtained rent-free by asking rural towns to
compete for these state jobs.
a project of

VIRGINIA
13
Real Economic Development Funding
AFP encourages the Legislature to review the efficiency of the many tax credit and incentive programs these
agencies oversee. The Commonsense Budget noted the concept of supporting industries at the exclusion of
others is a flawed concept. The free market provides ‘seed’ or venture capital to firms all the time. Clearly there is
no reason to believe government bureaucrats are better or even as good at identifying profitable investments for
seed capital as the market.
Venture capitalists and small business entrepreneurs are experts in identifying potentially profitable investments;
the people who are most successful at it are the ones that find and produce the best products. Unlike government
bureaucrats, these people also have a great incentive to be right. If they are, they make lots of money; if they are
not, they lose money. These people have the knowledge and the incentive to fund profitable opportunities.
The government bureaucrat is selected for different reasons, without a natural-selection mechanism for weeding
out those who make bad investment decisions. The argument can be made that projects which only are viable
with the state’s incentives or tax credits programs are either bad investments that should not be funded, or are
projects the market would have funded anyway if they are good investments.
The most important difference between private investors and bureaucrats is that the venture capitalist and
small business entrepreneurs risk their own money, not the taxpayers. Common sense would suggest the best
economic growth policy a state can have is a low tax environment without unnecessary government regulation.
The AFP budget proposes all these programs be considered for closure and the funding currently flowing to the
credits and initiatives be used to lower the existing tax rate and benefit all Virginians.
Modernizing Government
The Model Budget reduces the overall budget by approximately $3 billion over Gov. Kaine’s budget in this period of
economic distress. However programs that form the core of essential services such as infrastructure and public safety
may actually receive funding increases or receive standstill budgets from the savings from elimination or reduction
in those non-essential services that fail the “9 R’s Test.” Many of the remaining programs that received no additional
funding increase in this budget may actually experience operational cost decreases and/or increases in revenues and/
or services through administrative savings, user fees, and redesign efficiencies suggested.
There are also areas for long-term savings and some will be discussed within agency budget recommendations.
For example, this budget recommends a redesign of Medicaid to better target services to truly needy individuals
while giving taxpayers a more transparent view of the effectiveness of the medical care for which their tax dollars
pay. The scope of Medicaid has grown far beyond its original intended coverage of the poor and now includes
non-poor children, pregnant women, and elderly residents of nursing homes whose backgrounds and family
finances place them firmly in the middle class.
Another important area for reform is the restructure of state employment and retiree benefits programs. In the
private sector, employers have moved away from defined benefit pension plans and replaced them with defined
contribution plans (such as IRAs, 401(k)s, and the like). With the latter, employees retain ownership and control
of their own money. Making similar changes at the state level would lower administrative costs and improve both
employee welfare and management flexibility. VRS’s plans currently carry billions of dollars of unfunded liabilities
that threaten the long-term fiscal stability of the Commonwealth. Converting to a defined contribution plan would
immediately halt the growth of this debt and provide the state workforce in government the same portability
in their retirement plans that privately employed Virginians enjoy. In the absence of immediate conversion to a
defined contribution plan for all employees, the Commonsense Budget proposes all new government employees
be placed in a defined contribution plan.
14
Government accounting, unlike private sector accounting, is not structured to measure how effectively the
taxpayer’s money is being spent. In the private sector there is a bottom line – net profit – that is a continuing
measure of the success of the entity. Government accounting is designed merely to track the sources and uses of
funds. Though that is a worthwhile endeavor, it does not give the taxpayer any indication of how well those funds
are being spent. One solution is to have every state program not only benchmarked against other states’ agency
programs, but also against private industries performing similar tasks. These measures must be outcome-based
so legislators and taxpayers can see if the program is delivering the benefits promised on its inception.
The flaws in Virginia’s performance measure approach, known as ‘key performance measures’ are two-fold. First, the
goals that the approach sets and the measurements used are instituted by the agency themselves. This approach is so
obviously flawed that the concept of a performance measure becomes almost meaningless. An agency can defend a
program by merely setting measures that are nothing but measures of outputs, such as the number of citizens served
by the Medicaid program instead of a measurement that chronicles the reduction of childhood diseases relative to a
control group in the state’s population who are not in the Medicaid program. Legislators must take it upon themselves
to institute a set of performance measures for every program performed by the Commonwealth.
Every piece of new legislation that creates a program or agency should have these strong outcome-based
performance measures attached, but it must go further than just relevant measurements of success. In order to
fix the second fundamental flaw in the Virginia performance budgeting program, each program should be subject
to punishments for failing to meet the desired outcomes. For programs with little success, these punishments
could be as extreme as to act as a “tripwire” to dismantle the program if it cannot meet standards set by
legislators. The resources can then be returned to the taxpayers or allocated to programs that actually produce
results. This approach would result ultimately in the paring down of the size of government and more efficient
utilization of taxpayer funds as poor performing programs are eliminated.
Viewing State Expenditures in Their Totality

Legislators often overlook the opportunities provided within the totality of government spending to address
crucial needs or provide for taxpayer relief. With the current economic crises, common sense would suggest
it would be an excellent time to stimulate the state’s economy by increasing the amount of money Virginians
have to spend. Unfortunately, the commonly held perception of most bureaucrats and many legislators is that
demands on the Commonwealth’s General Fund’s reduced revenues preclude the ability to provide a tax break
to citizens. The Commonsense Budget believes within the scope of the budget lurk enough waste, unnecessary
services, and misguided incentive plans that even in this budget crisis could provide Virginia businesses and
taxpayers some tax relief, while maintaining a budget that funds all essential services. The various sections on
each function of government identify these funds where savings may be possible.
This budget especially encourages legislators in the budgeting process to look at the ‘bank accounts’ of state
agencies at fiscal year end. Any unencumbered funds are monies that have no claim made against it and are often
referred to as carryover. These unencumbered fund balances often tell a story of waste or excessive funding.
Agencies, departments or programs will often view these as a sort of a savings account. Typically an agency,
department or program director will tell legislators that these funds serve two purposes. One, they provide ‘float’
to allow them to manage the transition between fiscal years and any disbursement delays that come with it. What
the bureaucrats don’t mention is their General Fund revenue allocations are disbursed in 12-month increments.
Just as citizens are paid on a regular basis and must budget within those parameters, we should expect our state
agencies to be able to live within their allocations. The second argument bureaucrats will advance is these funds
provide protection from temporary revenue shortfalls due to economic vagaries. Monies will accumulate in these
unencumbered funds during periods of high revenues and then they will be drawn down in periods of falling or
stagnant revenues. This is especially true in the area of funds tied to tax receipts. Since these funds vary the most
as revenues rise and fall, bureaucrats will more aggressively ‘save’ in these areas.
a project of

VIRGINIA
15
Allowing bureaucrats to accrue these ‘savings accounts’ to access during economic downturns ignores the
positive impact of the efficiencies that are a natural outcome during downturns within the private sector. In a
recession private businesses have to look at their processes and products across the entire spectrum of goods
and services to pare costs and increase efficiencies in order to survive. Bureaucrats do not face the same
pressures when they have a built-in savings account.
Some of these funds will have legitimate uses but others should be considered as available funds for legislators
to use in determining how much to budget to that agency. This budget has advocated a rainy day fund that would
eliminate the argument of the bureaucrats to use these accounts for ‘savings.’
In addition, this budget encourages legislators to look at the transfers for savings in how this money flows through the
different levels of government and between agencies. There are costs associated with every transaction that moves
these funds and finding and removing duplication and waste will save money at every level of government. For example,
Medicaid expenditures are spread through several agencies, which results in additional paperwork and unnecessary
overhead. This budget also strongly encourages the review of those transaction costs to local governments related to
the Community Block Development Grant Program. These are federal funds, but each state is given great leeway in the
application and acceptance system. This program needs a complete system redesign that results in less bureaucratic
review of applications and less time consumed by local communities wading through the paperwork.
Stop Competing with Private Business

Real economic growth is fueled by private business through the products and services they produce and subsequent
payrolls they generate. Over time, we believe state government should be required to introduce competitive
contracting and other privatization strategies to virtually all programs. Government should avoid competing with
private enterprise whenever possible.
Outsourcing functions or forming public-private partnerships should be considered for many programs. The rule
of thumb of “If you can find the service in the Yellow Pages government shouldn’t be in the business of providing
it” is a measure that should be applied to many programs. If deemed appropriate, privatization and sales of
unnecessary assets can be made subject to public covenants and contractual restrictions to continue the desired
public purpose, while the state, and ultimately the taxpayers, benefit from the savings.
Know What Everything Costs Before You Commit

Private citizens and businesses typically do not engage in transactions for which they don’t have an
understanding of the cost. However, Virginia legislators are not required to practice the same commonsense
approach. Mandating each piece of legislation has an economic impact statement enhances transparency for the
general public. Legislators, bureaucrats and special interests who advocate for legislation should be prepared to
face an honest inquiry on the cost of the legislation. This ‘cost’ information should be generated by the legislative
staff and be public record for inspection BEFORE a bill is ever advanced to committee. This concept is already
being done in other legislatures and it has effectively controlled certain types of hidden spending bills. This
budget believes this is a fundamental system design change that will help legislators make important decisions
on legislation that may have long-run implications for Virginia state budgets.
Applying Commonsense in the Short Term

Common sense would suggest that when your revenues are down that you would limit those expenditures that
are controllable. AFP has found some areas where a little common sense would save millions. Virginia taxpayers’
incomes are clearly down as witnessed by the continuing drop in tax receipts to the state coffers. It seems only
prudent to hold state wages in check while this recession is in place.
16
When the common citizen is faced with a budget dilemma unnecessary items are typically pared from the budget.
It is only prudent to ask Virginia government agencies to do the same. This budget removes all out of state travel
from state budgets. Travel that agencies deem absolutely necessary will have to be funded by paring other areas
of their budget, just as taxpayers are currently adjusting their budgets.
Legislators should avoid being lulled into believing that you can ‘cure’ the current budget crisis problems with accounting
moves to balance the budget so that the actual cuts wouldn’t be as steep. It doesn’t take much common sense
to understand that moves such as changing from accrual to cash basis accounting at agencies with large amounts of
expenditures such as those disbursing Medicaid are smoke-and-mirrors budgeting. Moving a large amount of expenditures
into another month and hence a different budget cycle does nothing to change the amount of those expenditures.
This sort of accounting chicanery only delays the inevitability of budget problems and in many ways exacerbates them.
With a budget hole of billions there are no easy fixes and the theme of the agency by agency funding for this
budget is ‘share the pain.’ Nearly every agency is asked to find a percentage within their budget to cut. Agency
bureaucrats will attack such across the board spending cuts as unfair but taxpayers have been funding dramatic
increases in agency budgets that have exceeded responsible spending limits for many budget cycles. However,
when legislators are faced with little time to react to a budget deficit of this magnitude there is little choice but to
make department and program managers actually show that they can manage.
The ‘low hanging fruit’ will not fill this budget hole but the program-by-program reviews that are necessary cannot
be thoroughly performed before they are asked to balance the budget. The only way to force tough choices on
agency directors in order to buy time for implementing real reform is through restricting their funding. Legislators
should be alert to the use of one-time funding sources or cuts and the mere delay of capital projects and insist
that cuts remain in the base budget of each agency even when the economy recovers. It is time to end programs
that have existed merely to placate special interest groups and/or that have no material effect on the well being of
Virginians. Virginia bureaucrats need look no further than their friends and neighbors to understand that they are
not the only ones being asked to make sacrifices.
Conclusion
The AFP budget provides some specific examples of the application of these commonsense fiscal policies to
agencies and programs to give citizens and law makers a roadmap on how to weather the current economic
downturn and may reduce Virginia’s individual income tax rate. This is a time of opportunity for Virginia. If we
act courageously now we can provide Virginia a competitive advantage in the future and avoid a repeat of these
cycles of boom and bust.
a project of

VIRGINIA
17
AFP’s Commonsense Model Budget Funding by Cabinet
䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㄀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㈀
䌀愀戀椀渀攀琀䜀攀渀攀爀愀氀一漀渀䜀攀渀攀爀愀氀䜀攀渀攀爀愀氀一漀渀䜀攀渀攀爀愀氀
䰀攀最椀猀氀愀琀椀瘀攀 ␀ 㔀㐀Ⰰ ㈀㘀㄀Ⰰ ㈀㘀㘀 ␀ ㄀Ⰰ 　㠀㤀Ⰰ 㠀㘀㜀 ␀ 㔀㐀Ⰰ ㈀㘀㄀Ⰰ ㈀㘀㘀 ␀ ㄀Ⰰ 　㠀㤀Ⰰ 㠀㘀㜀
䨀甀搀椀挀椀愀氀 ␀ ㌀㔀㠀Ⰰ 㘀㐀㘀Ⰰ 㐀㈀㜀 ␀ ㌀㈀Ⰰ ㄀㠀㤀Ⰰ 㜀㄀㌀ ␀ ㌀㔀㠀Ⰰ 㘀㐀㘀Ⰰ 㐀㈀㜀 ␀ ㌀㈀Ⰰ ㄀㠀㠀Ⰰ 㠀㔀㠀
䔀砀攀挀甀琀椀瘀攀 ␀ ㈀㄀Ⰰ 㤀　㌀Ⰰ ㈀㐀㔀 ␀ 㠀Ⰰ 㠀　㐀Ⰰ 㔀㤀㠀 ␀ ㈀㄀Ⰰ 㤀　㌀Ⰰ ㈀㐀㔀 ␀ 㠀Ⰰ 㠀　㐀Ⰰ 㔀㤀㠀
䄀搀洀椀渀椀猀琀爀愀琀椀漀渀 ␀ ㌀㈀Ⰰ ㌀㐀㄀Ⰰ ㄀㄀㜀 ␀ ㈀㄀㌀Ⰰ ㌀㜀㔀Ⰰ ㌀㔀㌀ ␀ ㌀㈀Ⰰ ㌀㐀㄀Ⰰ ㄀㄀㜀 ␀ ㈀㄀㌀Ⰰ ㌀㜀㔀Ⰰ ㌀㔀㌀
䄀最爀椀挀甀氀琀甀爀攀愀渀搀
䘀漀爀攀猀琀爀礀 ␀ ㌀㈀Ⰰ 㘀㄀㐀Ⰰ 㜀　　 ␀ ㌀㠀Ⰰ 㠀㈀㘀Ⰰ 㠀㈀㈀ ␀ ㌀㈀Ⰰ 㘀㄀㐀Ⰰ 㜀　　 ␀ ㌀㠀Ⰰ 㠀㈀㘀Ⰰ 㠀㈀㈀
䌀漀洀洀攀爀挀攀 ☀ 吀爀愀搀攀 ␀ 㜀㔀Ⰰ 㜀㜀㘀Ⰰ 㜀㐀㜀 ␀ ㄀Ⰰ ㄀㘀㔀Ⰰ ㈀㈀㈀Ⰰ 㠀㘀㠀 ␀ 㜀　Ⰰ 　㄀㄀Ⰰ ㌀㐀㄀ ␀ 㤀㔀㈀Ⰰ 㐀㈀㈀Ⰰ 㠀㘀㠀
䔀搀甀挀愀琀椀漀渀 ␀ 㘀Ⰰ 㔀㠀㠀Ⰰ 㔀㔀㜀Ⰰ 　㈀㘀 ␀ 㜀Ⰰ 㔀㔀㌀Ⰰ 㐀㠀㜀Ⰰ 　㐀㌀ ␀ 㘀Ⰰ 㔀㌀㈀Ⰰ 㔀㘀㤀Ⰰ 㐀　㘀 ␀ 㜀Ⰰ ㌀㤀㠀Ⰰ 㘀㄀　Ⰰ 㠀　㠀
䘀椀渀愀渀挀攀 ␀ 㜀㄀　Ⰰ 㠀㌀㌀Ⰰ 㤀㌀　 ␀ ㄀㐀㈀Ⰰ ㈀㈀㠀Ⰰ ㌀㜀㐀 ␀ 㠀㈀㈀Ⰰ 㔀　　Ⰰ 㘀㌀㤀 ␀ ㄀㐀㌀Ⰰ ㈀㐀　Ⰰ ㌀㠀㜀
䠀攀愀氀琀栀愀渀搀䠀甀洀愀渀
刀攀猀漀甀爀挀攀猀 ␀ ㌀Ⰰ 㘀㠀㘀Ⰰ 㠀㐀㔀Ⰰ 㔀㔀㄀ ␀ 㘀Ⰰ 㠀㤀㤀Ⰰ ㈀㤀㐀Ⰰ ㈀㈀㌀ ␀ ㌀Ⰰ 㘀㠀㘀Ⰰ 㠀㐀㔀Ⰰ 㔀㔀㄀ ␀ 㘀Ⰰ 㠀㘀㄀Ⰰ 㔀㜀㐀Ⰰ 㔀　㐀
一愀琀甀爀愀氀刀攀猀漀甀爀挀攀猀 ␀ 㠀㔀Ⰰ ㄀㔀㈀Ⰰ ㌀㜀㠀 ␀ ㈀㜀　Ⰰ ㌀㘀　Ⰰ 㜀㄀㔀 ␀ 㠀㈀Ⰰ 㘀㄀　Ⰰ 　㤀　 ␀ ㈀㜀　Ⰰ ㌀㘀　Ⰰ 㜀㄀㔀
倀甀戀氀椀挀匀愀昀攀琀礀 ␀ ㄀Ⰰ 㤀㐀　Ⰰ 㠀㜀㄀Ⰰ ㈀㌀㤀 ␀ ㌀㠀㐀Ⰰ 㐀㘀㠀Ⰰ 㐀㠀　 ␀ ㄀Ⰰ 㤀㈀㜀Ⰰ 　㠀㈀Ⰰ ㈀㔀　 ␀ ㌀㤀㤀Ⰰ 㘀㠀㔀Ⰰ 㠀㄀㔀
吀攀挀栀渀漀氀漀最礀 ␀ 㐀㤀　Ⰰ ㈀㜀㄀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㐀㤀　Ⰰ ㈀㜀㄀ ␀ ⴀ
吀爀愀渀猀瀀漀爀琀愀琀椀漀渀 ␀ ㄀㈀Ⰰ 　㌀　Ⰰ ㈀㐀㘀 ␀ ㌀Ⰰ 㤀㠀　Ⰰ 　㤀㘀Ⰰ 㘀　㐀 ␀ 㘀㠀Ⰰ 　㌀　Ⰰ ㈀㐀㘀 ␀ ㌀Ⰰ 㤀㠀㔀Ⰰ ㄀㘀㘀Ⰰ 㤀㜀㤀
䤀渀搀攀瀀攀渀搀攀渀琀䄀最攀渀挀椀攀猀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㈀㔀㜀Ⰰ 　㘀㈀Ⰰ 㐀㠀㤀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㈀㔀㄀Ⰰ ㈀㐀㐀Ⰰ ㄀㘀㐀
䌀攀渀琀爀愀氀䄀瀀瀀爀漀瀀爀愀椀琀椀漀渀猀 ␀ ⠀㈀㘀Ⰰ ㌀㈀㌀Ⰰ 㜀㤀㄀⤀ ␀ 㤀　Ⰰ ㌀㌀㌀Ⰰ 㔀㠀㤀 ␀ ㄀㐀Ⰰ 　㜀㐀Ⰰ ㈀㄀㌀ ␀ 㠀㠀Ⰰ ㌀㔀㤀Ⰰ ㈀　　
吀漀琀愀氀猀 ␀ ㄀㌀Ⰰ 㔀㜀㐀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ ㌀㔀㄀ ␀ ㈀㄀Ⰰ 　㌀㘀Ⰰ 㠀㐀　Ⰰ 㜀㌀㠀 ␀ ㄀㌀Ⰰ 㜀　㌀Ⰰ 㤀㠀　Ⰰ 㜀㘀㈀ ␀ ㈀　Ⰰ 㘀㐀㐀Ⰰ 㤀㔀　Ⰰ 㤀㌀㠀
䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀䬀愀椀渀攀✀猀吀漀琀愀氀猀 ␀ ㄀㐀Ⰰ 㠀　㘀Ⰰ 㘀㈀㘀Ⰰ ㈀　㔀 ␀ ㈀㈀Ⰰ 㔀㈀㈀Ⰰ 㘀㄀㄀Ⰰ 㔀㔀㘀 ␀ ㄀㔀Ⰰ 㘀㄀㘀Ⰰ 　㔀㈀Ⰰ 㤀㘀㜀 ␀ ㈀㈀Ⰰ 　㐀㈀Ⰰ 　㘀㐀Ⰰ 㠀　㘀
䌀漀洀洀漀渀猀攀渀猀攀匀愀瘀椀渀最猀 ␀ ㄀Ⰰ ㈀㌀㈀Ⰰ 㘀㈀㔀Ⰰ 㠀㔀㐀 ␀ ㄀Ⰰ 㐀㠀㔀Ⰰ 㜀㜀　Ⰰ 㠀㄀㠀 ␀ ㄀Ⰰ 㤀㄀㈀Ⰰ 　㜀㈀Ⰰ ㈀　㔀 ␀ ㄀Ⰰ ㌀㤀㜀Ⰰ ㄀㄀㌀Ⰰ 㠀㘀㠀
18
Executive
䔀砀攀挀甀琀椀瘀攀㨀䄀挀琀甀愀氀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀瘀猀 ⸀ 䌀漀渀琀爀漀氀氀攀搀䜀爀漀眀琀栀
䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀✀猀䈀甀搀最攀琀䈀漀漀欀猀㈀　　㈀ⴀ㈀　㄀　
␀㘀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
䄀挀琀甀愀氀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀
␀㈀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀眀椀琀栀䌀漀渀琀爀漀氀猀
␀㄀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀ⴀ
䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㌀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㐀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㔀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㘀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㜀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㠀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㤀
AFP’s Commonsense Model Budget

䔀砀攀挀甀琀椀瘀攀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㄀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㈀
䜀攀渀攀爀愀氀一漀渀䜀攀渀攀爀愀氀䜀攀渀攀爀愀氀一漀渀䜀攀渀攀爀愀氀
伀昀昀椀挀攀漀昀琀栀攀䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀 ␀ ㈀Ⰰ㈀㔀㔀Ⰰ㠀㐀㘀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㈀Ⰰ㈀㔀㔀Ⰰ㠀㐀㘀 ␀ ⴀ
䰀椀攀甀琀攀渀愀渀琀䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀 ␀ ㌀㌀㤀Ⰰ㔀㔀㄀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㌀㌀㤀Ⰰ㔀㔀㄀ ␀ ⴀ
伀昀昀椀挀攀漀昀琀栀攀䄀琀琀漀爀渀攀礀
䜀攀渀攀爀愀氀 ☀ 䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䰀愀眀 ␀ ㄀㜀Ⰰ　㠀㐀Ⰰ　㘀㌀ ␀ 㠀Ⰰ㠀　㐀Ⰰ㔀㤀㠀 ␀ ㄀㜀Ⰰ　㠀㐀Ⰰ　㘀㌀ ␀ 㠀Ⰰ㠀　㐀Ⰰ㔀㤀㠀
䐀椀瘀椀猀椀漀渀漀昀䐀攀戀琀䌀漀氀氀攀挀琀椀漀渀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ
伀昀昀椀挀攀漀昀琀栀攀匀攀挀爀攀琀愀爀礀漀昀
琀栀攀䌀漀洀洀漀渀眀攀愀氀琀栀 ␀ ㄀Ⰰ㤀㄀㔀Ⰰ㠀㌀　 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㄀Ⰰ㤀㄀㔀Ⰰ㠀㌀　 ␀ ⴀ
伀昀昀椀挀攀漀昀匀甀戀猀琀愀渀挀攀䄀戀甀猀攀
倀爀攀瘀攀渀琀椀漀渀 ␀ ㌀　㜀Ⰰ㤀㔀㔀 ␀ ㌀　㜀Ⰰ㤀㔀㔀 ␀ ⴀ
伀昀昀椀挀攀漀昀䌀漀洀洀漀渀眀攀愀氀琀栀
倀爀攀瀀愀爀攀搀渀攀猀猀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ
䤀渀琀攀爀猀琀愀琀攀伀爀最愀渀椀稀愀琀椀漀渀
䌀漀渀琀爀椀戀甀琀椀漀渀猀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ
吀漀琀愀氀 ␀ ㈀㄀Ⰰ㤀　㌀Ⰰ㈀㐀㔀 ␀ 㠀Ⰰ㠀　㐀Ⰰ㔀㤀㠀 ␀ ㈀㄀Ⰰ㤀　㌀Ⰰ㈀㐀㔀 ␀ 㠀Ⰰ㠀　㐀Ⰰ㔀㤀㠀
a project of

VIRGINIA
19
Office of the Governor
伀昀昀椀挀攀漀昀琀栀攀䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀
䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀 ✀猀䈀甀搀最攀琀䈀漀漀欀猀㈀　　㈀ⴀ㈀　㄀　
␀㘀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
愀琀
愀琀
愀琀
愀琀
愀琀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
椀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
Gov. Kaine truly led Virginia’s spending spree by example. If you want a microcosm of how Virginia found itself
in a multi-billion dollar budget hole simply look at the growth in this office. In FY-2005 total expenditures were
$2,255,846 but they grew to $4,865,423 by FY-2007. In other words, in just two budget years the Governor grew
his office by 116 percent as he grew FTEs by 52 percent1. This budget believes that the Governor-elect should
look at returning the functions and funding of this office to FY-2005 levels. By providing an example to the rest of
state government the credibility of this office to impose fiscal restraint will be restored.
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
伀昀昀椀挀攀漀昀琀栀攀䰀椀攀甀琀攀渀愀渀琀䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀

␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀㔀　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀
愀琀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
椀
爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The Lieutenant Governor has been a modicum of restraint in comparison to the Governor. The office has had a
relatively flat expenditure pattern since FY-2005. This budget holds spending at pre-recession levels of FY-2007.
1. Calculations based on Governor’s Budget Books FY-2002-FY-2009
20
Office of the Attorney General
伀昀昀椀挀攀漀昀琀栀攀䄀琀琀漀爀渀攀礀䜀攀渀攀爀愀氀 ☀ 䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䰀愀眀

䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀✀猀䈀甀搀最攀琀䈀漀漀欀猀
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
愀琀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
椀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
爀漀
爀漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀
瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
Overall this office has had an exceptional growth in FTEs for which the citizens need to examine whether they
have received an equal amount of output. In just six years FTEs increased by a staggering 227 percent. Some
of the functions of these FTEs such as Medicaid fraud recovery would seem better suited to contracting out
to private firms on a commission basis. Properly monitored and structured contracts with the private sector
could combine the incentives to produce results with the inherent efficiencies of the private sector relative to
government attorneys to provide the citizens of the Commonwealth with a win-win situation.
This budget also folds the Human Rights Commission into this office to facilitate the protection of civil rights
while providing efficiencies in enforcement to the citizen’s of the Commonwealth. The funding for this is still
shown on the budget for the Commission and not combined in the above table.
Overall this budget believes the Attorney General’s legal staff should provide a model on how to write and monitor
contracts with the private sector for the rest of Virginia’s departments. Subject to those changes in operations this
budget reduces the funding to pre-FY-2007 levels.
Division of Debt Collection

䐀椀瘀椀猀椀漀渀漀昀䐀攀戀琀䌀漀氀氀攀挀琀椀漀渀猀
␀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ㠀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ㘀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
a project of

VIRGINIA
21
This department is an ideal function for privatization. The expenses related to the collection of debt should be
charged to those departments for which the debt was collected for in order to provide full transparency to the
citizens on the cost of any particular function of government. This budget folds responsibility for structuring and
monitoring the contracts for collection into the Attorney General’s office and provides for the Attorney General to
bill the receiving agency for the expenses of those services.
Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth
伀昀昀椀挀攀漀昀琀栀攀匀攀挀爀攀琀愀爀礀漀昀琀栀攀䌀漀洀洀漀渀眀攀愀氀琀栀

␀㈀Ⰰ 㔀　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ 㔀　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
愀琀
愀琀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
椀
爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀
瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This office performs a number of important functions that are not suited to privatization and in fact FTEs have been
reduced from FY-2003 levels by approximately 10 percent. This budget concurs with Gov. Kaine’s recommendations.
Office of Substance Abuse Prevention
伀昀昀椀挀攀漀昀匀甀戀猀琀愀渀挀攀䄀戀甀猀攀倀爀攀瘀攀渀琀椀漀渀

␀㜀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This is another of the many examples this budget has noted of functions of government that sound good on first
blush. For instance their mission statement: “is to lead and coordinate the Commonwealth’s resources to reduce
22
the incidence and prevalence of substance abuse and its consequences�.” However when one reflects on their
only performance measure of “We will improve public access to information on training, resources, research and
data to increase the use of proven prevention strategies in Virginia�” with their measurement of that success being
the “Average daily use of GOSAP’s Community Profile Database�” it is difficult to understand what difference this
department makes. This function is transferred to public safety and the budget reduced in half.
Office of Commonwealth Preparedness
伀昀昀椀挀攀漀昀䌀漀洀洀漀渀眀攀愀氀琀栀倀爀攀瀀愀爀攀搀渀攀猀猀

␀㄀Ⰰ㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This function was just created in FY-2007 and this budget eliminates this function as redundant. The Emergency
Management function in Public Safety is well suited to handle these duties.
Interstate Organization Contributions
䤀渀琀攀爀猀琀愀琀攀伀爀最愀渀椀稀愀琀椀漀渀䌀漀渀琀爀椀戀甀琀椀漀渀猀

␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
a project of

VIRGINIA
23
“This activity pays membership dues in five regional and national organizations. It is treated as a state agency for
budget purposes, but it has no employees. All staff support is provided by the Governor’s Office.”� Separating this
impedes transparency and this budget believes if the Governor wishes to continue these endeavors they should
be financed within the Governor’s budget.
24
Legislative
䰀攀最椀猀氀愀琀椀瘀攀㨀䄀挀琀甀愀氀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀瘀猀 ⸀ 䌀漀渀琀爀漀氀氀攀搀䜀爀漀眀琀栀
␀㠀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㜀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㘀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　䄀挀琀甀愀氀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀

䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀眀椀琀栀䌀漀渀琀爀漀氀猀
␀㌀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀ⴀ

䰀攀最椀猀氀愀琀椀瘀攀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㄀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㈀
䜀攀渀攀爀愀氀䄀猀猀攀洀戀氀礀 ␀ ㈀㠀Ⰰ㘀㠀㤀Ⰰ㤀㜀㄀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㈀㠀Ⰰ㘀㠀㤀Ⰰ㤀㜀㄀ ␀ ⴀ
䄀甀搀椀琀漀爀漀昀倀甀戀氀椀挀䄀挀挀漀甀渀琀猀 ␀ 㠀Ⰰ㠀㄀㈀Ⰰ㌀㐀㐀 ␀ 㜀㌀㤀Ⰰ㈀㤀㄀ ␀ 㠀Ⰰ㠀㄀㈀Ⰰ㌀㐀㐀 ␀ 㜀㌀㤀Ⰰ㈀㤀㄀
䐀椀瘀椀猀椀漀渀漀昀䌀愀瀀椀琀漀氀倀漀氀椀挀攀 ␀ 㘀Ⰰ㈀㄀㈀Ⰰ㤀㈀㌀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㘀Ⰰ㈀㄀㈀Ⰰ㤀㈀㌀ ␀ ⴀ
䐀椀瘀椀猀椀漀渀漀昀䰀攀最椀猀氀愀琀椀瘀攀匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀 ␀ 㔀Ⰰ　㤀㘀Ⰰ㌀㄀㜀 ␀ ㄀㜀Ⰰ　　　 ␀ 㔀Ⰰ　㤀㘀Ⰰ㌀㄀㜀 ␀ ㄀㜀Ⰰ　　　
䨀漀椀渀琀䰀攀最椀猀氀愀琀椀瘀攀 ☀ 䄀甀搀椀琀刀攀瘀椀攀眀
䌀漀洀洀 ␀ ㈀Ⰰ㜀㜀㐀Ⰰ㐀㌀㐀 ␀ 㤀㜀Ⰰ㘀㜀㤀 ␀ ㈀Ⰰ㜀㜀㐀Ⰰ㐀㌀㐀 ␀ 㤀㜀Ⰰ㘀㜀㤀
䐀椀瘀椀猀椀漀渀漀昀䰀攀最椀猀氀愀琀椀瘀攀䄀甀琀漀洀愀琀攀搀
匀礀猀琀攀洀猀 ␀ ㈀Ⰰ㘀㜀㔀Ⰰ㈀㜀㘀 ␀ ㈀㌀㔀Ⰰ㠀㤀㠀 ␀ ㈀Ⰰ㘀㜀㔀Ⰰ㈀㜀㘀 ␀ ㈀㌀㔀Ⰰ㠀㤀㠀
吀漀琀愀氀 ␀ 㔀㐀Ⰰ㈀㘀㄀Ⰰ㈀㘀㘀 ␀ ㄀Ⰰ　㠀㤀Ⰰ㠀㘀㜀 ␀ 㔀㐀Ⰰ㈀㘀㄀Ⰰ㈀㘀㘀 ␀ ㄀Ⰰ　㠀㤀Ⰰ㠀㘀㜀
a project of

VIRGINIA
25
General Assembly
䜀攀渀攀爀愀氀䄀猀猀攀洀戀氀礀

␀㌀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀✀猀䈀甀搀最攀琀䈀漀漀欀猀㈀　　㈀ⴀ㈀　㄀　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
AFP believes leadership must come from the elected officials and continuing to increase expenditures even for
such an important function of government during this recession is inappropriate. Gov. Kaine’s budget calls for
an increase in expenditures of 3.7 percent.� This budget recommends a cut of 15 percent, while difficult, would
be more appropriate. Legislators need to consider the impact their actions have as an indicator to other state
agencies about the way government should behave with the citizens’ tax dollars. Unemployed or underemployed
Virginians have every reason to be outraged that there seems to be a disconnection from this reality in Richmond.
This function’s expenses are 74 percent personnel expenditures� and savings should be found in furloughs of
staffers for one day a week, early retirement for higher paid workers, reduction in travel, and a suspension of all
expenditures that are not absolutely necessary to conduct the affairs of the Commonwealth. If these legislators
cannot find 15 percent in their budget, how can agencies be expected to cut their budgets to meet the fiscal
crisis? Additionally, this budget consolidates the support functions discussed below into the General Assembly’s
budget to improve transparency and allow citizens to see the full cost of this function of government.
Auditor of Public Accounts
䄀甀搀椀琀漀爀漀昀倀甀戀氀椀挀䄀挀挀漀甀渀琀猀

䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀✀猀䈀甀搀最攀琀戀漀漀欀猀㈀　　㈀ⴀ㈀　㄀　
␀㄀㄀Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㤀Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㤀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀愀琀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
26
The Auditor performs essential services for the state however there exists potential conflicts of interest. As a
constitutional officer of the General Assembly the relationship to elected officials is in and of itself an issue for
auditing various entities and programs of the Commonwealth. This budget believes that is an unacceptable
situation which is easily corrected by implementing a contracting relationship with the private sector. This budget
believes submitting audits and the other functions of the Auditor to a bid process among competing Certified
Public Accounting firms patterned after the process used in the Securities Exchange Commission process
would not only eliminate the conflict of interest but also bring down the costs to taxpayers. Additionally, it would
bring a new accountability to the process. If a public accounting firm performs a function and is delinquent in
performance of its duties the Commonwealth can take action and recover damages from the offending firm. This
option is not open to the Commonwealth with the current modus operandi of the Auditor.
During the current economic recession the competition from private firms to acquire work should enable the
Auditor to reduce overall expenditures by 15 percent from FY-2010 levels.
Division of Capitol Police
䐀椀瘀椀猀椀漀渀漀昀䌀愀瀀椀琀漀氀倀漀氀椀挀攀

␀㤀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㜀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The Virginia Capitol Police (the nation’s oldest law enforcement agency established in 1618) will strive to provide
a safe and secure environment for key leaders of the Commonwealth, the seat of government and those who
work and visit here by use of protective services, law enforcement and pro-active police activity.� The buggy whip
is historic too, but times change and this function has grown costly beyond its function. Between FY-2002 and
FY-2009 it grew by 65 percent in expenditures and in FTEs by 14 percent despite performing essentially the same
duties. This budget combines this department with the State Police and reduces expenditures by 10 percent
Bringing the resources of the State Police to bear on security and by removing redundancies in support positions
the Commonwealth increases safety while reducing costs.
a project of

VIRGINIA
27
Division of Legislative Services
䐀椀瘀椀猀椀漀渀漀昀䰀攀最椀猀氀愀琀椀瘀攀匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀

␀㜀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget reduces expenditures by 15 percent per the General Assembly write-up above.
Joint Legislative & Audit Review
䨀漀椀渀琀䰀攀最椀猀氀愀琀椀瘀攀 ☀ 䄀甀搀椀琀刀攀瘀椀攀眀

␀㐀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
28
Division of Legislative Automated Services
䐀椀瘀椀猀椀漀渀漀昀䰀攀最椀猀氀愀琀椀瘀攀䄀甀琀漀洀愀琀攀搀匀礀猀琀攀洀猀

␀㌀Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀Ⰰ㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀Ⰰ㌀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀Ⰰ㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀Ⰰ㄀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ㤀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ㠀　　Ⰰ　　　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The historic nature of the Commonwealth is well known across the United States but expenditures in a recession
on something like the Bicentennial War of 1812 should be eliminated. It is just one of an impressive number of
boards and commissions that the Commonwealth has created but in a recession their mainly ‘advisory’ roles:
the Virginia Coal Commission, Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council, Virginia Sesquicentennial of
the American Civil War Commission, Brown v. Board of Education Commission, Commission on Electric Utility
Restructuring, Small Business Commission, Virginia Commission on Intergovernmental Cooperation, Commission
on Prevention of Human Trafficking, Joint Commission on Administrative Rules, Joint Commission on Technology
& Science, State Water Commission, Commissioners for the Promotion of Uniformity of Legislation in the
United States, Joint Commission on Health Care, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Commission, Virginia
Disability Commission, and Chesapeake Bay Commission perform should either be absorbed by the appropriate
department within the agency’s budget if the function is necessary or eliminated if simply a place to appoint
political supporters. This budget removes their funding during this recession.
a project of

VIRGINIA
29
30
Judicial Department
䨀甀搀椀挀椀愀氀㨀䄀挀琀甀愀氀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀瘀猀 ⸀ 䌀漀渀琀爀漀氀氀攀搀䜀爀漀眀琀栀
␀㔀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㐀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㌀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　䄀挀琀甀愀氀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀

␀㈀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀ⴀ

䨀甀搀椀挀椀愀氀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㄀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㈀
匀甀瀀爀攀洀攀䌀漀甀爀琀漀昀嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀 ␀ ㈀㌀Ⰰ㈀　㤀Ⰰ㘀㔀㠀 ␀ ㄀　Ⰰ㐀㜀　Ⰰ㘀　㘀 ␀ ㈀㌀Ⰰ㈀　㤀Ⰰ㘀㔀㠀 ␀ ㄀　Ⰰ㐀㜀　Ⰰ㘀　㘀
䌀漀甀爀琀漀昀䄀瀀瀀攀愀氀猀漀昀嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀 ␀ 㜀Ⰰ　　㜀Ⰰ㔀㈀㘀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㜀Ⰰ　　㜀Ⰰ㔀㈀㘀 ␀ ⴀ
䌀椀爀挀甀椀琀䌀漀甀爀琀猀 ␀ 㠀㈀Ⰰ㠀㔀㤀Ⰰ㄀㈀㠀 ␀ 㔀Ⰰ　　　 ␀ 㠀㈀Ⰰ㠀㔀㤀Ⰰ㄀㈀㠀 ␀ 㔀Ⰰ　　　
䜀攀渀攀爀愀氀䐀椀猀琀爀椀挀琀䌀漀甀爀琀猀 ␀ 㤀㐀Ⰰ㠀㜀㐀Ⰰ㌀　㄀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㤀㐀Ⰰ㠀㜀㐀Ⰰ㌀　㄀ ␀ ⴀ
䨀甀瘀攀渀椀氀攀 ☀ 䐀漀洀攀猀琀椀挀刀攀氀愀琀椀漀渀猀䐀椀猀琀爀椀挀琀䌀漀甀爀琀猀 ␀ 㘀㌀Ⰰ㤀㜀㘀Ⰰ㔀　㔀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㘀㌀Ⰰ㤀㜀㘀Ⰰ㔀　㔀 ␀ ⴀ
䌀漀洀戀椀渀攀搀䐀椀猀琀爀椀挀琀䌀漀甀爀琀猀 ␀ ㈀　Ⰰ㜀㠀㐀Ⰰ㤀　㄀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㈀　Ⰰ㜀㠀㐀Ⰰ㤀　㄀ ␀ ⴀ
䴀愀最椀猀琀爀愀琀攀匀礀猀琀攀洀 ␀ ㈀㌀Ⰰ㤀㜀㠀Ⰰ㄀㄀㘀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㈀㌀Ⰰ㤀㜀㠀Ⰰ㄀㄀㘀 ␀ ⴀ
䈀漀愀爀搀漀昀䈀愀爀䔀砀愀洀椀渀攀爀猀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㄀Ⰰ㐀㐀㘀Ⰰ㐀㜀㜀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㄀Ⰰ㐀㐀㔀Ⰰ㘀㈀㈀
䨀甀搀椀挀椀愀氀䤀渀焀甀椀爀礀 ☀ 刀攀瘀椀攀眀䌀漀洀洀椀猀猀椀漀渀 ␀ 㔀㘀㠀Ⰰ㌀㘀㠀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㔀㘀㠀Ⰰ㌀㘀㠀
䤀渀搀椀最攀渀琀䐀攀昀攀渀猀攀䌀漀洀洀椀猀猀椀漀渀 ␀ 㐀㌀Ⰰ㐀㐀㄀Ⰰ㈀㜀　 ␀ ㌀　Ⰰ　　　 ␀ 㐀㌀Ⰰ㐀㐀㄀Ⰰ㈀㜀　 ␀ ㌀　Ⰰ　　　
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀䌀爀椀洀椀渀愀氀匀攀渀琀攀渀挀椀渀最䌀漀洀洀椀猀猀椀漀渀 ␀ 㤀㘀㤀Ⰰ㈀㔀㐀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㤀㘀㤀Ⰰ㈀㔀㐀
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀匀琀愀琀攀䈀愀爀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㈀　Ⰰ㈀㌀㜀Ⰰ㘀㌀　 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㈀　Ⰰ㈀㌀㜀Ⰰ㘀㌀　
䨀甀搀椀挀椀愀氀䐀攀瀀琀刀攀瘀攀爀猀椀漀渀䌀氀攀愀爀椀渀最䄀挀挀琀 ␀ ⠀㌀Ⰰ　㈀㈀Ⰰ㘀　　⤀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⠀㌀Ⰰ　㈀㈀Ⰰ㘀　　⤀ ␀ ⴀ
吀漀琀愀氀 ␀ ㌀㔀㠀Ⰰ㘀㐀㘀Ⰰ㐀㈀㜀 ␀ ㌀㈀Ⰰ㄀㠀㤀Ⰰ㜀㄀㌀ ␀ ㌀㔀㠀Ⰰ㘀㐀㘀Ⰰ㐀㈀㜀 ␀ ㌀㈀Ⰰ㄀㠀㠀Ⰰ㠀㔀㠀
a project of

VIRGINIA
31
Supreme Court of Virginia
匀甀瀀爀攀洀攀䌀漀甀爀琀漀昀嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀
␀㜀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The above chart shows even as Virginia settled into the worst recession in recent history the court accelerated
expenditures by 156 percent and increased FTEs by 33 percent since FY-2002. While this is an essential function
of government this growth of expenditures is unreasonable to say the least. Often legislators are reticent to limit
the expenditures of the third branch of government but every government function should be accountable to its
citizens. This budget recommends an additional 25 percent reduction beyond Gov. Kaine’s recommendations in
staying consistent with ‘sharing the pain’ with the citizens of the Commonwealth. Given the phenomenal growth
in expenditures this budget believes these cuts can be made without affecting the performance of the Court.
This budget suggests consolidation of support functions such as accounting, data processing and some clerical
support with the other judicial departments that will offset some of the reductions.
Court of Appeals of Virginia
䌀漀甀爀琀漀昀䄀瀀瀀攀愀氀猀漀昀嘀䄀
␀㤀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㜀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The Court of Appeals increased expenditures by over 25 percent and increased FTEs by 50 percent since FY-2002 and
this budgets recommendation is an overall reduction of an additional 15 percent over Gov. Kaine’s recommendations.
The majority of the cost increase was due to the FTE increases therefore consolidation of support functions such as
accounting, data processing and some clerical support with the other judicial departments will offset most if not all of
32
the reductions. It should be noted consolidation of these functions does not require those performing the functions be
in a centralized location. VPN networks and the Commonwealth’s server based data environment allow for using the
most cost effective locations and FTEs to perform the consolidated support functions.
Circuit Courts
䌀椀爀挀甀椀琀䌀漀甀爀琀猀
␀㄀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The Circuit Courts have been more fiscally responsible than the other courts with a small increase in FTEs and a
reasonable expenditure increase since FY-2002. Accordingly this budget only reduces their budget by 10 percent
over Gov. Kaine’s recommendations. However it is instructive that average compensation of the FTEs has grown
from $199,375 in FY-2007 to a projected $235,706 in FY-2011. Consolidation of support functions such as
accounting, data processing and some clerical support with the other judicial departments may offset all of the
reduction given the high cost of this department’s FTEs.
General District Courts
䜀攀渀攀爀愀氀䐀椀猀琀爀椀挀琀䌀漀甀爀琀猀
␀㄀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
a project of

VIRGINIA
33
The General District Courts have increased expenditures within the parameters of population and inflation growth
and accordingly this budget holds them at Gov. Kaine’s recommendation level.
Juvenile & Domestic District Courts

䨀甀瘀攀渀椀氀攀 ☀ 䐀漀洀攀猀琀椀挀䐀椀猀琀爀椀挀琀䌀漀甀爀琀猀
␀㠀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㜀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
From FY-2002 through FY-2010 expenditures grew by 59 percent with much of it fueled by the average compensation
going from $ 71,996 to $84,468 during that period. This budget reduces funding by 15 percent over Gov. Kaine’s
budget, but consolidation of support functions such as accounting, data processing and some clerical support with
the other judicial departments may offset all of the reduction given the high cost of this department’s FTEs.
Combined District Courts
䌀漀洀戀椀渀攀搀䐀椀猀琀爀椀挀琀䌀漀甀爀琀猀
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This department is to be congratulated for its reduction in FTEs from 222.75 to 204.75. However, during the same
period expenditures increased by 45 percent Accordingly this budget reduces this department by 5 percent over
Gov. Kaine’s budget. They may actually experience a small increase in operating funding throught consolidation
of support functions with the other courts with this budget.
34
Magistrate System
䴀愀最椀猀琀爀愀琀攀匀礀猀琀攀洀

␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The Magistrate System increased expenditures from FY-2002 to FY-2010 by 54 percent and increased FTEs
from 399.2 to 446.2 during the same period. While Gov. Kaine’s budget holds the System harmless this budget
believes that such growth—especially since the majority of it took place DURING the recession in FY-2009 – is
inappropriate and reduces the budget by 15 percent.
Board of Bar Examiners
䈀漀愀爀搀漀昀䈀愀爀䔀砀愀洀椀渀攀爀猀

␀㄀Ⰰ㘀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The Virginia Board of Bar Examiners is empowered to prepare, administer and grade the Virginia Bar Examination
and license those applicants who pass the exam and who are otherwise qualified to practice law in Virginia. This
budget leaves the fee-based funding at Gov. Kaine’s levels.
a project of

VIRGINIA
35
Judicial Inquiry & Review Commission
䨀甀搀椀挀椀愀氀䤀渀焀甀椀爀礀 ☀ 刀攀瘀椀攀眀

␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The mission of the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission is to investigate charges of judicial misconduct
or serious mental or physical disability. This budget holds the Commission harmless and concurs with Gov.
Kaine’s budget.
Virginia Indigent Defense Commission
䤀渀搀椀最攀渀琀䐀攀昀攀渀猀攀
␀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The Virginia Indigent Defense Commission’s role is to support the Commonwealth’s Constitutional obligation to
provide legal representation to indigent criminal defendants through the administration of a state public defender
system and the certification of court appointed counsel. This budget recognizes the important function that this
Commission performs and the difficult assignments that it sometimes faces but believes a partial change in
funding will help both the defendants and the taxpayers of Virginia. The cost of this essential government function
to taxpayers has risen by 42 percent over just four budget cycles from FY-2007 to FY-2010.
This budget proposes when a defendant represented by the Commission is found not guilty of a charge that
part of the cost of that defense should be borne by the prosecuting authority in a reimbursement of costs to
36
the Commission. The use of the prosecuting attorney’s office as a platform for launching political careers has
created distortions in the legal process that have made citizens partial financiers of those aspirations. The current
system ties the hands of the Commission with their funding limitations versus prosecuting attorneys who have the
advantage of controlling the charges brought against defendants initially. This approach will reduce the incentive of
prosecutors to bring multiple charges against defendants in order to intimidate innocent citizens into guilty pleas
to lesser charges. Taxpayers will benefit as the cost of defense goes down as prosecutors become more cautious
about ‘piling’ charges on defendants and instead focus on those of which they believe the defendant is truly guilty.
This budget reduces the funding of the Commission by 15 percent to reflect the savings of this approach.
Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀䌀爀椀洀椀渀愀氀匀攀渀琀攀渀挀椀渀最䌀漀洀洀椀猀猀椀漀渀

␀㄀Ⰰ㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The mission statement of: “The Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission is to develop, implement, maintain,
and continually update a discretionary sentencing guidelines system to assist the judiciary in the imposition of
felony sentences in the Commonwealth, to establish rational and consistent sentencing standards which reduce
unwarranted sentencing disparity, to conduct criminological research on felony recidivism in order to develop,
implement and maintain offender risk assessment instruments that are predictive of the future likelihood of a return
to criminal conduct, to integrate offender risk assessment instruments into the felony sentencing guidelines system,
to review proposed legislation and estimate the future correctional costs of new initiatives, and to maintain a felony
sentencing guidelines system that emphasizes the accountability of the offender and of the criminal justice system
to the citizens of the Commonwealth and fosters public confidence in Virginia’s justice system.�”
This is an important and essential function of government. However, there is some evidence the Commission has
some issues to correct in at least one area. Recidivism is abnormally high in Virginia subjecting citizens to risk as
released felons recommit crimes. However, in fairness to the Commission the low rate of incarceration in Virginia
relative to other states has lowered the costs of the Department of Correction. This budget concurs with Gov.
Kaine’s recommendation.
a project of

VIRGINIA
37
Virginia State Bar
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀匀琀愀琀攀䈀愀爀
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
“The mission of the Virginia State Bar, as an administrative agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia, is (1) to
regulate the legal profession of Virginia; (2) to advance the availability and quality of legal services provided to the
people of Virginia; and (3) to assist in improving the legal profession and the judicial system.”�
This budget does not believe it is proper that any general fund monies be used toward these goals and removes
the general fund revenues. The Bar should be strictly a fee-based entity and this budget leaves that portion of the
budget intact.
38
Independent Agencies
䤀渀搀攀瀀攀渀搀攀渀琀䄀最攀渀挀椀攀猀㨀䄀挀琀甀愀氀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀瘀猀 ⸀ 䌀漀渀琀爀漀氀氀攀搀
䜀爀漀眀琀栀
␀㐀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㌀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㄀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀ⴀ

䤀渀搀攀瀀攀渀搀攀渀琀䄀最攀渀挀椀攀猀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㄀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㈀
匀琀愀琀攀䌀漀爀瀀漀爀愀琀椀漀渀
䌀漀洀洀椀猀猀椀漀渀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㜀㤀Ⰰ㌀㠀　Ⰰ㐀㐀㄀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㜀㤀Ⰰ㐀㈀㔀Ⰰ㐀㐀㄀
匀琀愀琀攀䰀漀琀琀攀爀礀䐀攀瀀琀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㜀㤀Ⰰ㤀㘀㈀Ⰰ㠀㐀㈀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㜀㤀Ⰰ㤀㘀㈀Ⰰ㠀㐀㈀
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀刀攀琀椀爀攀洀攀渀琀
匀礀猀琀攀洀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㔀㤀Ⰰ㜀　㤀Ⰰ㄀㈀㈀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㔀㌀Ⰰ㠀㐀㔀Ⰰ㜀㤀㜀
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀圀漀爀欀攀爀猀 ✀
䌀漀洀瀀攀渀猀愀琀椀漀渀
䌀漀洀洀椀猀猀椀漀渀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㌀㔀Ⰰ㈀㐀㈀Ⰰ㜀　㌀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㌀㔀Ⰰ㈀㐀㈀Ⰰ㜀　㌀
嘀䄀伀昀昀椀挀攀昀漀爀倀爀漀琀攀挀琀椀漀渀 ☀
䄀搀瘀漀挀愀挀礀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㈀Ⰰ㜀㘀㜀Ⰰ㌀㠀㄀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㈀Ⰰ㜀㘀㜀Ⰰ㌀㠀㄀
吀漀琀愀氀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㈀㔀㜀Ⰰ　㘀㈀Ⰰ㐀㠀㤀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㈀㔀㄀Ⰰ㈀㐀㐀Ⰰ㄀㘀㐀
a project of

VIRGINIA
39
State Corporation Commission
匀琀愀琀攀䌀漀爀瀀漀爀愀琀椀漀渀䌀漀洀洀椀猀猀椀漀渀
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㤀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㜀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
Often fee-based departments fly under the radar of legislators and citizens but when you consider the functions
many of them perform, it is clear those fees are a cost of doing business in that state. Additionally the paperwork
requirements of these fee-based departments add another layer of cost to businesses and individuals in the time
it takes to prepare and submit the necessary forms. As such when the fees and paperwork requirements are in
excess of their counterparts in other states it introduces an additional level of non-competitiveness. This budget
has repeatedly stressed fees in excess of the cost of the regulation they provide are a back door tax. These
‘costs’ of doing business are then transferred to consumers who buy the products or services that the regulated
business provides.
The Corporation Commission’s mission is to: “have custody of and preserve all records, documents, papers
and files of the Commission and make them available for public examination. When requested, make and certify
copies of documents and furnish information from Commission records. Process and maintain corporate,
limited liability company, business trust and partnership filings, Uniform Commercial Code financing and
related statements and federal tax liens. Receive all registration fees, fines, penalties and judgments imposed
by the Commission. Issue all notices, writs, processes or orders awarded by the Commission. Keep a record
of all proceedings, orders and findings of the public sessions of the Commission.”� This agency is totally fee-
driven but we find some issues with the cost of the regulation. In FY-2007 the cost of providing this service was
composed of 44 percent personnel costs but by Gov. Kaine’s FY-2012 budget the composition becomes 49
percent personnel costs. Common sense would dictate in the age of technology, simple paper processes, as
much of this department is, should require fewer FTE cost not more. A growth of 10 percent in personnel cost is
not acceptable when the citizen’s of the Commonwealth become the unwitting financier of inefficiencies and this
budget reduces this departments fees by 10 percent across the board.
40
State Lottery Department
匀琀愀琀攀䰀漀琀琀攀爀礀䐀攀瀀愀爀琀洀攀渀琀

␀㠀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㜀㠀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㜀㘀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㜀㐀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㜀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㜀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀㠀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This voluntary tax has raised approximately $5.3 billion since its inception for K-12 public schools according to
the Department.� While not endorsing the concept of gambling the budget does note that personnel costs as a
percentage of expenditures has decreased slightly from FY-2007 to FY-2010 which is exemplary compared to
many other of the Commonwealth’s functions.
Virginia Retirement System

Virginia’s Retirement System carries a nearly $11 billion ‘debt’ for which the citizens of the Commonwealth are “on
the hook.” How did it get into this mess? The simple answer is that the state embraces a type of retirement plan
that has shown a tendency to become fiscally insolvent. Defined-benefit plans such as the state uses in each of
its systems have inherent flaws that are almost unavoidable. In a defined-benefit plan the employer guarantees a
certain benefit payment to an employee for his or her lifetime, come hell or high water. The collapse of Bethlehem
Steel, the crisis at General Motors, and dozens of other examples have spotlighted the inherent problems with
these defined-benefit plans.
Unfortunately, the flaws of defined-benefit plans are even worse in the public sector. For years a perverse
incentive existed where Virginia politicians could use the plan to buy votes but hide their actions from all but
the most knowledgeable financial wizards. For many years this debt was kept “off the books” thanks to flaws
in governmental accounting rules which allowed politicians to cover their tracks. However, recent rule changes
enacted by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) have required government entities to reveal
these debts to the public in their annual financial statements. Sadly, hardly anyone reads these documents and
the debt still stays largely out of the public spotlight.
Since this debt is hidden in these unread financial statements and not included in the budget numbers politicians
have a kind of credit card to buy votes from the members of groups such as the school or state employee unions.
In years of budget deficits such as this fiscal cycle they can still give benefit increases to the systems they know
will not be reflected in their budgets and largely will remain out of the public’s view.
How does the Commonwealth get out from under this debt? The answer is simple but the execution is complex.
First, you must remove the ability of the Legislature to fund benefits without providing funding. Without a
constitutional control, the best hope for Virginia taxpayers is for a change in the type of plan used.
Most private businesses use some version of a defined-contribution plan in which the employer guarantees the
a project of

VIRGINIA
41
level of contribution to the plan. The employee is usually empowered to make investment choices along with
total portability but is not guaranteed any more than the amount in the plan at retirement. The very nature of the
plan almost guarantees fiscal solvency for the provider. This budget recommends the Commonwealth put all new
employees of the schools, and state government in a defined contribution plan and begin the business of getting
Virginia out from under this ever increasing mountain of debt.
Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission
嘀椀爀椀最椀渀椀愀圀漀爀欀攀爀猀 ✀ 䌀漀洀瀀攀渀猀愀琀椀漀渀䌀漀洀洀椀猀猀椀漀渀

␀㌀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget concurs with Gov. Kaine’s recommendations.
Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀伀昀昀椀挀攀昀漀爀倀爀漀琀攀挀琀椀漀渀 ☀ 䄀搀瘀漀挀愀挀礀

␀㌀Ⰰ 㔀　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㌀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ 㔀　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ 㔀　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget finds the mission of this department admirable but believes that this function would best serve its
constituency if consolidated with the rest of the Health and Human Resources departments. This would break
down bureaucratic barriers between different departments, remove redundancies and allow a better focus of
resources on the disabled. This budget removes the general funds which represent less than the 10 percent of
personnel cost that should be saved. In effect, funding for the disabled will be increased by this merger.
42
Administration
䄀搀洀椀渀椀猀琀爀愀琀椀漀渀㨀䄀挀琀甀愀氀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀瘀猀 ⸀ 䌀漀渀琀爀漀氀氀攀搀䜀爀漀眀琀栀
␀㄀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㤀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㠀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㜀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㘀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㔀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀ⴀ
AFP’s Commonsense Budget for Administration

