Interesting story in the New York Times today about how Martinsville, VA, site of a much-revered half-mile racetrack on the Sprint Cup circuit, lost most of its traditional industry over the years and once hoped to reshape its fortunes along the lines of Charlotte's success in motorsports. It hasn't exactly worked out, as a few excepts below indicate.
Reporter Katie Thomas wrote:
As those industries faded, Martinsville turned its hopes toward the increasingly profitable motorsports industry. With a track beloved by drivers and fans alike, community leaders sought to transform Martinsville into a miniature Charlotte, the hub of the racing industry. But despite the creation of two educational programs and statewide economic incentives for the motorsports industry, the effort has largely failed. Economic development officials say that they have shifted their attention to other pursuits and that motorsports are no longer a priority.
…..It was that heritage that economic development officials hoped to build on about six years ago. In Charlotte, less than 150 miles away, the motorsports industry was exploding as racing teams converged on the area, quickly followed by suppliers and other related companies.
….John Connaughton, a professor of economics at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, said Martinsville faced a challenge because the motorsports industry had increasingly consolidated around Charlotte. “There is a specialized labor pool here that you cannot replicate anyplace,” Connaughton said of Charlotte.
He studied Charlotte’s racing industry after Virginia and other states created motorsports initiatives. “Our conclusion was that while they may be able to pick here and there, it’s extremely unlikely that there’s going to be any kind of functional shift in where racing cars are built,” he said.
In 2003, the Martinsville area lost an anchor of its small motorsports industry when Wood Brothers Racing moved from Stuart, a small town nearby, to the Charlotte area.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Hot reaction on Yadkin scrap
Sunday's column "Yadkin's waters brew a fight" brought a mixed reader reaction:
Mr. Betts: In your opinionated story, I see a lack of good journalism, poor research and a disregard for the truth. The Stanly County Board of Commissioners have spent one million dollars of tax payer's money on this whopper. I feel it would be beneficial to this community and state for you to examine it more thoroughly. Perhaps you might begin by considering the 40 year license issued to Alcoa Power Generating Inc. for its care of the Little Tennessee River. How could the company be so different in Tennessee and such a monster in North Carolina?
I should tell you that I worked for The Aluminum Company of America. My thirty years of employment was spent in the smelters at Badin and at Alcoa works. Perhaps you might discredit me because I was an employee. I was a first line supervisor on the floor of the smelter, and I have a journeyman knowledge of the smelting process.
And there was this:
You did a terrific job capturing the essence of the ALCOA relicensing conflict in Stanly County. The entire column was right on and your one sentence hushed ALL the criticism that I have heard:
"The company lost its best argument for renewal about 1,000 jobs ago."
And this:
This act of a socialistic mindset was started by a disgruntled Stanly Commissioner named Tony Dennis. He and his family have owned and operated a business under the USA free enterprise system all of his life! Now he wants to do away with the same freedom that allowed his family to accumulate their wealth!!
Alcoa has been a very good citizen for many years, at least since 1912. Stanly County and the surrounding counties has been the beneficiary of the improvements that ALCOA has made along the Yadkin River from the northern most part of High Rock Lake to the Falls Dam East of Badin, NC. The Counties surrounding this area have reaped the benefits of increased property values and taxes, being able to pump water from the four reservoirs, to supply water for their citizens, which ALCO built. There are a number of economic reasons that ALCOA was forced to temporarily close the smelter. The fact that ALCOA “Yadkin Inc.” is still operating is due to the hydros are producing a profit. This would a decision that any business CEO would make even Tony Dennis!
My concern is that this is not about rethinking water use as Mr. Betts wrote, but the counties and state don’t want ALCOA to make a profit off their water! This water is not the Counties or the States; it belongs to all of us, God made the water!! Mr. Betts and Mr. Henderson both indicated that it was a bipartisan effort especially at State level, which indicates that not only the county, state, and even the Federal Government all are trending toward a socialistic mindset.
