Enacted appropriations
$102.5BAll FY2027 operating appropriations in Chapter 1 across general, special, federal, and other fund sources. The headline excludes the separately reported $2,740,126,264 FY2027 capital budget.
Virginia budget, debt, and interest
Virginia state-government finances, comparable debt and interest figures, and the enacted budget.
The national companion measures federal finances. Here the unit is Virginia state government. Federal debt is not allocated to Virginia; a state budget is not the federal budget.
State debt outstanding$33.73BFY2024 · #8 of 50 · highest first
Interest expenditure$1.31BFY2024 · #10 of 50 · highest first
Total state tax collections$37.58BFY2024 · #11 of 50 · highest first
Virginia over time
Explore Virginia readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Virginia officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Virginia effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Virginia change.
Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
No comparable time series is retained for this topic. The chart shows events and reviewed actions; current state comparisons appear below.
Virginia government actions Virginia · source units
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
16 of 16 reviewed Virginia actions match · 15 date markers shown. 50 major events shown separately.
How major events are selected
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
State debt and interest
Compare state-government balances and interest expenditure from the same Census fiscal-year survey.
Virginia · FY2024$33.73B
Virginia rank#8among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$1.1TSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
State debt outstanding
Long-term debt outstanding plus short-term debt outstanding at fiscal year end.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. Excludes local-government debt. Dollar ranks describe scale, not credit quality.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Virginia stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Virginia has a dark outline.
Lower value · $728.59MHigher value · $166.39BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Virginia with every state · 50 ranked
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $166.39B | — |
| #2 | New York | $120.59B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $70.05B | — |
| #4 | Massachusetts | $65.87B | — |
| #5 | New Jersey | $57.23B | — |
| #6 | Pennsylvania | $48.67B | — |
| #7 | Illinois | $43.38B | — |
| #8 | Virginia · your comparison | $33.73B | — |
| #9 | Connecticut | $33.27B | — |
| #10 | Ohio | $32.29B | — |
| #11 | Washington | $30.62B | — |
| #12 | Maryland | $25.9B | — |
| #13 | Michigan | $25.02B | — |
| #14 | Colorado | $23.57B | — |
| #15 | Wisconsin | $22.79B | — |
| #16 | Florida | $20.14B | — |
| #17 | Minnesota | $17.03B | — |
| #18 | Oregon | $16.91B | — |
| #19 | Louisiana | $16.09B | — |
| #20 | South Carolina | $15.36B | — |
| #21 | West Virginia | $15.08B | — |
| #22 | Georgia | $14.05B | — |
| #23 | North Carolina | $13.13B | — |
| #24 | Hawaii | $11.72B | — |
| #25 | Rhode Island | $11.41B | — |
| #26 | Alabama | $10.99B | — |
| #27 | Oklahoma | $10.15B | — |
| #28 | Kentucky | $10.08B | — |
| #29 | Tennessee | $9.03B | — |
| #30 | Indiana | $8.52B | — |
| #31 | Iowa | $8.06B | — |
| #32 | Arkansas | $8.05B | — |
| #33 | Mississippi | $7.72B | — |
| #34 | New Hampshire | $7.58B | — |
| #35 | Kansas | $7.16B | — |
| #36 | New Mexico | $7.12B | — |
| #37 | Missouri | $6.99B | — |
| #38 | Arizona | $6.88B | — |
| #39 | Alaska | $5.72B | — |
| #40 | Utah | $5.55B | — |
| #41 | Maine | $5.3B | — |
| #42 | North Dakota | $4.89B | — |
| #43 | South Dakota | $4.67B | — |
| #44 | Delaware | $3.69B | — |
| #45 | Nebraska | $3.39B | — |
| #46 | Nevada | $2.89B | — |
| #47 | Montana | $2.76B | — |
| #48 | Vermont | $2.67B | — |
| #49 | Wyoming | $1.26B | — |
| #50 | Idaho | $728.59M | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Where state revenue comes from
All measures use Census state-government records for FY2024. Categories describe collections; they do not rank statutory tax rates.
Virginia · FY2024$7.4B
Virginia rank#20among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$465.4BSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
General sales-tax collections
Census category T09.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Virginia stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Virginia has a dark outline.
