The budget is out and the impacts are becoming clear. The party that complains about the redistribution of wealth is continuing to redistribute wealth. Instead of shifting resources from those who have them to those that don’t, they are again reaching into the pockets of the poorest people to give more to wealthiest.
The plan to cut the tax rate disproportionately benefits the wealthiest North Carolinians, while the tax increase on services harms those struggling to get by. The GOP is continuing to shift the burden of paying for government onto those who have yet to fully recover from the Great Recession. In their view, all those rich people are going to invest their money and create tons of jobs and wealth that will eventually trickle down to the rest of us. It’s the same philosophy they’ve been pushing since Reagan and we’re still waiting for the wealth to trickle down.
More likely, we’ll start to look more like the rest of the South, which resembles the developing world more than the rest of the country. The income inequality that plagues the nation will increase in North Carolina, especially as they cut funding for the tools that lift the people out of poverty. Public schools are continuing to take a hit even as the GOP continues to subsidize private schools through voucher programs.
A lot of the impact of the GOP agenda will hit slowly but it will certainly transform our state. As more good teachers leave the profession, our schools will continue their slide. As older professors retire and the best young professors take a pass on public colleges and universities in North Carolina, our vaunted university system will become mediocre instead of cutting edge. North Carolina is on a slow, steady downward spiral as each budget takes more from the services that help the most people and give money to the few people who have the most.
Thomas Mills is the founder and publisher of PoliticsNC.com. Before beginning PoliticsNC, Thomas spent twenty years as a political and public affairs consultant. Learn more >
If you talk with redneck labor you will discover that the hatred for Obama and the hatred for the weak losers that the Democrats are, illustrates that the majority wants Strongmen, as we see all over the world.
Look at how people respond to losing sports teams? Then there are progressive people in power who are simply cowards and say nothing for fear for their jobs.
What about history? What about sociology? These Legislators of the GOP come from areas where “History is bunk.” as Ford said. Sociology? That was too soft for them. They never seem to have learned that you need lots of cheap Energy (electricity) to keep civilization going. Could be they don’t care much for civilization.
Who knows that the original “Liberalism” Free Trade, and Finance from the 1840s till by the time the WWI started the British Empire was already a beggar nation unable to pay its bills. (refer to Blood Tears and Folly, Len Deighton)
The wedge issues do a job, racism does a job, so Black Labor and White Labor are divided. (Now it does turn out that Employers are to be penalized for Cadillac healthcare policies under the ACA, with the expectation of the forceful reduction of coverage and lower prices to pay, that the Employers will pass on increases in wages.)
What world do they live in? Don’t they know that when you give the manager the tip, in cash, he is likely to keep it instead of distributing it with the staff.
Naked capitalism covers these issues and twists of the Obama legacy which truly does put the redneck view as sane.
Anti Unionism, and don’t pay taxes is traditionally the C.S.A. philosophy. So infrastructure is held hostage to a “Bond” still a loan that further makes the rich richer.
Ignorance reigns and the Strongman says whatever to keep the Labor ignorant and poor. Desperation reigns among a divided and fearful populace top to bottom, and Strongmen win.
Yes, you’re right, Posner is still on the 7th Circuit. I thought that he had retired since he hasn’t been able to persuade his judicial colleagues to overturn state voter ID laws.This makes the 7th Circuit’s approval of the Wisconsin ID law even more significant, IMO.
Three of the 7the Circuit judges, and a tie about hearing in the whole court. Might be progress! from my point of view : )
Three of the 7th Circuit judges were on the panel approving Wisconsin, and the court tied about hearing the case in the whole court. (I should have been more specific! sorry!)
Ebrun: You apparently cannot read, or just don’t want to read things that go against your narrative. Despite your drivel about the courts never ruling against voter ID, I repeat: last month, a U.S. appeals court struck down a Texas voter ID law, finding it discriminatory and in direct violation of civil rights law.
Guess you didn’t follow that case all the way. The Supreme Court later lifted the preliminary injection issued by the 4th Circuit and the election law provisions of the state’s 2013 election reforms went into effect for the 2014 mid term elections.
Guess you’re not reading very carefully, A.L. I wrote that the U.S. SUPREME COURT has never overturned a voter ID law or a photo ID law. SCOTUS has upheld photo ID in two cases involving Indiana and Wisconsin. Check it out. Some elementary research will familiarize you with the facts.
