“Socialist” Senate vs. Metro McCrory

by | Mar 25, 2015 | 2016 Elections, Carolina Strategic Analysis, Features, NC Politics, NCGov, Tax Reform | 13 comments

On one side, you have a senator talking about how there are “two North Carolinas” and how it’s time for policy that will bring prosperity to all areas of the state. On the other side, you have a member screaming “Socialism!” Senate Bill 369 would change the way sales tax revenue is distributed among the counties – mostly benefiting poor, rural counties at the expense of large wealthy ones. It’s causing politicians to say and do some very strange things and is making for interesting political theater.

The bill is the work of Sen. Harry Brown (R-Onslow), who is responsible for the “two North Carolinas” quote. Clearly, he’s channeling his inner John Edwards. Now those are fighting words when said about any Republican, but here, I’m with Harry Brown. The rural parts of this state are in trouble and the legislature needs to use every tool in their toolbox to fix them.

Some, mostly politicians who represent urban areas, don’t agree. Joel Ford (D-Charlotte) denounced the Senate’s plan as “socialism”. A month ago Ford was one of only two Democrats to vote for the magistrate recusal bill, so perhaps he’s planning a switch to the party that crusades against socialism all the time. Ford and a number of other urban legislators are joined by some on the Libertarian Right who freak out at the idea of the government getting involved in redistribution. But a purely libertarian perspective would argue that the government has no business collecting sales tax at all. The government is already involved, so why not make the system more fair for the rural areas?

One thing that’s for sure is that there’s going to be winners and losers as a result of this bill. Small, rural areas are going to come out ahead (for once). Generally, the urban counties are going to lose. The hardest-hit will be Dare County, a coastal county that relies a lot on tourists paying sales tax for income. But most of the counties inland in eastern NC will gain, which presents an interesting conundrum for someone like Rep. Pat McElraft (R-Emerald Isle). Her home county, Carteret, is the larger of the counties she represents and another one of those coastal resort places that stands to lose from passage of this bill – more than 15% of its sales tax revenue, as a matter of fact. But her other county, Jones, would see a revenue gain of 163%. How does she vote?

One person who’s indicated they’d vote against this, whose vote will matter quite a lot, is Pat McCrory. Given McCrory’s past job as mayor of Charlotte, his siding with the urban areas of this state are understandable. He says the bill would harm the ‘economic engines’ of the state – the job creators, if you will – and NC can’t afford it. He adds that it will ‘decimate’ travel and tourism at the beach and that his dog Moe was particularly aggrieved by the bill. From these remarks, one can gather that if the bill comes to his desk, McCrory will veto it, which means the Senate would then have to attempt an override. It certainly looks like we could be in for yet another clash between the governor and Mr. Berger.

13 Comments

  1. Bill Holden

    You know what helped the rural counties – THE FILM INDUSTRY….but they killed it. It was a win-win for everyone involved. The film industry benefitted from a rebate program last year, and they’d film (i.e.- spend money in) rural counties all across the state, fueling their economies, hiring locals while at the same time providing positive exposure and publicity.

  2. A. Reed

    One part of this equation that nobody’s talking about but that is ALWAYS in the scheme of ALEC/TeaParty thugs is this: when the state confiscates money from the urban counties that generate by far the greatest amount of revenue for the state, and gives it to the rural ones that benefit every day from their proximity to the income-generating cities, the elected officials in those cities will have to figure out a way to make up all that lost revenue–tens of millions of dollars per city. Just as they have to figure out today how to make up for the revenue lost when the Rethuglicans voted to prohibit cities from collecting business license fess.
    So what to those urban elected officials–almost all Democrats–have to do? They have to raise other taxes on their residents. So who turns out to be the bad guy? The big bad city Democrats who raised your taxes!!!

    That’s been part of the Rethuglican game plan since the 1980s under Reagan and in every state they control: cut taxes wherever they’re in control, demand improved services from elected bodies they don’t control, and then run against those elected officials because the SOBs raised taxes to provide those services.

    Deficits? So much the better. Let the next guys come along and have to clean up the mess behind the elephant, as Clinton did–and lost Congress after only two years–and Obama did–and lost Congress after only two years–and as Milwaukee County (WI) did after four years of Scott Walker as county executive.

    THAT’s what they’re doing.

  3. Nortley

    “The rural parts of this state are in trouble and the legislature needs to use every tool in their toolbox to fix them.”

    How about just letting the market (bow reverently) take care of it? Republicans have been telling us for years that there is no problem the almighty “invisible hand” (bow reverently) can’t solve.

  4. A

    Is there any way to embiggen that map?

    • John Wynne

      I stole that map from Phil Berger and couldn’t find a thumbnail. Sorry!

  5. JC Honeycutt

    Seems to me the sensible thing would be to do some tweaking to the bill to make it more balanced. I live in Perquimans County, and we don’t have much choice in terms of local vs. out-of-county (or, indeed, out-of-state) shopping. I think it makes sense for some of that revenue to come back to the rural/small-town areas whose dollars helped provide it, so that they can develop–or at least maintain themselves–along with more urban counties. Is “compromise” a dirty word in the current GA?

  6. Tail Muncher

    Just curious, if rural counties benefit and urban counties are harmed, why is it that Durham and Mecklenburg are harmed, but Wake & Guilford are neutral? If I’m wrong here, it’s because I can’t zoom in on the map to check.

  7. Keith

    I do not have a problem with this re-distribution, even though I live in one urban county and work in another, although some tweaks might be a good idea. I do have a concern that right-leaning, rural county commissions will play the stupid tea party card and lower property taxes, which will not help poor people in these counties, rather than find a way to inject this money into the economy as intended. On the other hand, shifting the development funds to entice businesses to come to and expand in NC from urban to rural is just plain stupid. This must means that the money won’t get spent as these business would be happy to go to rural counties, where labor costs are usually lower, if they could get whatever they need/want there that they can get in urban counties.

  8. River Rat Dem

    Rural areas always come out ahead when it comes to state policy. They are huge net recipients of taxes,; metro areas have to fund their schools, their roads, their hospitals via Medicaid–everything. Rural white Southerners are the ultimate welfare queens. Disgusting, third-world hicks.

    • River Rat Dem

      Don’t forget about military bases, federal highway programs, farm subsidies, the post office…all are straight-up giveaways to redneck country.

  9. Eilene

    What planet are we on? The Republicans are going all Robin Hood? I don’t understand! It’s so… liberal!

    • Brad

      Ha!! Isn’t this like a “redistribution of the wealth” ?

    • Carole Schaefer

      It’s Robin Hood in reverse. Steal from the poor to give to the rich.

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

Get the latest posts from PoliticsNC delivered right to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!