Everyone should get a copy of Sen. Fletcher L. Hartsell’s S967 Bill “Creation of Yadkin River Trust”. It is cosponsored by Philip E. Berger, Stan Bingham, Daniel G. Clodfelter, William R. Purcell, Tony Rand, and Jerry W. Tillman!!
All I can say is LOOK OUT DUKE ENERGY and PROGRESS ENERGY, you are using the Counties and States water to make a profit!!! Since the State cannot build and maintain its neither roads nor educational facilities, how can it operate all the power producing hydros in the state???
Mr. Betts: In your opinionated story, I see a lack of good journalism, poor research and a disregard for the truth. The Stanly County Board of Commissioners have spent one million dollars of tax payer's money on this whopper. I feel it would be beneficial to this community and state for you to examine it more thoroughly. Perhaps you might begin by considering the 40 year license issued to Alcoa Power Generating Inc. for its care of the Little Tennessee River. How could the company be so different in Tennessee and such a monster in North Carolina?
I should tell you that I worked for The Aluminum Company of America. My thirty years of employment was spent in the smelters at Badin and at Alcoa works. Perhaps you might discredit me because I was an employee. I was a first line supervisor on the floor of the smelter, and I have a journeyman knowledge of the smelting process.
And there was this:
You did a terrific job capturing the essence of the ALCOA relicensing conflict in Stanly County. The entire column was right on and your one sentence hushed ALL the criticism that I have heard:
"The company lost its best argument for renewal about 1,000 jobs ago."
And this:
This act of a socialistic mindset was started by a disgruntled Stanly Commissioner named Tony Dennis. He and his family have owned and operated a business under the USA free enterprise system all of his life! Now he wants to do away with the same freedom that allowed his family to accumulate their wealth!!
Alcoa has been a very good citizen for many years, at least since 1912. Stanly County and the surrounding counties has been the beneficiary of the improvements that ALCOA has made along the Yadkin River from the northern most part of High Rock Lake to the Falls Dam East of Badin, NC. The Counties surrounding this area have reaped the benefits of increased property values and taxes, being able to pump water from the four reservoirs, to supply water for their citizens, which ALCO built. There are a number of economic reasons that ALCOA was forced to temporarily close the smelter. The fact that ALCOA “Yadkin Inc.” is still operating is due to the hydros are producing a profit. This would a decision that any business CEO would make even Tony Dennis!
My concern is that this is not about rethinking water use as Mr. Betts wrote, but the counties and state don’t want ALCOA to make a profit off their water! This water is not the Counties or the States; it belongs to all of us, God made the water!! Mr. Betts and Mr. Henderson both indicated that it was a bipartisan effort especially at State level, which indicates that not only the county, state, and even the Federal Government all are trending toward a socialistic mindset.
Everyone should get a copy of Sen. Fletcher L. Hartsell’s S967 Bill “Creation of Yadkin River Trust”. It is cosponsored by Philip E. Berger, Stan Bingham, Daniel G. Clodfelter, William R. Purcell, Tony Rand, and Jerry W. Tillman!!
All I can say is LOOK OUT DUKE ENERGY and PROGRESS ENERGY, you are using the Counties and States water to make a profit!!! Since the State cannot build and maintain its neither roads nor educational facilities, how can it operate all the power producing hydros in the state???
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Hardball in the state Senate
The Senate divide
If you were watching or listening in on the state Senate Tuesday and Wednesday, you'd have seen and heard firsthand why Republicans in that chamber believe they've been dealt a very bad hand by the Democrats. One big problem for Republicans, of course, is that Democrats are in charge, just as they have been for, oh, a century or so. There are 30 Democrats and 20 Republicans, and when one party holds 60 percent of a chamber, they do pretty much as they please.
From the Democratic point of view, that's just the way the game works. The majority rules, and the Democrats see their job as running the chamber efficiently and cranking out legislation they see fit to run the state. One of those bills was to shore up the state employees’ health plan, which has nearly run out of money and which required significant changes, including higher contributions from employees' dependents and an infusion from taxpayers, too.