䄀搀洀椀渀椀猀琀爀愀琀椀漀渀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㄀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㈀
匀攀挀爀攀琀愀爀礀漀昀䄀搀洀椀渀椀猀琀爀愀琀椀漀渀 ␀ ㄀Ⰰ　㔀　Ⰰ㌀㜀㘀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㄀Ⰰ　㔀　Ⰰ㌀㜀㘀 ␀ ⴀ
䌀漀洀瀀攀渀猀愀琀椀漀渀䈀漀愀爀搀吀爀愀渀猀昀攀爀爀攀搀琀漀倀甀戀氀椀挀匀愀昀攀琀礀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䔀洀瀀氀漀礀攀攀䐀椀猀瀀甀琀攀刀攀猀漀氀甀琀椀漀渀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䜀攀渀攀爀愀氀匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀 ␀ ㄀㐀Ⰰ㐀㔀㜀Ⰰ　㔀㌀ ␀ 㐀　Ⰰ㔀㠀㈀Ⰰ㐀㘀㄀ ␀ ㄀㐀Ⰰ㐀㔀㜀Ⰰ　㔀㌀ ␀ 㐀　Ⰰ㔀㠀㈀Ⰰ㐀㘀㄀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䠀甀洀愀渀刀攀猀漀甀爀挀攀
䴀愀渀愀最攀洀攀渀琀 ␀ ㌀Ⰰ㠀㌀㄀Ⰰ㄀㈀㈀ ␀ 㜀Ⰰ㐀㘀㘀Ⰰ㘀㤀㈀ ␀ ㌀Ⰰ㠀㌀㄀Ⰰ㄀㈀㈀ ␀ 㜀Ⰰ㐀㘀㘀Ⰰ㘀㤀㈀
䄀搀洀椀渀椀猀琀爀愀琀椀漀渀漀昀䠀攀愀氀琀栀䤀渀猀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㄀㘀㔀Ⰰ㌀　　Ⰰ　　　 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㄀㘀㔀Ⰰ㌀　　Ⰰ　　　
䠀甀洀愀渀刀椀最栀琀猀䌀漀甀渀挀椀氀 ␀ ㈀㠀㈀Ⰰ㌀㜀㜀 ␀ ㈀㘀Ⰰ㈀　　 ␀ ㈀㠀㈀Ⰰ㌀㜀㜀 ␀ ㈀㘀Ⰰ㈀　　
匀琀愀琀攀䈀漀愀爀搀漀昀䔀氀攀挀琀椀漀渀猀 ␀ ㄀㈀Ⰰ㜀㈀　Ⰰ㄀㤀　 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㄀㈀Ⰰ㜀㈀　Ⰰ㄀㤀　 ␀ ⴀ
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䴀椀渀漀爀椀琀礀䈀甀猀椀渀攀猀猀䔀渀琀攀爀瀀爀椀猀攀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ
吀漀琀愀氀 ␀ ㌀㈀Ⰰ㌀㐀㄀Ⰰ㄀㄀㜀 ␀ ㈀㄀㌀Ⰰ㌀㜀㔀Ⰰ㌀㔀㌀ ␀ ㌀㈀Ⰰ㌀㐀㄀Ⰰ㄀㄀㜀 ␀ ㈀㄀㌀Ⰰ㌀㜀㔀Ⰰ㌀㔀㌀
a project of

VIRGINIA
43
Secretary of Administration
匀攀挀爀攀琀愀爀礀漀昀䄀搀洀椀渀椀猀琀爀愀琀椀漀渀
␀㄀㐀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
Source: Governor’s Budget Books 2002-2010
Clearly examination of the expenditures since FY-2002 would initially indicate the agency had practiced excellent
spending restraint and possibly there would be little or no opportunity for budget reductions. However, within the
responsibilities of this cabinet reside at least one unnecessary program and areas of possible budget savings.
Unless otherwise indicated savings will be removed from General Funds i.e. taxpayer revenues in order to provide
opportunities to the Commonwealth for tax reductions.
This budget concurs with Gov. Kaine’s recommendation to reduce funding to the Virginia Public Broadcasting Board but
AFP’s budget goes one step further and removes the total funding for public television. The advent of satellite television
and the rapid expansion of other audio visual applications on the Internet bring into question the efficiency of continuing
to use public funds even in its education application for public broadcasting. At a time of budget crisis these are the sort
of projects that need to be considered for either large funding cuts or elimination.
The Secretary has the charge of managing the state’s real estate portfolio. This budget suggests this is the
perfect opportunity to review the portfolio and ask some fundamental questions. Are all buildings necessary?
How much money can be saved in operating costs and capital costs by VPN arrangements to move state
jobs to rural communities? Has the mineral rights of each property been kept and if so are there any revenue
opportunities within drilling or mining restrictions?
The ownership of public buildings should be minimized in general for several reasons. Government ownership
removes those buildings from the local property tax roles deflating revenues to local authorities. Government
in general tends to defer maintenance and the result is allocation by crisis. Leaky roofs and unsound structures
don’t just appear overnight but anyone that has sat through agency requests for capital improvement funds
would be hard pressed to believe that. Government should consider renting as a first resort for all but the most
fundamental elements of government. In a rental agreement the landlord pays taxes not only on the property but
on any income they realize. The landlord bears the responsibility to maintain the property and if they do not the
government agency can simply move at the end of the rental contract.
However, even if the government does own, maintain and occupy the building there are still options available to reduce
costs to the state and ultimately taxpayers. There are firms, such as Johnson Controls, that will renovate the complete
cooling and heating system of existing structures and allow the government to pay them out of the energy savings.
44
These firms guarantee the savings or forfeit their payments. This provides a win-win for Virginia governmental agencies.
There are other firms, such as Inland Public Properties Development, Inc., that will invest in infrastructure on short
or long term contracts with government. These firms believe they can build, maintain and operate buildings more
efficiently than their governmental counterparts. They are willing to commit their capital rather than asking Virginia
taxpayers to finance construction and/or remodeling.
This budget believes in equality for all in every endeavor but finds the concept of race-based contracts to fly in
the face of that belief. The Secretary touts that the Commonwealth’s expenditures for Small, Women and Minority
businesses have increased from $674 million annually in 2006 to $1.8 billion in 2009. AFP finds that admirable
but if those contracts were not issued on the best interests of Virginia taxpayers’ then they should be reviewed
and a new bid process instituted. It is not acceptable for taxpayers struggling to meet basic needs to provide a
premium on any contract at their expense.
Similarly this budget questions the Virginia State Employee Loan Program designed to “help meet the short
term loan needs of state employees as they manage through the worst economic crisis in generations. Small
loans from $100 to $500 will be offered to state employees through the Virginia Credit Union and backed by the
Virginia State Employee Assistance Fund.”1 The argument can be made that there is little or no cost to Virginians
but any cost---and there are overhead costs implicit in any program---is unacceptable when these government
employees have not faced the issues that many unemployed Virginians have had to confront without a paycheck.
This budget does encourage the expansion of the agency’s Telework program which “promotes general work
efficiencies by permitting employees to work at alternate work locations for all or part of their work week.”2 AFP
encourages the Governor to go one step further and make it a priority to use the VPN systems and move state
jobs to rural communities that provide appropriate office space for the positions. Government workers would find
that the compensation and benefit packages exceed what most rural communities have within the private sector.
Department of Employee Dispute Resolution
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䔀洀瀀氀漀礀攀攀䐀椀猀瀀甀琀攀刀攀猀漀氀甀琀椀漀渀
␀㄀Ⰰ㠀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ㘀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀
瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
1. http://www.administration.virginia.gov/index.cfm
2. http://www.administration.virginia.gov/News/?id=708
a project of

VIRGINIA
45
This budget concurs with removing funding from the agency. When revenues return to pre-recession levels
this budget believes these costs should be borne by individual agencies. By transferring the cost of resolution
to those agencies that incur costs related to these issues it provides greater transparency to government
expenditures by program and incentivizes agencies with employee issues to address them to limit impact on their
programs’ budgets.
Department of General Services
伀昀昀椀挀攀漀昀琀栀攀䰀椀攀甀琀攀渀愀渀琀䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀

␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀㔀　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀愀琀
椀愀琀
椀愀琀
椀愀琀
椀愀琀
椀愀琀
愀琀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
爀漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The Department is another example of a function whose costs need to be distributed to the agencies that use
their services. Part of the transparency and comparability issue between states is the split-off of services into
separate budgets. This prevents citizens of the Commonwealth from being able to know the total cost of any
service and compare to other states to judge on the efficiency of their state government.
A great example of the flawed performance measures in the Commonwealth’s agencies is this key performance
measure from the Department: “Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, specifically carbon dioxide, the main
contribution to global warming.”� This self appointed climate judgment doesn’t seem to be in the mission statement
of “delivering quality, cost effective, timely, safe and secure laboratory, engineering and architecture, procurement,
real estate, vehicle management, and graphic design services, while also serving businesses and citizens.”� The
advocacy for any political issue using taxpayer money is a questionable expenditure and this measure would
indicate a management that taxpayers and the legislatures should monitor for inefficiencies driven by ideologies.
The Division of Real Estate Services (DRES) should be asked to address the building and real estate holdings
of the Commonwealth with an eye towards minimizing taxpayer costs and maximizing the quality of those
assets. This budget suggests that the DRES investigate the suggestions in the write-up for the Secretary of
Administration’s section.
This agency is a particularly FTE heavy with 664.5 in FY-2010. This budget believes that many of these FTE’s are
lightly utilized relative to their high pay band. For example the Division of Engineering & Buildings (DEB), Bureau
of Capital Outlay Management (BCOM), Bureau of Facilities Management (BFM) are all areas where the concept
of full time FTEs appears to be overkill. These are all services that can be contracted for on an as-needed basis.
46
A Reduction in Force employing early retirement incentives may be a technique to pare these departments down
to the number of FTEs that private entities would use for comparable functions.
AFP believes in the vast majority of normal services that the government cannot and indeed should not be
competing with private businesses. The agency’s Director’s Office - Office of Graphic Communications (OGC)
contends they “offers quality print and internet media communication services to state agencies, institutions
of higher education, local governments and non-profit organizations and provides high-quality, award winning
communications projects ranging from logos and web sites to displays and brochures.”� Most state agencies
would have a hard time determining these claims because OGC is a mandatory source for state agencies
pursuant to section 2.1 in the Commonwealth’s Agency Procurement and Surplus Property Manual (APSPM).
This budget believes that a hiring freeze supplanted with a policy of not filling any vacated positions in the
DEB, BCOM, BFM and OCG should be implemented with contracts put out to bid to fill those services on an
as needed basis. Additionally, we believe the “Yellow Pages test” should be applied to the services of General
Services. We believe the budget of General Services can be reduced another 10 percent of personnel costs
beyond Gov. Kaine’s budget.
Department of Human Resource Management
伀昀昀椀挀攀漀昀琀栀攀䄀琀琀漀爀渀攀礀䜀攀渀攀爀愀氀 ☀ 䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䰀愀眀

␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀愀琀
椀愀琀
椀愀琀
愀琀
椀愀琀
愀琀
椀愀琀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
椀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀
瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The Department is another example of a function whose costs need distributed to the agencies that use their
services. Part of the transparency and comparability issue between states is the split-off of services into separate
budgets. This prevents citizens of the Commonwealth from being able to know the total cost of any service and
compare to other states to judge on the efficiency of their state government.
There are elements of employee compensation that need to be changed to bring the state into a more fiscally
prudent position. The primary problem currently with state employee compensation is the defined benefit plan
structure. The type of retirement plan that VRS uses is a defined benefit plan. Defined-benefit plans such as VRS
have inherent flaws that are almost unavoidable. In a defined-benefit plan the employer guarantees a certain
benefit payment to an employee for his or her lifetime, regardless of the availability of funds in their retirement
a project of

VIRGINIA
47
accounts. The collapse of Bethlehem Steel, the continuing crisis at General Motors, and dozens of other
examples have spotlighted the inherent problems with defined-benefit plans and VRS is no exception. Currently
VRS has an unfunded actuarial liability (UAL) of over $10.3 billion� according to the latest actuarial report. What
this essentially means is that VRS is $10.3 billion short of being able to pay the retirement benefits that have been
promised by the system.
This agency performs necessary functions for the essential functions of government but it is instructive to note
that in the private sector they employ less human resource FTEs per essential employees than government. The
private sector also prioritizes these support positions for elimination in tight budget situations. This budget puts in
place a hiring freeze supplanted with a replacement of only the most crucial FTEs upon separation from service.
Accordingly, we reduce the Department’s budget by 10 percent of personnel costs in addition to Gov. Kaine’s
recommendations.
Administration of Health Insurance
䄀搀洀椀渀椀猀琀爀愀琀椀漀渀漀昀䠀攀愀氀琀栀䤀渀猀

␀㄀㠀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㘀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀愀琀
椀愀琀
椀愀琀
椀愀琀
椀愀琀
椀愀琀
椀愀琀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀
瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This agency serves as a holding account from which the Department of Human Resource Management
administers health insurance programs for state employees, local employees, dependents, and retirees. Gov.
Kaine’s budget adds $60 million to the holding account in both FY-2011 and FY-2012. This budget removes
that total to reflect the short and long term reductions in FTEs that is anticipated over the next four years as
government is reconfigured.
48
Human Rights Council
䠀甀洀愀渀刀椀最栀琀猀䌀漀甀渀挀椀氀

␀㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀㔀　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀㔀　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
瀀爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget proposes the merger of the Human Rights Council (HRC) functions into the office of the Attorney
General. Not only will this merger provide a savings in support staff with the elimination of redundant positions
but will also heighten the ability of HRC to perform their tasks. The Attorney General is far better staffed to
investigate and prosecute discrimination cases than HRC. This budget believes aggressive prosecution by the
Attorney General of discrimination will serve the citizens of the Commonwealth’s better than creating bureaucratic
layers at taxpayer expense. The AFP budget proposes that HRC’s budget be held at its FY-2010 level less 25
percent to reflect savings from consolidation and removal of redundancy of purpose with the Commonwealth’s
highest law officer.
State Board of Elections
匀琀愀琀攀䈀漀愀爀搀漀昀䔀氀攀挀琀椀漀渀猀

␀㘀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀愀琀
椀愀琀
椀愀琀
椀愀琀
椀愀琀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀

a project of

VIRGINIA
49
The State Board of Elections’ (SBE) mission is to promote and ensure uniformity, legality, fairness, accuracy,
purity and, integrity of the vote in all elections in the Commonwealth. This budget views this as an essential
function of government but in the current economic client it is appropriate to freeze expansion of things such as
Voting Systems Security Plan until the Commonwealth’s revenues rebound. The budget is reduced by another 10
percent over Gov. Kaine’s proposal.
Department of Minority Business Enterprise
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䴀椀渀漀爀椀琀礀䈀甀猀椀渀攀猀猀䔀渀琀攀爀瀀爀椀猀攀

␀㈀Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀ Source: Governor’s Budget Books 2002-2010
According to their mission statement the Department will “Working collaboratively with public and private
industries, the Department of Minority Business Enterprise will aggressively pursue supplier diversity by creating
contracting opportunities and promoting fairness in the state’s procurement process for Small, Women-owned,
and Minority-owned Businesses.”� This budget does not support laws and programs that invoke racial or ethnic
discrimination and believes they violate a basic principle of moral government and should be eliminated. Can one
in good conscience say that using the tax dollars of a struggling family trying to feed their children to subsidize
any business is acceptable morally? This budget strives to reduce taxes for all regardless of their racial, gender
and/or ethnic background so that all may enjoy the fruits of their labor.
50
Agriculture and Forestry
䄀最爀椀挀甀氀琀甀爀攀 ☀ 䘀漀爀攀猀琀爀礀䄀挀琀甀愀氀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀瘀猀 ⸀ 䌀漀渀琀爀漀氀氀攀搀
䜀爀漀眀琀栀
␀㄀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㤀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㠀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㜀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㘀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀眀椀琀栀䌀漀渀琀爀漀氀猀
␀㐀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀ⴀ
䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㔀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㘀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㜀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㠀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㤀
AFP’s Commonsense Budget for Agriculture and Forestry

䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㄀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㈀
匀攀挀爀攀琀愀爀礀漀昀䄀最 ☀ 䘀漀爀攀猀琀爀礀 ␀ ㌀　㘀Ⰰ ㌀㐀㘀 ␀ ㌀　㘀Ⰰ ㌀㐀㘀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䄀最 ☀ 䌀漀渀猀甀洀攀爀匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀 ␀ 㐀㌀Ⰰ ㈀　㐀Ⰰ 㔀㔀㄀ ␀ 㐀㈀Ⰰ 㔀㌀㜀Ⰰ 㘀㄀㜀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䘀漀爀攀猀琀爀礀 ␀ ㈀㈀Ⰰ 㘀㠀㈀Ⰰ 㘀㔀㘀 ␀ ㈀㈀Ⰰ 㠀㠀㜀Ⰰ 㤀㐀㜀
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀䄀最䌀漀甀渀挀椀氀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ
吀漀琀愀氀䄀最爀椀挀甀氀琀甀爀攀愀渀搀䘀漀爀攀猀琀爀礀 ␀ 㘀㘀Ⰰ ㄀㤀㌀Ⰰ 㔀㔀㌀ ␀ 㘀㔀Ⰰ 㜀㌀㄀Ⰰ 㤀㄀　
a project of

VIRGINIA
51
Secretary of Agriculture & Forestry
匀攀挀爀攀琀愀爀礀漀昀䄀最爀椀挀甀氀琀甀爀攀 ☀ 䘀漀爀攀猀琀爀礀

␀㘀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
䄀
䄀
䄀
䄀
䄀
䄀
㔀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This agency was created in 2005 and is a classic example of how bureaucracies expand by creating new agencies
and redundant positions. Commerce and Trade housed most of this cabinet’s functions prior to 2006. This budget
proposes that the four agencies that constitute Agriculture and Forestry be combined to eliminate duplicate
positions. The removal of high pay band positions such as Deputy Directors, accountants, technology and other
support positions will provide significant savings immediately and with growing amounts as time passes.
The Secretary’s department has exactly three FTE with a personnel cost of $300,386 or a staggering $100,125
per FTE. This budget reduces the revenue to the Secretary’s department by another 10 percent over Gov. Kaine’s
recommendation.
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䄀最爀椀挀甀氀琀甀爀攀 ☀ 䌀漀渀猀甀洀攀爀匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀

␀㜀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
52
It is instructive that one of the key performance measures is to “increase the amount of permanently preserved
working farms and forest land in Virginia by local purchase of development rights programs.”� It makes no sense
to circumvent the free enterprise system and subject land in Virginia to uses that limit the fiscal prosperity of its
citizens. This budget encourages a review of land already in the development rights program for liquidation and
that those funds should be used to replace funding for this department during this budget crisis.
Another function being performed by the department is to “increase the value of Virginia food, agricultural
and forestry products in the domestic and international marketplace through marketing services provided to
producers and processors.”� These are functions best left to the entities that engage in these trades and do not
need subsidies in the form of marketing services from hard-working taxpayers.
This budget concurs with moving a portion of meat and poultry inspection to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
but encourages the agency to look at expanding that to private contracts to inspect those that only ship in state
and perform custom processing for private consumption.
AFP encourages this department to focus on core functions such as enhancing food safety and security
programs. The cessation of these unnecessary functions should allow this department to reduce expenditures by
an additional 25 percent. Any income from land development rights should be used to further reduce the budget.
Department of Forestry
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䘀漀爀攀猀琀爀礀
␀㌀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀愀琀
椀愀琀
椀愀琀
椀愀琀
椀愀琀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀漀
爀漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀
瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
Keeping with the theme of this cabinet of performing tasks incompatible with government’s role the Forestry
Department lists one of their key performance measures as “we will increase the number of forest management
projects implemented on private land.” Taxpayer subsidies to perform these services for private landowners are
clearly inappropriate.
This budget concurs with removing unfilled FTEs, removal of signing bonuses for new employees, elimination
of memberships in associations and the removal of employee perks such as moving and relocation expenses.
These practices should be implemented at every Commonwealth department during this budget crisis. Since
a project of

VIRGINIA
53
the Department has already taken these steps this budget believes you can lower the budget for Forestry by 15
percent to reflect the cessation of unnecessary functions.
Virginia Agriculture Council
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀䄀最爀椀挀甀氀琀甀爀愀氀䌀漀甀渀挀椀氀
␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The Virginia Agricultural Council lists their mission as “supporting agricultural research, education and services
through research grants that assist agricultural producers and the agribusiness industry by finding new uses for
agricultural products and by promoting more efficient and economical methods of agricultural production.”� These
functions should be left to the commercial entities that perform these tasks. This is not an acceptable use of state
resources and this budget removes this agency’s funding.
54
Commerce & Trade
䌀漀洀洀攀爀挀攀 ☀ 吀爀愀搀攀㨀䄀挀琀甀愀氀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀瘀猀 ⸀ 䌀漀渀琀爀漀氀氀攀搀
䜀爀漀眀琀栀
␀㄀Ⰰ 㐀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ ㈀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㠀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　䄀挀琀甀愀氀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀

␀㘀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀ⴀ
䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㌀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㐀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㔀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㘀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㜀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㠀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　　㤀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀　

䌀漀洀洀攀爀挀攀 ☀ 吀爀愀搀攀
䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㄀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㈀
匀攀挀爀攀琀愀爀礀漀昀䌀漀洀洀攀爀挀攀 ☀ 吀爀愀搀攀 ␀ 㘀㈀㐀Ⰰ㠀　㘀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㘀㈀㐀Ⰰ㠀　㘀 ␀ ⴀ
䔀挀漀渀漀洀椀挀䐀攀瘀攀氀漀瀀洀攀渀琀䤀渀挀攀渀琀椀瘀攀
倀愀礀洀攀渀琀猀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ
䈀漀愀爀搀漀昀䄀挀挀漀甀渀琀愀渀挀礀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㘀㠀㤀Ⰰ㔀㤀㄀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㘀㠀㤀Ⰰ㔀㤀㄀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䈀甀猀椀渀攀猀猀䄀猀猀椀猀琀愀渀挀攀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䠀漀甀猀椀渀最 ☀ 䌀漀洀洀甀渀椀琀礀
䐀攀瘀攀氀漀瀀洀攀渀琀 ␀ ㌀㔀Ⰰ㤀㔀㐀Ⰰ㌀㘀㜀 ␀ 㠀㄀Ⰰ㠀㐀㐀Ⰰ㠀㐀　 ␀ ㌀㐀Ⰰ㄀㔀㘀Ⰰ㘀㐀㤀 ␀ 㠀㄀Ⰰ㠀㐀㐀Ⰰ㠀㐀　
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䰀愀戀漀爀 ☀ 䤀渀搀甀猀琀爀礀 ␀ 㘀Ⰰ㤀㈀㘀Ⰰ㈀㌀㈀ ␀ 㘀Ⰰ㌀㄀㔀Ⰰ㈀㌀㈀ ␀ 㘀Ⰰ㤀㈀㘀Ⰰ㈀㌀㈀ ␀ 㘀Ⰰ㌀㄀㔀Ⰰ㈀㌀㈀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䴀椀渀攀猀 Ⰰ 䴀椀渀攀爀愀氀猀 ☀ 䔀渀攀爀最礀 ␀ 㤀Ⰰ㠀㜀㜀Ⰰ㈀　㈀ ␀ ㈀㄀Ⰰ㜀㠀㐀Ⰰ　㈀㠀 ␀ 㤀Ⰰ㠀㜀㜀Ⰰ㈀　㈀ ␀ ㈀㄀Ⰰ㜀㠀㐀Ⰰ　㈀㠀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀倀爀漀昀攀猀猀椀漀渀愀氀 ☀
伀挀挀甀瀀琀椀漀渀愀氀刀攀最甀氀愀琀椀漀渀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㄀㔀Ⰰ㠀㤀㠀Ⰰ㄀㔀㤀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㄀㔀Ⰰ㠀㤀㠀Ⰰ㄀㔀㤀
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀䔀挀漀渀漀洀椀挀䐀攀瘀攀氀漀瀀洀攀渀琀
倀愀爀琀渀攀爀猀栀椀瀀 ␀ 㜀Ⰰ㤀㌀㔀Ⰰ㌀㜀㘀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㌀Ⰰ㤀㘀㜀Ⰰ㘀㠀㠀 ␀ ⴀ
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀䔀洀瀀氀漀礀洀攀渀琀䌀漀洀洀椀猀猀椀漀渀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㄀Ⰰ　㌀㔀Ⰰ㌀㠀　Ⰰ㌀㜀㔀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㠀㈀㈀Ⰰ㔀㠀　Ⰰ㌀㜀㔀
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀刀愀挀椀渀最䌀漀洀洀椀猀猀椀漀渀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㌀Ⰰ㌀㄀　Ⰰ㘀㐀㐀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㌀Ⰰ㌀㄀　Ⰰ㘀㐀㐀
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀吀漀甀爀椀猀洀䄀甀琀栀漀爀椀琀礀 ␀ ㄀㐀Ⰰ㐀㔀㠀Ⰰ㜀㘀㔀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㄀㐀Ⰰ㐀㔀㠀Ⰰ㜀㘀㔀 ␀ ⴀ
吀漀琀愀氀 ␀ 㜀㔀Ⰰ㜀㜀㘀Ⰰ㜀㐀㜀 ␀ ㄀Ⰰ㄀㘀㔀Ⰰ㈀㈀㈀Ⰰ㠀㘀㠀 ␀ 㜀　Ⰰ　㄀㄀Ⰰ㌀㐀㄀ ␀ 㤀㔀㈀Ⰰ㐀㈀㈀Ⰰ㠀㘀㠀
a project of

VIRGINIA
55
Secretary of Commerce and Trade
匀攀挀爀攀琀愀爀礀漀昀䌀漀洀洀攀爀挀攀 ☀ 吀爀愀搀攀
␀㌀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀　
㈀䄀瀀爀椀愀
㈀䄀瀀瀀爀椀愀

㈀䄀瀀爀椀
瀀瀀爀椀愀
瀀爀渀

渀
㐀爀漀瀀椀漀渀
漀漀渀
㘀爀漀瀀椀漀渀
㜀爀漀椀漀渀
漀漀渀
㤀爀漀瀀椀漀渀
　爀漀瀀椀漀渀
爀漀琀椀漀
琀椀漀
　　瀀爀琀椀
　　瀀爀琀椀
　　瀀愀琀
　　瀀瀀椀愀琀
　㄀瀀愀琀
椀愀
㈀䄀瀀瀀爀椀
爀
爀漀
瀀瀀
　　瀀
　　瀀
䄀
䄀
㈀
㌀
㠀
　　
　　
㈀
㈀
㈀
The Secretary’s mission statement is: “Through delegated authority, using specific management and measuring
tools, the Secretary of Commerce and Trade provides guidance to agencies within its secretariat. The office
oversees agencies responsible for promoting statewide economic growth and community development, attracting
and retaining business, promoting the state’s tourism, racing, and film industries, addressing the need for
moderate and low income housing, assisting disadvantaged businesses, regulating occupations and professions,
ensuring safe workplaces, pursuing international markets for Virginia products, developing and conserving energy
and mineral resources, administering the unemployment compensation program, and financing infrastructure
projects for localities.”1
The AFP budget encourages the Legislature to review the efficiency of the many tax credit and incentive programs
this agency oversees. The concept of supporting industries at the exclusion of others is a flawed concept. The
free market provides ‘seed’ or venture capital to firms all the time. Is there any reason to believe that government
bureaucrats are better at identifying profitable investments for seed capital than the market? Venture capitalists are
experts in identifying potentially profitable investments; the people who are most successful at it are the ones with
the most venture capital to risk. These people also have a great incentive to be right. If they are, they make lots of
money; if they are not, they lose money. These people have the knowledge and the incentive to fund all profitable
opportunities. The government bureaucrat is selected for different reasons, without a natural-selection mechanism
for weeding out those who make bad investment decisions. The argument can be made that projects which are
only viable with the state’s incentives or tax credits programs are bad investments and should not be funded. If
they are projects which are good investments, the market would have funded them without these credits. The
more appropriate role of government is to provide a low tax, business friendly environment for individual citizens to
use their own ingenuity and capital to create and grow businesses. By removing all subsidies and focusing on only
the essential functions of government this budget believes a significant reduction in the Commonwealth’s tax rate
can be achieved. Capital flows and businesses move to those areas that are the most economically ‘friendly’ for
their continued existence and profit. The federal tax code is consistent by state therefore advantages in locating in
a particular state become largely based on either incentives or the overall business environment. We have already
discussed the fallacy of bureaucrats attempting to ‘guess’ which industries are winners but equally flawed is the
concept that incentive programs will ensure long term location in one state of an endeavor. Often firms will locate
based on such payments---as Rolls-Royce has indicated they will---but over the long haul will reconsider that
location as factors such as incentives ceasing to flow to the entity or better incentives from another state occur.
1. Governor’s Budget Book FY-2010 page B-45
56
Service businesses can move income recognition between states to thwart high tax rates of taxation by merely
using the internet to perform functions in low tax states. Additionally, there is a fairness consideration. Why should
individual taxpayers, much less existing businesses who do not receive any credits or incentive payments, help
fund other industries with their tax dollars?
This budget removes the funding instead of transferring existing appropriations for the Governor’s Development
Opportunity Fund and the Governor’s Motion Picture Opportunity Fund from the Office of the Secretary of
Commerce and Trade to a new sub-agency, Economic Development Incentive Payments. This funding was
included in the Office of the Secretary of Commerce and Trade in 2010 which was the reason for the spike in
appropriations that the graph shows. This budget begins a closure of the Economic Development Incentive
Payments that include the prior items and performance based financial assistance, infrastructure development
grants, and customized training and support programs. These programs are administered by the Virginia
Economic Development Partnership, the Virginia Tourism Authority, and the Virginia National Defense Industrial
Authority. Those payments not already committed for Rolls-Royce and other targeted credits should be removed
from taxpayer’s funding stream and this program should be discontinued.
Board of Accountancy
䈀漀愀爀搀漀昀䄀挀挀漀甀渀琀愀渀挀礀

␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㤀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㜀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

漀瀀渀

　　瀀爀漀漀渀
渀
　㄀瀀爀漀漀渀
渀
漀渀
漀渀
漀渀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀
椀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
瀀
　　瀀爀漀
　　瀀爀漀
　　瀀爀漀
　　瀀爀漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget believes that fees on industry should be decreased in a time of recession. They simply become pass
through costs to consumers and functionally are a back door tax on the consumer. This budget reduces the
fees of this agency by 25 percent immediately and suggests monitoring of these fee financed institutions for the
appropriateness of the fee structure in the future.
a project of

VIRGINIA
57
Department of Business Assistance
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䈀甀猀椀渀攀猀猀䄀猀猀椀猀琀愀渀挀攀

䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀 ✀ 猀䈀甀搀最攀琀䈀漀漀欀猀㈀　　㈀ⴀ㈀　㄀　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

漀瀀渀

渀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀
琀椀
椀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This is another agency with a role that is not an appropriate use of citizens’ tax dollars and this budget removes
all General Funds from this department.
Department of Housing and Community Development
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䠀漀甀猀椀渀最 ☀ 䌀漀洀洀甀渀椀琀礀䐀攀瘀攀氀漀瀀洀攀渀琀
␀㄀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