Lower value · $0Higher value · $54.35BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Virginia with every state · 50 ranked
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Texas | $54.35B | — |
| #2 | California | $53.33B | — |
| #3 | Florida | $40.09B | — |
| #4 | Washington | $22.81B | — |
| #5 | New York | $19.99B | — |
| #6 | Ohio | $16.33B | — |
| #7 | Illinois | $16.05B | — |
| #8 | Pennsylvania | $15.6B | — |
| #9 | New Jersey | $14.31B | — |
| #10 | Tennessee | $14.08B | — |
| #11 | Arizona | $13.16B | — |
| #12 | Michigan | $12.7B | — |
| #13 | North Carolina | $12.16B | — |
| #14 | Indiana | $10.96B | — |
| #15 | Massachusetts | $9.4B | — |
| #16 | Georgia | $9.01B | — |
| #17 | Minnesota | $8.49B | — |
| #18 | Nevada | $8.4B | — |
| #19 | Wisconsin | $7.59B | — |
| #20 | Virginia · your comparison | $7.4B | — |
| #21 | Maryland | $6.85B | — |
| #22 | South Carolina | $6.44B | — |
| #23 | Connecticut | $6.23B | — |
| #24 | Kentucky | $5.8B | — |
| #25 | Missouri | $5.26B | — |
| #26 | Mississippi | $5.07B | — |
| #27 | Arkansas | $5.07B | — |
| #28 | Louisiana | $4.87B | — |
| #29 | Hawaii | $4.79B | — |
| #30 | Colorado | $4.67B | — |
| #31 | Iowa | $4.64B | — |
| #32 | Utah | $4.63B | — |
| #33 | Alabama | $4.59B | — |
| #34 | Kansas | $4.33B | — |
| #35 | New Mexico | $4.33B | — |
| #36 | Oklahoma | $3.81B | — |
| #37 | Idaho | $3.09B | — |
| #38 | Nebraska | $2.97B | — |
| #39 | Maine | $2.35B | — |
| #40 | West Virginia | $1.82B | — |
| #41 | South Dakota | $1.68B | — |
| #42 | Rhode Island | $1.63B | — |
| #43 | Oregon | $1.34B | — |
| #44 | North Dakota | $1.32B | — |
| #45 | Wyoming | $1.01B | — |
| #46 | Vermont | $597.33M | — |
| #47 | Alaska | $0 | — |
| #47 | Delaware | $0 | — |
| #47 | Montana | $0 | — |
| #47 | New Hampshire | $0 | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Where state operating spending goes
Census categories allow consistent comparisons. These selected categories are not a breakdown of the current Virginia appropriations act.
Virginia · FY2024$23.68B
Virginia rank#13among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$1.02TSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Public welfare current operations
Current operations for public welfare institutions and other public welfare, excluding capital and transfers.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Virginia stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Virginia has a dark outline.
Lower value · $1.09BHigher value · $156.71BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Virginia with every state · 50 ranked
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $156.71B | — |
| #2 | New York | $97.35B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $57.32B | — |
| #4 | Illinois | $41.13B | — |
| #5 | Florida | $40.11B | — |
| #6 | Ohio | $39.77B | — |
| #7 | Pennsylvania | $39.34B | — |
| #8 | Massachusetts | $34.12B | — |
| #9 | North Carolina | $30.64B | — |
| #10 | New Jersey | $28.06B | — |
| #11 | Arizona | $26.02B | — |
| #12 | Michigan | $24.37B | — |
| #13 | Virginia · your comparison | $23.68B | — |
| #14 | Minnesota | $23.37B | — |
| #15 | Indiana | $22.93B | — |
| #16 | Maryland | $21.61B | — |
| #17 | Kentucky | $20.54B | — |
| #18 | Oregon | $20.47B | — |
| #19 | Washington | $19.6B | — |
| #20 | Georgia | $18.99B | — |
| #21 | Louisiana | $18.69B | — |
| #22 | Tennessee | $16.42B | — |
| #23 | Wisconsin | $16.26B | — |
| #24 | Missouri | $15.65B | — |
| #25 | Oklahoma | $14.57B | — |
| #26 | Colorado | $13.6B | — |
| #27 | South Carolina | $12.84B | — |
| #28 | New Mexico | $10.72B | — |
| #29 | Iowa | $10.26B | — |
| #30 | Alabama | $9.73B | — |
| #31 | Arkansas | $8.67B | — |
| #32 | Mississippi | $8.08B | — |
| #33 | Utah | $6.91B | — |
| #34 | Kansas | $6.84B | — |
| #35 | Nevada | $6.62B | — |
| #36 | West Virginia | $6.24B | — |
| #37 | Maine | $5.7B | — |
| #38 | Nebraska | $4.97B | — |
| #39 | Connecticut | $4.88B | — |
| #40 | Rhode Island | $4.54B | — |
| #41 | Hawaii | $4.14B | — |
| #42 | Delaware | $3.97B | — |
| #43 | Idaho | $3.73B | — |
| #44 | Alaska | $3.27B | — |
| #45 | Montana | $2.89B | — |
| #46 | New Hampshire | $2.72B | — |
| #47 | Vermont | $2.69B | — |
| #48 | North Dakota | $2.09B | — |
| #49 | South Dakota | $1.95B | — |
| #50 | Wyoming | $1.09B | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
State operating costs and the enacted budget
The enacted plan, spending categories and audited activity use different periods and accounting scopes; they are kept separate.