Republicans largely voted against the bill Tuesday, at least partly because they did not feel part of the process in figuring out how to change the plan. Some Democrats took great umbrage at Republicans' refusal to take responsibility for supporting the plan changes, making Democrats look bad for raising rates and boosting taxpayer support for the plan, and giving Republicans a campaign issue next election to bash the Democrats.
Sen. David Hoyle, D-Gaston, said he was appalled at the lack of Republican support. "Are y'all going to let them get away with that?" he asked me shortly after the vote Tuesday. Hoyle thought Republicans were spineless in refusing to support a measure that everyone knew would have to pass in some form or other to keep the health plan afloat.
But Sen. Tom Apodaca, R-Henderson, came back to the press section in the Senate and slumped down beside me. "It's hard to take your medicine when it's being shoved down your throat," he said glumly before trudging back to his seat.
Wednesday things didn't get any better when the Senate voted on eight members of the UNC Board of Governors. Like Republicans, Democrats caucus on a lot of issues and decide the party's position. Democrats also decide who they want to win the coveted seats for the Board of Governors. They controlled the voting Wednesday, too, in effect leaving legislators with a choice of eight names for eight seats. That had Senate Republican leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, fuming about the process.
“Yesterday’s vote on the State Health Plan illustrated how Senate Democrats fix a bill behind closed doors. Today, we saw how they manipulate the UNC Board of Governors election. This 'Soviet' styled balloting is an affront to our democratic system and to the people of North Carolina,” Berger said in a news release.
Those are fightin' words, but don't expect them to change anything. The Democrats still hold 30 seats,the Republicans 20. It's going to be a long session for the GOP.
If you were watching or listening in on the state Senate Tuesday and Wednesday, you'd have seen and heard firsthand why Republicans in that chamber believe they've been dealt a very bad hand by the Democrats. One big problem for Republicans, of course, is that Democrats are in charge, just as they have been for, oh, a century or so. There are 30 Democrats and 20 Republicans, and when one party holds 60 percent of a chamber, they do pretty much as they please.
From the Democratic point of view, that's just the way the game works. The majority rules, and the Democrats see their job as running the chamber efficiently and cranking out legislation they see fit to run the state. One of those bills was to shore up the state employees’ health plan, which has nearly run out of money and which required significant changes, including higher contributions from employees' dependents and an infusion from taxpayers, too.
Republicans largely voted against the bill Tuesday, at least partly because they did not feel part of the process in figuring out how to change the plan. Some Democrats took great umbrage at Republicans' refusal to take responsibility for supporting the plan changes, making Democrats look bad for raising rates and boosting taxpayer support for the plan, and giving Republicans a campaign issue next election to bash the Democrats.
Sen. David Hoyle, D-Gaston, said he was appalled at the lack of Republican support. "Are y'all going to let them get away with that?" he asked me shortly after the vote Tuesday. Hoyle thought Republicans were spineless in refusing to support a measure that everyone knew would have to pass in some form or other to keep the health plan afloat.
But Sen. Tom Apodaca, R-Henderson, came back to the press section in the Senate and slumped down beside me. "It's hard to take your medicine when it's being shoved down your throat," he said glumly before trudging back to his seat.
Wednesday things didn't get any better when the Senate voted on eight members of the UNC Board of Governors. Like Republicans, Democrats caucus on a lot of issues and decide the party's position. Democrats also decide who they want to win the coveted seats for the Board of Governors. They controlled the voting Wednesday, too, in effect leaving legislators with a choice of eight names for eight seats. That had Senate Republican leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, fuming about the process.
“Yesterday’s vote on the State Health Plan illustrated how Senate Democrats fix a bill behind closed doors. Today, we saw how they manipulate the UNC Board of Governors election. This 'Soviet' styled balloting is an affront to our democratic system and to the people of North Carolina,” Berger said in a news release.
Those are fightin' words, but don't expect them to change anything. The Democrats still hold 30 seats,the Republicans 20. It's going to be a long session for the GOP.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Supe to Leg: Fix this schools mess
June Atkinson, North Carolina's elected Superintendent of Public Instruction, has asked the legislature to fix a confusing legal and administrative tangle in which she's chosen by the state's voters to run N.C. schools, but the State Board of Education has the authority to choose not only its own chair but also designate a person to run schools on a daily basis.