漀瀀渀

渀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀
椀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
椀愀
椀愀
䄀瀀爀椀愀
椀愀
䄀瀀爀椀愀
爀椀愀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀
瀀
　　瀀爀漀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
58
This department has admirable goals such as making “Virginia’s communities safe, affordable, and prosperous
places in which to live, work and do business.”2 However, some of the goals are not achievable through this
program particularly: “We will reduce economic disparity between Virginia’s communities by reducing the
percentage of Virginia localities that have unemployment rates greater than 150 percent of the state average.”�
This budget does believe they conceivably are reachable using a little common sense and modern technology.
AFP has a better idea on how to improve the rural communities’ economies. The Commonsense Budget proposes
existing state agency functions be examined for their suitability for remote office environments. In this day of server-
based operations, many private firms have moved jobs not only around the country but overseas. Through the use
of Virtual Private Network systems (VPN) we can move state jobs into rural areas.
The VPN technology is safe, economical and battle-tested by tens of thousands of private companies who have
used this ability to place their support functions wherever it is most economical. The placement of agency jobs
in rural towns would provide an instant economic impact on those communities that received them. State jobs
have insurance and retirement benefits that exceed those normally available in the rural counties of Virginia.
State wage scales are really quite good compared to rural per capita incomes and would go a long way toward
propping up the economies of those rural communities receiving the jobs.
Not only would rural Virginia benefit but all Virginia taxpayers could expect a savings from such a move. A review
of government expenditures found a number of capital expenditures related to office space expansion and
building renovation. Our elected officials should consider that rural Virginia counties contain many fine buildings
on their main streets that are either currently vacant or underutilized. The rent on these buildings is significantly
less than equivalent office space in Richmond and might actually be obtained rent-free by asking rural towns to
compete for these state jobs.
AFP suggests this win-win scenario and the scaling back of the department’s programs with a reduction to FY-
2010 General Fund levels from FY-2011 recommendations and a 5 percent annual reduction in that base until this
program has completely replaced taxpayer funds with Non General Funds.
Department of Labor & Industry

䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䰀愀戀漀爀 ☀ 䤀渀搀甀猀琀爀礀
␀㄀㘀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㐀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
a project of

VIRGINIA
59
This budget recognizes that many of the functions that this department administers are necessary and arguably
essential, however, a growth of 31 percent in General Funds in just the last six fiscal years is unacceptable especially
where personnel costs are 74 percent of the total budget. In a budget crisis without ample time to study both the
organizational chart and duties of each FTE there are choices that must be made in every department. This budget
cuts the General Funding by 10 percent over Gov. Kaine’s recommendation. Important fee-based programs such as
boiler inspection remain untouched by this cut in General Funds but it requires management to practice the same
principles that the industries they monitor have had to use to institute the cuts the recession has forced on them.
Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy

䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䴀椀渀攀猀 Ⰰ 䴀椀渀攀爀愀氀猀 ☀ 䔀渀攀爀最礀
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

漀瀀渀

漀瀀渀

漀瀀渀

渀
渀
漀渀
漀渀
漀渀
漀渀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
䄀瀀椀愀琀椀
䄀瀀椀愀琀椀
䄀瀀椀愀琀椀
䄀瀀椀愀琀椀
䄀瀀椀愀琀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
Per the Governor’s Budget Book: “It is the mission of the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME) to enhance
the development and conservation of energy and mineral resources in a safe and environmentally sound manner to
support a more productive economy.”� This budget believes this function should be consolidated with the Department of
Labor & Industry to cut administrative expenses and cuts this budget’s General Funds by 10 percent since 52 percent of
the cost of operation is in personnel costs with over two-thirds of the funding being Non General Revenues�.
Additionally this budget holds the fees charged industry constant and eliminates the new fees recommended by
Gov. Kaine. Raising fees on business in a recession is counterproductive and should not be an avenue to allow
inefficiencies to continue in this department’s operations.
Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation

䐀攀瀀琀漀昀倀爀漀昀攀猀猀椀漀渀愀氀 ☀ 伀挀挀甀瀀琀椀漀渀愀氀刀攀最甀氀愀琀椀漀渀
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
漀渀
漀渀
漀渀
漀渀
漀渀
漀渀
漀渀
漀渀
琀椀漀
䄀瀀椀愀琀椀
䄀瀀椀愀琀椀
䄀瀀椀愀琀椀
䄀瀀椀愀琀椀
䄀瀀椀愀琀椀
䄀瀀椀愀琀椀
䄀瀀椀愀琀椀
䄀瀀椀愀琀椀
爀椀愀
爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
60
This budget reduces fees charged by this Department. They simply become ‘pass through’ costs to consumers
and functionally are a back door tax on the consumer which in the course of a recession is unacceptable. This
budget reduces the fees of this agency by 25 percent immediately and suggests monitoring of these fees for
the appropriateness of the fee structure in the future. As the graph shows the fee income has increased at an
unacceptable rate since 2005 and it is difficult to understand in reviewing operations where the need for this
additional revenue is warranted.
Virginia Economic Development Partnership
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀䔀挀漀渀漀洀椀挀䐀攀瘀攀氀漀瀀洀攀渀琀倀愀爀琀渀攀爀猀栀椀瀀

␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

瀀爀
瀀爀

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀
愀琀
琀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
瀀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
瀀爀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀
䄀
䄀
䄀
䄀
䄀
䄀
䄀
䄀
䄀
㈀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This is another example of a department whose goals seem worthy per their mission statement: “To enhance the
quality of life and raise the standard of living for all Virginians, in collaboration with Virginia communities through
aggressive business recruitment, expansion assistance, and trade development, thereby building the tax base
and creating higher income employment opportunities.”� However, this budget has consistently maintained that
a low tax, business-friendly environment, is more important to all businesses---current and future---than the
removal of needed funds from existing businesses. Many citizens seem to favor a few chosen by bureaucrats
with no accountability for their choices. This budget reduces funding for this department by 50 percent of General
Funds on a yearly basis till this revenue stream is dissipated and the agency is shut down.
Virginia Employment Commission
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀䔀洀瀀氀漀礀洀攀渀琀䌀漀洀洀椀猀猀椀漀渀

␀㄀Ⰰ㈀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
瀀瀀琀椀漀渀
瀀瀀琀椀漀渀
琀椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
瀀瀀琀椀漀
瀀瀀琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀
琀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀
椀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
瀀爀
爀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀
䄀
䄀
䄀
䄀
䄀
䄀
䄀
䄀
䄀
㈀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
a project of

VIRGINIA
61
The Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) is a very essential function of government in a recession and this
budget concurs with Governor Kaine’s recommendations but adds some additional accountability that reflects
the importance. The Department’s mission� is to:
1. “Partner with stake holders” which this budget believes is essential but partnering is more than collecting
fees from businesses and AFP believes that a partnership should include a two-way-street approach where
businesses don’t just view VEC as a cost of doing business and another bureaucracy. Businesses, especially
small businesses, often find themselves subject to fixed fine amounts that are disproportionate to their payroll
costs. This approach does not foster a partner atmosphere and this budget encourages the VEC to work with
all businesses to reduce the amounts of fines charged and the incidence rate by preempting or providing
avenues for mitigating costs.
2. “Develop and empower staff” which this budget believes should include accountability for their ability to
meet all the other goals of VEC as set out by the mission statement. A staff which facilitates these goals
while improving efficiencies and taking on more responsibilities should receive pay raises from the savings by
firing those employees who do not comply. This approach will allow management and staff to understand the
environment those business and employees they regulate operate in.
3. “Improve our processes, embrace innovative solutions and technologies while continually renewing our
organization” which if accomplished this budget believes should allow VEC to eventually lower the over all rate
charged businesses. This budget would challenge VEC to provide proof of that happening in any budget cycle.
Virginia Racing Commission
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀刀愀挀椀渀最䌀漀洀洀椀猀猀椀漀渀
␀㘀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
瀀爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget concurs with Gov. Kaine’s recommendations.
62
Virginia Tourism Authority
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀吀漀甀爀椀猀洀䄀甀琀栀漀爀椀琀礀

䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀 ✀猀䈀甀搀最攀琀䈀漀漀欀㈀　　㈀ⴀ㈀　㄀　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀
瀀爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The mission statement of this department is interesting to say the least: “The Virginia Tourism Authority (VTA) is a
creative and dynamic organization blazing new paths in marketing for the tourism and film industries in Virginia to bring
more visitors and film producers to the Commonwealth; to get them staying longer; and to spend more money.”�
A “creative and dynamic organization” needs performance measures that reflect that and this budget suggests
that the department show how “creative and dynamic” they are by getting off the public dole and find a way to
fund itself out of private dollars from the industries they are promoting. If in fact they can prove to the tourism
industry that visitors are staying longer and spending more money because of their efforts then one would think
the private businesses that are directly benefiting would find a mechanism besides citizen’s tax dollars to fund
VTA. This budget finds the recruitment of film producers at the expense of working tax payers incongruent with
the functions of government. This budget removes all General Funds from this department.
a project of

VIRGINIA
63
Education
E ducation: Actual E xpenditures vs. C ontrolled Grow th
Governor's B udget B ooks 2002-2010
$16,000,000,000
$14,000,000,000
$12,000,000,000
$10,000,000,000
Actual Expenditures
$8,000,000,000
Expenditures with Controls
$6,000,000,000
$4,000,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$-
FY-2003 FY-2004 FY-2005 FY-2006 FY-2007 FY-2008 FY-2009
64
AFP’s Commonsense Budget for Education
Educ ation FY -2011 FY -2012
General NonGeneral General NonGeneral
Sec retary of Educ ation $ 651,203 $ - $ 651,203 $ -
Dept of Educ ation $ 50,246,441 $ 66,081,378 $ 50,246,441 $ 66,081,378
Direc t A id to Public Educ ation $ 5,030,134,642 $ 1,518,861,627 $ 5,116,793,438 $ 1,405,489,200
V A Sc hool f or the Deaf , Blind & Multi-
Dis abled at Hampton $ - $ - $ - $ -
V A Sc hool of the Deaf & Blind at
Staunton $ 9,015,858 $ 1,237,340 $ 9,015,858 $ 1,237,340
State Counc il f or Higher Educ ation f or
VA $ 74,756,726 $ 69,673,563 $ 74,756,726 $ 69,673,563
Chris topher New port Univ ers ity $ 24,870,308 $ 77,835,482 $ 22,408,163 $ 75,532,327
The College of William & Mary In V A $ 38,604,504 $ 184,762,475 $ 34,431,527 $ 178,729,978
Ric hard Bland College $ 4,993,596 $ 6,553,596 $ 4,425,933 $ 5,875,452
V irginia Ins titute of Marine Sc ienc e $ 16,370,543 $ 25,102,431 $ 14,454,114 $ 22,333,722
George Mas on Univ ers ity $ 114,276,360 $ 535,206,002 $ 102,213,721 $ 530,350,824
James Madis on Univ ers ity $ 63,272,431 $ 307,030,904 $ 56,484,918 $ 304,725,339
Longw ood Univ ers ity $ 24,640,881 $ 67,219,525 $ 21,415,709 $ 64,307,365
Norf olk State Univ ers ity $ 41,680,615 $ 90,265,976 $ 38,089,007 $ 86,963,387
Old Dominion Univ ers ity $ 96,879,423 $ 198,947,190 $ 87,116,668 $ 187,981,790
Radf ord Univ ers ity $ 44,460,517 $ 97,900,201 $ 39,008,320 $ 93,387,815
Univ ers ity of Mary Was hington $ 18,918,666 $ 68,290,902 $ 17,075,366 $ 67,219,033
Univ ers ity of V irginia $ 119,953,003 $ 825,754,262 $ 106,739,693 $ 825,434,116
Univ ers ity of V irginia Medic al Center $ - $ 1,041,325,547 $ - $ 1,132,294,268
Univ ers ity of V irginia's College at
Wis e $ 12,232,525 $ 17,070,657 $ 10,901,092 $ 15,377,634
V irginia Commonw ealth Univ ers ity $ 163,755,880 $ 650,204,571 $ 146,482,158 $ 629,359,742
V irginia Community College Sy s tem $ 333,114,320 $ 764,213,739 $ 301,703,882 $ 723,800,503
V irginia Military Ins titute $ 10,977,210 $ 43,355,483 $ 9,755,217 $ 41,608,804
V irginia Poly tec hnic Ins titute & State
Univ ers ity $ 149,556,657 $ 731,952,016 $ 134,561,332 $ 713,400,865
V irginia State Univ ers ity $ 31,686,083 $ 88,332,640 $ 29,372,918 $ 85,349,684
Eas tern V iriginia Medic al Sc hool $ 16,677,509 $ - $ 16,677,509 $ -
New College Ins titute $ 1,317,696 $ 1,099,646 $ 1,317,696 $ 1,099,646
Library of V irginia $ 17,675,559 $ 10,460,875 $ 17,675,559 $ 10,460,875
Sc ienc e Mus eum of V irginia $ 2,316,778 $ 6,251,366 $ 1,158,389 $ 6,251,366
V irginia Mus eum of Fine A rts $ 4,965,651 $ 12,459,876 $ 2,482,825 $ 13,003,395
Ins titute f or A dv anc ed Learning &
Res earc h $ 5,525,061 $ - $ 5,525,061 $ -
V irginia Commis s ion f or the A rts $ - $ 863,373 $ - $ 863,373
Roanoke Higher Educ ation A uthority $ - $ - $ - $ -
Southern V irginia Higher Educ ation
Center $ - $ - $ - $ -
Southw es t V irginia Higher Educ ation
Center $ - $ 7,185,564 $ - $ 7,185,564
Jef f ers on Sc ienc e A s s oc iates , LLC $ 574,946 $ - $ 287,473 $ -
V PI Cooperativ e Ex tens ion & A g
Ex periment Station $ 56,247,722 $ 23,296,946 $ 53,139,100 $ 18,540,572
V SU Cooperativ e Ex tens ion &
A gric ultural Res earc h Serv ic es $ 4,197,066 $ 5,204,300 $ 4,197,066 $ 5,204,300
Frontier Culture Mus eum of V irginia $ 676,962 $ 536,293 $ 338,481 $ 536,293
Guns ton Hall $ 244,520 $ 264,699 $ 122,260 $ 264,699
James tow n-Y orktow n Foundation $ 3,089,169 $ 8,686,598 $ 1,544,584 $ 8,686,598
Total Educ ation $ 6,588,557,026 $ 7,553,487,043 $ 6,532,569,406 $ 7,398,610,808
a project of

VIRGINIA
65
The big budget item in the Commonwealth’s list of expenditures is K-12 public education via aid to localities
which comprises 33 percent of the budget.1 In a budget crisis of this proportion with no end in sight it is
incumbent on the Virginia Legislature to take a look at the funding stream to K-12 public education.
It is time for Virginians to have a chance to ask some tough questions of the K-12 public education system.
Demanding results that are equivalent to the expenditure of their tax dollars is a major step and one heretofore
ignored by the education lobby. There is a mountain of data available for taxpayers to peruse with the majority of
it is generated by either the Commonwealth’s own Department of Education or by the Virginia teachers union’s
parent group the National Education Association (NEA). Virginia voters currently don’t know how much is being
spent on education and in fact 65 percent understated the amount when surveyed.2 However, let’s see what
we can discern from the available data to determine what the taxpayer’s money is buying the Commonwealth’s
children. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (also known as No Child Left Behind) requires states
to set annual measurable objectives of proficiency in reading and mathematics, participation in testing, and
graduation and attendance. The program sets Adequate Yearly Progress goals of which during 2008-2009 71
percent of Virginia schools met the grade and 28 percent of the schools did not.3 In other words, the public
schools barely obtained a C- passing grade. Virginia’s ACT (college admissions test) rank is 23rd amongst the
states; however, Virginia tests far fewer students than most states (many test over 60 percentfor example Kansas
ranked 16th with 74 percent tested) with only 19 percent taking the test.4 If a broader based sample was taken
more than likely this ranking would be significantly lower. The state ranks 17th in per pupil funding according to
even the NEA’s calculations5 pointing to an imbalance in performance versus funding.
The funding versus performance becomes even more unbalanced when you dig a little deeper into the actual per
pupil funding costs. Currently the per pupil expenditure numbers quoted by the education lobby are generated
by the National Education Association which is the national organization for the states public school teacher’s
unions. Not exactly an unbiased source of information. A recent study using Governmental Accounting Board
Standards and a more comprehensive review of all funds expended for K-12 public education state found a
significant difference in the NEA’s per pupil number and the actual expenditures in the state studied.6 For example
the Virginia Department of Education’s costs are obviously expenditures that should be included in the per
pupil expenditures but are not included in the NEA’s numbers. They also excluded building costs and the huge
unfunded liabilities in retirement benefits accruing to school administrators, teachers and support personnel
in K-12 public education for which Virginia taxpayers are ultimately responsible. Any publicly funded company
(i.e. one that issues stock) that attempted to ignore this benefit cost of employees would be prosecuted by the
Security and Exchange Commission for misstatement of their financial position. Correction of these oversights
would go a long ways to providing complete transparency and allow citizens to more properly weigh the cost/
benefit of K-12 public education funding.
With K-12 public education occupying such a large share of the budget there is no way to balance this budget
without looking at a way to reduce funding. The issue is not if but how and with what effect on schools can
reductions in funding be made. However, there is an option which could help meet this budget need while
increasing the public school per pupil expenditures and increasing test scores across the board. Virginians
have weighed in on school choice and there is widespread support for the option. When asked about school
vouchers, 57 percent of likely voters say they favor them, compared to 35 percent who oppose with 59 percent
of voters with household incomes below $75,000 favoring the vouchers.7 Even more importantly those voters in
the 36-45 age group---the group most likely to have children in school---favored them 68 percent to 28 percent
1. Governor’s Budget Overview FY2008-FY2010 page O-19

2. Virginia’s Opinion on K-12 Education and School Choice by Paul DiPerna printed by The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice
3. http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/src/ayp.shtml
4. 2008 Average ACT Score by State by ACT Inc.
5. http://www.nea.org/home/29402.htm
6. http://www.ocpathink.org/ViewPolicyStory.asp?ID=546
66
who opposed. Not surprisingly the older voters over age 55 who are very unlikely to have kids in the schools
and hence have less contact with the current public school system are relatively less supportive of vouchers (49
percent favor, 39 percent oppose).8
A properly structured school choice option could actually increase per pupil funding in public schools while
potentially decreasing the total cost to Virginia taxpayers. The costs of U.S. private schools are, on average, 60
percent of public school costs.9 That means Virginians could provide a state voucher/property tax voucher which
parents can use to switch their children to private schools and pay less than what the state spends to educate
them in the local public school. The state and the locality would continue collecting the same tax revenues for
schools that they currently do less the amount provided for the students transferring to private schools. Even
after the removal of the voucher amount from the funding stream there will be a significant increase in available
funding for public schools on a per pupil basis if large numbers of parents exercise the option. For example, a
school choice voucher for private schools of $4000 coupled with a property voucher of $2000 per year would be
a savings of approximately $4000 per pupil over the current amount of $10,707 per pupil spent by K-12 public
education.10 Leaving this excess in the revenues for the public school system would increase funding as each
student leaves public school by transferring to one of Virginia’s many fine private schools.
In order to be revenue positive to the schools the vouchers initially could only go to students who are means
tested and not currently enrolled in private schools. It makes the most sense to start with this group from an
outcomes-based perspective also. By and large the lower performing schools are in those areas of lower per
capita incomes. The author of this section was told by an African-American state representative from an inner
city district that he felt school choice was “one of the last big civil rights issues.”11 The argument has long been
that parents can ‘select’ their public school by choosing where they live. This is actually not completely true. The
housing prices of suburban bedroom communities has long worked to segregate many minorities in inner city
schools as the ability to purchase homes in those suburbs are not an option for the parents.
And the welcome by product of school choice is that education scores may actually go up. A study of school
choice published by Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby� asked the question “Do public schools respond
constructively to competition induced by school choice, by raising their own productivity?” Contrary to the claim
that private schools would cherry pick students leaving public schools with only the lower performing students,
the study found the benefits were actually greatest where large numbers of students were eligible for choice.
This study was particularly interesting in that it looked at those school choice programs that have existed for
some time and which were large enough to have produced real competition. For example in Milwaukee, where
children received vouchers worth up to $5,783, the improvement in the public schools was substantial. Students
in public schools where at least two-thirds of students were eligible for vouchers scored 8.1, 13.8, and 8.0
national percentile rank points higher in math, science, and language, respectively. Michigan and Arizona had
similar results with public schools raising achievement in response to competition. Hoxby found the largest
achievement gains were in those public schools that faced the most competition.
Consumers have long seen the benefit that the competition that our economic system generates among
businesses has had on the technology, quality and prices of products. It should be no surprise that when public
schools improve due to competition, school choice benefits reach beyond those students who take advantage
of the opportunity to attend a private school with a voucher. The fact that competition has the same potential
benefits for public schools not just students who switch to private schools makes school choice a win-win for
parents and the taxpayers of Virginia.
9. http://www.ocpathink.org/PolicyAnalysis/FY-07_OCPA_Budget.pdf pg.33
10. The actual amount per pupil is greater than $10,707 but that is the latest NEA data available from 2008. We have assumed the federal dollars to be approximately
$700 per student which is probably high too. NEA data at: http://www.nea.org/home/29402.htm
11. Hon. Jabbar Shumate, State Representative from Tulsa, Oklahoma told to Steven J. Anderson
a project of

VIRGINIA
67
Secretary of Education 嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀吀漀甀爀椀猀洀䄀甀琀栀漀爀椀琀礀
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
Secretary of Education
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　 Govenor's Budget Books 2002-2010
$1,800,000
$1,600,000
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$800,000
$600,000
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$400,000
$200,000
$0
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
愀琀
琀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
2002 Appropriation
2003 Appropriation
2004 Appropriation
2005 Appropriation
2006 Appropriation
2007 Appropriation
2008 Appropriation
2009 Appropriation
2010 Appropriation
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget freezes the Department at 2010 levels by removing the Virginia Public Broadcasting (VPB) Board from
General Funds. This budget leaves the bandwidth and current assets in the hands of the VPB and encourages
them to solicit public participation and to explore other revenue opportunities within those valuable assets that
will enable VPB to continue to operate without taking funds away from essential functions of government.
Department of Education 嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀吀漀甀爀椀猀洀䄀甀琀栀漀爀椀琀礀

␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
Dept of Education
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　 Governor's Budget Books 2002-2010
$140,000,000
$120,000,000
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$100,000,000
$80,000,000
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$60,000,000
$40,000,000
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$20,000,000
␀　$0

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
瀀爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
2002 Appropriation
2003 Appropriation
2004 Appropriation
2005 Appropriation
2006 Appropriation
2007 Appropriation
2008 Appropriation
2009 Appropriation
2010 Appropriation
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget concurs with the Governor’s Budget recommendations but consolidates this department with the
Department of Education and removes two more FTE’s from efficiency gains. An additional $100,000 is removed
to reflect those savings.
68
Direct Aid to Public Schools
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
Direct Aid to Public Education

␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
Governor's Budget Books 2002-2010
$8,000,000,000
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$7,000,000,000
$6,000,000,000
$5,000,000,000
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$4,000,000,000
$3,000,000,000
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$2,000,000,000
$1,000,000,000
␀　$0

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
2002 Appropriation
2003 Appropriation
2004 Appropriation
2005 Appropriation
2006 Appropriation
2007 Appropriation
2008 Appropriation
2009 Appropriation
2010 Appropriation
It is not surprising that public education is in a budget pinch. Spending on K-12 public education increased
by over 60 percent between 2002 to 2009 in what was an unsustainable growth by most anyone’s measure.
Virginia’s test scores have not increased to reflect this funding bonanza. Where did all this money go and who
benefited? It is instructive for Virginia’s taxpayers to know that in the middle of the worst recession in modern
history there was at least one group in the economy that was still receiving pay raises across the board.
a project of

VIRGINIA
69
State Counc il f or Higher Educ ation f or
VA $ 74,756,726 $ 69,673,563 $ 74,756,726 $ 69,673,563
Chris topher New port Univ ers ity $ 24,870,308 $ 77,835,482 $ 22,408,163 $ 75,532,327
The College of William & Mary In V A $ 38,604,504 $ 184,762,475 $ 34,431,527 $ 178,729,978
Ric hard Bland College $ 4,993,596 $ 6,553,596 $ 4,425,933 $ 5,875,452
V irginia Ins titute of Marine Sc ienc e $ 16,370,543 $ 25,102,431 $ 14,454,114 $ 22,333,722
George Mas on Univ ers ity $ 114,276,360 $ 535,206,002 $ 102,213,721 $ 530,350,824
James Madis on Univ ers ity $ 63,272,431 $ 307,030,904 $ 56,484,918 $ 304,725,339
Longw ood Univ ers ity $ 24,640,881 $ 67,219,525 $ 21,415,709 $ 64,307,365
Norf olk State Univ ers ity $ 41,680,615 $ 90,265,976 $ 38,089,007 $ 86,963,387
Old Dominion Univ ers ity $ 96,879,423 $ 198,947,190 $ 87,116,668 $ 187,981,790
Radf ord Univ ers ity $ 44,460,517 $ 97,900,201 $ 39,008,320 $ 93,387,815
Univ ers ity of Mary Was hington $ 18,918,666 $ 68,290,902 $ 17,075,366 $ 67,219,033
Univ ers ity of V irginia $ 119,953,003 $ 825,754,262 $ 106,739,693 $ 825,434,116
Univ ers ity of V irginia Medic al Center $ - $ 1,041,325,547 $ - $ 1,132,294,268
Univ ers ity of V irginia's College at
Wis e $ 12,232,525 $ 17,070,657 $ 10,901,092 $ 15,377,634
V irginia Commonw ealth Univ ers ity $ 163,755,880 $ 650,204,571 $ 146,482,158 $ 629,359,742
V irginia Community College Sy s tem $ 333,114,320 $ 764,213,739 $ 301,703,882 $ 723,800,503
V irginia Military Ins titute $ 10,977,210 $ 43,355,483 $ 9,755,217 $ 41,608,804
V irginia Poly tec hnic Ins titute & State
Univ ers ity $ 149,556,657 $ 731,952,016 $ 134,561,332 $ 713,400,865
V irginia State Univ ers ity $ 31,686,083 $ 88,332,640 $ 29,372,918 $ 85,349,684
Eas tern V iriginia Medic al Sc hool $ 16,677,509 $ - $ 16,677,509 $ -
New College Ins titute $ 1,317,696 $ 1,099,646 $ 1,317,696 $ 1,099,646
Library of V irginia $ 17,675,559 $ 10,460,875 $ 17,675,559 $ 10,460,875
Sc ienc e Mus eum of V irginia $ 2,316,778 $ 6,251,366 $ 1,158,389 $ 6,251,366
V irginia Mus eum of Fine A rts $ 4,965,651 $ 12,459,876 $ 2,482,825 $ 13,003,395
Ins titute f or A dv anc ed Learning &
Res earc h $ 5,525,061 $ - $ 5,525,061 $ -
V irginia Commis s ion f or the A rts $ - $ 863,373 $ - $ 863,373
Roanoke Higher Educ ation A uthority $ - $ - $ - $ -
Southern V irginia Higher Educ ation
Center $ - $ - $ - $ -
Southw es t V irginia Higher Educ ation
Center $ - $ 7,185,564 $ - $ 7,185,564
Jef f ers on Sc ienc e A s s oc iates , LLC $ 574,946 $ - $ 287,473 $ -
V PI Cooperativ e Ex tens ion & A g
Ex periment Station $ 56,247,722 $ 23,296,946 $ 53,139,100 $ 18,540,572
V SU Cooperativ e Ex tens ion &
A gric ultural Res earc h Serv ic es $ 4,197,066 $ 5,204,300 $ 4,197,066 $ 5,204,300
Frontier Culture Mus eum of V irginia $ 676,962 $ 536,293 $ 338,481 $ 536,293
Guns ton Hall $ 244,520 $ 264,699 $ 122,260 $ 264,699
James tow n-Y orktow n Foundation $ 3,089,169 $ 8,686,598 $ 1,544,584 $ 8,686,598
Total Educ ation $ 6,588,557,026 $ 7,553,487,043 $ 6,532,569,406 $ 7,398,610,808
1 FY 2007 Actual Salaries have been updated since last year's report to include all divisions.
2 Based on actual expenditures for salaries divided by the actual number of full-time equivalent (FTE)
positions - as reported by school divisions and regional programs on the 2007-2008 Annual School
Report and certified by division superintendents. Ave
3 Based on certification by division superintendents of the average budgeted salary to be provided - as
reported by school divisions and regional programs on the 2007-2008 Annual School Report. Averages
calculated on the basis of statewide totals.
These salary increases epitomize the disconnect between reality and the public education lobby. This disconnect
also extends to the concept of outcome based expenditures as the discussion in the preceding section has
pointed out. This budget believes that bringing competition into the K-12 education is essential to breaking down
these barriers and bringing the education lobby back into fiscal reality.
The impact of the school choice voucher will unfortunately not begin to improve the revenue stream till FY-2012.
70
This budget includes a reduction of $100 million in FY-2012 to reflect the movement of students and encourages
the Governor-elect to maximize the savings by actively recruiting inner city parents to enroll in the program. This
budget in the meantime concurs with Gov. Kaine’s budget cut recommendations for FY-2011.
Virginia School for the Deaf,

␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
Blind & Multi-Disabled at Hampton
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
VA School for the De af, Blind & M ulti-Dis able d at
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　 Ham pton
Gove rnor's Budge t Book s
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
2002 Appropriation
2003 Appropriation
2004 Appropriation
2005 Appropriation
2006 Appropriation
2007 Appropriation
2008 Appropriation
2009 Appropriation
2010 Appropriation
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget concurs with the Governor’s Budget
䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀recommendations.
✀猀䈀甀搀最攀琀䈀漀漀欀㈀　　㈀ⴀ㈀　㄀　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
Virginia School of the Deaf and Blind at Staunton
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
VA School of the Deaf & Blind at Staunton
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0 ␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget concurs with the Governor’s budget recommendations.
a project of

VIRGINIA
71
State Council for Higher Education for Virginia

␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
State Council for Highe r Education for VA
Gove ror's Budge t Book s 2002-2010
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$160,000,000
$140,000,000
$120,000,000
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$100,000,000
$80,000,000
$60,000,000
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$40,000,000
$20,000,000
$0
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
2002 Appropriation
2003 Appropriation
2004 Appropriation
2005 Appropriation
2006 Appropriation
2007 Appropriation
2008 Appropriation
2009 Appropriation
2010 Appropriation
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget believes the spike in expenditures from 2006 to 2008 were unjustifiable and simply a function of
getting their share of the revenue increases prior to the recession. The introduction to this budget discusses
these issues in more detail but institutes a roll back to 2006 expenditure levels. The Council will have to find a
way within its budget to continue to provide the self described goal that they “promote the development and
operation of an educationally and economically sound, vigorous, progressive, and coordinated system of higher
education.”12 If they truly understand what “economically sound” means to the citizens of Virginia they will act as
model for budget cuts and re-tooling of operations at the Commonwealth’s public colleges and universities.
Public Colleges and Universities

