The absurd prosecution of John Edwards

North Carolina is the scene of an embarrassing national spectacle these days. The trial of John Edwards is a sad and sordid matter that has to make any human being with an even a shred of compassion ache for the innocent bystanders like Edwards’ daughter Cate, his younger children and other loved ones.

Ultimately, however, it is not the details of the Edwards’ screwed-up personal life that constitute the chief embarrassment. That honor must go to the trial’s existence in the first place.

For months now, federal prosecutors have gone to enormous lengths and spent millions of dollars to try and show that the former Senator and national candidate violated the letter of campaign finance laws by convincing wealthy benefactors to make payments to his mistress. According to the prosecutors, this action was unlawful because the contributions were, in effect, “campaign contributions.” As such, they were allegedly in violation of the law – both because they were never reported as such and because they exceed the caps on such expenditures that existed at the time.

Edwards argues, of course, that the payments were not contributions, but merely payments of the kind that a typical cad might arrange to salve a private indiscretion. We’ll assuredly hear more when Edwards’ lawyers put on his defense,

That’s pretty much it. The might of the federal government and the Department of Justice’s troubled “Public Integrity Section” – the same group that completely (and, as it turned out, tragically and wrongfully) botched the prosecution of the late Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska a few years back – is being brought to bear against a disgraced and has-been politician with absolutely no future and personal troubles innumerable.

And to what end?

To punish Edwards for having acted like a jerk? The instinct to want to do something like this is perhaps understandable. From the information available to the public, it’s pretty clear that Edwards repeatedly engaged in stupid, dishonorable, and cringe-inducing personal behavior. That the whole mess went down while his wife was dying of cancer and in the long shadow of previous family tragedy only makes the whole thing that much more disturbing.

The only problem, of course, is that there’s no criminal statute in the United States against behaving like a scoundrel in one’s personal relationships. If there were, dozens of national political figures – from Bill Clinton to Newt Gingrich to Elliot Spitzer to Mark Sanford – and millions of other less well-known individuals would have served or be serving time right now.

Fortunately, however, this is not Saudi Arabia or 17^th century Massachusetts. Modern Americans may often be a holier-than-thou bunch, but we do not (and hopefully never will) send people to jail for adultery or lying to their spouses or getting their friends to help them conceal an affair.

So, if not to punish a scoundrel, what else? What other objective could the federal prosecutors have in targeting Edwards?

Is it to send a message of deterrence to current and future politicians that they can’t evade campaign finance laws by having their friends make expenditures that will benefit them and their campaigns?

If so, it’s hard to see how that will work. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered such message-sending completely obsolete with its infamous decision in the Citizens United case. That decision, of course, opened the floodgates to unlimited expenditures from wealthy individuals and corporations to directly benefit political candidates. Had the court’s decision been issued prior to Edwards’ ill-fated cover-up of his affair with Rielle Hunter, it’s hard to see how the issue would have ever even arisen as a possible violation of the law.

Today, gazillionaires like Newt Gingrich’s sugar daddy Sheldon Adelson and Edwards’ former sugar momma (Bunny Mellon) can spend as much as they want anytime they feel like it to benefit a candidate. After Citizens United, Edwards and his cohorts would have had to have been complete fools (admittedly , not an impossibility) to even give the impression of running afoul of the present-day truck-sized loopholes. As analyst Hampton Dellinger noted in an article in The Atlantic Monthly last month:

“…a central premise of the indictment of Edwards — that ‘in order to restrict the influence that any one person could have on the outcome’ of a presidential primary election, ‘the most an individual can contribute to any candidate for that primary election was $2,300’ — seems downright quaint.”

Indeed, it’s one of the great and under-reported ironies of the Edwards trial that the very man who indicted Edwards – former U.S. Attorney turned wannabe congressman George Holding – is himself a daily beneficiary of massive amounts of unreported super-PAC spending that is specifically designed to evade “caps” on campaign contributions  and is in many essential ways indistinguishable from the money spent by Mellon on Edwards!