Virginia · FY2024$53.45B
Virginia rank#12among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$2.04TSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Current operation expenditure
Sum of Census current-operation expenditure categories, excluding capital outlay, interest, and assistance/subsidy expenditure.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. This FY2024 comparison differs in scope and period from Virginia’s FY2027 appropriations and Fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 audit shown below.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Virginia stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Virginia has a dark outline.
Lower value · $4.01BHigher value · $287.03BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Virginia with every state · 50 ranked
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $287.03B | — |
| #2 | New York | $161.37B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $136.18B | — |
| #4 | Florida | $86.61B | — |
| #5 | Pennsylvania | $77.15B | — |
| #6 | Illinois | $75.67B | — |
| #7 | Ohio | $66.77B | — |
| #8 | New Jersey | $64.53B | — |
| #9 | Massachusetts | $61.38B | — |
| #10 | North Carolina | $59.01B | — |
| #11 | Michigan | $57.27B | — |
| #12 | Virginia · your comparison | $53.45B | — |
| #13 | Washington | $49.82B | — |
| #14 | Georgia | $45.19B | — |
| #15 | Maryland | $45.06B | — |
| #16 | Oregon | $41.41B | — |
| #17 | Arizona | $38.71B | — |
| #18 | Minnesota | $38.1B | — |
| #19 | Indiana | $37.4B | — |
| #20 | Kentucky | $36.94B | — |
| #21 | Wisconsin | $34.5B | — |
| #22 | Missouri | $34.43B | — |
| #23 | South Carolina | $32.85B | — |
| #24 | Colorado | $32.73B | — |
| #25 | Louisiana | $31.67B | — |
| #26 | Tennessee | $31.12B | — |
| #27 | Alabama | $26.99B | — |
| #28 | Oklahoma | $24.28B | — |
| #29 | Utah | $22.7B | — |
| #30 | New Mexico | $21.94B | — |
| #31 | Connecticut | $21.22B | — |
| #32 | Iowa | $19.89B | — |
| #33 | Kansas | $18.39B | — |
| #34 | Hawaii | $16.62B | — |
| #35 | Mississippi | $16.46B | — |
| #36 | Arkansas | $16.28B | — |
| #37 | West Virginia | $13.19B | — |
| #38 | Nevada | $12.43B | — |
| #39 | Nebraska | $10.41B | — |
| #40 | Maine | $10.12B | — |
| #41 | Delaware | $9.24B | — |
| #42 | Rhode Island | $8.93B | — |
| #43 | Alaska | $8.4B | — |
| #44 | Idaho | $8.21B | — |
| #45 | New Hampshire | $7.12B | — |
| #46 | Montana | $6.44B | — |
| #47 | Vermont | $6.28B | — |
| #48 | North Dakota | $5.63B | — |
| #49 | South Dakota | $4.55B | — |
| #50 | Wyoming | $4.01B | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Where State tax revenue comes from
FY2025 audited actualShares of the $37.4 billion in taxes reported as general revenue for Virginia's primary government. The denominator excludes grants, charges for services, investment earnings, miscellaneous revenue, and locally administered property taxes.