Virginia has a large number of educations of higher learning and not all of them are financed by tax dollars.
However, even the private colleges of Virginia are impacted by the funding allocated to the public colleges, and
universities. Tuition and fees charged at the public institutions cover only a portion of operating costs leaving
the remaining operating costs and all major maintenance and capital projects to be financed by taxpayers.
This subsidy of public education puts private colleges in the Commonwealth at a tremendous disadvantage in
providing competitive tuition rates.
The proper level of tuition relative to the amount of each student’s education financed by the taxpayers has
begun to get more attention as those states that have heavily taxpayer subsidized public higher education
see the number of private colleges dwindle. Additionally, as the demand for tax dollars increase within social
programs for the poor such as Medicaid there is growing debate about the appropriateness of subsidizing the
education of middle and upper income wage earners’ children.
The benefits of a college education are greatest on the earning power of the students who receive it. According
to the Census Bureau, over an adult’s working life high-school graduates earn an average of $1.2 million;
associate’s degree holders earn about $1.6 million; and bachelor’s degree holders earn about $2.1 million.13 There
is no reason to tax the majority of taxpayers in the state who do not have children attending a state institution in
order to subsidize those who do, especially when there is evidence that it is the more affluent citizens who are
more likely to have children enrolled in higher education.14
1. Governor’s Budget Book page B-64

13. http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-210.pdf
14. 2004 Consumer Expenditure Survey, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows that expenditure on education increases as income increases. See http://
www.bls.gov/cex/2004/stnderror/higherincome.pdf.
72
Advocates of taxpayer subsidized tuition contend that the economic and social benefits of extending higher
educations to the largest number of students is worth the cost to all taxpayers. A more comprehensive study
of the claim, “Does Spending on Higher Education Drive Economic Growth? 20 Years of Evidence Reviewed,”15
refutes the economic argument. Using data from all 50 states spanning more than two decades, and
incorporating lags up to five years, the study found weak and inconsistent correlations between state funding
of higher education and economic growth. Comparing states’ higher-education appropriations with gross state
product reveals that two of the 10 fastest-growing states from 1981 to 2000, New York and Rhode Island,
experienced a real decrease in per capita higher-education appropriations, while three of the 10 slowest-growing
states, Mississippi, New Mexico, and North Dakota, were among the top 10 in growth of real higher-education
appropriations. From 1991 to 2000, none of the top 10 states in greatest higher-education appropriations were
among the top 10 in economic growth.
There is some evidence that there is also an additional downside to the low tuition approach. According to a
report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, high-subsidy, low tuition policies can actually have negative
effects. “Although subsidizing tuition increases enrollment rates, it reduces student effort,” the study found. “This
follows from the fact that a high-subsidy, low tuition policy causes an increase in the percentage of less able and
less highly motivated college graduates. Additionally and potentially more important, all students, even the more
highly motivated ones, respond to lower tuition levels by decreasing their effort levels.”16
Looking at this question from the standpoint of efficiency, there is much to be said in favor of the policy of
reducing the taxpayer subsidy for higher education. Richard Vedder, a professor of economics at Ohio University
points out in his recent book, Going Broke by Degree, that American higher education suffers from very low
productivity. In contrast to almost every other industry, per-unit (pupil) costs in education continue rising.
Public colleges and universities don’t have to pass the test of the market. Students and institutions are
subsidized by working Virginian’s taxes, so the schools can spend without regards to the outcomes associated
with those costs and offer frivolous courses that provide questionable benefits to the students. A college
education should be accessible for everyone but those who can afford to pay should shoulder more of the cost of
their education rather than ask citizen taxpayers to foot their bill.
Rather than subsidizing tuition, policy-makers should consider charging higher tuition and then discount it for
students who cannot otherwise afford to attend. Virginia should announce that it will raise tuition, but do so in
steps so that families can anticipate the increase costs and plan accordingly. In order to minimize the increase in
tuition, higher education’s budget, like the budgets of all other state agencies, needs to be reviewed from top to
bottom for unnecessary expenditures.
What effect would raising tuition have on Virginia’s public higher education institutions?
Quite possibly the effect would not be what the some would think. A study by Arwynn Mattix of the Goldwater
Institute pointed out that “the University of Michigan provides an example of how public universities can thrive with
less state funding. Under the ‘Vision 2017’ plan, U-M sought to become a ‘privately financed public university.’ In
1965, state appropriations accounted for 70 percent of U-M’s general revenue. But, by 2003, state appropriations
accounted for less than 10 percent. Meanwhile, U-M has remained one of the nation’s top ranked universities. U-M
reduced dependence on taxpayer funds by aggressively pursuing private fundraising campaigns, aligning tuition
more closely with costs, and identifying core academic programs and eliminating others.”17
15. http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/AboutUs/ArticleView.aspx?id=288
16. Aysegul Sahin, “The Incentive Effects of Higher Education Subsidies on Student Effort,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Report no. 192, August 2004.
Available at: http://www.ny.frb.org/research/staff_reports/sr192.pdf
17. http://goldwaterinstitute.org/AboutUs/ArticleView.aspx?id=1502
a project of

VIRGINIA
73
This budget reduces General Fund revenue by 10 percent more than Gov. Kaine’s budget in FY-2011 and FY-
2012. We suggest they implement the University of Michigan model at all schools subject to state assistance
based on means-testing for those from lower income families. Higher education need not be told where to find
the cuts but instead allowed to use the brain trust that each of the Commonwealth’s higher education faculties
already has in house. If they lack the ability to find these cuts than quite possibly they are not the leaders in
innovation they aspire to be and should simply look to
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀吀漀甀爀their
椀猀洀䄀private
甀琀栀漀爀椀琀礀 college brethren for guidance.
VPI Cooperative Extension & Ag Experiment Station
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
VPI Coope rative Exte nion & Agriculture Expe rim e nt Station
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
Gove rnor's Budge t Book s 2002-2010
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$90,000,000
$80,000,000
$70,000,000
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$60,000,000
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$0
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀
琀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀
瀀爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
2002 Appropriation
2003 Appropriation
2004 Appropriation
2005 Appropriation
2006 Appropriation
2007 Appropriation
2008 Appropriation
2009 Appropriation
2010 Appropriation
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget agrees with the department’s stated savings strategy of implementing “strategies to capture savings
through administrative streamlining, implementing program efficiencies and realignment. When identifying areas
of savings, consideration will be given to preserving the core mission of the institution to ensure the delivery of
quality instruction and student services. Included in this recommendation are estimated position reductions and
layoffs for the Cooperative Extension and Agricultural Experiment Station.”18 There are opportunities to partner
with private entities such as Archer Daniels Midland whose product line overlaps with work of this department.
This budget reduces the budget 10 percent more than Gov. Kaine’s recommendations to accelerate the process
of modernizing the operation of this department.
18. http://dpb.virginia.gov/Budget/buddoc09/agency.cfm?agency=229
74
VSU Cooperative Extension & ㈀　　㈀ⴀ㈀　㄀　
䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀 ✀猀䈀甀搀最攀琀䈀漀漀欀 Ag Research Services
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
VSU Coope rative Exte ns ion & Agriculture Re s e arch Se rvice s
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　 Gove rnor's Budge t Book s 2002-2010
$12,000,000
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$2,000,000
$0
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
2002 Appropriation
2003 Appropriation
2004 Appropriation
2005 Appropriation
2006 Appropriation
2007 Appropriation
2008 Appropriation
2009 Appropriation
2010 Appropriation
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget applies the same approach as the嘀椀爀VPI Cooperative
最椀渀椀愀吀 Extension
漀甀爀椀猀洀䄀甀琀栀漀爀椀琀礀 and Agricultural Experiment Station.
Virginia Museum of Fine Arts

␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　 Virginia Museum of Fine Arts

␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$5,000,000
$0
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
2002 Appropriation
2003 Appropriation
2004 Appropriation
2005 Appropriation
2006 Appropriation
2007 Appropriation
2008 Appropriation
2009 Appropriation
2010 Appropriation
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The Virginia Museum of Fine Arts is “a state-supported, privately endowed educational institution created for the
benefit of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Its purpose is to collect, preserve, exhibit, and interpret
art, to encourage the study of the arts, and thus to enrich the lives of all.”19 This department is an example of
how K-12 public education funds are hidden from the per pupil expenditure calculations. There is within the
department a function which according to the museum “will support achievement of the Standards of Learning
(SOL) objectives by providing all Virginia jurisdictions access to the museum’s permanent collections, educational
programs, and other resources.”20 This budget reduces the remaining General revenue by 50 percent each year
until the funding becomes completely self-generated. This will incentivize the Museum funds to focus operations
and investment on those areas that will accelerate the conversion to non-taxpayer dollars.
19. Governor’s Budget Book 2010 page B-95

20. Ibid page B-97
a project of

VIRGINIA
75
Institute for Advanced Learning and Research
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　 Ins titute for Advance d Le arning & Re s e arch

Gove rnor's Budge t Book s 2002-2010
$16,000,000
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
2002 Appropriation
2003 Appropriation
2004 Appropriation
2005 Appropriation
2006 Appropriation
2007 Appropriation
2008 Appropriation
2009 Appropriation
2010 Appropriation
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The goals according to the Department: “The Institute for Advanced Learning and Research (IALR) develops
and attracts technology and talent critical to Southern Virginia’s economic prosperity.”21 As discussed in the
Commerce and Trade section this is an inappropriate and inefficient allocation of taxpayer’s funds and this
budget removes all General Fund revenues.
Frontier Culture Museum of 琀䈀漀漀欀
䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀 ✀猀䈀甀搀最攀 Virginia
㈀　　㈀ⴀ㈀　㄀　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
Frontier Culture Museum of VA

$2,500,000
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$1,000,000
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$500,000
$0
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
2002 Appropriation
2003 Appropriation
2004 Appropriation
2005 Appropriation
2006 Appropriation
2007 Appropriation
2008 Appropriation
2009 Appropriation
2010 Appropriation
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This department is an example of how K-12 public education funds are hidden from the per pupil expenditure
calculations. There is within the department a function which according to the museum per their performance
measure: “education programs that will correlate with the objectives of the Standards of Learning (SOL)
Curriculum Framework for History and Social Science.”22 This budget recommends the transfer of this function’s
costs to public education and the remaining functions should face a reduction of the General Funds by 50
percent a year until all taxpayer’s funds are removed.

76
Gunston Hall ␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
Gunston Hall
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$800,000
$600,000
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$400,000
$200,000
$0␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
2002 Appropriation
2003 Appropriation
2004 Appropriation
2005 Appropriation
2006 Appropriation
2007 Appropriation
2008 Appropriation
2009 Appropriation
2010 Appropriation
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
calculations per their performance measure: “We will educate school children by directly connecting George
Mason’s contributions to the Required Standards of Learning in Virginia.”� This budget requires this either be
funded in public education or all General Funds be removed at 50 percent per year till they are gone while the
department replaces with private funding.
Jamestown-Yorktown䜀漀瘀攀
Foundation
爀渀漀爀 ✀猀䈀甀搀最攀琀䈀漀漀欀㈀　　㈀ⴀ㈀　㄀　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
Jam estow n-Yorktow n Foundation
$20,000,000
$18,000,000
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$16,000,000
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
瀀爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
2002 Appropriation
2003 Appropriation
2004 Appropriation
2005 Appropriation
2006 Appropriation
2007 Appropriation
2008 Appropriation
2009 Appropriation
2010 Appropriation
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This is another agency where funds are hidden from the K-12 public per pupil funding numbers per their own key
performance measures: “We will extend Outreach education programs to serve 86,800 students in Virginia school
districts each year of the 2010 - 2012 biennium.”� This budget requires this either be funded in public education
or all General Funds be removed at 50 percent per year till they are gone while the department replaces with
private funding.
a project of

VIRGINIA
77
The Library of Virginia䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀 ✀猀䈀甀搀最攀琀䈀漀漀欀㈀　　㈀ⴀ㈀　㄀　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
The Library of Virginia

␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$50,000,000
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$45,000,000
$40,000,000
$35,000,000
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
2002 Appropriation
2003 Appropriation
2004 Appropriation
2005 Appropriation
2006 Appropriation
2007 Appropriation
2008 Appropriation
2009 Appropriation
2010 Appropriation
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
Let us take a look at what the Library does and then consider the cost of their operation within that context. By
the Library’s own account their key missions are:
1) We will provide responsible stewardship for Virginia’s unique and irreplaceable archival and research
collections. We will preserve manuscript, printed, and electronic materials related to Virginia’s history and culture.
2) We will provide in-building and remote access to the Library’s collections. We will create, develop and enhance
a variety of information portals to facilitate citizen access to the Library’s collections.
3) We will engage and inform citizens through educational programs and consultation services. We will offer
educational and outreach activities for citizens of the Commonwealth.
These are admirable goals but do all of these trump the essential needs for service to the point that this function
diverted nearly $300 million of taxpayer’s funds� in the last nine years to these functions? The vast majority of the
archiving and those incidental work done on Virginia’s historical documents has been done and in the context of
the recession this budget believes many of the other functions can be put on hold until the economy will support
additional appropriations. This budget removes $10 million from the General Funding on top of the Governor’s
recommendations.
78
The Science Museum of Virginia
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
The Science Museum of Virginia

␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$12,000,000
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$2,000,000
$0
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀
琀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
2002 Appropriation
2003 Appropriation
2004 Appropriation
2005 Appropriation
2006 Appropriation
2007 Appropriation
2008 Appropriation
2009 Appropriation
2010 Appropriation
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The Science Museum of Virginia describes its goal as to “inspire Virginians to enrich their lives through science.”�
A great and admirable goal but as in the above department this should not divert funding from the essential
functions of government. User fees and Non General Funds already provide approximately 60 percent of the
funding and this budget reduces the remaining General Runds revenue by 50 percent each year until the funding
becomes completely self-generated. This will incentivize the Museum to focus operations and investment on
those areas that will accelerate the conversion to non-taxpayer dollars.
Virginia Commission
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
for the Arts
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　 Virginia Com m ission for the Arts

$8,000,000
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀
琀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
2002 Appropriation
2003 Appropriation
2004 Appropriation
2005 Appropriation
2006 Appropriation
2007 Appropriation
2008 Appropriation
2009 Appropriation
2010 Appropriation
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget removes all taxpayer funding from this department. This is not an essential function of government.
calculations. There is within the department a function that provides assistance to K-12 schools for “increased
participation in the arts.”28
a project of

VIRGINIA
79
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
Institute for Advanced Learning & Research

␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
Virginia M us e um of Fine Arts
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　 Gove rnor's Budge t Book s 2002-2010
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$5,000,000
␀　
$0

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀
琀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀
瀀爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
2002 Appropriation
2003 Appropriation
2004 Appropriation
2005 Appropriation
2006 Appropriation
2007 Appropriation
2008 Appropriation
2009 Appropriation
2010 Appropriation
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
Roanoke Higher Education Authority

␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　 Roanok e Highe r Education Authority
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$800,000
$600,000
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
$400,000
$200,000
$0 ␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
瀀爀
瀀爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
2002 Appropriation
2003 Appropriation
2004 Appropriation
2005 Appropriation
2006 Appropriation
2007 Appropriation
2008 Appropriation
2009 Appropriation
2010 Appropriation
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
Per the department’s mission statement: “The mission of the Roanoke Higher Education Center is to foster
economic development by expanding access for the people of the Greater Roanoke region to workforce
development, technology training, higher education programs and the use of conference facilities through
partnerships with public and private institutions, agencies, civic groups and the business community.”� As
discussed in the Commerce and Trade section, this is an inappropriate and inefficient allocation of taxpayer funds
and this budget removes all General Fund revenues.
80
Southern Virginia Higher Education Center
Southern VA Higher Education Center

$2,500,000
General Fund
$2,000,000
Nongeneral Fund
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
n n n n n n
tio tio tio tio tio tio
ia ia ia ia ia ia
o pr o pr o pr o pr o pr o pr
pr pr pr pr pr pr
Ap Ap Ap Ap Ap Ap
05 06 07 08 09 10
20 20 20 20 20 20
2005 Appropriation
2006 Appropriation
2007 Appropriation
2008 Appropriation
2009 Appropriation
2010 Appropriation
“The mission of the Southern Virginia Higher Education Center (SVHEC) is to advance Southern Virginia
economically, culturally and socially by providing its citizens affordable and accessible educational opportunities
through partnerships and regional cooperation.”� While admirable goals, we have discussed in the Commerce
and Trade section the issues with economic development and find the idea that the Commonwealth should be in
the business of being the cultural and social advancement mechanism highly questionable. As in all cultural and
social issues it is a matter of who chooses the goals and standards which this budget believes is left to society as
a whole – not bureaucrats using taxpayer monies. This budget removes all taxpayer funds from this department.
Southwest Virginia Higher Education Center
Southw est VA Higher Education Center

$8,000,000
$7,000,000 General Fund
$6,000,000 Nongeneral Fund
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
n n n n n n
ia ia ia ia ia ia
opr o pro o pr o o pr pr pr
pr pr pr pr pr pr
Ap Ap Ap Ap Ap Ap
06
05 Appropriation 07 08 09 10
20
2005 20 Appropriation
2010
This budget removes all taxpayer funds from the Center. It has largely supplanted them anyway, as the graph
shows, and it should be commended for such foresight.
a project of

VIRGINIA
81
Jefferson Science Associates, LLC
Jefferson Science Associates LLC
$1,800,000
$1,600,000
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$0
n n n n n n
ria ria ria ria ria ria
op op op op op op
pr pr pr pr pr pr
Ap Ap Ap Ap Ap Ap
0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0
20 Appropriation
2010
Per the department: “As a national and international nuclear physics research facility, Jefferson Lab provides
unique research capabilities at the forefront of nuclear and light source physics for university users, provides
research opportunities for Virginia faculty and students, and explores and develops core technologies for the
economic benefit of the Commonwealth.”� This function either needs financed within the reduced university
budgets or funded by private business. In fact one of the performance measures is to: “increase the total funding
for the support of basic and applied research by leveraging state funds from all other non-state sources by a
factor of 90 or greater.”� However, to date it has no Non General Funds in its operating budget. This budget
reduces this budget by 50 percent per year until it becomes totally self-funded.
82
Finance
䘀椀渀愀渀挀攀㨀䄀挀琀甀愀氀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀瘀猀 ⸀ 䌀漀渀琀爀漀氀氀攀搀䜀爀漀眀琀栀
␀㄀Ⰰ ㈀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㠀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㘀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　䄀挀琀甀愀氀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀

␀㈀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀ⴀ

䘀椀渀愀渀挀攀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㄀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㈀
匀攀挀爀攀琀愀爀礀漀昀䘀椀渀愀渀挀攀 ␀ 㐀㈀　Ⰰ 㐀㈀㌀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㐀㈀　Ⰰ 㐀㈀㌀ ␀ ⴀ
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䄀挀挀漀甀渀琀猀 ␀㤀Ⰰ 㐀㘀㌀Ⰰ 㔀㔀㄀ ␀㌀㠀㌀Ⰰ 㘀㘀㔀 ␀ 㤀Ⰰ 㐀㘀㌀Ⰰ 㔀㔀㄀ ␀ ㌀㠀㌀Ⰰ 㘀㘀㔀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䄀挀挀漀甀渀琀猀吀爀愀渀猀昀攀爀
倀愀礀洀攀渀琀猀 ␀ ㌀㘀Ⰰ 㐀　㔀Ⰰ 　　　 ␀ ㌀㄀Ⰰ ㈀㤀㤀Ⰰ 㔀㄀㠀 ␀ ㄀　　Ⰰ 㔀　㐀Ⰰ 　　　 ␀ ㌀㄀Ⰰ ㈀㤀㤀Ⰰ 㔀㄀㠀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀倀氀愀渀渀椀渀最 ☀ 䈀甀搀最攀琀 ␀ 㘀Ⰰ 㜀㌀　Ⰰ ㌀㄀㈀ ␀ ㈀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　 ␀ 㘀Ⰰ 㘀㄀㤀Ⰰ 㤀　㤀 ␀ ㈀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀吀愀砀愀琀椀漀渀 ␀ 㠀㌀Ⰰ 㐀㜀㘀Ⰰ 㜀㄀㤀 ␀ 㜀㤀Ⰰ 　㤀㔀Ⰰ 㜀㐀㈀ ␀ 㠀㌀Ⰰ ㌀㠀㄀Ⰰ 㜀㄀㤀 ␀ 㠀　Ⰰ 　㤀㔀Ⰰ 㜀㐀㈀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀琀栀攀吀爀攀愀猀甀爀礀 ␀ 㠀Ⰰ ㄀㘀㌀Ⰰ 㐀㈀㄀ ␀ 㤀Ⰰ 㤀㐀㌀Ⰰ 㜀㈀㐀 ␀ 㠀Ⰰ ㄀㘀㌀Ⰰ 㐀㈀㄀ ␀ 㤀Ⰰ 㤀㔀㘀Ⰰ 㘀　㔀
吀爀攀愀猀甀爀礀䈀漀愀爀搀 ␀ 㔀㘀㘀Ⰰ ㄀㜀㐀Ⰰ 㔀　㐀 ␀ ㈀㄀Ⰰ ㈀㔀㔀Ⰰ 㜀㈀㔀 ␀ 㘀㄀㌀Ⰰ 㤀㐀㜀Ⰰ 㘀㄀㘀 ␀ ㈀㄀Ⰰ ㈀㔀㐀Ⰰ 㠀㔀㜀
吀漀琀愀氀 ␀ 㜀㄀　Ⰰ 㠀㌀㌀Ⰰ 㤀㌀　 ␀ ㄀㐀㈀Ⰰ ㈀㈀㠀Ⰰ ㌀㜀㐀 ␀ 㠀㈀㈀Ⰰ 㔀　　Ⰰ 㘀㌀㤀 ␀ ㄀㐀㌀Ⰰ ㈀㐀　Ⰰ ㌀㠀㜀
a project of

VIRGINIA
83
Secretary of Finance
匀攀挀爀攀琀愀爀礀漀昀䘀椀渀愀渀挀攀
␀㜀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
漀渀
漀渀
椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀
椀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
愀琀
愀琀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
琀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
椀
爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget consolidates this function with the other departments in this cabinet to remove redundancies
and break down bureaucratic inefficiencies. However, this budget goes one step further to provide greater
transparency to Virginia’s taxpayers. Government separates departments in a way that does not allow citizens to
be able to see the total cost of any single function of government. Does a business separate the functions of the
cashier, accounts payable and account receivable departments and treat them as if they are unrelated to the cost
of doing business? Of course not, but government does just that.
For example, the Department of Taxation acts as collector of revenues for all departments funded by General
Funds but by isolating these costs from the eventual recipients of the funds government has in effect
understated the cost of providing these services. Public education receives a large percentage of the funding
the Department of Taxation collects but by not including the applicable percentage of costs of the Department
of Taxation they are able to understate their true costs of operation. This flawed approach to government cost
allocation even allows some departments to claim to be as efficient as their private sector counterparts who
include EVERY cost of their operations in their costs. When one benchmarks private school’s tuition against the
costs that the Department of Education releases for their per pupil expenditures there is not a true apples to
apples comparison being made.
The legislators and citizens of the Commonwealth should know what government really costs them to perform
the services it provides so they can make informed decisions. This budget requires the departments providing
services such as collection of revenues to ‘bill’ those agencies for those expenses to provide that transparency.
The scope of this budget does not allow the allocation of costs and continues to show these costs in each
department’s section. However, AFP calls on the Governor-Elect to pursue a policy of transparency that will
allocate these costs appropriately.
This budget concurs with Gov. Kaine’s recommendation.
84
Department of Accounts
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䄀挀挀漀甀渀琀猀
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

漀瀀渀

渀
渀
渀
　　瀀爀漀椀漀渀
漀渀
漀渀
　　瀀爀漀椀漀渀
漀渀
漀
瀀爀琀椀漀
琀椀漀
㈀䄀瀀瀀椀愀琀椀
瀀瀀愀琀椀
瀀瀀愀琀椀
琀
琀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
椀
㌀漀瀀爀
瀀爀
㔀漀瀀爀
㘀漀瀀爀
㜀漀瀀爀
瀀爀
㤀漀瀀爀
　漀瀀爀
瀀爀
爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀
䄀
㈀
㐀
㠀
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This department runs the payroll for state agencies and provides internal control audits. As in all other
departments in this section this budget requires the allocation of their costs to the agencies receiving its services.
AFP believes functions such as payroll should be offered at bid to private companies and places the department
in a competition to retain these services. Competition may not only lower costs, benefitting taxpayers, but may
improve the service to agencies.
Additionally, this budget suggests this department become less focused on Government Finance Officer’s
Associations (GFOA) awards and more on providing total transparency for the citizens in the Consolidated Annual
Financial Statement. While a GFOA award is nice it is simply an award given by an organization of government
bureaucrats to other bureaucrats and of little or no value to the citizens of the Commonwealth. This budget
reduces funding to FY-2007 funding levels and believes by introducing a competitive bid process to some of the
functions that even greater savings may be achieved.
Department of Accounts Transfer Payments
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䄀挀挀漀甀渀琀猀吀爀愀渀猀昀攀爀倀愀礀洀攀渀琀猀

䜀漀瘀攀爀漀爀 ✀猀䈀甀搀最攀琀䈀漀漀欀猀㈀　　㈀ⴀ㈀　㄀　
␀㜀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
漀渀
漀渀
漀渀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀
椀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
愀琀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
愀琀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
椀
爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀漀
爀漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀
瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
A department without FTEs flies in the face of common sense and this budget eliminates this department and
transfers the costs of operation to the recipients which are localities and the Revenue Stabilization Fund, Virginia
Education Loan, Authority Reserve Fund, and the Line of Duty Act as required by the Code of Virginia.
a project of

VIRGINIA
85
Department of Planning and Budget
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀倀氀愀渀渀椀渀最 ☀ 䈀甀搀最攀琀

␀㤀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㜀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
漀渀
漀渀
漀渀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀
椀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
愀琀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀漀
爀漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀
瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The Department of Planning and Budget advises the Governor on how to wisely use public resources for the
benefit of all Virginians by analyzing, developing, and carrying out various fiscal, programmatic, and regulatory
policies. This is a function that needs performed but the budget should be part of the Governor’s office. This
budget concurs with Gov. Kaine’s recommendation but transfers the costs to the Governor’s office.
Department of Taxation
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀吀愀砀愀琀椀漀渀
␀㄀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㤀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㤀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　

爀椀愀

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
漀渀
㈀䄀瀀瀀椀愀琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀
琀
愀
䄀瀀爀椀愀
䄀瀀爀椀愀
椀
椀
爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
As mentioned in the Secretary of Finance section this budget bills expenses of operation to the departments
receiving the monies collected by this agency. While this budget concurs with Gov. Kaine’s recommendations
there is a very troubling level of performance that has been established as acceptable by this agency. Per the
agency: “We will respond to taxpayer inquiries in a timely manner�” with the result they will, “Answer 87 percent
of calls before the caller disconnects.�” Is having 13 percent, or more than one in ten citizens, have to hang up
rather than wait out the time for an answer an acceptable performance level? Can you imagine a private business
accepting alienating that percentage of their clients? When they say, “good enough for government work” this is
the sort of thing to which people are referring. The citizens of the Commonwealth deserve better.
86
Department of the Treasury
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀琀栀攀吀爀攀愀猀甀爀礀
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget concurs with Gov. Kaine’s recommendations but suggests the investment costs of this agency be
benchmarked against private sector fees for the same services and that should be considered the acceptable
level of funding for the department.
Treasury Board
吀爀攀愀猀甀爀礀䈀漀愀爀搀
␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
漀渀
漀渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀椀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget asks citizens to note the increasing trendline growth of this agency’s appropriations and understand
this represents the growing level of debt service with which the Commonwealth is saddled. From FY-2002 to FY-
2010 there was a growth of 102 percent� which is not a sustainable level for any entity. While there are short-term
deficits in the operating budgets of agencies, this sea of mounting debt is a long-term threat to the Commonwealth.
It should be understood not all of the state’s debts are shown here. Billions in things such as unfunded pension
liabilities are also accumulating for the children and grandchildren of the Commonwealth to someday pay.
a project of

VIRGINIA
87
88
Department of Health and
Human Resources
䠀攀愀氀琀栀 ☀ 䠀甀洀愀渀匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀㨀䄀挀琀甀愀氀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀瘀猀 ⸀ 䌀漀渀琀爀漀氀氀攀搀
䜀爀漀眀琀栀
␀㄀㈀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㠀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㘀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㐀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀ⴀ
a project of