Speaking to the Joint Legislative Program Evaluation Oversight Committee Monday afternoon, Atkinson said she had written House Speaker Joe Hackney and Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight asking the legislature to "bring clarity, accountability and transparency to public education governance."
Atkinson asked the legislature to take one of two courses:
Option 1: First, change laws to give the State Superintendent authority to manage and lead the Department of Public Instruction and to carry out the policies of the State Board of Education without interference. In so doing, restore the system of check and balance by making the State Board responsible for policies governing and directing public education. Honor the constitution.
OR
Option 2: Bring forth a constitutional referendum proposing that the State Superintendent be appointed by the State Board of Education. Include in that referendum that the State Board members be appointed by the Governor, and confirmed by the General Assembly for staggered four-year terms. Staggered four-year terms would give greater authority to the Governor in guiding the direction of public education. Currently, State Board members serve for staggered eight-year terms. A Governor has to serve eight years to be able to appoint all board members unless a board member voluntarily resigns.
Should Option 2 be the choice of the General Assembly, I ask that you address the role of the State Superintendent for the next four years according to our North Carolina Constitution and according to the peoples’ vote.
She added, "I respect the position of anyone who opts for either of the proposals I have presented. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Either will work better than our current laws. Either will honor the provisions of the Constitution."
And, she told the committee, "the people and the children deserve a governance system that is constitutional and that does not mislead the public."
She's right about that.
Speaking to the Joint Legislative Program Evaluation Oversight Committee Monday afternoon, Atkinson said she had written House Speaker Joe Hackney and Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight asking the legislature to "bring clarity, accountability and transparency to public education governance."
Atkinson asked the legislature to take one of two courses:
Option 1: First, change laws to give the State Superintendent authority to manage and lead the Department of Public Instruction and to carry out the policies of the State Board of Education without interference. In so doing, restore the system of check and balance by making the State Board responsible for policies governing and directing public education. Honor the constitution.
OR
Option 2: Bring forth a constitutional referendum proposing that the State Superintendent be appointed by the State Board of Education. Include in that referendum that the State Board members be appointed by the Governor, and confirmed by the General Assembly for staggered four-year terms. Staggered four-year terms would give greater authority to the Governor in guiding the direction of public education. Currently, State Board members serve for staggered eight-year terms. A Governor has to serve eight years to be able to appoint all board members unless a board member voluntarily resigns.
Should Option 2 be the choice of the General Assembly, I ask that you address the role of the State Superintendent for the next four years according to our North Carolina Constitution and according to the peoples’ vote.
She added, "I respect the position of anyone who opts for either of the proposals I have presented. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Either will work better than our current laws. Either will honor the provisions of the Constitution."
And, she told the committee, "the people and the children deserve a governance system that is constitutional and that does not mislead the public."
She's right about that.
Friday, March 20, 2009
State lottery squeaks by ... again
In an unusual set of circumstances, the N.C. Education Lottery has squeaked by -- again. This time it was in the N.C. Supreme Court.
ou may recall that's the story behind creation of the lottery. It got though the state House in 2005 on a close vote, then went to the state Senate where President Pro Tem Marc Basnight said there wasn't time to consider any more bills and sent folks home for the year.
Then a few days later he called the Senate back into session -- and when lawmakers showed up, a couple of opponents were absent. Even so, the Senate deadlocked on the bill, whereupon then-Lt. Gov. Bev Perdue cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the lottery. The Senate, like the House, decided against holding a final vote on a different day, as the Constitution requires on revenue bills, and finished work the same day.
So when a group of citizens filed suit against the bill arguing that the lottery was not constitutional because it was a revenue-generating bill, and it failed to meet the procedural requirements laid down in the Constitution, a Superior Court judge dismissed the lawsuit. The Court of Appeals agreed, but one judge dissented, allowing the case to go up to the seven-member N.C. Supreme Court.