BTW, 31 states have voter ID laws and 12 states had strict photo voter ID laws. While a few District and Appeals Courts have ruled against some state ID laws, the SUPREME COURT has NEVER overturned a state Voter ID law. It may do so in the future, but it hasn’t done so yet.
Again, you seem to have reading comprehension and full disclosure issues.
I do keep up, friend. I said, ON AUGUST 5 OF THIS YEAR, a U.S. appeals court struck down a Texas voter ID law, finding it discriminatory and in direct violation of civil rights law. See:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-41127-CV0.pdf and also
http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/article30085158.html
This hasn’t been appealed as yet.
But you respond by giving us only limited information tied to a court decision made earlier in the legal process. Guess you are still stuck in 2013. Try to keep up, will you.
And also, wow, look at that! A little back peddling from Ebrun? Now you say “the SUPREME COURT has NEVER overturned a state Voter ID law. It may do so in the future, but it hasn’t done so yet.”
“It may do so in the future”???????
What happened to that so-self-assured Ebrun who earlier said “You may win in lower courts that have been stacked with liberal judges, but the Supreme Court will eventually ok voter ID.”
I am not backtracking. I have written that the U.S. Supreme Court has never overturned or ruled against a state voter law. That remains a correct statement. The Texas case has been remanded back to the District Court to determine intent. It is a long way from appeal to SCOTUS
.
And yes, if the Democrats win the Presidency in 2016 and have enough votes in the U.S. Senate to confirm a liberal judge, I have no doubt that the Court will overturn at least some state voter ID laws. But that’s a lot of ‘ifs,” so you will need some good luck on that.
Jeez, you are a piece of work, Ebrun. You now co-opt my accurate corrections of your misleading info (re: the the TX voting rights law) and then have the brass to use it to lecture me?! Wow! I admire your audacity!
For the benefit of others on this thread, here’s the sequence of what Ebrun has done (or tried to do) here. Note his last words, where he finally acknowledges the truth in what I tried to tell him, 3 times. And he does it BY INFORMING ME OF WHAT I SAID. Unreal!
Obviously, he’s a pro at this sort of trolling, folks………
Ebrun posts: BTW, the SCOTUS has already ruled that State voter ID laws are constitutional. You may win in lower courts that have been stacked with liberal judges, but the Supreme Court will eventually ok voter ID.
Apply Liberally (AL) posts: Last month, a U.S. appeals court struck down a Texas voter ID law, finding it discriminatory and in direct violation of civil rights law.
Ebrun posts: If you want to pretend SCOTUS will not approve state voter ID laws, you can continue to rely on blissful ignorance……… In 2014, the Court overturned a lower court injunction and allowed Texas’ voter ID law to be in effect for the 2014 midterm elections.
AL posts: I repeat: last month, a U.S. appeals court struck down a Texas voter ID law, finding it discriminatory and in direct violation of civil rights law.
Ebrun posts: Guess you didn’t follow that case all the way. The Supreme Court later lifted the preliminary injection issued by the 4th Circuit and the election law provisions of the state’s 2013 election reforms went into effect for the 2014 mid term elections.
AL: I do keep up, friend. I said, ON AUGUST 5 OF THIS YEAR, a U.S. appeals court struck down a Texas voter ID law, finding it discriminatory and in direct violation of civil rights law.
This hasn’t been appealed as yet. But you respond by giving us only limited information tied to a court decision made earlier in that legal process? Guess you are still stuck in 2013. Try to keep up, will you.
Ebrun: The Texas case has been remanded back to the District Court to determine intent. It is a long way from appeal to SCOTUS.
A.L.: I keep assuming that you know the difference between a US. Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. You keep proving that assumption is wrong.
You have not been able to refute what I said in an earlier post. The U,S. Supreme Court has never overturned a state’s voter ID law. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has, but that case was remanded back down to the trial court because the Circuit Court OVERTURNED the District Court’s original finding that the intent of the Texas law was to discriminate rather than to reduce fraud. The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled in the Texas Voter ID case.
From The Washington last August: “The appeals panel said Wednesday that because illegal intent to discriminate had not been established — in passing the law, legislators declared an interest in preventing voter fraud — the district court in Texas should seek ways to alter the voter law short of overturning it entirely. The state could, for example, reinstate the acceptance at the polls of certain forms of identification that may be more easily available.”