VIRGINIA
89
AFP’s Commonsense Budget
for Health and Human Resources
䠀攀愀氀琀栀愀渀搀䠀甀洀愀渀刀攀猀漀甀爀挀攀猀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㄀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㈀
匀攀挀爀攀琀愀爀礀漀昀䠀攀愀氀琀栀 ☀ 䠀甀洀愀渀
刀攀猀漀甀爀挀攀猀 ␀ ㄀Ⰰ㌀㠀㄀Ⰰ㈀㌀　 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㄀Ⰰ㌀㠀㄀Ⰰ㈀㌀　 ␀ ⴀ
䌀漀洀瀀爀攀栀攀渀猀椀瘀攀匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀昀漀爀䄀琀ⴀ
刀椀猀欀夀漀甀琀栀 ☀ 䘀愀洀椀氀椀攀猀 ␀ ㈀㄀㘀Ⰰ㌀㔀㜀Ⰰ㠀㔀㈀ ␀ 㔀㌀Ⰰ　㄀㜀Ⰰ㐀㤀㠀 ␀ ㈀㄀㘀Ⰰ㌀㔀㜀Ⰰ㠀㔀㈀ ␀ 㔀㌀Ⰰ　㄀㜀Ⰰ㐀㤀㠀
䐀攀瀀琀昀漀爀琀栀攀䄀最椀渀最 ␀ ㄀㜀Ⰰ　㠀㠀Ⰰ㐀㄀㄀ ␀ ㌀㐀Ⰰ㐀㠀㘀Ⰰ㘀㌀㈀ ␀ ㄀㜀Ⰰ　㠀㠀Ⰰ㐀㄀㄀ ␀ ㌀㐀Ⰰ㐀㠀㘀Ⰰ㘀㌀㈀
䐀攀瀀琀昀漀爀琀栀攀䐀攀愀昀 ☀ 䠀愀爀搀ⴀ漀昀ⴀ
䠀攀愀爀椀渀最 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㄀㐀Ⰰ㠀㈀㌀Ⰰ㄀㐀㤀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㄀㐀Ⰰ㠀㈀㌀Ⰰ㄀㐀㤀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䠀攀愀氀琀栀 ␀ ㄀㈀㐀Ⰰ㜀㘀㤀Ⰰ㜀㈀㘀 ␀ 㐀㄀㜀Ⰰ㐀㤀㤀Ⰰ㐀㌀㔀 ␀ ㄀㈀㐀Ⰰ㜀㘀㤀Ⰰ㜀㈀㘀 ␀ 㐀㄀㜀Ⰰ㔀㜀㐀Ⰰ㔀㠀㄀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䠀攀愀氀琀栀倀爀漀昀攀猀猀椀漀渀愀氀猀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㈀㜀Ⰰ㌀㠀　Ⰰ㠀㜀㜀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㈀㜀Ⰰ㌀㠀　Ⰰ㠀㜀㜀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䴀攀搀椀挀愀氀䄀猀猀椀猀琀愀渀挀攀
匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀 ␀ ㈀Ⰰ㐀㐀㈀Ⰰ㔀㠀㄀Ⰰ㤀㤀㜀 ␀ 㐀Ⰰ㈀㔀㤀Ⰰ㘀㄀㐀Ⰰ㜀㘀㌀ ␀ ㈀Ⰰ㐀㐀㈀Ⰰ㔀㠀㄀Ⰰ㤀㤀㜀 ␀ 㐀Ⰰ㈀㔀㤀Ⰰ㘀㄀㐀Ⰰ㜀㘀㌀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䴀攀渀琀愀氀䠀攀愀氀琀栀Ⰰ 䴀攀渀琀愀氀
刀攀琀愀爀搀愀琀椀漀渀Ⰰ ☀ 匀甀戀猀琀愀渀挀攀䄀戀甀猀攀
匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀 ␀ 㐀㠀㄀Ⰰ㠀㜀㘀Ⰰ㘀㤀㌀ ␀ ㌀㠀㠀Ⰰ㜀㄀㌀Ⰰ㘀　㈀ ␀ 㐀㠀㄀Ⰰ㠀㜀㘀Ⰰ㘀㤀㌀ ␀ ㌀㠀㜀Ⰰ㤀㠀㔀Ⰰ㘀　㈀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀刀攀栀愀戀椀氀椀琀愀琀椀瘀攀匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀 ␀ ㄀㠀Ⰰ㐀㔀㌀Ⰰ　　㔀 ␀ ㄀㄀㤀Ⰰ㔀㤀㔀Ⰰ㜀㘀　 ␀ ㄀㠀Ⰰ㐀㔀㌀Ⰰ　　㔀 ␀ ㄀㄀㤀Ⰰ㔀㤀㔀Ⰰ㜀㘀　
圀漀漀搀爀漀眀圀椀氀猀漀渀刀攀栀愀戀椀氀椀琀愀琀椀漀渀
䌀攀渀琀攀爀 ␀ ㌀Ⰰ　㜀　Ⰰ㄀㜀㤀 ␀ ㈀　Ⰰ㠀㌀㔀Ⰰ㠀㠀㘀 ␀ ㌀Ⰰ　㜀　Ⰰ㄀㜀㤀 ␀ ㈀　Ⰰ㠀㌀㔀Ⰰ㠀㠀㘀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀匀漀挀椀愀氀匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀 ␀ ㌀㜀㘀Ⰰ　㈀㜀Ⰰ㜀㠀㠀 ␀ ㄀Ⰰ㐀㠀㜀Ⰰ㔀㈀㠀Ⰰ㈀㈀㌀ ␀ ㌀㜀㘀Ⰰ　㈀㜀Ⰰ㜀㠀㠀 ␀ ㄀Ⰰ㐀㔀　Ⰰ㐀㘀㄀Ⰰ㌀㔀㠀
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀䈀漀愀爀搀昀漀爀倀攀漀瀀氀攀眀椀琀栀
䐀椀猀愀戀椀氀椀琀椀攀猀 ␀ ㈀㈀㔀Ⰰ㔀㠀㜀 ␀ ㌀㘀Ⰰ㜀㌀　Ⰰ㜀㠀㠀 ␀ ㈀㈀㔀Ⰰ㔀㠀㜀 ␀ ㌀㘀Ⰰ㜀㌀　Ⰰ㜀㠀㠀
䐀攀瀀琀昀漀爀琀栀攀䈀氀椀渀搀 ☀ 嘀椀猀甀愀氀氀礀
䤀洀瀀愀椀爀攀搀 ␀ 㔀Ⰰ　㄀㌀Ⰰ　㠀㔀 ␀ ㌀㘀Ⰰ㜀㘀　Ⰰ㜀㠀㠀 ␀ 㔀Ⰰ　㄀㌀Ⰰ　㠀㔀 ␀ ㌀㘀Ⰰ㜀㘀　Ⰰ㜀㠀㠀
嘀䄀刀攀栀愀戀椀氀椀琀愀琀椀漀渀䌀攀渀琀攀爀昀漀爀琀栀攀
䈀氀椀渀搀 ☀ 嘀椀猀椀漀渀䤀洀瀀愀椀爀攀搀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㈀Ⰰ㌀　㘀Ⰰ㠀㈀㈀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㈀Ⰰ㌀　㘀Ⰰ㠀㈀㈀
吀漀琀愀氀 ␀ ㌀Ⰰ㘀㠀㘀Ⰰ㠀㐀㔀Ⰰ㔀㔀㄀ ␀ 㘀Ⰰ㠀㤀㤀Ⰰ㈀㤀㐀Ⰰ㈀㈀㌀ ␀ ㌀Ⰰ㘀㠀㘀Ⰰ㠀㐀㔀Ⰰ㔀㔀㄀ ␀ 㘀Ⰰ㠀㘀㄀Ⰰ㔀㜀㐀Ⰰ㔀　㐀
Overview of Cabinet
AFP’s budget has typically dealt with each department in a cabinet on an agency by agency approach; however,
the number of departments with overlapping goals within this cabinet suggest the big picture is being lost in
the morass. Bureaucrats will often argue they gain focus by splitting off departments to concentrate on different
parts of big problems such as the health of the Commonwealth’s citizens. That is questionable to say the least
and at its worst a fraud designed to expand the bureaucracy. The unarguable net effect of this multiple agency
approaches is that each department has an Executive Director, Deputy Director, layers of accountants, lawyers,
information technology and other support personnel which add costs and often create bureaucratic impediments
to the mission at hand. Possibly even a greater issue is the Commonwealth now has many departments with its
constituents and special interests each lobbying Legislators for a limited amount of monies. This process distorts
the ability to allocate resources to those programs based solely on the greatest good. This budget consolidates
many of the departments that make up this cabinet and reduces their operating budgets an additional 10 percent
for consolidation of functions and elimination of these high paying redundant positions. Included in these savings
will be those unfilled but budgeted FTEs, those that are expected to retire, and any recipients of early exit from
service program offers.
Historically in a time of economic distress social and health services are accessed by a greater percentage of the
population. However, in recessions state revenues to fund these programs are in simultaneous freefall causing
enormous problems for such programs including Medicaid. What is always forgotten in these tight budget times
90
is these programs typically expanded during economic booms. Virginia was no exception and extended many
departments’ programs as well as its Medicaid coverage with several initiatives during the last economic upturn.
These program expansions in good economic times ultimately create a crisis during the inevitable downturns.
AFP believes there are ways to provide the care the truly needy deserve without raising taxes and/or
massive program reductions. First, the definition of who qualifies as truly needy should be examined for the
appropriateness of current measurements. Some of the lack of urgency has no doubt been driven by the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds that will pay for a greater percentage of Medicaid costs
as well as some other social programs. This budget cautions legislators this funding is only available for 11
quarters and the notion of creating dependency that cannot be sustained is a flawed concept.
Instead, now is the time to review existing programs and examine who each program serves and if those services
actually provided a benefit to those served within the social and health services. Which serve the truly needy?
Which provide results for these needy? Does the expenditure justify the results?
One must start first by asking these questions of those programs within this cabinet and consolidating the
resources. However, that will most likely not be enough with these sorts of budget shortfalls and legislators must
approach the budget in its totality to maximize its expenditures. Decisions need to be made about the essential
functions of government and allocate funding on a higher priority basis instead of by cabinet. That may mean
stopping the funding for some programs and/or agencies temporarily or permanently. For example, do we need
funding for a Frontier Culture Museum as badly as we need to maintain funding for the truly needy?
The need for stringent performance measures is more important in the area of Human Resources than possibly
any other. The amount of money available for any single function of government is a finite resource and it is
essential particularly in this area that limited resources not only be focused on the truly needy in our society but
also that the taxpayer’s investment actually produces positive results for those served.
Many advocates of social or health programs will attempt to defend their pet project from performance measures
by suggesting that “our program is not truly measurable because it deals with impossible to quantify results.”
If a program’s results are immeasurable by any relevant performance measure legislators should consider that
program a candidate for elimination as a non-essential service and a reallocation of its funding to a program that
can show it is achieving results. Health and social programs that do not make the recipients’ lives better in a
measureable way not only are a disservice to the recipients but are not a proper allocation of the taxpayer’s dollar.
Social and health programs need to be examined to determine whether all the individuals being served are truly
needy. To many government programs have moved from being safety nets for the needy to being welfare for
the greedy. Virginians expect their state government to provide essential supports services for those in need
but they also expect it to spend their tax dollars wisely. Programs within social and health services should be
means tested whenever possible and fees set relative to income and/or asset ownership of the non-impoverished
recipient for those services. This means-testing approach may actually make some existing programs eligible for
federal government fund matches and actually increase resources available to the needy.
Increasingly responsibility for taking care of others is placed at the foot of government. In a culture that speaks
about desires in terms of needs, needs in terms of rights, and rights in terms of entitlements, government is
considered obligated by many to become the extended family for all citizens. This approach actually serves to break
down the historical institutions that have provided many of the current government services to its members.
Public officials can help promote a healthier society and find partners in assisting to social and health needs
by acknowledging the responsibility that families, neighborhoods, churches, and similar institutions have for
their members. Policy should serve to encourage and protect such institutions. Virginia legislators should pass
a project of

VIRGINIA
91
legislation that recognizes the social and relational nature of the citizens within those institutions. The promotion
of policies that remove barriers and disincentives for the members of local forms of association to act in personal
ways to solve problems would serve to eliminate many problems before the state becomes involved.
Virginia spreads Medicaid services amongst several agencies with the bulk of expenditures in the Department of
Medical Assistance Services, and the Department for the Aging. One of this budget’s proposals is a consolidation
of all Medicaid services into the Department of Medical Assistance Services. This makes sense from several
perspectives. The truly needy do not always have internet access or transportation availability and common
sense would dictate that facilitating their receiving services should be a priority over the budgetary turf wars and
bureaucratic redundancies of multiple agencies. Legislators need to consider where the taxpayer’s social policy
money is being spent. Is it spent on services for the deserving or FTEs for the bureaucracy?
The size and complexity of this many programs and employees makes evaluating the departments in this
cabinet’s expenditures of taxpayer dollars very difficult. In any cabinet this large the only truly effective way
for taxpayers or legislators to monitor the effectiveness of the programs is when outcome based performance
measures are required for every program.
The funding for any of the health programs that do not have a measurable positive impact on its recipients
needs to be halted and its funding reallocated to one that can show bona vide results. Legislators will find this
will create a type of ‘competition’ between programs that will improve the efficiencies of every program. Just as
private business must compete and evolve to survive in the market this pressure to meet relevant outcome based
performance measures with the threat of program elimination will drive programs to maximize their impact.
This budget proposes that county administered as well as state health programs in counties with lower populations
and/or low department utilization rates be administered through the local hospitals. This should include programs
like the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program. County and state health department programs should be
required to first seek partnership with local hospitals including contracting of services before any expansion of
facilities or FTEs is allowed in these areas. At a time when many rural hospitals are struggling financially it makes
good sense to examine this approach from both an economic and health-outcome perspective.
This budget also strongly encourages the review of a program in Florida that generated increased volunteerism
by medical professionals for the state’s indigent population. Virginia legislators should see if an adjustment of
tort laws would allow similar results in Virginia. The program used sovereign immunity from liability suits within
strict guidelines to encourage medical professionals to provide services for the uninsured. This program was
particularly effective for retired professionals who have let their malpractice insurance lapse on retirement due to
the high cost. At a time when so many have needs, allowing medical professionals to donate time and services
towards meeting those needs without subjecting them to risk of suits would seem to be commonsense.
A review of all of the Department of Health, Department of Medical Assistance Services, Department of
Rehabilitative Services and the Department of Mental Health Retardation, & Substance Abuse Services programs
should be undertaken to determine whether more of the programs it provides should incorporate means-testing.
The use of means-testing would not only eliminate people who can afford services from using up resources from
the programs, but in many cases may open up the availability of additional federal funding for the programs by
meeting Medicaid or other federal funding guidelines.
92
Secretary of Health and Human Resource
匀攀挀爀攀琀愀爀礀漀昀䠀攀愀氀琀栀 ☀ 䠀甀洀愀渀刀攀猀漀甀爀挀攀

␀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ㠀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ㘀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget reduces the operating budget an additional 10 percent over Gov. Kaine’s budget. We believe this
savings is attainable based on the fact that as recently as FY-2010 personnel costs were approximately $124,000
per FTE and operating costs have increased by 204 percent from FY-2005 to FY-2010.1 Part of this increase has
been an earmark for child advocacy. This budget requires that earmark to be means-tested and performance
measured before the funds are disseminated.
Comprehensive Services for At-Risk Youth & Families
䌀漀洀瀀爀攀栀攀渀猀椀瘀攀匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀昀漀爀䄀琀ⴀ刀椀猀欀夀漀甀琀栀 ☀ 䘀愀洀椀氀椀攀猀

␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
As the chart demonstrates this department has increased their expenditures from FY-2002 to FY-2010 by 117
percent. The reason for the increase in expenditures is clear when one reads the only performance measure for
the department: “Maximize the number of CSA funded youth served in community and family based settings. We
1. Calculation based on numbers in Governor’s Budget’s Book Operating Budget Summaries FY-2005 to FY-2010
a project of

VIRGINIA
93
will increase the proportion of children served at home, in school and in the community.”2 There is neither mention
of how well these youth were served nor indication of any goal set for improving their life. This entire program
should be subject to review and the institution of acceptable parameters for expending the citizens’ tax dollars.
This budget recognizes there may be well run programs in these pass thru dollars but until controls are in place it
returns the budget to FY-2007 pre-recession funding levels.
Department for the Aging
䐀攀瀀愀爀琀洀攀渀琀昀漀爀琀栀攀䄀最椀渀最

␀㘀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget concurs with Gov. Kaine’s budget subject to a review of possible means-testing for federal programs
that may provide additional savings.
Department for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
䐀攀瀀琀⸀ 䘀漀爀琀栀攀䐀攀愀昀 ☀ 䠀愀爀搀漀昀䠀攀愀爀椀渀最

␀㄀㠀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㘀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㐀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This department has the mission statement: “to reduce the communication barriers between persons who are
deaf or hard of hearing and those who are hearing, including family members, service providers, and the general
94
public.”3 However, when one reads the only performance measure their only goal is apparently to “fill interpreter
requests from Virginia Courts, state agencies and 12-step programs”� it is hard to justify the expenditure of
taxpayer funds. This budget removes the $840,901 in General Funds and leaves in place the Non General Funds
of $14,823,149 subject to review of the program for more appropriate goals.
Department of Health
䐀攀瀀愀爀琀洀攀渀琀漀昀䠀攀愀氀琀栀

␀㜀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget consolidates this department with the other health agencies, specifically those that deal in Medicaid
and/or general health programs for the disadvantaged or disabled. This budget strongly disagrees with Gov.
Kaine’s recommendation to add FTEs during a recession. Specifically the conversion of 23 contractors to full time
positions will bring additional costs to the Commonwealth in the form of overhead. The consolidation will provide
an opportunity to reduce FTEs not expand them. Therefore, 10 percent of operating costs are removed to reflect
savings from the removal of redundant support positions and economy of scale savings.
This budget concurs with the vast majority of Gov. Kaine’s recommendations for cuts and encourages legislators
to examine these cuts for further reductions within each program. Many of the programs cited in the budget
for reductions or terminations should not have been enacted at taxpayer expense to begin with. They serve as
examples of how government expands during economic good times, creates dependents and then becomes
unsustainable during fiscal downturns.
This budget, however, is not in agreement with the Governor’s recommendation to implement fee increases for
nursing homes, inpatient and outpatient hospitals, home care centers, and hospice centers. Fee increases on
these types of providers to help fund other government programs during an economic recession flies in the face
of commonsense.
Many of the programs in this department need to be converted to means-testing both at the state funding and
local health center levels. Significant savings would accrue as those with ability to pay are removed from the
programs.
This budget encourages the pursuit of greater private participation in the department’s programs. Finding those
historical institutions such as churches, civic organizations and private providers that already are in contact
with many of the Commonwealth’s citizens and collaborating in the oversight and providing of services for
those citizens should be encouraged. It is often overlooked that many organizations, including private hospitals,
a project of

VIRGINIA
95
have been given non-profit status that protects them from taxation at the entity level because they have been
chartered to provide ‘charitable’ services. The Department should encourage the fulfillment of this obligation
while cooperating to minimize the financial drain that increased use of their services may cause.
The department is to be praised for inclusion of relevant performance measures that go beyond most – if not
all – of the other departments in this cabinet however each program should have such measures and subject to
review, funding decreases or elimination if they can’t show progress toward meeting goals.
Department of Health Professions
䐀攀瀀愀爀琀洀攀渀琀漀昀䠀攀愀氀琀栀倀爀漀昀攀猀猀椀漀渀愀氀猀

␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget concurs with Gov. Kaine’s budget recommendations.
Department of Medical Assistance Services
䐀攀瀀愀爀琀洀攀渀琀漀昀䴀攀搀椀挀愀氀䄀猀猀椀猀琀愀渀挀攀匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀

␀㜀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
瀀爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
96
As the graph shows the trajectory of expenditures has increased at an unsustainable rate since FY-2002. This
pattern has occurred throughout the country and Virginia is not the only state with serious issues. The American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds have given the program some ‘breathing room’ but the inevitable funding
shortfall is not far in the future. This budget provides solutions if implemented immediately that will mitigate some
of this impact on the Department of Medical Assistance Service (DMAS).
Much has been made of the safety net that Medicaid provides and the large number of uninsured but there are
some numbers that legislators and citizens may not be aware of regarding the uninsured. National census data
notes that 20 percent of the uninsured make more than $50,000 annually. In fact, 8.2 percent of the uninsured
have incomes that exceed $75,000 annually.� Not surprisingly, 29.6 percent of individuals in the 18-to-24 age
bracket are without health insurance coverage, and 24.9 percent in the 25-to-34 age bracket do not carry
coverage. These are by far the highest percentages of uninsured for any age group. These age categories tend
to be healthy in general and hence see the least value in the purchase of health insurance. The most vulnerable
citizens tend to be covered by health insurance at the highest rates. In the over-65 age bracket only 0.8 percent
of individuals were without health insurance.�
Additionally amongst these uninsured there are some Medicaid-eligible individuals who simply refuse to accept
welfare. Despite all the fashionable bureaucratic slogans promoting Medicaid as “health care not welfare,” the
hard truth is that Medicaid is welfare. Some hardworking Virginians will insist on doing things the way their
forefathers did: paying their own way even in hard economic times. By partnering with the various private entities
that provide assistance such as churches and local hospitals Virginia can find ways to assist these individuals.
It is telling that these individuals often pay the highest fees for services as hospitals and doctors are bound by
federal rules on Medicaid and Medicare that result in these cash payment recipients being charged the higher
fees. Legislators should pressure the Congressional delegation to change regulations within the Medicaid and
Medicare programs that force those without insurance to pay the highest rate for services.
Thirty percent of the DMAS’s expenditures are for nursing home care for the elderly�. This budget commends
the public-private partnership concept in Virginia’s Long-Term Care Partnership Program which offers a way for
Virginians to protect their assets if they ever need to apply for Medicaid services by incentivizing the purchase
of private long-term care policies. This program is a great example of how public-private partnerships can
provide savings for taxpayers. This program should be expanded to as many individuals as possible as it has no
immediate costs and significant long term savings.
Often the public-private partnership concept is misunderstood by citizens and much of the resistance to these
programs is born of those misunderstanding. This public-private trade off provides dollar for dollar asset
protection. Each dollar that your private policy pays out in benefits entitles you to keep a dollar of your assets if
you ever need to apply for Medicaid services. This policy helps remove the perverse incentive to not buy long-
term care insurance and instead hide assets in trusts or by transfer to qualify for Medicaid paid nursing home
care. Unlike most government incentive programs this program should actually save taxpayer dollars by making
the first dollars spent on nursing home care private insurance and not Medicaid.
DMAS has increased enrollment by 21 percent over the last 10 years with the overall increase driven primarily by
increases in persons who are blind or disabled, as well as increases in children enrolled (largely in response to
significant outreach and education efforts regarding the need for childhood health coverage)�. Sadly this outreach
may now have put many of the recipients in danger of losing care they have become dependent on since DMAS
now says in just FY-2010 services will be accessed by a 12 percent growth in recipients�. The recession will make
increasing numbers of Virginia’s citizens eligible for services at a time when funds are decreasing in availability.
This budget understands what a hard choice legislators are faced with but has an alternative option to help
address these needs.
a project of

VIRGINIA
97
Fixing Medicaid’s problems requires a sophisticated, multi-level solution. The goal should be to improve both the
efficiency of the use of tax dollars and the health outcomes of Medicaid recipients. Much of the delivery system
for Medicaid suffers from the same maladies as many other government programs. Solving those inefficiencies
can be a game of inches, but there are changes in delivery system design that can leapfrog the government
bureaucracy.
Private businesses that survive and prosper adjust depending on their customer’s needs. Yet Medicaid attempts
to use a one-size-fits-all approach to serve every Virginia county with their diverse ethnic and economic bases.
This delivery system is inefficient in how it addresses local health concerns and in not providing the financier –
the Virginia taxpayer – his money’s worth.
One possible solution to this inefficient delivery system is simple in concept. It involves borrowing the Wal-Mart
model. Wal-Mart understands the concept of tailoring to its local customer base and its store offerings will differ
slightly by store to reflect that. The idea is to allow Local Health Care Authorities (LHCAs) to be formed on a
county, city, or contiguous geographical basis that encompasses common needs and beliefs about health care.
Just as Wal-Mart has realized that local managers can identify and target local needs, Medicaid would now have
local community involvement fine tuning the delivery system.
The LHCA would be responsible for creating a revenue stream with which to obtain the federal match for
Medicaid services, eligibility expansions, and/or reimbursement rate increases that the LHCA adds to the state
program. For every $1 the LHCA creates, another $1 in federal funds would flow to Medicaid providers in the
LHCA community. There is ample evidence that citizens understand the importance of a solvent health care
system, as counties and/or cities across the country have sales or ad valorem taxes in place to support their local
hospitals. These revenue sources meet the criteria to qualify for the federal match under the LHCA concept.
The LHCAs could use the combined federal/local dollars then to target specific local health care needs such as
critical care access in rural areas. LHCAs could seek to address those health care issues that may be related to
their particular local demographics. For example, in a county with large African American populations, diabetes
prevention programs could be implemented. Large numbers of impoverished elderly in a community would
suggest the need for additional geriatric services. This concept would allow the local community, local health care
providers and the local Medicaid recipients some control over what are the most essential services for them while
providing some abatement to the Commonwealth’s strained budget.
The local funding will provide an incentive to provide only those programs that actually impact health outcomes.
One of the problems with Medicaid is the disassociation between the payer (the taxpayer) and the user of the
services. There have been a myriad of solutions trying to reconnect the users of Medicaid to the costs of their
services. Co-pays failed badly because recipients soon learned that they could refuse to pay them and the
amount of the co-pay was so small that they would not be pursued for collection. Health Savings Accounts via
debit cards seemed to offer some hope but recipients who have spent their debit card amount could still go to
the local emergency room for services and could not legally be turned away. However, local funding for local
programs will put the community in touch with not only the cost of the service but also allow taxpayers to see
how effectively their funds are being spent.
One of the great failings of Medicaid is that there has been no substantive attempt to measure whether the
current system is actually making the Virginia Medicaid populations any healthier. A review of the DMAS
performance measures shows impressive input measurements but no outcomes. There are benchmarks that
would provide a way to judge the efficiency of appropriations to the DMAS which should be considered before
allowing the current programs to continue as is. The Kaiser Institute has pointed out that the number one factor
that impacts health outcomes is the availability of quality healthcare. If the Medicaid program is working and
providing the equivalent quality and availability of healthcare to their recipients that the general population of
98
Virginia enjoys shouldn’t the health of the Medicaid population approach that of the non-Medicaid population
in Virginia? This budget implements a benchmark of measuring the Medicaid population against the general
population and instructs the department to institute policies that will advance that goal.
However, if in fact the health of the Medicaid population is incomparable to the general population due to
behavioral issues as some liberal groups have argued then an overhaul of how the program is administered is
in order if in fact the goal of Medicaid is to make its recipients healthier. Can behavioral issues such as smoking
tobacco or being obese be addressed within the limitations of Medicaid guidelines? It becomes problematic
when for example a recipient, especially a pregnant woman, will not make lifestyle choices with the help of
DMAS that will address her overall health much less the health of the unborn child. There are opportunities
through waivers which are available from the federal government to allow innovations in the program if the waiver
application can provide a roadmap to savings through improved health of the Medicaid population.
The effect of Medicaid on marriage is one of the underlying troubling issues with the current program. Under
Medicaid’s rules married women must include the husband’s income in testing for eligibility, while an unmarried
woman who can hide a cohabitating mate need not include the father’s income. The financial incentive of being
unmarried is at the root of qualifying for the program, and it is not unreasonable to suspect that recipients
will modify their behavior (i.e. staying unmarried), in order to receive benefits especially in a time of economic
distress. Legislators need to mandate absentee fathers who have not been included in means-testing for eligibility
be aggressively pursued to reimburse taxpayers for the birthing costs of their child. This budget does not include
the revenue from this proposal but would expect some collections. More importantly we would expect an impact
of reduced Medicaid births as men start understanding that leaving a trail of children behind them will have
financial ramifications.
DMAS makes the statement that only 1.8 percent of its budget is administrative costs4 but legislators need to be
reminded that this is largely a pass through and monitoring function that DMAS provides and that FTEs grew by over
17 percent from FY-2002 to FY2010. Many of the monitoring functions can properly and efficiently be done by software
programs and data analysis tools and FTE reductions should be instituted to reflect the reduced availability of funds.
The use of LHCAs and the implementation of the other suggestions of this budget should provide the ability to
hold funding at FY-2010 levels as local funds and savings accrue.
Department of Behavioral Health

and Developmental Services
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䈀攀栀愀瘀椀漀爀愀氀䠀攀愀氀琀栀愀渀搀䐀攀瘀攀氀漀瀀洀攀渀琀愀氀匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀

␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㤀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㜀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
4. http://www.dmas.virginia.gov/downloads/pdfs/ab-VA_MedPrgAtGlance.pdf
a project of

VIRGINIA
99
This budget concurs with Gov. Kaine’s recommendations but folds the services into the Department of Health to
realize savings in removal of redundant positions and gains in efficiency. A 10 percent reduction in personnel cost is
included to reflect consolidation efficiencies. AFP also suggests that means-testing be applied to all programs.
Virginia Department of Rehabilitative Services
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀刀攀栀愀戀椀氀椀琀愀琀椀瘀攀匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀

䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀 ✀猀䈀甀搀最攀琀䈀漀漀欀猀
␀㄀㘀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
Woodrow Wilson Rehabilitation Center
圀漀漀搀爀漀眀圀椀氀猀漀渀刀攀栀愀戀椀氀椀琀愀琀椀漀渀䌀攀渀琀攀爀

␀㈀㠀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㜀Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㜀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㘀Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㘀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㐀Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㐀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㌀Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㌀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㈀Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget concurs with the Governor’s recommendations but folds the services into the Department of Health to
100
Department of Social Services
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀匀漀挀椀愀氀匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀

␀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ㠀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ㘀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ㐀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ㈀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
愀琀
愀琀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
椀
爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget in general concurs with Gov. Kaine’s recommendations with an additional 10 percent reduction in
personnel cost included to reflect consolidation efficiencies. The TANF part of the Department of Social Services
(DSS) should be folded into the Department of Health consolidation to facilitate the federal funds reimbursement
and minimize paperwork between entities. There are savings and efficiencies to be found in DSS but they are in
redesigning the system, making sure they are serving the truly needy, and greater cooperation with existing social
organizations such as churches and other non-profits.
The United States Department of the Treasury will cooperate with states in withholding tax refunds to deadbeat
parents which increases the amount of collections markedly since they have access to any return filed in the
United States. This budget questions the necessity of any FTEs dedicated to this tax intercept program. Simply
having DSS’s Child Support Enforcement (CSE) division provide the list of Virginians with support arrearages
and instructing the Department of Revenue to hold those with funds for transfer to DSS for redistribution to the
needy families does require any FTEs. Quite frankly this is a job for a software application which can do the job
automatically and with no continuing salary and benefit cost.
Many of the department’s programs are much-needed support for impoverished adults and children but
legislators need to be alert for expenditures to those with the means to cover their own expenses. An example
lies within Child Support Enforcement (CSE) where there appear to be no eligibility requirements (i.e. income
limitations, residence) to make application for CSE Services. This approach not only spends tax dollars on those
that could afford to obtain legal counsel but even more importantly diverts resources from the truly needy.
Additionally this budget supports pursuing absent fathers for costs incurred for the birth of their child by the
Medicaid system when those fathers fail to participate in means-testing for eligibility AFTER the payment of
continuing child support. See the Department of Medical Assistance Services for more detail on this proposal.
The first priority for any savings from means-testing for assistance should go to maintaining services to the
impoverished. Any funds not needed to cover the budget deficit should then be redirected to other worthy
programs within the department. A good example of such a program would be the child placement program
which provides recruitment, training and support for adults interested in adopting children in foster care. This
budget encourages the department to review whether by partnering with social organizations such as Rotary,
Lions Clubs or churches that these programs can be maintained and even possibly expanded in difficult times.
a project of