- Individual and fiduciary income tax
- $20.3B · 54.2%
- Sales and use tax
- $7.6B · 20.2%
- Other State taxes
- $4.4B · 11.9%
- Motor-fuel tax
- $2.1B · 5.5%
- Corporation income tax
- $1.8B · 4.7%
- Motor-vehicle sales and use tax
- $1.3B · 3.4%
FY2027 enacted operating spending plan
FY2027 enacted operating budgetEvery secretarial-area operating total in Virginia's official enacted-budget report is assigned exactly once to one of these service areas. The groups reconcile to the enacted operating total and exclude the separate capital budget.
- Health and human resources
- $37.3B · 36.4%
- Education
- $32.4B · 31.7%
- Transportation
- $12.5B · 12.2%
- Administration, finance, and central operations
- $9.1B · 8.8%
- Public safety, courts, veterans, and defense
- $4.4B · 4.2%
- Independent agencies
- $3.6B · 3.5%
- Natural resources, commerce, labor, and agriculture
- $3.3B · 3.2%
Audited government-wide results
Fiscal year ended June 30, 2025- Revenue
- $77.1B
- Expenses
- $77.6B
Audited government-wide activity for Virginia's primary government. Revenue is the ACFR's total program and general revenue before internal transfers; these accrual-accounting results are not the FY2027 appropriation.
What candidates are saying
Explore statements about budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt from FactVote’s Virginia candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
2026 Virginia U.S. House — District 10 — General Election
Ahsen Mujeeb Malik
2 statementsBudgets, spending & debt
For power generation, solar, wind, batteries, and nuclear are all proven technologies. However, what’s lagging for renewables is deployment pace, particularly long-duration battery storage: PJM, our own regional grid operator, has barely begun to build storage capacity compared to grids like Texas a…
Read exact statement & source
For power generation, solar, wind, batteries, and nuclear are all proven technologies. However, what’s lagging for renewables is deployment pace, particularly long-duration battery storage: PJM, our own regional grid operator, has barely begun to build storage capacity compared to grids like Texas and California, and storage is one of the most important levers, alongside transmission buildout, for turning intermittent generation into dependable capacity. What’s lagging for nuclear in the U.S. specifically is a construction and permitting pipeline that can deliver new plants on time and on budget, something Georgia’s Vogtle project illustrated at real cost, running roughly double its original budget over about 15 years. Industries such as steel, cement, chemicals, aviation, and shipping present a different and harder challenge. Together they account for a fifth to a third of global emissions, depending on how broadly hard-to-abate sectors are defined. Their emissions come not just from the fuel used to power them, but from the chemical processes and material inputs themselves. While pilot-scale projects are advancing, genuinely low-carbon alternatives at scale remain a work in progress. A serious energy plan must be honest about that difference: build out mature clean power as fast as we can and be upfront that the hardest parts of industrial decarbonization don’t yet have a proven, at-scale answer.Ahsen Mujeeb Malik — candidate-owned primary source 5 ↗
View 1 more statement from Ahsen Mujeeb Malik
Budgets, spending & debt
Some voters might be wondering where I stand on the various “Green New Deal” bills that have been proposed. For bills with evidence-based, quantifiable emissions savings, like the Green New Deal for Public Housing, I support the goal but not necessarily the means. Rather than adding the cost of retr…
Read exact statement & source
Some voters might be wondering where I stand on the various “Green New Deal” bills that have been proposed. For bills with evidence-based, quantifiable emissions savings, like the Green New Deal for Public Housing, I support the goal but not necessarily the means. Rather than adding the cost of retrofitting public housing to the national debt, I’d support bringing in private capital to help fund it, on the condition that public housing authorities retain a majority ownership stake, consistent with existing federal safeguards for similar programs, along with binding tenant protections against rent increases and displacement, and full public disclosure of the terms of any deal. Other bills, like the Green New Deal for Cities, don’t reasonably guarantee emissions savings, since they depend on giving block grants to localities and success depends entirely on downstream decisions. I don’t support this approach, as I believe it’s likely to be an inefficient way to guarantee real emissions reductions. Other bills, like the Green New Deal for Public Schools direct the majority of their funding toward things that have nothing to do with fighting climate change or reducing emissions. That’s not to say these other programs aren’t worth funding. If they are, they need to be debated as their own separate bill, on their own merits.Ahsen Mujeeb Malik — candidate-owned primary source 5 ↗
Dave T. Beckwith
1 statementBudgets, spending & debt
Fiscal Responsibility
Read exact statement & source
Fiscal ResponsibilityDave T. Beckwith — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗
2026 Virginia U.S. House — District 11 — General Election
Arthur G. Purves
3 statementsBudgets, spending & debt
We can slash the deficit without cutting a program.