“Apparently referring to that part of the ruling, the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, said in a statement Wednesday that the decision was a “victory on the fundamental question of Texas’ right to protect the integrity of our elections,” adding that “our state’s common sense voter ID law remains in effect.”
And what is it that you don’t understand about this?:
“A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Texas’ voter ID law has a “discriminatory” effect on minorities in a victory for President Barack Obama, whose administration took the unusual step of bringing the weight of the U.S. Justice Department to fight a wave of new ballot-box restrictions passed in conservative statehouses.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 2011 Texas law runs afoul of parts of the federal Voting Rights Act – handing down the decision on the eve of the 50th anniversary of the landmark civil rights law.
Texas was allowed to use the voter ID law during the 2014 elections, thereby requiring an estimated 13.6 million registered Texas voters to have a photo ID to cast a ballot.
The ruling was a victory, albeit not a sweeping one, for Democrats and minority rights groups. Whereas a Texas federal judge last year called the voter ID law the equivalent of a poll tax, a three-judge panel of the New Orleans court disagreed. It instead sent the law back to the lower court to consider how to fix the discriminatory effects.”
I don’t disagree with any part of your last post. A/L. Its essentially what I’ve been posting. The only point of contention we have now is that you are referencing a decision by a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, not the U.S. Supreme Court. So my initial contention is correct:
The U.S SUPREME COURT has NEVER overturned a state voter ID law. It may do so in the future, as Elizabeth hopes, when the Texas and NC appeals are heard, but it hasn’t done so yet.
I think the 3:02pm quote (I can’t believe how nerdy I’m getting) (but I guess I’m learning a lot) is from the NYTimes, which goes on to report: “But civil rights advocates focused on the court’s decision to uphold Judge Ramos’s finding that the ID law had a discriminatory effect, thus violating Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act.”
The 8/5/15 decision reads (as A.L. cited earlier): “We conclude that the district court did not reversibly err in determining that SB 14 violates Section 2 by disparately impacting minority voters…. We AFFIRM the district court’s finding that SB 14 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act through its discriminatory effects and REMAND for consideration of the appropriate remedy.” http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-41127-CV0.pdf
As I understand it, now the case goes back to district court to decide how to overcome the law’s negative effects.
Although the 5th Circuit did not agree with the District about discriminative INTENT, it did agree about discriminative EFFECT.
Thank you, Elizabeth. At least you have it right.
You’re exactly right. The 5th CIRCUIT reversed the District Court’s finding on intentional discrimination and remanded the case back to the District Court to see if the discriminatory effect could be eliminated without overturning the entire state ID law.
But none of that alters my contention to D.g. and A.L. that the U.S. Supreme Court has never overturned a state voter ID law. It hasn’t.
Yay! Here’s a hopeful end run around all this litigation — “universal, automatic
registration of eligible voters. This is the ultimate goal of Voter Registration
Modernization (VRM), a powerful policy proposal that research shows could add up
to 50 million eligible voters to the rolls while saving money, increasing efficiency and
accuracy, and curbing the potential for fraud.” https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Case_For_Voter_Registration_Modernization_2015.pdf
Another hopeful note!
I read that document, Elizabeth. It would be great to have a modernized voter registration system like that implemented in the US.
Of course, I know of a major political party who would fight it with a passion. That’s gonna be the case when one of your party’s tenets is “we must not make it easy for more people to vote.”
I think a problem we’re having here is that this issue is currently in legal flux. In Wisconsin and Indiana, Voter ID laws were a new idea, and the SCOTUS accepted the rationale of preventing voter fraud. Since then, as conservative-led states have enacted restrictions and the effects are beginning to be understood, minds are changing. Some think that liberals on the SCOTUS did not vote as a block to hear the Wisconsin appeal (without comment) (thus allowing the law to stand) in order to wait for a challenge where discriminatory effect is more transparent, as in Texas.
“Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the Crawford [Indiana] decision, is now a critic of voter ID laws. ‘My opinion should not be taken as authority that voter-ID laws are always OK,’ he told The Wall Street Journal in 2013. ‘The decision in the case is state-specific and record-specific.’
“Stevens now says he agrees with Judge Souter’s dissent in the case. ‘As a matter of actual history, he’s dead right. The impact of the statute is much more serious’ on poor, minority, disabled and elderly voters than the evidence in the 2008 case indicated, Stevens said.
