by Michael Daniels and Gary Shapiro

Having just put down your July issue, we are compelled to write this letter to make you aware that your "Car Tax Blues" cover story that takes aim at Governor Jim Gilmore for alienating the business community is fundamentally out of tune with reality. Jim Gilmore has distinguished himself as a listening Governor, who has successfully blended a business-first agenda with a dedication to remain true to the promises he made to every citizen on the electoral stump.

We were appalled by the subjective screen applied in the editorializing that constitutes the "meat" of this article. Further, I, Mike Daniels, was concerned by the fact that my quote was used, out of context, to add credence to the opinions packaged as "a story."

We feel that your readers should be presented with the facts, and this is our principal motivation for writing. Far from alienating the technology and business community, Governor Gilmore has taken huge steps in positioning the Commonwealth as a next-generation, global business hub. Immediately upon taking office in Richmond, Governor Gilmore appointed the nation’s first cabinet-level Secretary for Technology. In this capacity, the Honorable Donald W. Upson has played an invaluable role as liaison to the state’s burgeoning business and technology segments alike.

Virginia’s business-first technology policy has altered the complexion of America’s approach to the Internet. Perhaps the clearest indication of the gravity created by Governor Gilmore in this space is provided by the fact that some 17 states have embraced the policy framework engineered in Virginia under Jim Gilmore. Working simultaneously at local, national, and global levels, Gilmore chaired and provided leadership for the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce Internet tax review panel. The center of global media attention, the Commission returned a recommendation against Internet taxation. This business-first and populist verdict is clearly consistent with Governor Gilmore’s stance against big government and stifling taxation policies.

Considering Jim Gilmore’s management record as Governor, it is significant that Virginia has maintained a triple A-plus bond rating throughout his administration – a position that ranks Virginia among America’s elite.

Further, we would take issue with the article’s slant on Jim Gilmore’s record on transportation and education. The piece criticizes the Governor for sacrificing infrastructure expenditure to fund his car tax promise. These are absolute misnomers. Under Governor Gilmore, the Commonwealth has very significantly increased its funding levels for both transportation and education — by 47 and 53 percent respectively.

As concerned members of the Commonwealth’s business and technology community, we would underline our wholehearted and consistent support for Governor Gilmore’s policies.

The thesis for your article attacks Governor Gilmore for remaining true to his electoral promises. One has to wonder if public officials are attacked for principal, honesty and integrity?

Mr. Daniels is the former chairman of Network Solutions; Mr. Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association.

by Glenn R. Schleede

The article by Donald P. Baker in your July issue makes clear that you are competing with The Washington Post to see who can be most outrageous in attacking Gov. Gilmore and defending the Virginia "business community." I should have recognized that the picture of the governor that you selected for pages 3 and 8 was a clue to the quality of Baker’s article and, therefore, avoided reading it.

Count me on the governor’s side when it comes to keeping his promise on the car tax and standing up to both the so-called Virginia "business community" and Republicans in the state senate that love taxes and spending.

Apparently the "business leaders" that you and Mr. Baker like best are:

• Real estate developers, who make millions while leaving taxpayers to pay the tab for the infrastructure required to support their activities

• Federal government contractors, who are accustomed to living off taxpayer money and who are fully reimbursed for any taxes they pay

• College presidents, who run inefficient institutions but never saw a tax dollar that they didn’t want to spend

• Utility executives, who can pass all their costs (including their taxes) through to customers on their monthly bills

• Lobbyists who patrol the hallways in Richmond

• Democrat candidates for governor and

• Others who are also eager to compromise as long as taxpayers are around to pay the bill.

The writer is president of Energy Market and Policy Analysis Inc. in Reston.

by Robert W. Woltz Jr.

It was with more than a little inconvenience that I pulled out of an out-of-town meeting to return your reporter’s call several weeks ago when the story on the car tax was being prepared. I did so because of respect for Jim Bacon and your publication, and in the hope of providing a moderate perspective on a subject where many seem to believe the sky is falling. I attempted to answer the questions and did not refuse to speak for attribution, as apparently did many of my sisters and brothers in the business community. Maybe now I understand why they did so.

I was told many people thought this impasse would do long-term harm to Virginia’s competitiveness and asked if I agreed. My answer was that it would not, and that Virginia’s business climate is and would remain better than those of its neighboring states. Paraphrasing, I then went on to say that while no good will come from the impasse, there will be no long-term negative effects on Virginia’s ability to attract businesses and jobs. It is unfortunate that the article used a quote from me to support a position by corporate leaders who would not speak for attribution, and especially so since it is a position I do not support.

I was then told that many felt it hurt the state’s reputation that we could not even pass a budget. I indicated that although we could expect some fun to be poked at us (which we probably deserve), Virginia has a long and proven track record for its fiscal management and this incident will not change its reputation for that. Unfortunately, in your article I somehow managed again to be the spokesperson for a position I don’t hold regarding harm to Virginia’s reputation.

In summary, and for attribution, let me see if I can summarize what I do believe about the recent impasse. It was unfortunate and it was not unreasonable to have expected a compromise could have been reached. The fact that one was not will undoubtedly be used by political and economic development detractors in their efforts to gain advantage over our Commonwealth. However, the sky is not falling and this too will soon pass. Virginia is a great place to live, work and do business. We have very responsible government and business leaders who will make sure it stays that way.

The writer is president of Virginia Verizon.

by Donald J. Finley

Your July issue included an excellent article about Virginia’s colleges and universities, their direct relationship to Virginia’s economic vitality and the difficulties they face because of the lack of state investment.

Shortly after your July issue was published, the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia predicted an increase of 38,300 in the number of students expected to seek enrollment in Virginia’s colleges and universities over the next 10 years. For the reasons given in your article, the members of the Virginia Business Higher Education Council are very concerned that thousands of Virginians stand to lose the opportunity for a college education. There are neither the buildings to teach more students nor the operating funds to hire faculty and pay other operating expenses. A recent Virginia General Assembly study concluded that the operating budgets of our public community colleges, senior colleges and universities are 10 percent below an even adequate level for the students they currently enroll.

Your August issue included a response to your higher education article from Virginia Secretary of Finance John Forbes. His response correctly points out that North Carolina’s commitment of $3.1 billion to construct and renovate higher education buildings is a commitment for the next seven years and that the numbers cited in your magazine are for "just one year of state funding by Virginia." That is precisely the point. North Carolina has an approved and funded plan in place to provide the new and improved space its colleges and universities need for increasing numbers of students. Virginia doesn’t have a plan and, as a result, our citizens will lose the college opportunities they deserve.

Secretary Forbes also stated that the North Carolina figures "include numerous infrastructure repair projects that Virginia routinely pays for through its maintenance reserve program." This is not correct. Virginia’s maintenance reserve program is restricted to major repair projects costing less than $500,000. Only seven of the 293 projects included in North Carolina’s college building program for its senior colleges and universities cost less than $500,000. In addition, the maintenance reserve program that Mr. Forbes mentioned is severely under funded. The chief business finance officers of Virginia’s public colleges and universities have documented a $600 million backlog of major building repairs. Virginia does not even have a plan to make these overdue repairs to existing buildings, much less provide new buildings.