Read exact statement & source
We can slash the deficit without cutting a program.Arthur G. Purves — candidate-owned primary source ↗
View 2 more statements from Arthur G. Purves
Budgets, spending & debt
Reduce the federal deficit without cutting programs by adopting policies intended to reduce demand for government services.
Read exact statement & source
Reduce the federal deficit without cutting programs by adopting policies intended to reduce demand for government services.Arthur G. Purves — candidate-owned primary source ↗
Budgets, spending & debt
The candidate characterizes high federal spending as a principal cause of inflation and the federal deficit as a fiscal crisis.
Read exact statement & source
The candidate characterizes high federal spending as a principal cause of inflation and the federal deficit as a fiscal crisis.Arthur G. Purves — candidate-owned primary source ↗
2026 Virginia U.S. House — District 2 — General Election
Jen A. Kiggans
4 statementsBudgets, spending & debt
As a 10-year Navy veteran, daughter of a veteran, wife of a veteran, and mother to future veterans, Jen knows how important it is for our nation to honor its promises to our veterans, which is why she successfully fought to fully fund the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and provide them with the…
Read exact statement & source
As a 10-year Navy veteran, daughter of a veteran, wife of a veteran, and mother to future veterans, Jen knows how important it is for our nation to honor its promises to our veterans, which is why she successfully fought to fully fund the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and provide them with their largest-ever budget during her first term in Congress. She also knows the unique challenges veterans face with employment, education, and healthcare. Jen’s passion for improving the lives of former servicemembers is no secret; during her first month in office, she was selected to Chair the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee’s Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee, where she works every day to ensure the VA is providing America’s heroes with a system they can rely on for the benefits and quality care they’ve earned.As a State Senator, Jen was the proud patron of a bill – which was signed into law – to create a “Military Spouse Liaison” position within the Virginia Department of Veterans Services. She has been a strong voice for finding innovative ways to encourage veterans to stay in Virginia after their time in the service has ended, including reducing taxes on military retirement pay, offering workforce opportunities that translate from military service, and easing the certification process for veterans and their spouses to allow them to enter the local workforce easier.In Washington, Jen is a staunch advocate for the health and well-being of America’s veterans. During her first term, Jen introduced legislation to modernize the VA, support service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, and improve post-service education and employment opportunities for members of our Armed Forces. Her first standalone bill to pass the House – the Caregiver Outreach and Program Enhancement (COPE) Act – would provide increased mental health resources to veterans’ caregivers and improve safety at VA medical facilities, ensuring that America’s veterans are properly cared for and feel safe when they access the benefits they earned.Jen A. Kiggans — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
View 3 more statements from Jen A. Kiggans
Budgets, spending & debt
In Congress, Jen has prioritized cutting inflation and lowering the cost of living to create a more secure economy for the American people. She successfully fought to reduce federal spending by helping to pass Washington’s first meaningful spending cuts in years. She’s also fought to pass legislatio…
Read exact statement & source
In Congress, Jen has prioritized cutting inflation and lowering the cost of living to create a more secure economy for the American people. She successfully fought to reduce federal spending by helping to pass Washington’s first meaningful spending cuts in years. She’s also fought to pass legislation to protect working families and small businesses from government overreach, reduce executive branch overspending, and bring much-needed oversight to federal agencies.Jen A. Kiggans — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Budgets, spending & debt
Jen focuses on pro-growth policies that empower small businesses to do what they do best: create jobs and grow our economy. She fights to help industries critical to Virginia’s economic success hire new workers, reduce Washington’s regulatory burden, and keep government out of businesses’ day-to-day…
Read exact statement & source
Jen focuses on pro-growth policies that empower small businesses to do what they do best: create jobs and grow our economy. She fights to help industries critical to Virginia’s economic success hire new workers, reduce Washington’s regulatory burden, and keep government out of businesses’ day-to-day operations.Jen also knows how important it is to keep taxes low for working families, which is why she fought to expand the Child Tax Credit. In Washington, she’s worked hard to pass legislation that reverses the impacts of wasteful government spending while fully funding and protecting important priorities like veterans’ benefits, the U.S. military, and Social Security & Medicare.Jen has strengthened job opportunities in the Hampton Roads area by requiring the Navy to evaluate workforce availability, apprenticeship pipelines, and training infrastructure when selecting future shipbuilding and repair sites. She is a staunch supporter of small businesses and works hard in Washington to make it easier for Americans to open their own businesses and achieve the American dream.Jen A. Kiggans — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Budgets, spending & debt