“The same is true for Judge Posner [7th Circuit Appeals], who wrote the opinion upholding Indiana’s voter ID law in the Seventh Circuit but published a scathing critique of Wisconsin’s voter ID law last year. ‘There is evidence both that voter impersonation fraud is extremely rare and that photo ID requirements for voting, especially of the strict variety found in Wisconsin, are likely to discourage voting,’ Posner wrote. ‘This implies that the net effect of such requirements is to impede voting by people easily discouraged from voting, most of whom probably lean Democratic.’ ” http://www.thenation.com/article/should-supreme-court-have-accepted-challenge-wisconsins-voter-id-law/
NYT Greenhouse wrote:
“Unlike Justice Stevens, who retired in 2010, Judge Posner is still sitting. In 2007, he wrote the appeals court decision that the Supreme Court affirmed, upholding Indiana’s law. But in a 2013 book, ‘Reflections on Judging,’ he wrote that he had been wrong. ‘I plead guilty,’ he wrote, for having failed to see the law ‘as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention.’ ” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/19/opinion/the-supreme-courts-identity-crisis-on-voting-rights.html
Back to Berman:
“Judge Lynn Adelman of the US district court in Wisconsin reached the same conclusion. ‘The evidence at trial established that virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin,’ Adelman wrote. ‘The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past…. It is absolutely clear that Act 23 will prevent more legitimate votes from being cast than fraudulent votes.’ ” http://www.thenation.com/article/should-supreme-court-have-accepted-challenge-wisconsins-voter-id-law/
You can cite all the left wing sources and former judges you like, it doesn’t change the FACT that the Supreme Court has never overturned a state voter ID law and has in fact approved the Indiana law in a precedent setting case. And Justice Stevens is no longer on the Court making his change of mind about his former opinion legally irrelevant.
You referenced Judge Posner of the 7th Circuit and his critique of the Wisconsin voter ID law. But it was the 7th Circuit that approved the Wisconsin law by reversing federal District Judge Adelman who had ruled against Wisconsin. And as you know, SCOTUS refused to take the Wisconsin case on appeal thus making final the 7th Circuit’s decision approving it.
So you are citing judges whose opinions have been overturned or were in a minority. And Linda Greenhouse is a liberal legal writer for the NY Times who has long been an outspoken critic of the conservatives on the Court. She is hardly an objective source.
Hello Ebrun! Neither Judge Posner nor Judge Stevens has been overturned or was in the minority. The point is that minds are changing as effects are becoming evident and as little evidence of fraud has been established.
As you correctly state, the 7th Circuit did approve Indiana’s law in 2007. However, Judge Posner’s vote was not overturned — Judge Posner is the one who wrote that approving opinion for the 7th Circuit. Therefore when he writes now that as he has learned more about the effects of these laws he now considers his 2007 opinion a mistake, I take that as evidence that legal opinion is in a state of flux nowadays as more information is reaching the courts.
Judge Posner was not on the panel that approved Wisconsin’s appeal. What he failed to do was to convince the whole 7th Circuit to re-hear the Wisconsin law in full court — they split 5/5; and then, as you say, the SCOTUS declined to hear the plaintiffs’ appeal. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-why-voter-id-laws-are-evil-20141013-column.html#page=1
When Linda Greenhouse quotes Judge Posner in his book “Reflections on Judging” (2013), saying his mind has changed, you.re not saying she is probably misquoting him?
Judge Stevens was not overturned nor in the minority, but wrote the SCOTUS opinion upholding Posner on Indiana. As you say, he is no longer on the bench, but I find it poignant and hopeful that the minds of both judges have changed upon learning more about the effects.
Concerning Judge Adelman, what I find intriguing is his saying that “The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past” — and I appreciate his “prevention” phrase: “Act 23 will prevent more legitimate votes from being cast than fraudulent votes. ”
I take your point that I quoted from a couple of sources often seen as liberal. I think both liberals and conservatives are ok for facts and quotations : ) The speculation piece I was interested in was about why the SCOTUS did not hear the Wisconsin appeal. To me, it’s very hopeful to think that maybe the SCOTUS liberals think they will have a better case when they get an appeal from Texas or North Carolina.
I am not a liberal by commitment — I’m an unaffiliated voter, and I vote on the issues. This is one of many cases where liberals and many others are working to make America fair.
Hear, Hear, Elizabeth! Square on!