But the Supreme Court announced Friday that one judge, Mark Martin, had recused himself and that the court's remaining six members were split evenly on the question of whether the suit should have been dismissed, "with three members voting to affirm and three members voting to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed and stands without precedential value."
No word on which judges voted to uphold the Court of Appeals and which voted against. But there will be widespread speculation that the court split along party lines among the six who voted. Three are Democrats and three are Republicans, as is the recused Justice Martin. But I'll wager this: the court won't be saying.
ou may recall that's the story behind creation of the lottery. It got though the state House in 2005 on a close vote, then went to the state Senate where President Pro Tem Marc Basnight said there wasn't time to consider any more bills and sent folks home for the year.
Then a few days later he called the Senate back into session -- and when lawmakers showed up, a couple of opponents were absent. Even so, the Senate deadlocked on the bill, whereupon then-Lt. Gov. Bev Perdue cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the lottery. The Senate, like the House, decided against holding a final vote on a different day, as the Constitution requires on revenue bills, and finished work the same day.
So when a group of citizens filed suit against the bill arguing that the lottery was not constitutional because it was a revenue-generating bill, and it failed to meet the procedural requirements laid down in the Constitution, a Superior Court judge dismissed the lawsuit. The Court of Appeals agreed, but one judge dissented, allowing the case to go up to the seven-member N.C. Supreme Court.
But the Supreme Court announced Friday that one judge, Mark Martin, had recused himself and that the court's remaining six members were split evenly on the question of whether the suit should have been dismissed, "with three members voting to affirm and three members voting to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed and stands without precedential value."
No word on which judges voted to uphold the Court of Appeals and which voted against. But there will be widespread speculation that the court split along party lines among the six who voted. Three are Democrats and three are Republicans, as is the recused Justice Martin. But I'll wager this: the court won't be saying.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Hagan creating panel to screen job candidates
U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., says she's creating a four-person panel to screen candidates for federal jobs such as judgeships, including vacancies on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That panel will help identify candidates for high-profile federal posts, including U.S. attorney positions and district court judgeships.
It's an interesting turn in how nominations for judgeships are usually handled. In earlier years, senators of the same party as the president have pretty much decided who gets nominated, though not in every case. When Ronald Reagan was president, for example, Republican Sen. Jesse Helms' preferences were usually followed. When Bill Clinton was in the White House, Democratic Sen. John Edwards' nominees were generally followed.
That didn't mean either senator got their way; Senate Democrats nixed Helms' appointees several times when it came to confirmation, and Republicans did the same to Edwards' nominees. The one exception was when Edwards and Elizabeth Dole collaborated and agreed upon the nomination of Republican Allyson Duncan for the 4th Circuit in 2003.
Hagan has pledged to work with Republican Sen. Richard Burr, and Burr has said much the same thing. They both want to fill a longtime vacancy on the court usually reserved for a North Carolinian.
Here's what Hagan said Thursday about her screening panel:
WASHINGTON, D.C. –U.S. Senator Kay R. Hagan (D-NC) announced today that she will establish a statewide panel to screen candidates from North Carolina for appointments to key federal positions. The panel will report to Senator Hagan, who will in turn make recommendations to the White House for United States Attorneys and Federal District Court Judgeships. In addition, Senator Hagan has pledged to work with Senator Burr and her colleagues in the Senate, as well as with the White House, to ensure that North Carolina receives appropriate representation on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. This committee will also screen candidates for available positions on the 4th Circuit.
“This committee will be comprised of experienced professionals from across the state and will help ensure that the most qualified and competent candidates are ultimately selected for recommendation to the federal judiciary and U.S. Attorney positions,” said Hagan. “In the past, judicial nominations from both sides of the aisle have been delayed and often derailed because of partisan objections and bickering, regardless of the credentials of the nominees. I am committed to working with President Obama, Senator Burr, the Judiciary Committee, and my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that North Carolina’s interests are served on the federal benches.”
The committee will consist of four members total: one member each from the eastern, western and central regions of North Carolina, and one chairman selected from anywhere in the state.