In Congress, Jen has prioritized cutting inflation and lowering the cost of living to create a more secure economy for the American people. She successfully fought to reduce federal spending by helping to pass Washington’s first meaningful spending cuts in years. She’s also fought to pass legislatio…
Read exact statement & source
In Congress, Jen has prioritized cutting inflation and lowering the cost of living to create a more secure economy for the American people. She successfully fought to reduce federal spending by helping to pass Washington’s first meaningful spending cuts in years. She’s also fought to pass legislation to protect working families and small businesses from government overreach, reduce executive branch overspending, and bring much-needed oversight to federal agencies.Congresswoman Kiggans was proud to support the Working Families Tax Cuts, which were signed into law, to deliver relief for Americans and put more money in their pocketbooks by making the 2017 tax cuts permanent and advancing affordability measures for families, such as eliminating most taxes on tips and overtime.Jen A. Kiggans — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Race groups · Page 1 of 3
How statements are selected
This section matches specific budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt terms in retained, attributed source text from published Virginia candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
What incumbents are proposing
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Virginia legislators and Virginia’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Virginia’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
16 matching sponsorships or proposals · 12 Virginia incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
Del. Betsy B. Carr
Virginia House of Delegates · District 78 · D–VA
1 proposalView proposals from Del. Betsy B. Carr
Unemployment Compensation, Commission on; unemployment insurance subcommittee established, report.
Feb 3, 2022 · Tabled in Rules (18-Y 0-N)
Del. Betsy B. Carr · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Commission on Unemployment Compensation; unemployment insurance subcommittee established. Creates within the Commission on Unemployment Compensation a subcommittee that shall be responsible for monitoring the Virginia Employment Commission's management of the unemployment insurance program. The subcommittee shall meet at least once each quarter and shall report annually, beginning on December 1, 2022, to the House Committee on Appropriations, the House Committee on Labor and Commerce, the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor, and the Senate Committee on Finance and Appropriations.
The latest official Virginia LIS record shows this action on February 3, 2022: Tabled in Rules (18-Y 0-N).
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses wages, earned-income relief, unemployment compensation, paid leave, or other household-income components. It does not establish an effect on Virginia's median household income.
Retained Virginia evidence context: Median household income. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Commission on Unemployment Compensation; unemployment insurance subcommittee established. Creates within the Commission on Unemployment Compensation a subcommittee that shall be responsible for monitoring the Virginia Employment Commission's management of the unemployment insurance program. The subcommittee shall meet at least once each quarter and shall report annually, beginning on December 1, 2022, to the House Committee on Appropriations, the House Committee on Labor and Commerce, the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor, and the Senate Committee on Finance and Appropriations. A BILL to amend and reenact § 30-222 of the Code of…Review official supporting evidence ↗
Del. Charniele L. Herring
Virginia House of Delegates · District 4 · D–VA
2 proposalsView proposals from Del. Charniele L. Herring
Criminal fiscal impact statement; bills resulting in a net increase of period of imprisonment.
Dec 4, 2020 · Left in Rules
Del. Charniele L. Herring · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Criminal fiscal impact statements. Provides that no bill resulting in an increase in net periods of imprisonment or commitment shall be (i) reported from a standing committee of the House of Delegates or the Senate or (ii) passed by the House of Delegates or the Senate unless a fiscal impact statement for the current version of the bill has been prepared and is printed on the face of the bill or reported or passed as an amendment to such bill. Current law requires such fiscal impact statements to be prepared and the amount of the estimated appropriation reflected in the fiscal impact statement to be printed on the face of each bill. The bill clarifies the ability of the Division of…
The latest official Virginia LIS record shows this action on December 4, 2020: Left in Rules.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses imprisonment, correctional custody, sentencing, parole, probation, release, or reentry. It does not establish an effect on Virginia's correctional average daily population.