You’re engaging in a bit of nit picking here. You wrote that Judge Posner was highly critical of he Wisconsin Voter ID law. But the Circuit Court he was on did not agree with his opinion on the Wisconsin law. I believe he had retired by then, so technically he was not overturned, but his opinion was not accepted by the majority or by SCOTUS .
No, I am not saying anyone was misquoted. I am saying that Posner’s opinions about state voter ID laws were not shared by either his former Circuit Court of SCOTUS.
Judge Posner is still sitting on the 7th Circuit — it’s Judge Stevens who retired, from the SCOTUS. Judge Posner was not part of the 3-judge panel that ruled on Winconsin, and is an example of a Reagan-appointed judge who has changed his mind as evidence mounts that these laws burden those who are struggling, and intensive searches for voter fraud yield only the suspicion of such.
Sadly, I agree that there’s no way to guess what the SCOTUS will do when a new case reaches them with the benefit of 7+ years experience with the laws and attempts to discover fraud. Meanwhile, the process of helping people try to overcome these obstacles in order to vote is very sad to see in a country aspiring to a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Ebrun, You are drinking the Kool Aid, as you Republicans like to say. Are you even real? Are you stooge hired to stir up people on this site? If you don’t respect the viewpoints here, quit reading it. You couldn’t be more uninformed. There are so many things you have said here, I don’t have the room to respond. I will say one thing. This party you seem to hold in high esteem has provided “opportunity scholarships” VOUCHERS for private schools and it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I don’t care what Mark Martin said. He is also a Republican and biased. READ the constitution. It says that a FREE, PUBLIC education will be provided. NOT money for other types of education. This is another hand out to the rich waiting to happen. Mark my words, if it is left unchecked, the next step will be vouchers for the wealthy. They are just biding their time making themselves look like champions for the poor.
I feel sorry for you if you actually believe all you have written.
Gosh, Kathy, someone posts an opinion that you disagree with and you suggest they are a “stooge” and shouldn’t engage in a debate here? Sorry if I yanked your chain, but I will continue to express my views on this site. However, I will not engage in name calling or personal attacks on those who disagree with me.
Ebrum,
Unlike your comment to me, mine to you was not intended to be insulting. I did the math when doing my taxes and paid $200 more than I have paid in 35+ years of paying NC taxes. I must confess, I did use a calculator.
To make an honest comparison, one must take 2014 income and apply 2013 rules. In 2014, the income tax rate was reduced and the standard deduction was almost doubled. Only those who were taking multiple tax credits or heavily itemized deductions should have seen their taxes increase under the new rules. For the great majority of taxpayers, their income taxes were reduced.
Ebrun, we do itemize — maybe that made the difference. Our income and deductions were basically the same. Our tax guy called us before mailing back our paperwork so we wouldn’t faint when we saw the increase. He attributed it to the change in the regs.
Another way to finance tax cuts (since raising 2014 taxes on families like mine makes too small a difference) is to cut programs. I have friends who work with children’s and elders’ programs who’ve been struggling to keep children’s homes open and services for the vulnerable going and who’ve been increasingly desperate and discouraged over the cuts. Rather than our state’s responsibility to provide for the “common good,” according to the NC Constitution, they have to scramble to patch together stopgap funds from charities and religious organizations, and it’s still heartbreaking. The legislative majority doesn’t seem to hear or care.
Wonder why then they didn’t vote us out in 2012 or 2014. Wonder why they elected Thom Tillis instead of Kaye Hagan? Liberals will only win when elections are rigged to favor Democrats. That’s the reason for the voting reforms.
Sorry to burst your bubble Dg, but Richard Burr is such a shoo-in to be re-elected that the Democrats have yet to find a viable candidate to run against him.
And BTW, the SCOTUS has already ruled that State voter ID laws are constitutional. You may win in lower courts that have been stacked with liberal judges, but the Supreme Court will eventually ok voter ID.
Get a clue, Ebrun, and stop generalizing and pontificating as if you know what you are talking about.
The SCOTUS has OK’ed voter ID laws in general, but specific cases and challenges can disqualify a state’s voter ID law if it is proven to discriminate or obstruct access the the ballot box.
For example, last month, a U.S. appeals court struck down a Texas voter ID law, finding it discriminatory and in direct violation of civil rights law. And NC voter ID law will soon be ruled on.
And if such lower court cases are appealed, and make it all the way to the SCOTUS, neither you nor anybody else knows how the Supreme Court will rule in case-by-case instances
If you want to pretend SCOTUS will not approve state voter ID laws, you can continue to rely on blissful ignorance. Several appeals courts decisions in this area have been overturned and last year SCOTUS overturned an injunction from the 4th Circuit against implementing NC new election reforms.