VIRGINIA
101
Virginia Board for People with Disabilities
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀䈀漀愀爀搀昀漀爀倀攀漀瀀氀攀眀椀琀栀䐀椀猀愀戀椀氀椀琀椀攀猀

␀㈀Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
愀琀
愀琀
愀琀
愀琀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
椀
爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget concurs with the Governor’s recommendations but folds the services into the Department of Health to
Department for the Blind and Visually Impaired
䐀攀瀀琀昀漀爀琀栀攀䈀氀椀渀搀 ☀ 嘀椀猀甀愀氀氀礀䤀洀瀀愀椀爀攀搀

␀㐀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
102
Virginia Rehabilitation Center
for the Blind and Vision Impaired
嘀䄀刀攀栀愀戀椀氀椀琀愀琀椀漀渀䌀攀渀琀攀爀昀漀爀琀栀攀䈀氀椀渀搀 ☀ 嘀椀猀甀愀氀氀礀䤀洀瀀愀椀爀攀搀

␀㌀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
椀
爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
a project of

VIRGINIA
103
104
Natural Resources
一愀琀甀爀愀氀刀攀猀漀甀爀挀攀猀㨀䄀挀琀甀愀氀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀瘀猀 ⸀ 䌀漀渀琀爀漀氀氀攀搀䜀爀漀眀琀栀
␀㘀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㄀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀ⴀ

一愀琀甀爀愀氀刀攀猀漀甀爀挀攀猀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㄀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㈀
匀攀挀爀攀琀愀爀礀漀昀一愀琀甀爀愀氀刀攀猀漀甀爀挀攀猀 ␀ 㔀㤀㄀Ⰰ　㈀㤀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㔀㤀㄀Ⰰ　㈀㤀 ␀ ⴀ
䌀栀椀瀀瀀漀欀攀猀倀氀愀渀琀愀琀椀漀渀䘀愀爀洀䘀漀甀渀搀愀琀椀漀渀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㘀㜀Ⰰ㄀　㌀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㘀㜀Ⰰ㄀　㌀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䌀漀渀猀攀爀瘀愀琀椀漀渀 ☀ 刀攀挀爀攀愀琀椀漀渀 ␀ ㌀㤀Ⰰ㐀　㈀Ⰰ㠀㄀㔀 ␀ 㠀㄀Ⰰ㜀㄀㐀Ⰰ㌀㤀㔀 ␀ ㌀㜀Ⰰ㐀㌀㈀Ⰰ㘀㜀㔀 ␀ 㠀㄀Ⰰ㜀㄀㐀Ⰰ㌀㤀㔀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䔀渀瘀椀爀漀渀洀攀渀琀愀氀儀甀愀氀椀琀礀 ␀ ㌀㈀Ⰰ　㄀㌀Ⰰ㘀　㘀 ␀ ㄀㄀㤀Ⰰ㐀㔀㐀Ⰰ㜀㤀㜀 ␀ ㌀㈀Ⰰ　㄀㌀Ⰰ㘀　㘀 ␀ ㄀㄀㤀Ⰰ㐀㔀㐀Ⰰ㜀㤀㜀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䜀愀洀攀 ☀ 䤀渀氀愀渀搀䘀椀猀栀攀爀椀攀猀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㔀㌀Ⰰ㐀㜀㌀Ⰰ㌀㜀㘀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㔀㌀Ⰰ㐀㜀㌀Ⰰ㌀㜀㘀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䠀椀猀琀漀爀椀挀刀攀猀漀甀爀挀攀猀 ␀ ㌀Ⰰ㈀㄀㐀Ⰰ㐀㐀㜀 ␀ ㄀Ⰰ㠀　㔀Ⰰ㤀　㜀 ␀ ㌀Ⰰ　㔀㌀Ⰰ㜀㈀㔀 ␀ ㄀Ⰰ㠀　㔀Ⰰ㤀　㜀
䴀愀爀椀渀攀刀攀猀漀甀爀挀攀猀䌀漀洀洀椀猀猀椀漀渀 ␀ 㜀Ⰰ㠀　㘀Ⰰ㌀㜀㜀 ␀ ㄀㌀Ⰰ　㐀㤀Ⰰ㌀㠀㔀 ␀ 㜀Ⰰ㔀　㄀Ⰰ㄀㔀㠀 ␀ ㄀㌀Ⰰ　㐀㤀Ⰰ㌀㠀㔀
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀䴀甀猀攀甀洀漀昀一愀琀甀爀愀氀䠀椀猀琀漀爀礀 ␀ ㈀Ⰰ㄀㈀㐀Ⰰ㄀　㐀 ␀ 㜀㤀㔀Ⰰ㜀㔀㈀ ␀ ㈀Ⰰ　㄀㜀Ⰰ㠀㤀㠀 ␀ 㜀㤀㔀Ⰰ㜀㔀㈀
吀漀琀愀氀 ␀ 㠀㔀Ⰰ㄀㔀㈀Ⰰ㌀㜀㠀 ␀ ㈀㜀　Ⰰ㌀㘀　Ⰰ㜀㄀㔀 ␀ 㠀㈀Ⰰ㘀㄀　Ⰰ　㤀　 ␀ ㈀㜀　Ⰰ㌀㘀　Ⰰ㜀㄀㔀
a project of

VIRGINIA
105
Secretary of Natural Resources
匀攀挀爀攀琀愀爀礀漀昀一愀琀甀爀愀氀刀攀猀漀甀爀挀攀猀

␀㠀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㜀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀
琀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget believes the splitting off of functions simply creates more layers of bureaucracy and additional costs
and therefore AFP believes consolidation is a better approach to the efficient use of tax dollars. This budget
concurs with Gov. Kaine’s budget for the Secretary but adds additional core work assignments to the staff as a
result of consolidating all agencies into one department that will be reflected in savings in those agencies.
Chippokes Plantation Farm Foundation
䌀栀椀瀀瀀漀欀攀猀倀氀愀渀琀愀琀椀漀渀䘀愀爀洀䘀漀甀渀搀愀琀椀漀渀

␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀㔀　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀
琀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget removes all taxpayer funding from the Foundation. As an operating farm with charitable foundation
status they should be able to fund operations with little or no impact through farm income and the private sector’s
participation.
106
Department of Conservation and Recreation
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䌀漀渀猀攀爀瘀愀琀椀漀渀 ☀ 刀攀挀爀攀愀琀椀漀渀

␀㄀㘀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

爀椀愀

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
漀渀
漀渀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀
椀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
䄀瀀爀椀愀琀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀漀
爀漀
爀漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀
瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The graph shows how expenditures have spiked in this department. This is a classic case of how non-essential
services absorb growth revenue during economic expansions that cannot be sustained in recession periods.
Revenues to the department increased by 140 percent from FY-2002 to FY-2010 and FTEs increased by 30
percent during the same period�.
Certain functions of this agency contain redundancies with the Department of Environmental Quality such as
the mission of “conserve, protect, and enhance their lands and improve the quality of the Chesapeake Bay and
our rivers and streams, promotes the stewardship and enjoyment of natural, cultural and outdoor recreational
resources.�” The consolidation of functions into one department should realize savings in the removal of
redundant positions and gains in efficiency of programs as barriers between departments are broke down.
This budget believes there should be a conversion in the parks and recreation programs to more user-based
financing with means-testing exclusions for those low income citizens to provide maximum accessibility by
Virginians. Those that can afford greater access fees should not be subsidized by the tax dollars of working
families struggling to meet essential needs. In going to a primarily fee-based system this budget believes the
bulk of those fees should be left with the park or recreation area that generates them. This will allow the public to
choose which parks and recreation areas are of importance and incentivize management of the areas to focus on
providing the best experience for the public. Competition will ensue and over the course of a few years there will
be an opportunity to assess which parks the public has essentially voted with their attendance and view possible
liquidation, lease or reconfiguration of those facilities not meeting the goals of becoming self-supporting.
This budget immediately reduces General Funding to 10 percent below the Governor’s recommendations
with the inclusion of fee increases at most parks subject to the means-testing exclusion. This continues with
a 5 percent per year reduction in General Funds until it reaches the level that only the means exclusions are
being financed by taxpayers. This budget encourages a review of all fee-based environmental and inspection
services for opportunities to reduce fees during this recession to minimize the impact on businesses. The
consolidation should provide those opportunities immediately but this budget does not include those cuts until
the consolidation is finalized.
a project of

VIRGINIA
107
Department of Environmental Quality
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䔀渀瘀椀爀漀渀洀攀渀琀愀氀儀甀愀氀椀琀礀

␀㐀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
瀀爀
瀀爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget consolidates support positions within the Secretary of Natural Resources as with all departments
in this cabinet but goes further and consolidates programs such as the Chesapeake Bay program with the
other similar programs in this cabinet. This will allow more effective utilization of General and Non General
Funds towards specific program goals. This budget reduces funding by 10 percent more than Gov. Kaine’s
recommendations to reflect these consolidations. Let us be blunt about consolidations. If they are not
accompanied with immediate budget reductions, as this budget imposes, the bureaucracy will be slow to react
and will resist them. Forcing the bureaucracy to move with haste is accomplished by these cuts being immediate.
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䜀愀洀攀 ☀ 䤀渀氀愀渀搀䘀椀猀栀攀爀椀攀猀
␀㘀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
愀琀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
瀀爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget consolidates the functions of this department with the rest of the cabinet with the removal and/
or consolidation of redundant support positions. This concept is stressed throughout this budget book and it
108
should be understood that many of the support positions such as accounting and information technology are
high pay band positions whose removal can reduce costs immediately through properly designed Reductions in
Force (RIF) and can often be accomplished with minimal impact on the work force by targeting with incentivized
retirement packages. Roughly 10 percent of most governmental units will have employees that qualify.
Government employees tend to be in general older than the regular work force and have spent more time on the
job making them ideal employees for such RIFs.
Department of Historic Resources
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䠀椀猀琀漀爀椀挀刀攀猀漀甀爀挀攀猀

␀㄀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
漀渀
漀渀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
愀琀
愀琀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
椀
爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget consolidates this department with the other agencies in the cabinet but also reduces General Funds
by 10 percent over Gov. Kaine’s recommendations immediately and encourages this function to become entirely
self supported by private contributions by reducing General Funds by 5 percent per year after that until Non
General Funds and General Funds have reversed their current ratio which is approximately 2.5:1 General to Non
General. The creation of individual 501(c) 3 charitable foundations for each historic project will allow contributors
to select what is important to them and target those funds. Just as suggested in the parks and recreation write-
up this will create a competition between projects that will reward those projects that can ‘sell’ themselves to the
public and identify those that are not deemed essential by the public. Additionally, localities are encouraged to
take over part or all of funding if they in fact believe these to be essential to their local heritage instead of asking
the citizens to subsidize them.
a project of

VIRGINIA
109
Marine Resources Commission
䴀愀爀椀渀攀刀攀猀漀甀爀挀攀猀䌀漀洀洀椀猀猀椀漀渀

␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget consolidates this department’s functions with the other departments of this cabinet. This budget
was troubled by the performance measure of this function that set the “Conviction rate of 88 – 90 percent
for summons written by Marine Police Officers.”� This implies that over one in ten of their summons were not
enforceable. The legislature should monitor this very carefully for the reason for such a high error rate. Is this
caused by poor-enforcement practices of illegal activities or assertions of illegality when in fact the individual or
business is innocent? We encourage interviews by the Legislature of the agency, the industries and individuals
regulated to correct this unacceptable rate. This budget reduces funding by General Funds by 10 percent over
the Governor’s recommendations to reflect savings in consolidations.
Virginia Museum of Natural History
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀䴀甀猀攀甀洀漀昀一愀琀甀爀愀氀䠀椀猀琀漀爀礀

␀㐀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀
愀琀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
瀀爀
瀀爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget finds that the ratio of over 4:1 taxpayer funds to fees unacceptable. Not every taxpayer and their
children attend the museum or use any of their programs. Instead of reacting to increase fee income this
management chose to close on Sundays and holidays which should be key opportunities to raise revenues. This
110
budget believes this approach reflects a philosophy that indicates a need for a change in operational control.
By consolidating with the Secretary of Natural Resources a significant savings can be realized since this is a
personnel cost heavy organization with those making up 70 percent of all expenditures and only 30 percent
operational.� This budget reduces the General Funds by 10 percent immediately and 5 percent annually until the
ratio is reversed of General to Non General Funds.
a project of

VIRGINIA
111
112
Public Safety Department
a project of

VIRGINIA
113
倀甀戀氀椀挀匀愀昀攀琀礀䘀夀ⴀ㈀　㄀㄀䘀夀ⴀ㈀　㄀㈀
匀攀挀爀攀琀愀爀礀漀昀倀甀戀氀椀挀匀愀昀攀琀礀 ␀ 㔀㐀㠀Ⰰ㘀㘀㐀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㔀㐀㠀Ⰰ㘀㘀㐀 ␀ ⴀ
䌀漀洀洀漀渀眀攀爀氀琀栀✀猀䄀琀琀漀爀渀攀礀猀✀ 匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀䌀漀甀渀挀椀氀 ␀ 㘀　㐀Ⰰ㜀　㜀 ␀ ㄀㌀㠀Ⰰ㐀㔀　 ␀ 㘀　㐀Ⰰ㜀　㜀 ␀ ㌀㠀Ⰰ㐀㔀　
䐀攀瀀愀爀琀洀攀渀琀漀昀䄀氀挀漀栀漀氀椀挀䈀攀瘀攀爀愀最攀䌀漀渀琀爀漀氀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㈀㜀Ⰰ㐀㔀㐀Ⰰ㐀㘀㐀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㈀㜀Ⰰ㐀㔀㐀Ⰰ㐀㘀㐀
䐀攀瀀愀爀琀洀攀渀琀漀昀䌀漀爀爀攀挀琀椀漀渀愀氀䔀搀甀挀愀琀椀漀渀䌀漀渀猀漀氀椀搀愀琀攀搀椀渀琀漀琀栀攀䐀攀瀀愀爀琀洀攀渀琀猀漀昀䌀漀爀爀攀挀琀椀漀渀猀 ☀ 䨀甀瘀攀渀椀氀攀䨀甀猀琀椀挀攀
䐀攀瀀愀爀琀洀攀渀琀漀昀䌀漀爀爀攀挀琀椀漀渀猀 ␀ 㤀㘀㔀Ⰰ㜀㔀　Ⰰ㘀㄀㌀ ␀ 㜀㠀Ⰰ㤀㤀㌀Ⰰ㘀㜀㜀 ␀ 㤀㘀㐀Ⰰ　㤀㠀Ⰰ㈀㄀㔀 ␀ 㜀㠀Ⰰ㤀㤀㌀Ⰰ㘀㜀㜀
䐀攀瀀愀爀琀洀攀渀琀漀昀䌀爀椀洀椀渀愀氀䨀甀猀琀椀挀攀匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀䌀漀渀猀漀氀椀搀愀琀攀搀椀渀琀漀漀琀栀攀爀倀甀戀氀椀挀匀愀昀攀琀礀䄀最攀渀挀椀攀猀
䐀攀瀀愀爀琀洀攀渀琀漀昀䔀洀攀爀最攀渀挀礀䴀愀渀愀最攀洀攀渀琀 ␀ 㐀Ⰰ㐀㔀㔀Ⰰ㜀㄀㄀ ␀ ㌀㤀Ⰰ㄀㜀㌀Ⰰ㔀㜀㘀 ␀ 㐀Ⰰ㐀㔀㔀Ⰰ㜀㄀㄀ ␀ ㌀㤀Ⰰ㄀㜀㌀Ⰰ㔀㜀㘀
䐀攀瀀愀爀琀洀攀渀琀漀昀䘀椀爀攀倀爀漀最爀愀洀猀 ␀ ㌀㄀Ⰰ㈀㤀㠀Ⰰ㈀㔀㠀 ␀ ㌀㄀Ⰰ㈀㤀㠀Ⰰ㈀㔀㠀
䐀攀瀀愀爀琀洀攀渀琀漀昀䘀漀爀攀渀猀椀挀匀挀椀攀渀挀攀 ␀ ㌀㔀Ⰰ㄀㐀㜀Ⰰ㤀㌀㌀ ␀ ㄀Ⰰ㔀　㔀Ⰰ㤀㠀㐀 ␀ ㌀㔀Ⰰ㄀㠀㐀Ⰰ㌀㌀　 ␀ ㄀Ⰰ㔀　㔀Ⰰ㤀㠀㐀
䐀攀瀀愀爀琀洀攀渀琀漀昀䨀甀瘀攀渀椀氀攀䨀甀猀琀椀挀攀 ␀ ㈀　㐀Ⰰ㔀㘀㈀Ⰰ㘀㐀㔀 ␀ 㔀Ⰰ㘀㤀　Ⰰ㠀　㘀 ␀ ㈀　㐀Ⰰ㔀㘀㈀Ⰰ㘀㐀㔀 ␀ 㔀Ⰰ㤀㘀　Ⰰ㠀　㘀
䐀攀瀀愀爀琀洀攀渀琀漀昀䴀椀氀椀琀愀爀礀䄀昀昀愀椀爀猀 ␀ 㤀Ⰰ㐀㤀㘀Ⰰ㄀　　 ␀ ㌀㤀Ⰰ㈀㜀㈀Ⰰ㤀㜀㘀 ␀ 㤀Ⰰ㐀㤀㘀Ⰰ㄀　　 ␀ ㌀㤀Ⰰ㈀㜀㈀Ⰰ㤀㜀㘀
䐀攀瀀愀爀琀洀攀渀琀漀昀匀琀愀琀攀倀漀氀椀挀攀 ␀ ㄀㤀㤀Ⰰ㈀㜀　Ⰰ㤀㈀㐀 ␀ 㠀㌀Ⰰ㠀㈀㠀Ⰰ㄀㤀㈀ ␀ ㄀㤀㜀Ⰰ㘀㠀㈀Ⰰ㔀㈀㤀 ␀ 㠀㔀Ⰰ㜀㘀㜀Ⰰ㘀㄀　
䐀攀瀀愀爀琀洀攀渀琀漀昀嘀攀琀攀爀愀渀猀匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀 ␀ 㜀Ⰰ　㄀㠀Ⰰ㘀㄀㠀 ␀ ㌀㔀Ⰰ㠀　㔀Ⰰ　㠀㔀 ␀ 㜀Ⰰ　㄀㠀Ⰰ㘀㄀㠀 ␀ ㌀㔀Ⰰ㠀　㔀Ⰰ　㠀㔀
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀倀愀爀漀氀攀䈀漀愀爀搀 ␀ 㜀㌀㤀Ⰰ㌀㄀　 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㘀㄀㌀Ⰰ㐀　㜀 ␀ ⴀ
䌀漀洀瀀攀渀猀愀琀椀漀渀䈀漀愀爀搀 ␀ 㔀㄀㌀Ⰰ㈀㜀㘀Ⰰ　㄀㐀 ␀ ㌀　Ⰰ㔀㌀　Ⰰ　㐀㔀 ␀ 㔀　㈀Ⰰ㠀㄀㜀Ⰰ㌀㈀㐀 ␀ 㐀㌀Ⰰ㤀　㌀Ⰰ㜀㘀㜀
䈀漀愀爀搀漀昀吀漀眀椀渀最愀渀搀刀攀挀漀瘀攀爀礀伀瀀攀爀愀琀椀漀渀猀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㔀　㘀Ⰰ㤀㘀㜀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㔀㄀㄀Ⰰ㄀㘀㈀
䄀瘀愀椀氀愀戀氀攀昀漀爀吀爀愀渀猀昀攀爀琀漀倀甀戀氀椀挀匀愀昀攀琀礀䄀最攀渀挀椀攀猀
昀爀漀洀䐀攀瀀琀⸀ 漀昀䌀爀椀洀椀渀愀氀䨀甀猀琀椀挀攀匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀 ␀ ㄀㜀㐀Ⰰ㠀㌀㐀Ⰰ㠀㘀㜀 ␀ 㔀㘀Ⰰ㄀㠀㈀Ⰰ㠀　㄀ ␀ ㄀㘀㠀Ⰰ㠀㄀㘀Ⰰ㘀㤀㈀ ␀ 㘀㈀Ⰰ㠀㘀㤀Ⰰ㘀㘀㈀
吀漀琀愀氀 ␀ ㈀Ⰰ㄀㄀㔀Ⰰ㜀　㘀Ⰰ㄀　㘀 ␀ 㐀㌀　Ⰰ㌀㠀㄀Ⰰ㈀㠀㄀ ␀ ㈀Ⰰ　㤀㔀Ⰰ㠀㤀㠀Ⰰ㤀㐀㈀ ␀ 㐀㔀㈀Ⰰ㔀㔀㔀Ⰰ㐀㜀㜀
Secretary of Public Safety
114
The above chart shows a 34 percent increase in expenditures from FY-2004 to FY-2009, with average personal
costs at $115,492 per FTE. The FY-2010 appropriation was decreased by 0.35 percent with no change in FTEs.
AFP concurs with the Governor’s budget recommendations for the Office of the Secretary of Public Safety.
Commonwealth’s Attorneys’ Services Council
䌀漀洀洀漀渀眀攀愀氀琀栀✀猀䄀琀琀漀爀渀攀礀猀 ✀ 匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀䌀漀甀渀挀椀氀

␀㤀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㜀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
椀漀
愀琀
愀琀
愀琀
愀琀
愀琀
愀琀
愀琀
愀琀
愀琀
爀椀
爀椀
爀椀
爀椀
爀椀
爀椀
爀椀
爀椀
爀椀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
Expenditures increased by over 19 percent and FTEs have increased by 40 percent since FY-2002. Average
personal costs for FY-2010 were $80,472 per FTE. AFP concurs with the Governor’s budget recommendations for
the Commonwealth’s Attorneys’ Services Council.
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
䐀攀瀀琀愀爀琀洀攀渀琀漀昀䄀氀挀漀栀漀氀椀挀䈀攀瘀攀爀愀最攀䌀漀渀琀爀漀氀

␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀
爀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
䄀
䄀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
a project of

VIRGINIA
115
The above chart shows an 88 percent increase in expenditures since FY-2002. FTEs increased by 14 percent,
with an average personnel cost of $80,776 per FTE for FY-2010. The Governor has recommended increasing the
markup on alcoholic beverages by two percent and projects a $15 million revenue increase. AFP does not believe
the retail sale of alcoholic beverages is an essential function of government and recommends privatization of the
Commonwealth’s retail liquor stores. The regulation and enforcement powers related to alcoholic beverages are
both appropriate functions of government and should be retained by the department. This budget recommends a
decrease in the department’s budget of $500,000,000 as a result of privatizing retail liquor stores.
Department of Correctional Education
䐀攀瀀琀⸀ 漀昀䌀漀爀爀攀挀琀椀漀渀愀氀䔀搀甀挀愀琀椀漀渀

␀㜀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀
爀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
䄀
䄀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The Department of Correctional Education’s expenditures have increased 20 percent since FY-2002, with the
FY-2010 FTE count slightly lower than the FY-2002 level. Average personnel costs for FY-2010 were $68,594 per
FTE. The FTE level will be reduced by 34 beginning in FY-11 due to the closure of several facilities.
AFP does not believe it is necessary to have a separate agency for the solely for the purpose of providing
educational programs at Department of Corrections and Department of Juvenile Justice facilities, and
recommends consolidating the Department of Correctional Education’s duties, personnel and into those two
agencies. AFP recommends a budget reduction of 25 percent due to savings from consolidation of the agency’s
support functions such as accounting, data processing and a number of clerical positions with the departments
of Corrections and Juvenile Justice.
116
Department of Corrections
䐀攀瀀愀爀琀洀攀渀琀漀昀䌀漀爀爀攀挀琀椀漀渀猀

␀㄀Ⰰ㈀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀
爀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
䄀
䄀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
As shown by the chart above, expenditures for the Department of Corrections have increased 25 percent since
FY-2002. Average personnel costs are $52,333 per FTE. The Governor recommended reducing the agency’s
budget by $36.5 million, primarily by closing two correctional centers and eliminating 570 FTE, beginning
in FY-2011. AFP concurs with the Governor’s recommendations and in addition recommends consolidating
duties, personnel and 80 percent of the of the Department of Correctional Education’s reduced budget into
the Department of Corrections. Any savings recognized by the elimination of duplicative positions such as
accounting, data processing and a number clerical positions should be used to offset some of the budget cuts.
AFP recommends the agency contract with private prisons rather than investing in any further facility expansion,
construction or major renovation. Private prisons fill a niche when the inmate population increases, or current
facilities need costly renovations. Private prison per diem rates are less expensive than state-operated facilities,
and do not require investments in infrastructure, maintenance or additional FTE. In addition, private entities often
can construct a new facility in a year or less.
Another option for infrastructure needs is Public/Private Partnerships (P3s), which provide alternative sources
of capital for government real estate and infrastructure. P3s can provide liquidity and flexibility without affecting
the state’s bond rating. The private sector real estate owner provides the capital to acquire or develop a facility
and enters into long term lease agreements with the state. This arrangement allows the state to lock-in costs and
transfer risk to the private sector.
Generally, people who commit crimes can be divided into two categories; those we are scared of and those we
are mad at. Even as violent crimes and property crimes in the Commonwealth have decreased, Virginia’s inmate
population has continued to increase. The increase is primarily due to longer sentences, which are appropriate
for violent offenders. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, released prisoners with the highest re-arrest
rates were robbers (70.2 percent), burglars (74.0 percent), larcenists (74.6 percent), motor vehicle thieves (78.8
percent), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4 percent), and those possessing, using, or
selling illegal weapons (70.2 percent). These are the criminals we are scared of and keeping them in prison longer
increases public safety.
a project of

VIRGINIA
117
On the other hand, approximately half of Virginia’s incarcerated adults are the ones we are just mad at, serving
time for a non-violent offense. About half of those we are mad at are serving time for a drug offense, although
many serving time for property offenses have an underlying substance abuse problem. According to the National
Institute of Justice, “Drug use is more closely linked to robbery and property crime than to violent crime.”� Virginia
spends a considerable amount on programs designed to treat substance abusers while they are still incarcerated.
The National Institute of Justice Substance advocates compulsory treatment to reduce recidivism. “Therapeutic,
structured programs can reduce recidivism, whether in prisons, through community corrections or drug court
supervision, or when people reenter the community following imprisonment. One characteristic necessary for
successful programs is continuing, comprehensive aftercare in the community.”� Community programs have
shown to be more successful than programs provided during incarceration, and can be provided at a fraction of
the cost.� This budget recommends increasing funds for therapeutic post-release programs and reducing funds
for treatment programs provided in prisons and community correction centers.
Faith-based organizations provide much-needed services to offenders through volunteers. They provide
assistance that reflects the values of the community where the offender will live upon release. Because they are
part of the community, faith-based volunteers offer beneficial knowledge and assistance to offenders including
transportation, housing and employment assistance. The Virginia Faith-Based and Community Initiative facilitated
by the Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS) assists collaboration and partnerships among public
agencies and faith-based and community organizations. AFP supports continuation of this initiative.
According to the National Institute of Justice, “The majority of inmates leave prison with no savings, no immediate
entitlement to unemployment benefits, and few job prospects. One year after release, as many as 60 percent
of former inmates are not employed in the legitimate labor market.”� Providing employers with incentives to hire
former inmates who are on post-release supervision and provide on-the-job training is a win-win for employer,
employee and the state. Former inmates would have the ability to contribute to their communities by paying taxes
and restitution to their victims, while supporting themselves and their families.
Although Virginia’s crime rate is low compared to the national average, and violent crime and property crime rates
have decreased over the past 10 years, corrections spending has nearly doubled during the same time period. In
an effort to avoid high prison costs during an economic downturn, several states are looking at using the “justice
reinvestment” concept, promoted by the Council of State Governments Justice Center and supported by the
Pew Center on the States and the Justice Department. The council is now working in 12 states, several of which
have reported stabilizing prison populations, partly by offering better services to released inmates and preventing
their returns to custody. So far, Kansas and Texas have been successful in avoiding projected prison population
increases and have reduced probation and parole revocations.�
Forty-two percent of Virginia’s new prison commitments in 2007 were repeat offenders, most of whom were
probation violators. This is an indication that there is insufficient supervision at the local level to help prevent
recidivism. Many states have had great success with the use of global positioning system (GPS) for post-release
supervision. GPS allows probation and parole officers to monitor offenders around the clock, if necessary, and
delivers supervision at about one-seventh the cost of incarceration. Former inmates think twice about violating
their terms of release when they know someone is watching their every move. Some GPS units let officers
send a text or voice message directly to the receiver worn by the offender. Also, an alert can be sent if the
offender wanders into forbidden territory. Offenders can help defray the cost of monitoring on an ability-to-pay
basis. California’s GPS program is supported 60 percent by offenders.� Virginia should consider using GPS for
all probationers and parolees, or at least the high-risk cases, which account for such a large number of new
prison commitments each year. GPS provides probation officers the ability to carry larger case loads, without
endangering public safety.
118
Department of Criminal Justice Services
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䌀爀椀洀椀渀愀氀䨀甀猀琀椀挀攀匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀

␀㌀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㤀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㠀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㜀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㘀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀
爀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
䄀
䄀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The Department of Criminal Justice Services is an administrative and regulatory agency that provides training,
conducts research, and distributes federal grants and state funding to law enforcement and criminal justice
agencies. The agency also licenses and regulates the private security industry. Agency expenditures have
fluctuated over the past few years with FY-2010 just slightly higher than FY-2002 levels. Personnel costs averaged
$72,545 per FTE for FY-2010. The Governor recommended reducing the agency’s budget by $41.6 million
and eliminating seven vacant positions. AFP concurs with the Governor’s recommendation and recommends
an additional 10 percent budget reduction and consolidation of all of the department’s duties and personnel
into other public safety agencies along with an appropriate proportionate share of the agency’s budget. These
consolidations will provide a continuity of services and considerable administrative cost savings by eliminating
duplicative functions. The cost savings could be used to offset budget cuts in the other public safety agencies.
a project of

VIRGINIA
119
Department of Emergency Management
䐀攀瀀琀⸀ 漀昀䔀洀攀爀最攀渀挀礀䴀愀渀愀最攀洀攀渀琀

␀㘀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀
爀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
䄀
䄀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
Agency expenditures have increased 376 percent from FY-2002 to FY-2010 and FTE levels have increased 77
percent during the same time period. Average personnel costs are $74,600 per FTE for FY-2010. Gov. Kaine
recommended reductions of $233,079 for FY-11 and $163,194 for FY-12. AFP’s budget concurs with the
Governor’s recommendations for this agency.
Department of Fire Programs
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䘀椀爀攀倀爀漀最爀愀洀猀

␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀
爀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
䄀
䄀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The Department of Fire Programs’ expenditures increased 151 percent from FY-2002 to FY-2010. FTEs have
increased 152 percent during the same time period. Personal costs average $90,642 per FTE. Most of the
120
department’s funding is derived from 1 percent of fire-related insurance coverage. Approximately 75 percent of the
total fund goes directly to counties, cities and incorporated towns within the Commonwealth as “Aid to Localities.”
It appears that the remaining 25 percent goes towards support of the astronomical salaries of the department’s
73 employees. At a time when Virginia’s families are struggling to put food on the table, there is no justification
for this kind of government waste. How many of the Commonwealth’s families earn $90,642 a year? Gov. Kaine
recommended decreasing the department’s general fund appropriation by $233,079 for FY-11 and $163,194 for FY-
12. The Governor also recommended increasing the department’s Non General fund appropriation by $98,845 for
both FY-11 and FY-12 due to a projected increase in the department’s bookstore sales.
AFP disagrees with all of the Governor’s recommendations. In a budget crisis, any increase in Non General
funding should be accompanied by a decrease in general funding so the funds can be used in other areas
where there is greater need. This budget recommends eliminating the department’s general fund appropriation
altogether. We also recommend looking at reducing the cost of fire-related insurance coverage by reducing
the percentage that goes to the department. Virginians could use a break on their insurance costs and the
department should be scaled back to a reasonable level.
Department of Forensic Science
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䘀漀爀攀渀猀椀挀匀挀椀攀渀挀攀
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀
爀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
䄀
䄀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
Expenditures have increased by 17 percent and FTEs by 2 percent since FY-2007 when the agency was first
established. Average personal costs for FY-2010 were $80,603 per FTE. The Governor has recommended
decreasing the agency’s budget by $1.27 million for FY-2011 and FY-2012 to reflect completion of a post-
conviction DNA testing grant. AFP concurs with the Governor’s budget recommendations for the Department of
Forensic Science.
a project of

VIRGINIA
121
Department of Juvenile Justice
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䨀甀瘀攀渀椀氀攀䨀甀猀琀椀挀攀

␀㈀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀
爀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
䄀
䄀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
Expenditures and FTE have decreased slightly from FY-2002 to FY-2010. Personnel costs are $54,338 per
FTE for FY-2010. The Governor recommended decreasing the agency’s FY-2011 and FY-2012 budgets by
nearly $10.8 million and eliminating 108 FTE. The majority of the budget cuts would come from closing a
juvenile correctional center, eliminating vacant positions and reducing pass-through funding for local programs
and contract services. AFP concurs with the Governor’s recommendations, and in addition recommends
consolidating the duties, personnel and 20 percent of the Department of Correctional Education’s budget
reduced budget into the Department of Juvenile Justice. Any savings recognized by the elimination of
duplicative positions such as accounting, data processing and a number of clerical positions should be used to
offset a portion of the agency’s budget cuts.
Department of Military Affairs
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䴀椀氀椀琀愀爀礀䄀昀昀愀椀爀猀
␀㐀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀
爀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
䄀
䄀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
122
The Department of Military Affairs’ expenditures have increased 76 percent and FTE have increased 32
percent from FY-2002 to FY-2010. Average personnel costs are $52,602 per FTE for FY-2010. The Governor
recommended increasing the agency’s budget by $7.9 million for both FY-2011 and FY-2012. AFP concurs with
the Governor’s budget recommendations for the Department of Military Affairs.
Department of State Police
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀匀琀愀琀攀倀漀氀椀挀攀

␀㌀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀
爀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
䄀
䄀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
Expenditures for the Department of State Police have increased by 43 percent since FY-2002, with only a 5
percent increase in FTE. Personnel costs average $75,942 per FTE for FY-2010. The Governor recommended
decreasing the agency’s FY-2011 and FY-2012 budgets by over $5 million, primarily by postponing basic trooper
schools for two years and not filling vacant trooper positions.
AFP believes the public safety of the Commonwealth’s citizens to be one of the most essential functions of
government and disagrees with Gov. Kaine’s recommendations. This budget recommends increasing the
agency’s budget by $10 million to fund fully trooper schools, vacant trooper positions and purchase patrol
vehicles as needed.
a project of

VIRGINIA
123
Department of Veterans Services
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀嘀攀琀攀爀愀渀猀匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀

␀㔀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀
爀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
䄀
䄀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
As the above chart shows, expenditures for the Department of Veterans Services have significantly increased
from FY-2002 to FY-2010. Average personnel costs were $49,976 for FY-2010. The agency operates 21 benefits
services offices, two care centers and two veteran-cemeteries throughout the Commonwealth. The agency
also approves financial assistance for educational programs for eligible veterans and their dependents offered
by institutions and establishments operating in Virginia. The Governor recommended cutting the agency’s FY-
2011 and 2012 budgets only slightly, by reducing administrative costs. AFP concurs with the Governor’s budget
recommendations for the Department of Veterans Services.
124
Virginia Parole Board
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀倀愀爀漀氀攀䈀漀愀爀搀
␀㄀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㤀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㜀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
爀
爀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
瀀瀀
䄀
䄀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
As the chart above shows, expenditures for the Parole Board have decreased from FY-2002 levels. Average
personnel costs were $128,361 per FTE for FY-2010. The Governor recommended converting two full-time
Board members to half-time status, for annual savings of $125,903. AFP concurs with the Governor’s budget
recommendations for the Parole Board.
a project of

VIRGINIA
125
126
Technology
吀攀挀栀渀漀氀漀最礀㨀䄀挀琀甀愀氀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀瘀猀 ⸀ 䌀漀渀琀爀漀氀氀攀搀䜀爀漀眀琀栀
␀㤀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㠀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㜀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㘀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㌀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀眀椀琀栀䌀漀渀琀爀漀氀猀
␀㈀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀ⴀ

吀爀愀渀猀瀀漀爀琀愀琀椀漀渀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㄀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㈀
匀攀挀爀攀琀愀爀礀漀昀吀攀挀栀渀漀氀漀最礀 ␀ 㐀㤀　Ⰰ ㈀㜀㄀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㐀㤀　Ⰰ ㈀㜀㄀
䤀渀渀漀瘀愀琀椀瘀攀吀攀挀栀渀漀氀漀最礀
䄀甀琀栀漀爀椀琀礀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ
嘀䄀䤀渀昀漀爀洀愀琀椀漀渀吀攀挀栀渀漀氀漀最椀攀猀
䄀最攀渀挀礀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ ⴀ
吀漀琀愀氀 ␀ 㐀㤀　Ⰰ ㈀㜀㄀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㐀㤀　Ⰰ ㈀㜀㄀ ␀ ⴀ
a project of

VIRGINIA
127
Secretary of Technology
匀攀挀爀攀琀愀爀礀漀昀吀攀挀栀渀漀氀漀最礀
␀㘀㈀　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㘀　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀㠀　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀㘀　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀㐀　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀㈀　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㐀㠀　Ⰰ 　　　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
椀
爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget consolidates all the functions of this department into the Secretary of Technology to remove redundancies
and improve efficiencies. However, this budget goes one step further and makes this budget a department that
charges other departments for the services they provide. This approach has two important functions for the
Commonwealth’s citizens. First it stops departments from hiding their technology expenditures within this cabinet
by providing greater transparency in what the total cost of any function of government truly is. Secondly, it will make
those departments use this cabinet function only when there are efficiency and/or improvements in services made
by the expenditure. Too often in government technology expenditures the taxpayers never realize either benefit.
Private business demands that they gain savings through efficiency gains and/or the providing of greater services
to their clients or they will not spend the money. Simply spending money on technology that does neither is a waste
of taxpayers’ dollars. This budget concurs with Gov. Kaine’s budget with the exceptions of consolidating functions
and removing expenditures for the promotion of Virginia’s technology industries. It is an inappropriate function of
government to involve itself in choosing industries to support with the taxpayer funds.
Innovation and Entrepreneurship Investment Authority
䤀渀渀漀瘀愀琀椀瘀攀吀攀挀栀渀漀氀漀最礀䄀甀琀栀漀爀椀琀礀
␀㄀㘀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀㐀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀㈀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㠀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㘀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㐀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
128
This budget removes all funding from this department. The services to state agencies should be billed to the agency
receiving the services and those provided to the private sector are an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars.
Virginia Information Technologies Agency
嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀䤀渀昀漀爀洀愀琀椀漀渀吀攀挀栀渀漀氀漀最椀攀猀䄀最攀渀挀礀

␀㜀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㘀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget removes all funding from this department. The services to state agencies should be billed to the
agency receiving the services.
a project of

VIRGINIA
129
130
Department of
Transportation
吀爀愀渀猀瀀漀爀琀愀琀椀漀渀㨀䄀挀琀甀愀氀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀瘀猀 ⸀ 䌀漀渀琀爀漀氀氀攀搀䜀爀漀眀琀栀
䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀✀猀䈀甀搀最攀琀䈀漀漀欀猀㈀　　㈀ⴀ㈀　　㤀
␀㘀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㐀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㌀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀ⴀ

吀爀愀渀猀瀀漀爀琀愀琀椀漀渀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㄀䘀夀 ⴀ㈀　㄀㈀
匀攀挀爀攀琀愀爀礀漀昀吀爀愀渀猀瀀漀爀琀愀琀椀漀渀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㘀㈀㐀Ⰰ 㐀㈀㘀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㘀㈀㐀Ⰰ 㐀㈀㘀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䄀瘀椀愀琀椀漀渀 ␀ ㌀　Ⰰ ㈀㐀㘀 ␀ ㌀㐀Ⰰ ㄀㈀㐀Ⰰ 㘀㌀㄀ ␀ ㌀　Ⰰ ㈀㐀㘀 ␀ ㌀㐀Ⰰ ㄀㈀㐀Ⰰ 㘀㌀㄀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䴀漀琀漀爀嘀攀栀椀挀氀攀猀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㈀㄀㜀Ⰰ ㈀㐀㐀Ⰰ ㈀　㠀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㈀㄀㜀Ⰰ ㈀㐀㐀Ⰰ ㈀　㠀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䴀漀琀漀爀嘀攀栀椀挀氀攀猀
吀爀愀渀猀昀攀爀倀愀礀洀攀渀琀猀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㘀㤀Ⰰ ㄀㐀㘀Ⰰ 㔀㈀㤀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㘀㤀Ⰰ ㄀㐀㘀Ⰰ 㔀㈀㤀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀刀愀椀氀 ☀ 倀甀戀氀椀挀
吀爀愀渀猀瀀漀爀琀愀琀椀漀渀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㌀㐀㘀Ⰰ 㐀㠀㌀Ⰰ 㤀㔀㔀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㌀㜀㘀Ⰰ 㘀㤀　Ⰰ 㠀㤀㠀
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀吀爀愀渀猀瀀漀爀琀愀琀椀漀渀 ␀ ㄀㈀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　 ␀ ㌀Ⰰ ㈀㈀㌀Ⰰ 㠀㤀㘀Ⰰ 㔀㌀㔀 ␀ 㘀㠀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　 ␀ ㌀Ⰰ ㄀㤀㠀Ⰰ 㜀㔀㤀Ⰰ 㤀㘀㜀
䴀漀琀漀爀嘀攀栀椀挀氀攀䐀攀愀氀攀爀䈀漀愀爀搀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㄀Ⰰ 㤀㤀㈀Ⰰ ㄀㤀㠀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ ㄀Ⰰ 㤀㤀㈀Ⰰ ㄀㤀㠀
嘀䄀倀漀爀琀䄀甀琀栀漀爀椀琀礀 ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㠀㘀Ⰰ 㔀㠀㐀Ⰰ ㄀㈀㈀ ␀ ⴀ ␀ 㠀㘀Ⰰ 㔀㠀㐀Ⰰ ㄀㈀㈀
吀漀琀愀氀 ␀ ㄀㈀Ⰰ 　㌀　Ⰰ ㈀㐀㘀 ␀ ㌀Ⰰ 㤀㠀　Ⰰ 　㤀㘀Ⰰ 㘀　㐀 ␀ 㘀㠀Ⰰ 　㌀　Ⰰ ㈀㐀㘀 ␀ ㌀Ⰰ 㤀㠀㔀Ⰰ ㄀㘀㘀Ⰰ 㤀㜀㤀
a project of

VIRGINIA
131
Secretary of Transportation
匀攀挀爀攀琀愀爀礀漀昀吀爀愀渀猀瀀漀爀琀愀琀椀漀渀
␀㤀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㠀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㜀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㘀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
Just as in every section in this budget book this budget consolidates the majority of these functions into one agency
to remove redundant positions and bureaucratic impediments to efficiencies caused by interaction and competition
between departments for limited funds. This department has increased expenditures since 2002 by 54 percent and
increased staff by 50 percent in the same period.1 This budget concurs with Gov. Kaine’s reductions but believes
restructuring and consolidations should allow a review of the many fees charged individuals and businesses for
a reduction. A fee decrease, for example, in motor vehicle registration fees would provide much-needed relief to
citizens of the Commonwealth during a period where many families are struggling to meet basic needs.
Department of Aviation
䐀攀瀀愀爀琀洀攀渀琀漀昀䄀瘀椀愀琀椀漀渀

␀㌀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
132
This budget praises the largely non tax-based income of this department and concurs with Gov. Kaine’s budget.
This budget consolidates this function into the Secretary of Transportation.
Department of Motor Vehicles
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䴀漀琀漀爀嘀攀栀椀挀氀攀猀

␀㌀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
椀
爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget suggests the vehicle registration function be privatized which would do more toward meeting the
performance measure of the department of: “We will provide a reasonable customer response time for customers
conducting business with DMV”� than any single move the department could make internally. States such as
Oklahoma that have privatized these functions have largely eliminated wait times for this function. Bureaucrats
in a monopolistic environment do not have the incentives that private businesses do to reduce wait times. This
budget encourages legislators to contact citizens in states with privatized registration for vehicles and drivers
licenses to find the level of satisfaction versus the citizens of the Commonwealth’s experience with DMV. This
budget consolidates this function into the Secretary of Transportation. This budget concurs with Gov. Kaine’s
budget recommendations.
a project of

VIRGINIA
133
Department of Motor Vehicle Transfers
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䴀漀琀漀爀嘀攀栀椀挀氀攀猀吀爀愀渀猀昀攀爀倀愀礀洀攀渀琀猀

䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀✀猀䈀甀搀最攀琀䈀漀漀欀䘀夀ⴀ㈀　㄀　
␀㠀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㜀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㘀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀　
㈀　　㤀䄀瀀瀀爀漀瀀爀椀愀琀椀漀渀㈀　㄀　䄀瀀瀀爀漀瀀爀椀愀琀椀漀渀
This department is a perfect example of how bureaucrats disguise cost increases to the general public and
increases in cabinet expenditures by creating new agencies. This agency has no FTEs which makes this
nothing but a shell. Transparency for the citizens demands an end to these types of manipulations. This budget
consolidates this function into the Secretary of Transportation. This budget concurs with Gov. Kaine’s budget
recommendations.
Department of Rail and Public Transportation
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀刀愀椀氀 ☀ 倀甀戀氀椀挀吀爀愀渀猀瀀漀爀琀愀琀椀漀渀

␀㘀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㐀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㌀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
椀
瀀爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
The graph shows the substantial increase in expenditures in this department. Revenues went up by 326 percent
134
since 2002 and FTEs increased by 87 percent in the same time period.� AFP believes that when expenditures go
up by such a substantial amount that results should mirror them. This budget asks that the department show they
have: increased ridership of transit systems, access to dependent citizens and improved on time services or face
reductions in funding with fees reduced accordingly. This budget consolidates this function into the Secretary of
Transportation. This budget concurs with Gov. Kaine’s budget recommendations.
Virginia Department of Transportation
䐀攀瀀琀漀昀吀爀愀渀猀瀀漀爀琀愀琀椀漀渀

␀㐀Ⰰ 㔀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㐀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㌀Ⰰ 㔀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㌀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ 㔀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ 㔀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
椀
爀
瀀爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget consolidates this function into the Secretary of Transportation. While this budget concurs with
Gov. Kaine’s budget recommendations AFP has some additional ideas for the Governor-elect to consider upon
taking office.
Using cost-benefit analysis

Virginia has evolving transportation needs. The challenge is to better allocate funding for future projects. One
method used by the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), is cost-benefit analysis. Benefit-cost analysis
is a well-accepted analytical tool that will allow lawmakers to improve their decision-making related to the
prioritization of road projects – among competing road projects and other competing budget priorities.
Given the large dollar amounts involved with transportation infrastructure each year, it makes sense for lawmakers
to formalize and institutionalize a competent benefit-cost analytical capability. The primary goal is to improve the
amount of credible and consistent information available to lawmakers and taxpayers. The analysis of a benefit-cost
group does not necessarily need to be binding on lawmakers’ decisions, but the analysis should be made part of
the public record. Not only does this serve to provide the public with an explanation of the decision process for
infrastructure expenditures but it helps build a “track record” which can be used to score future projects.
Public-Private Partnerships
In 1995, the Virginia legislature passed the Public and Private Transportation Act (PPTA), which “allows private
entities to enter into agreements to construct, improve, maintain and operate transportation facilities.”� The Act
a project of

VIRGINIA
135
was amended in 2005 to encourage investment in the Commonwealth by private entities by creating a more stable
investment climate and increasing transparency and public involvement in the procurement process. This budget
strongly advocates the expansion of this concept to address the Commonwealth’s evolving transportation needs.
The private partner can expand its business opportunities in return for assuming the new or expanded responsibilities
and risks. Some of the primary reasons for public agencies to enter into public-private partnerships include:
• Accelerating the implementation of high priority projects by packaging and procuring services in new ways
• Turning to the private sector to provide specialized management capacity for large and complex programs
• Enabling the delivery of new technology developed by private entities
• Drawing on private sector expertise in accessing and organizing the widest range of private
sector financial resources
• Encouraging private entrepreneurial development, ownership, and operation of highways and/or related assets
• Allowing for the reduction in the size of the public agency and the substitution of private sector
resources and personnel
The Federal Highway Administration maintains that “PPPs provide benefits by allocating the responsibilities to
the party – either public or private – that is best positioned to control the activity that will produce the desired
result. With PPPs, this is accomplished by specifying the roles, risks and rewards contractually, so as to provide
incentives for maximum performance and the flexibility necessary to achieve the desired results.” The primary
benefits of using PPPs to deliver transportation projects include:
• Expedited completion compared to conventional project delivery methods

• Project cost savings
• Improved quality and system performance from the use of innovative materials and management techniques
• Substitution of private resources and personnel for constrained public resources
• Access to new sources of private capital
An area that is well suited to PPPs is in the area of toll roads. Toll roads in the large metro areas for example that
would allow commuters to move from one part of town to another quickly make fiscal sense, and if built and
maintained by PPPs, would lower or completely reduce the need for taxpayer dollars for initial construction and
operation. The Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex has put in toll roads that are both profitable and efficient time savers
for those that choose to use those roads. Although alternatives exist for commuters the relative lack of traffic and
ease of movement around those metro areas have made these toll roads a win-win for taxpayers and commuters.
Improving existing infrastructure usage

Not all improvements in transportation access and safety require the expenditures of large amounts of taxpayer
funds. AFP has examined some of the issues with existing infrastructure and has a simple suggestion to
approaching them.
Highways with high accident and fatality counts relative to the amount of traffic usage need to be areas of special
interest for VDOT. However, not all of these issues need to be solved with repairs or the building of new roads.
This budget encourages lawmakers to enact a requirement for the State Police to submit a plan to allocate
existing troopers within current operational expenditures to those roads. If and when increased trooper presence
does not reduce accident counts then VDOT should proceed with alternative proposals.
Effective use of the stimulus funds

Virginia is receiving hundreds of millions in stimulus funds for transportation projects which supporters say will help
136
create jobs, improve safety and encourage economic growth. AFP is not in total agreement with that assessment. This
creation of debt at the federal level will ultimately remove more funds from the private sector which is the real engine
of growth. In fact, economic research studies in general have not found that more highways lead to a larger economy
in states and regions. Over the last three decades, the presence of more highway capital in a state has not been found
to attract more private capital to the economy. Most studies have not found that highways, and new investment in
highways, increase the level of employment or labor earnings in the economy overall. Finally, most studies have found
that the presence of more highways in a state has done little over the last three decades to make state economies more
productive.�
Interestingly a study commissioned in Kansas by their own highway department studied the idea of highway
construction and economic growth and concluded “Transportation projects rarely create wealth. And while it may
be appealing to invest in projects located in regions struggling economically to spur growth, the result may just
be a transfer of economic benefits from one region to another.”� When even the bureaucrats can’t find economic
results from this spending it is time to rethink the concept.
Given those commonsense realities AFP suggests a different course of action for this stimulus money. It makes
good sense to maintain the highway system first while waiting on the recovery of the economy before entering
into massive spending on new highways. If after providing for maintenance there is money left over then VDOT
should then look at any new roads or major upgrades in infrastructure based on the cost/benefit concept. But
even in the case of maintenance and/or upgrades AFP encourages cost/benefit analysis and PPPs to reduce the
commitment of taxpayer funds.
Department of Motor Vehicle Dealer Board
䴀漀琀漀爀嘀攀栀椀挀氀攀䐀攀愀氀攀爀䈀漀愀爀搀

␀㈀Ⰰ 㔀　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ 㔀　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
椀
爀
瀀爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀
漀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This is another example of government growth through fees that is simply a back door tax on consumers. The
dealers must pass through this fee to their buyers in effect raising the cost of vehicles and legislators must weigh
the benefits versus the cost to society of this agency’s fees. This budget reduces fees by 10 percent immediately
and consolidates this function with the Secretary of Transportation.
a project of

VIRGINIA
137
Virginia Port Authority
嘀䄀倀漀爀琀䄀甀琀栀漀爀椀琀礀
␀㄀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㤀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㠀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㜀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㘀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㐀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㌀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㈀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀㄀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　
␀　

渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
渀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
琀椀漀
愀琀
琀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀愀
爀椀愀
椀
爀
爀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
漀瀀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
瀀爀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
䄀瀀
㈀
㌀
㐀
㔀
㘀
㜀
㠀
㤀
　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　㄀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
㈀
This budget removes the General Funds and otherwise concurs with Gov. Kaine’s budget recommendations while
consolidating this function into the Secretary of Transportation.
138
Americans for Prosperity is a section 501(c)(4) organization under the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions or gifts
to AFP are not tax deductible. AFP can advocate for and against specific legislation at the state and federal levels.
Americans for Prosperity Foundation is a section 501(c)(3) organization under the Internal Revenue Code.
Contributions to AFP Foundation are tax deductible. AFP Foundation’s focus is to educate the general public about
public policy issues, not to support or oppose specific legislation.
a project of

VIRGINIA
139
VIRGINIA
www.afpva.org

Afp Va Budget

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Afp Va Budget

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY

A Letter from the

Agriculture and Forestry.............................................51

Commerce & Trade.................................................. 55

Department of Health and Human Resources.......... 89

Public Safety Department......................................... 113

Department of Transportation.................................. 131

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY

刀 攀瘀攀渀甀攀猀 瘀猀 ⸀ 䔀 砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀

␀㐀 Ⰰ Ⰰ Ⰰ

␀㌀㔀Ⰰ Ⰰ Ⰰ

␀㌀ Ⰰ Ⰰ Ⰰ

␀㈀㔀Ⰰ Ⰰ Ⰰ

␀㄀ Ⰰ Ⰰ Ⰰ

␀㔀Ⰰ Ⰰ Ⰰ

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY

How to Move Virginia Back to the

␀㘀Ⰰ ⸀ 匀 琀愀琀攀 猀 愀氀攀猀 ☀ 甀猀 攀猀

圀椀氀氀猀 Ⰰ 猀 甀椀琀猀 Ⰰ 搀攀攀搀猀 ☀ 挀漀渀琀爀愀挀琀

What Would Have Happened Had Virginia

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY

匀 琀愀琀攀 刀 攀瘀 攀渀甀攀猀 挀 漀洀瀀愀爀攀搀 琀漀㨀 匀 琀愀琀攀 䔀 砀 瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀

␀㈀ Ⰰ Ⰰ Ⰰ 䄀挀琀甀愀氀 匀 琀愀琀攀 䔀 砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀

␀㄀㔀Ⰰ Ⰰ Ⰰ 匀 琀愀琀攀 䔀 砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀 眀椀琀栀

Principles that Provide a Roadmap to Fiscal Stability

A Commonsense Model Budget for Virginia

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY

Reform Entitlement Programs

Require More User Responsibility

Redirect Spending to Higher-Priority Uses

Reorganize State Government

Revive Free Enterprise

Restore Civil Society

Remove Advocacy, Waste, and Race-Based Programs

Reshape the State-Local Government Relationship

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY

Some Commonsense Steps for a Budget Crisis

Move State Jobs to Rural Areas

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY

Viewing State Expenditures in Their Totality

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY

Stop Competing with Private Business

Know What Everything Costs Before You Commit

Applying Commonsense in the Short Term

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY

␀㔀 Ⰰ Ⰰ

␀㐀 Ⰰ Ⰰ

␀㌀ Ⰰ Ⰰ

␀㄀ Ⰰ Ⰰ

AFP’s Commonsense Model Budget

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY

Office of the Lieutenant Governor

伀昀昀椀挀 攀 漀昀 琀栀攀 䰀 椀攀甀琀攀渀愀 渀琀 䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀

1. Calculations based on Governor’s Budget Books FY-2002-FY-2009

伀昀昀椀挀 攀 漀昀 琀栀攀 䄀琀琀漀爀渀攀礀 䜀攀渀攀爀愀 氀 ☀ 䐀攀瀀琀 漀昀 䰀 愀 眀

Division of Debt Collection

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY

Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth

伀昀昀椀挀攀 漀昀 琀栀攀 匀 攀 挀爀攀 琀愀 爀礀 漀昀 琀栀攀 䌀 漀洀洀漀渀眀 攀 愀 氀琀栀

␀㈀Ⰰ Ⰰ

␀㄀Ⰰ 㔀 Ⰰ

␀㄀Ⰰ Ⰰ

Office of Substance Abuse Prevention

刀攀瘀攀渀甀攀猀瘀猀 ⸀ 䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀

␀㐀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㌀㔀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㌀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㈀㔀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㄀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㔀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㘀Ⰰ　　　⸀　匀琀愀琀攀猀愀氀攀猀 ☀ 甀猀攀猀

圀椀氀氀猀 Ⰰ 猀甀椀琀猀 Ⰰ 搀攀攀搀猀 ☀ 挀漀渀琀爀愀挀琀

匀琀愀琀攀刀攀瘀攀渀甀攀猀挀漀洀瀀愀爀攀搀琀漀㨀匀琀愀琀攀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀

␀㈀　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　䄀挀琀甀愀氀匀琀愀琀攀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀

␀㄀㔀Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　Ⰰ　　　匀琀愀琀攀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀眀椀琀栀

␀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㐀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㌀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㄀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

伀昀昀椀挀攀漀昀琀栀攀䰀椀攀甀琀攀渀愀渀琀䜀漀瘀攀爀渀漀爀

伀昀昀椀挀攀漀昀琀栀攀䄀琀琀漀爀渀攀礀䜀攀渀攀爀愀氀 ☀ 䐀攀瀀琀漀昀䰀愀眀

伀昀昀椀挀攀漀昀琀栀攀匀攀挀爀攀琀愀爀礀漀昀琀栀攀䌀漀洀洀漀渀眀攀愀氀琀栀

␀㈀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㄀Ⰰ 㔀　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㄀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

伀昀昀椀挀攀漀昀匀甀戀猀琀愀渀挀攀䄀戀甀猀攀倀爀攀瘀攀渀琀椀漀渀

伀昀昀椀挀攀漀昀䌀漀洀洀漀渀眀攀愀氀琀栀倀爀攀瀀愀爀攀搀渀攀猀猀

䤀渀琀攀爀猀琀愀琀攀伀爀最愀渀椀稀愀琀椀漀渀䌀漀渀琀爀椀戀甀琀椀漀渀猀

␀㠀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㜀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㘀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㐀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　䄀挀琀甀愀氀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀

␀㈀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㄀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

䜀攀渀攀爀愀氀䄀猀猀攀洀戀氀礀

䄀甀搀椀琀漀爀漀昀倀甀戀氀椀挀䄀挀挀漀甀渀琀猀

䐀椀瘀椀猀椀漀渀漀昀䌀愀瀀椀琀漀氀倀漀氀椀挀攀

䐀椀瘀椀猀椀漀渀漀昀䰀攀最椀猀氀愀琀椀瘀攀匀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀

䨀漀椀渀琀䰀攀最椀猀氀愀琀椀瘀攀 ☀ 䄀甀搀椀琀刀攀瘀椀攀眀

䐀椀瘀椀猀椀漀渀漀昀䰀攀最椀猀氀愀琀椀瘀攀䄀甀琀漀洀愀琀攀搀匀礀猀琀攀洀猀

␀㔀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㐀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㐀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㌀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㌀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㈀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　䄀挀琀甀愀氀䔀砀瀀攀渀搀椀琀甀爀攀猀

␀㄀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㄀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

䴀愀最椀猀琀爀愀琀攀匀礀猀琀攀洀

䈀漀愀爀搀漀昀䈀愀爀䔀砀愀洀椀渀攀爀猀

䨀甀搀椀挀椀愀氀䤀渀焀甀椀爀礀 ☀ 刀攀瘀椀攀眀

嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀䌀爀椀洀椀渀愀氀匀攀渀琀攀渀挀椀渀最䌀漀洀洀椀猀猀椀漀渀

␀㐀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㌀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㌀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㈀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㈀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㔀　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

匀琀愀琀攀䰀漀琀琀攀爀礀䐀攀瀀愀爀琀洀攀渀琀

嘀椀爀椀最椀渀椀愀圀漀爀欀攀爀猀 ✀ 䌀漀洀瀀攀渀猀愀琀椀漀渀䌀漀洀洀椀猀猀椀漀渀

嘀椀爀最椀渀椀愀伀昀昀椀挀攀昀漀爀倀爀漀琀攀挀琀椀漀渀 ☀ 䄀搀瘀漀挀愀挀礀

␀㄀Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㤀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㠀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㜀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　

␀㘀　　Ⰰ 　　　Ⰰ 　　　