Retained Virginia evidence context: Virginia corrections average daily population. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Criminal fiscal impact statements. Provides that no bill resulting in an increase in net periods of imprisonment or commitment shall be (i) reported from a standing committee of the House of Delegates or the Senate or (ii) passed by the House of Delegates or the Senate unless a fiscal impact statement for the current version of the bill has been prepared and is printed on the face of the bill or reported or passed as an amendment to such bill. Current law requires such fiscal impact statements to be prepared and the amount of the estimated appropriation reflected in the fiscal impact statement to be printed on the face of each bill. The bill…Review official supporting evidence ↗
Criminal fiscal impact statement; bills resulting in a net increase of period of imprisonment.
Feb 28, 2020 · Continued to 2021 in Rules (14-Y 0-N)
Del. Charniele L. Herring · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Criminal fiscal impact statements. Provides that no bill resulting in an increase in net periods of imprisonment or commitment shall be (i) reported from a standing committee of the House of Delegates or the Senate or (ii) passed by the House of Delegates or the Senate unless a fiscal impact statement for the current version of the bill has been prepared and is printed on the face of the bill or reported or passed as an amendment to such bill. Current law requires such fiscal impact statements to be prepared and the amount of the estimated appropriation reflected in the fiscal impact statement to be printed on the face of each bill. The bill clarifies the ability of the Division of…
The latest official Virginia LIS record shows this action on February 28, 2020: Continued to 2021 in Rules (14-Y 0-N).
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses imprisonment, correctional custody, sentencing, parole, probation, release, or reentry. It does not establish an effect on Virginia's correctional average daily population.
Retained Virginia evidence context: Virginia corrections average daily population. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Criminal fiscal impact statements. Provides that no bill resulting in an increase in net periods of imprisonment or commitment shall be (i) reported from a standing committee of the House of Delegates or the Senate or (ii) passed by the House of Delegates or the Senate unless a fiscal impact statement for the current version of the bill has been prepared and is printed on the face of the bill or reported or passed as an amendment to such bill. Current law requires such fiscal impact statements to be prepared and the amount of the estimated appropriation reflected in the fiscal impact statement to be printed on the face of each bill. The bill…Review official supporting evidence ↗
Del. Dan I. Helmer
Virginia House of Delegates · District 10 · D–VA
1 proposalView proposals from Del. Dan I. Helmer
Energy, Department of; building standards for certain local buildings.
Apr 8, 2024 · Enacted · Chapter 687
Del. Dan I. Helmer · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Department of Energy; building standards for certain local buildings. Requires the Department of Energy, upon request, to provide technical assistance to localities, subject to available budgetary resources, as localities implement mandates related to onsite renewable energy generation, energy storage, and resilience standards for construction or renovation of certain public buildings. The bill also makes several technical and clarifying changes to the existing statute, in part by defining or redefining existing terms found in the statute. This bill is identical to SB 245.
The official Virginia LIS record shows the measure became law on April 8, 2024 as Chapter 687.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses carbon dioxide from electric power, electricity generation, renewable or fossil generation resources, RGGI, storage, or grid supply. It does not establish an effect on Virginia's reported power-sector carbon-dioxide emissions.
Retained Virginia evidence context: Power-sector carbon dioxide emissions. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Department of Energy; building standards for certain local buildings. Requires the Department of Energy, upon request, to provide technical assistance to localities, subject to available budgetary resources, as localities implement mandates related to onsite renewable energy generation, energy storage, and resilience standards for construction or renovation of certain public buildings. The bill also makes several technical and clarifying changes to the existing statute, in part by defining or redefining existing terms found in the statute. This bill is identical to SB 245. An Act to amend and reenact § 15.2-1804.1 of the Code of Virginia…Review official supporting evidence ↗
Del. Destiny LeVere Bolling
Virginia House of Delegates · District 80 · D–VA
1 proposalView proposals from Del. Destiny LeVere Bolling
Higher educational institutions, public; tuition and mandatory fees charged to Virginia students.