BTW, discrimination has to be proven to be the intent of the law before a state election law can be overturned now that SCOTUS has overturned the pre-clearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
If you want to insist that the SCOTUS will approve all state voter ID laws, you can continue to rely on blissful ignorance—-as a well as your overwhelming arrogance.
You’re obviously uninformed or unaware of recent SCOTUS decisions on state voter ID laws. The Supreme Court has NEVER overturned a state voter ID law. It has upheld an Indiana voter ID law and refused to review an appeals court decision upholding Wisconsin’s voter ID law. And in 2014, the Court overturned a lower court injunction and allowed Texas’ voter ID law to be in effect for the 2014 midterm elections.
And you obviously don’t understand the significance of SCOTUS’ decision to overturn the pre-clearance requirement of Title V of the Voting Rights Act. Heretofore, the state had to prove its election law changes had no discriminatory impact. Now, any one challenging a state’s election law must prove that discrimination was the intent of the legislature in passing the law. This makes a huge difference in the legal standard that must be proven before a state’s election law can be overturned.
The section of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court ruled no longer necessary involved preclearance (Section 5); but the intact Section 2 forbids regulations that result in discrimination, regardless of intent. The problem with relying on Section 2 is that by the time the courts rule, the elections have taken place, and the discriminatory effect has already happened.
“Section Two ‘forbids any “standard, practice or procedure” that “results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” ‘ In applying this Section, courts look to the totality of circumstances to determine whether voting is ‘equally open to participation by citizens of protected races.’ A plaintiff need not show discriminatory intent, discriminatory impact or burden alone is enough for a violation to exist.” http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2014/10/4th-circuit-takes-bite-out-of-nc-voter-law/
One has to surmise that it was our legislature’s concern that Picture ID would not stand up under close scrutiny that led it to make the recent relaxations to the law just as the NAACP lawsuit was being introduced.
Ebrun, My family has been in NC for the past 100 years. I am one of those liberals you say should move. I am so tired of hearing that. NC was a progressive state. Now, alas, it isn’t. I don’t want to move. I want my state to be better.
Then you should be patient and hang in here, Teresa. Conservative policies are already resulting in a better NC. But it will be a state where policy making is greatly influenced from the grass roots up and not handed down from on high by a small cadre of liberal elites.
Enrum,
There is no class warfare. The rich have won.
Hey Rick, I am winning and I am not rich. My state income taxes were around $250 less under the new tax code than they would have been under the previous income tax rates that were started under Democrat control. And my income is well under six figures. If you’re even marginally proficient in basic math you should check it out. You will probably find that you too enjoyed a tax cut.
In 2012, my wife and I were doing our shift at the Democratic table outside an early voting location in Asheville. Nearby was the Republican table, manned by a sad but friendly chap probably in his late 40s. We began a conversation. He told us he had been unemployed for many months and was looking forward to better times. We asked why he was working for Mitt Romney when it was clear that he and his party supported, and were supported by the wealthiest members of our society. How would that improve his situation? He replied, seriously and sincerely, that Romney was rich, and it was the rich man who would “give us the jobs.” People like this do not see the world as we, who see ourselves as progressives, do. Until we recognize and address that fact, we will not easily win them over.
Same old left wing class warfare dogma. Income tax cuts benefit all taxpayers. The current GOP-sponsored tax cuts have resulted in a 6 percent increase in state tax collections for the first year the cuts were in effect. According to the Fiscal Research Division of the NCGA, the increase in state tax revenues is a result of increased business activity that also resulted in a steady growth in job creation.
The small expansion of the state sales tax will benefit less prosperous rural counties where the bulk of their residents’ sales tax proceeds now go to the larger urban counties.
The claim that eduction funding has been cut is another blatant lie that was tried last year by the Democrats in their failed attempt to defeat Thom Tillis. And liberal complaints about the Opportunity Scholarship grants for students from low income families belies the Democrats’ claims to be concerned about income inequality.
The amount of funds budgeted for the voucher program is a minute percentage of overall education spending, which includes over $65 million for research contracts with NC’s public universities who are double dipping into funds budgeted for elementary and secondary education. Yet not a word of criticism from the left when state universities get almost four times the amount for research contracts from the state Board of Education than is budgeted for low income student vouchers.