In addition to recommending U.S. Attorneys and Federal District Court Judges, Senator Hagan has made filling the current vacancy on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, open since 1994, a key priority. Senator Hagan has discussed the inequity of representation on the court with White House Counsel Greg Craig and President Obama himself.
It's an interesting turn in how nominations for judgeships are usually handled. In earlier years, senators of the same party as the president have pretty much decided who gets nominated, though not in every case. When Ronald Reagan was president, for example, Republican Sen. Jesse Helms' preferences were usually followed. When Bill Clinton was in the White House, Democratic Sen. John Edwards' nominees were generally followed.
That didn't mean either senator got their way; Senate Democrats nixed Helms' appointees several times when it came to confirmation, and Republicans did the same to Edwards' nominees. The one exception was when Edwards and Elizabeth Dole collaborated and agreed upon the nomination of Republican Allyson Duncan for the 4th Circuit in 2003.
Hagan has pledged to work with Republican Sen. Richard Burr, and Burr has said much the same thing. They both want to fill a longtime vacancy on the court usually reserved for a North Carolinian.
Here's what Hagan said Thursday about her screening panel:
WASHINGTON, D.C. –U.S. Senator Kay R. Hagan (D-NC) announced today that she will establish a statewide panel to screen candidates from North Carolina for appointments to key federal positions. The panel will report to Senator Hagan, who will in turn make recommendations to the White House for United States Attorneys and Federal District Court Judgeships. In addition, Senator Hagan has pledged to work with Senator Burr and her colleagues in the Senate, as well as with the White House, to ensure that North Carolina receives appropriate representation on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. This committee will also screen candidates for available positions on the 4th Circuit.
“This committee will be comprised of experienced professionals from across the state and will help ensure that the most qualified and competent candidates are ultimately selected for recommendation to the federal judiciary and U.S. Attorney positions,” said Hagan. “In the past, judicial nominations from both sides of the aisle have been delayed and often derailed because of partisan objections and bickering, regardless of the credentials of the nominees. I am committed to working with President Obama, Senator Burr, the Judiciary Committee, and my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that North Carolina’s interests are served on the federal benches.”
The committee will consist of four members total: one member each from the eastern, western and central regions of North Carolina, and one chairman selected from anywhere in the state.
In addition to recommending U.S. Attorneys and Federal District Court Judges, Senator Hagan has made filling the current vacancy on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, open since 1994, a key priority. Senator Hagan has discussed the inequity of representation on the court with White House Counsel Greg Craig and President Obama himself.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Guv proposes, legislature disposes
Just as in Washington, so it is in Raleigh: The governor proposes and the legislature disposes.
That's the key thing to keep in mind with Gov. Bev Perdue's $21 billion budget proposal for next year, which would raise "sin" taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, close seven prisons, give teachers a small pay raise, eliminate funding for 1,400 mostly vacant jobs, slash the budget at the Departments of Corrections and Transportation, pare $360 million from the state budget, increase per-pupil spending in schools from $5,597 to $5,736 and, for the most part, spare layoff or furloughs for state employees.
Some folks love parts of her budget proposal and others have the fantods over the same features, such as the $1 per pack increase in cigarette taxes, boosting the state levy to $1.35 per pack. It would bring in $350 million more in revenue and likely discourage youngsters from taking up the habit, preventing higher health care costs for these citizens somewhere down the line. Others don't like tax increases of any kind -- and not just conservatives, either. Liberals point out that tobacco and alcohol tax increases are regressive especially for lower income residents, despite the fact that these are discretionary purchases. And an increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit won't make up the difference for those low-income workers who qualify.
Perdue's budget proposal spreads the pain around in a lot of places, including programs the public usually strongly supports. For example, there's a $168 million cut for the university system. UNC President Erskine Bowles, who has a lot of experience in figuring out what to cut, stemming from his days as White House Chief of Staff in the Clinton Administration, had asked that budget cuts in the university system be non-recurring, rather than permanent cuts -- and restoring funding once the economy rebounds and the recession ends. Some cuts are non-recurring but most are recurring. I asked Bowles Monday how hard this was going to be. He smiled and said, "I've done this before."