Feb 18, 2026 · Left in Education
Del. Destiny LeVere Bolling · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Public institutions of higher education; tuition and mandatory fees charged to Virginia students. Provides that, notwithstanding any provision of the general appropriation act, law, regulation, or policy to the contrary, (i) for the purpose of state support for Virginia students at public institutions of higher education in the Commonwealth, all fees associated with essential student services, including fees for student health services, student immigration services, and student technology services, shall be considered part of the tuition and mandatory education and general fees charged to such students and (ii) no public institution of higher education shall annually increase the total of…
The latest official Virginia LIS record shows this action on February 18, 2026: Left in Education.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses immigration enforcement, immigrant residents, refugees, asylum, naturalization, or services tied to immigration status. It does not establish an effect on Virginia's foreign-born population share.
Retained Virginia evidence context: Residents who are foreign-born. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Public institutions of higher education; tuition and mandatory fees charged to Virginia students. Provides that, notwithstanding any provision of the general appropriation act, law, regulation, or policy to the contrary, (i) for the purpose of state support for Virginia students at public institutions of higher education in the Commonwealth, all fees associated with essential student services, including fees for student health services, student immigration services, and student technology services, shall be considered part of the tuition and mandatory education and general fees charged to such students and (ii) no public institution of…Review official supporting evidence ↗
Del. Israel D. O'Quinn
Virginia House of Delegates · District 44 · R–VA
1 proposalView proposals from Del. Israel D. O'Quinn
Disaster Assistance Fund; established.
Feb 4, 2025 · Left in Appropriations
Del. Israel D. O'Quinn · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Disaster Assistance Fund; established. Establishes the Disaster Assistance Fund for the purpose of addressing life, safety, and housing costs related to a disaster that are not covered by any form of federal assistance, private donations, or insurance. Expenditures and disbursements from the Fund require authorization by the General Assembly. In addition to all other appropriations to the Fund, the bill also directs proceeds generated from the Commonwealth's participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative auction that occurred in December 2023 and deposited into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Fund with the Department of Environmental Quality and all interest accrued to such…
The latest official Virginia LIS record shows this action on February 4, 2025: Left in Appropriations.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses carbon dioxide from electric power, electricity generation, renewable or fossil generation resources, RGGI, storage, or grid supply. It does not establish an effect on Virginia's reported power-sector carbon-dioxide emissions.
Retained Virginia evidence context: Power-sector carbon dioxide emissions. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Disaster Assistance Fund; established. Establishes the Disaster Assistance Fund for the purpose of addressing life, safety, and housing costs related to a disaster that are not covered by any form of federal assistance, private donations, or insurance. Expenditures and disbursements from the Fund require authorization by the General Assembly. In addition to all other appropriations to the Fund, the bill also directs proceeds generated from the Commonwealth's participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative auction that occurred in December 2023 and deposited into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Fund with the Department of…Review official supporting evidence ↗
Del. Patrick A. Hope
Virginia House of Delegates · District 1 · D–VA
1 proposalView proposals from Del. Patrick A. Hope
Corrections, Department of; operations and costs.
Feb 7, 2023 · Left in Public Safety
Del. Patrick A. Hope · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Department of Corrections; operations and costs. Establishes a formula for determining the estimated appropriations in a fiscal impact statement of any bill that adds a new felony for which imprisonment or commitment is authorized. The bill also provides that the cost of goods and services sold in stores in state correctional facilities shall not exceed 10 percent of the cost of the typical market rate for such goods and services in major retail stores that are not affiliated with any correctional facility and that the Department shall not receive any commissions or markups from the goods and services sold.
The latest official Virginia LIS record shows this action on February 7, 2023: Left in Public Safety.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses imprisonment, correctional custody, sentencing, parole, probation, release, or reentry. It does not establish an effect on Virginia's correctional average daily population.
Retained Virginia evidence context: Virginia corrections average daily population. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Department of Corrections; operations and costs. Establishes a formula for determining the estimated appropriations in a fiscal impact statement of any bill that adds a new felony for which imprisonment or commitment is authorized. The bill also provides that the cost of goods and services sold in stores in state correctional facilities shall not exceed 10 percent of the cost of the typical market rate for such goods and services in major retail stores that are not affiliated with any correctional facility and that the Department shall not receive any commissions or markups from the goods and services sold. A BILL to amend and reenact §§…Review official supporting evidence ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us
Only current Virginia officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Virginia statistic. Collection reviewed Sep 4, 2026.