All liberals who think NC is a now a second rate state have an easy option. They can leave to seek more liberal pastures. And they will never be missed since the state’s population continues to grow from an influx of new residents. Obviously, many newcomers don’t believe the left’s claim that NC is now a second rate state.
Same old right wing claptrap.
Income tax cuts given to corporations and the wealthiest NC’ers benefit ….(wait for it)….corporations and the wealthiest NC’ers. There is no proof whatsoever that “the current GOP-sponsored tax cuts have resulted in a 6 percent increase in state tax collections for the first year the cuts were in effect.” Rather, it was more likely just the general overall improvement in the national economy coming out of the recession that caused that 6% increase in tax collections. “Carolina Comeback”? LOL.
And talk about “a steady growth in job creation” all you want, but hear this: NC still has a higher unemployment rate that more than half the other states, and it’s been increasing, not decreasing, over the last several months, friend. Again, that 2013 tax reform has done nothing extraordinary—except letting the wealthy keep more of their income, while regressive sales taxes and fees have bashed the other 95%.
Here’s another fact to chew on. Per-pupil funding of public education has gone down, while the number of students has gone up. Go ahead; spin out of that one, friend.
And, it’s really sad that, beyond supporting cuts to the state’s once admired and adequately funded public higher ed system for the 4th consecutive year, folks like you seem to savor making up some conspiracy theory about how our universities are double-dipping and stealing funds from K-12 ed. The only entity stealing funds from public ed is the NCGOP.
We unaffiliated types, who seek a more progressive agenda for NC than the NCGOP desires (which is about the easiest thing to do, given just how regressive the NCGOP is), don’t just think that NC is now a second-rate and second-class state. We KNOW it is.
But I for one won’t be leaving, because as that influx of new residents you speak of continues, it will just mean younger, more open-minded, less backward, and more racially and ethnically diverse folk becoming NC residents. And I want to be here when the NCGOP wont be able to earn enough votes nor gerrymander their seats to stay in power.
Apply Liberally
Kudos to you!! Thanks to you and Thomas Mills for your great summary of this GOP fiasco in my beloved state. I am over 60 and not going anywhere either. We are fighting to turn this around. It may take awhile, but it will be done.
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”
Sorry, didn’t attribute quote to Martin Luther King Jr.
Attribution-wise, interestingly, I’ve read that (my hero) Dr. King sharpened and lifted up a figure from Theodore Parker, 19th-Century Unitarian Minister & Abolitionist, who wrote: “I do not pretend to understand the moral universe. The arc is a long one. My eye reaches but little ways. I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by experience of sight. I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends toward justice.” However it came to be, may it be so!!
I guess you’ve already forgotten all the hand wringing by the left earlier this year that the the GOP income tax cuts would lead to drastic state tax revenue shortfalls. Instead, they resulted in a six percent increase which, according to the nonpartisan, professional staff of the Fiscal Research Division, resulted from increased business activity and steady job creation.
And BTW, what is the liberal definition of the optimum level of per pupil spending for public education? The standard liberal response is that since there is no agreement on what is optimum, the educrats must always get more public tax dollars. Per pupil spending for NC public education is nearly $9,000 per pupil. The Opportunity Scholarship vouchers for low income students are less that $5,000 per student.
And once again we need the refute the big liberal LIE that the GOP has cut public education spending. In fact, funding for public education has increased every year since the GOP took control of the NCGA. The last time education spending in NC was cut was when the Democrats were in charge of the General Assembly and there was a Democrat Governor. How quickly the left forgets!
Conservatives love to deal in absolute numbers when they claim, as you do, that “funding for public education has increased every year since the GOP took control of the NCGA.” While the education budget may have increased in absolute terms, there are tens of thousands more students in NC since 2011, and, with per-pupil funding is down, their education is getting short shrifted.
Please don’t try to spin such twisted sound bites at us, like your GOP candidates do during their campaigns. We’re smarter than that here.
Republicans always want to talk about cutting spending, and when they don’t talk about that, they love to talk about their increased spending, always playing that absolute numbers card. But their spending never measures up to what is necessary to run solid/good programs. Why? Because they don’t want to run “good programs”; they just want government to starve and to fail so that their friends in the private sector can benefit. It gets tedious, Ebrun. It really does.
When it comes to spending for public education, every liberal will tell you that MORE IS NEVER ENOUGH.