This also brings up the reality that the budget Perdue proposes could be a lot worse if it were not for the availability of federal recovery funds that are going to plug a lot of holes. Without those funds the state would be cutting a lot more programs and jobs and doing a lot less. And it also means that future balanced budgets depend in large measure on economic recovery beginning later this year that will bring in revenue in future years to fill gaps covered by the recovery funds this year. If the economic recovery doesn't begin on schedule, there will be more cuts and more pain in future years.
Finally, it's also worth noting that as many cuts as there are in this budget, the state still will be spending a lot of money on a vast array of programs and services for the public. In fact, considering the depth of this recession, the fact that the Perdue budget proposes spending $21 billion, contrasted with the current year's $21.4 billion, is amazing. So is the fact that the budget doesn't call, at the moment, for workers to lose their jobs, though perhaps 268 would be at risk if they cannot transfer to other state jobs that need filling, such as correctional officers.
It's along time between now and the end of the fiscal year, when legislators hope to have finished work on their version of the budget. They hold the power now, and while Perdue will fight hard for her proposals, it's the legislature that adopts a budget. In my 32 years covering Raleigh, I've yet to see lawmakers give governors everything they want, and there's no reason to think this year will be any different. This fight is just beginning.
That's the key thing to keep in mind with Gov. Bev Perdue's $21 billion budget proposal for next year, which would raise "sin" taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, close seven prisons, give teachers a small pay raise, eliminate funding for 1,400 mostly vacant jobs, slash the budget at the Departments of Corrections and Transportation, pare $360 million from the state budget, increase per-pupil spending in schools from $5,597 to $5,736 and, for the most part, spare layoff or furloughs for state employees.
Some folks love parts of her budget proposal and others have the fantods over the same features, such as the $1 per pack increase in cigarette taxes, boosting the state levy to $1.35 per pack. It would bring in $350 million more in revenue and likely discourage youngsters from taking up the habit, preventing higher health care costs for these citizens somewhere down the line. Others don't like tax increases of any kind -- and not just conservatives, either. Liberals point out that tobacco and alcohol tax increases are regressive especially for lower income residents, despite the fact that these are discretionary purchases. And an increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit won't make up the difference for those low-income workers who qualify.
Perdue's budget proposal spreads the pain around in a lot of places, including programs the public usually strongly supports. For example, there's a $168 million cut for the university system. UNC President Erskine Bowles, who has a lot of experience in figuring out what to cut, stemming from his days as White House Chief of Staff in the Clinton Administration, had asked that budget cuts in the university system be non-recurring, rather than permanent cuts -- and restoring funding once the economy rebounds and the recession ends. Some cuts are non-recurring but most are recurring. I asked Bowles Monday how hard this was going to be. He smiled and said, "I've done this before."
This also brings up the reality that the budget Perdue proposes could be a lot worse if it were not for the availability of federal recovery funds that are going to plug a lot of holes. Without those funds the state would be cutting a lot more programs and jobs and doing a lot less. And it also means that future balanced budgets depend in large measure on economic recovery beginning later this year that will bring in revenue in future years to fill gaps covered by the recovery funds this year. If the economic recovery doesn't begin on schedule, there will be more cuts and more pain in future years.
Finally, it's also worth noting that as many cuts as there are in this budget, the state still will be spending a lot of money on a vast array of programs and services for the public. In fact, considering the depth of this recession, the fact that the Perdue budget proposes spending $21 billion, contrasted with the current year's $21.4 billion, is amazing. So is the fact that the budget doesn't call, at the moment, for workers to lose their jobs, though perhaps 268 would be at risk if they cannot transfer to other state jobs that need filling, such as correctional officers.
It's along time between now and the end of the fiscal year, when legislators hope to have finished work on their version of the budget. They hold the power now, and while Perdue will fight hard for her proposals, it's the legislature that adopts a budget. In my 32 years covering Raleigh, I've yet to see lawmakers give governors everything they want, and there's no reason to think this year will be any different. This fight is just beginning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