When it comes to spending for public education, every I-drank-the-KoolAid neo-con.will tell us that public ed is getting “more” of everything. But when you look closely, you find out that the each student and every teacher is actually getting less resources and less support.
I agree with you, Dg. It’s just not productive to debate with those who eschew facts and promote leftist myths. Apparently, blissful ignorance can have a placebo effect on the liberal psyche.
As a recent new resident, I cannot tell you how disappointed I am that the NC I have known for decades is so changed in the past 2-3 years that I hardly recognize it. Unfortunately, moving again is not possible. Believe me, if it were, I would do so in a heartbeat. I dread what I see coming. And I know others, some long term residents, who share my anxiety.
Wonder then why you came here? Perhaps due to employment opportunities in NC’s growing economy?
Do you know how to spell MIssissippi?
As a retired couple, our “tax cut” consisted of a 600% state tax increase for 2014. I hope the new budget will restore deductions for health care, etc.
Disgusted, once again you’re not up to speed on recent developments.The budget that just passed the NCGA reinstates the medical expense deduction. However, a retired couple on Medicare should not be hard hit by losing their medical expense deduction. But if someone retires early and is not eligible for Medicare and has no other health insurance, it could result a tax increase.
We retired at 65, gross around 50k, have Medicare plus BCBS supplement, and the loss of deductions cost us the 600% increase in 2014 state taxes.
Wow. I am in a very similar situation with Medicare and a supplement and my state taxes went down about $250 when comparing 2014 tax rules with 2013 tax rules.
Wow, Ebrum, wonder what made the difference in the effect on your and our 2014 taxes?!
Good question. I only know my situation. Most of my medical expenses were covered by Medicare and the supplement. And I know that I am not allowed to deduct medical expenses that have been paid for with insurance or with Medicare. But if one has heavy dental expenses not covered by insurance, that could have resulted in higher state income taxes.
But all this will change for this year as the medical expense deduction has just been reinstated by the NCGA.
I became very active registering voters after the U.S. started to legalize torture. The 2013 NC voting law greatly increased the effort needed to help people vote, and I’m very glad to hear that some accommodations are being made for hardship cases. State Board of Elections personnel were in our county recently to help us learn how to comply. ….It was very meaningful to join America’s Journey for Justice for one day of the march through North Carolina.
Liberals demand equity unless there favored constituencies are getting more than their fair share of public tax revenues. Then they scream to high haven when conservatives try to provide more equitable distribution. All the GOP plan would do is allocate NEW sales tax revenues based on where the citizens live who PAY THE SALES TAXES.
Rural and small town residents pay most of their sales taxes in the larger urban counties. They should see some benefit when their tax dollars are redistributed back to local governments. The new GOP plan does that holding the big urban counties harmless and earmarking new sales tax revenues to rural counties.
And you obviously are not up to speed concerning the provisions in the final budget just passed by the NCGA. Current funding for teacher assistants was retained and funds for drivers’ education were included. But the teachers will pay a price for the retention of all assistants. Funds for teacher assistant cuts would have gone toward an increase in teacher salaries proving once again that you can’t have your cake and—well, I am sure you know the rest that story.
Another major GOP reform means that NC will no longer heavily subsidize large corporations to entice them to locate facilities here. Such subsides create a long-term drain on public resources. Instead, in recent years the state has been successful in attracting small and medium sizes businesses that do not require large public subsidies. In addition, the cut in state corporate income taxes has created an environment that encourages the growth of small businesses, by far the largest generator of new jobs in the U.S.
Disgusted:
It is once again “The Mystery of Why People Vote Against Their Own Self-Interest.”
But maybe it’s not all that mysterious at all. As the GOP gives them higher sales taxes, higher fees of all sorts, poorer schools, no formal jobs programs, and an economic recovery that trails that of other states, all the while favoring corporations and the wealthiest 5% among us, it also tells the average Joe and Jane —over and over again— that their new neighbors, non-white fellow citizens, and the younger genration are plotting to steal their jobs and wages, to disrespect or change their religious beliefs and traditional ways of thinking, and to make America weaker and NC a second-rate state. While telling them all that, the GOP wraps itself in the American flag and the 1st and 2nd Amendments every chance it gets, and beats a steady drum of “the good old days when America was great” (see The Donald’s baseball cap). Result? Voters who are predisposed to believe pure claptrap — especially when it is spouted loudly and often enough.