Think about that for a minute: How does a man in such circumstances look himself in the mirror every morning knowing that he has helped to inflict such intense agony upon so many already long-suffering humans? Seriously, what is the point? What principle is possibly being vindicated? What possible good would it do for anyone connected with this mess – most notably Edwards’ children – if the former senator were to go to prison? What public figure is going to be deterred from future skullduggery?

Especially given the radical shift in campaign finance law, it’s as if prosecutors had decided to prosecute someone for being an alcoholic during prohibition…two years after its repeal.

So, why are we being subjected to this? Readers are left to draw their own conclusions, but even George Holding’s arch-conservative Republican primary opponent Paul Coble – no admirer of John Edwards –  has complained mightily in recent days that Holding’s actions in the case were “political.”

Going forward

So, where do things go from here? With any luck, not much further.

If there’s a smidgen of justice in the world, this time next year, John Edwards will be at home, raising his children, paying taxes and, hopefully, making some contribution to the world.

And George Holding?  Whether he’s in Congress, back in North Carolina practicing law or at home in his rocking chair, let’s hope that he and his fellow prosecutors will have thought long and hard about the needless pain his and their efforts have helped to inflict on the state of North Carolina and a lot of innocent people and whether it was worth it.

Image above from Wikimedia Commons, used under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

The N.C. Department of Labor hits rock bottom

It’s been common knowledge for years to those who follow state government that the North Carolina Department of Labor has become a bad joke under the “leadership” of state Commissioner of Labor Cherie Berry. Once nationally recognized as a place in which worker safety and well-being received prompt and quality attention, the agency has in recent years all but fallen apart. Though several good agency employees soldier on, doing their best to be good public servants, Berry and her cronies have hosed things up so badly that it is always an uphill fight to accomplish anything worthwhile.

As was noted in this space almost three years ago:

“Commissioner Cherie Berry has pursued what might be most charitably described as a ‘minimalist’ approach to her job. Though paying official lip service to the notion that workplace safety is her top priority, Berry has done virtually nothing in eight years to advance that cause in a new or affirmative way. For the most part, she has pursued an approach in which she purports to work with employers in a cooperative rather than and adversarial manner. In reality, it has been an approach in which she mostly does what she can to minimize fines and other tough enforcement actions.

Not surprisingly, it has been an approach that has found favor with employers. Her own official website brags of awards she has received (but not the campaign contributions, of course) from groups of manufacturers, home builders and contractors.”

And so it has continued to go throughout Berry’s third term. It’s now been almost four years since Berry’s dismal duty-shirking performance was documented in a lengthy and award-winning series in the Charlotte Observer on the state’s frequently horrific poultry industry. Naturally, nothing of substance has come from the Department in response.

Just when you thought things couldn’t get any worse

And, still, Berry and her lackeys within the agency look for more ways to hit new lows and further sully the reputation of a once-energetic public watchdog.

Recently, after having reached their breaking point when it came to enduring the stalling and inaction of the Department, lawyers at the Farmworker Unit of Legal Aid of North Carolina filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health office asking that federal officials intervene.

The September 30 letter explains in great detail how, time and again, Berry’s office has failed to take even the minimal necessary steps to address appalling conditions on and in the state’s farms and poultry plants. Among other things, the letter explains how the Department has:

*Frequently turned a blind eye toward serious sanitation violations;

*Drastically reduced penalties for employers to the point where they have zero deterrent effect;

*Failed to employ enough Spanish-speaking investigators; and

*Failed to conduct sufficient or adequate labor camp inspections (The letter highlights a recent report conducted by the Wake Forest University of School of Medicine that found most camps “suffer from violations such as a lack of functioning bathroom or laundry facilities, overcrowding, rodent infestation/lack of proper trash disposal facilities, and no resident trained in first aid”).

The letter goes on to say that not only are inspections too few in number and inadequate, but that, where there are inspections, the standards are pathetically insufficient. One “standard” requires one toilet for every 15 workers. It even specifies that a portable toilet or outhouse will suffice. To make matters even worse, there are scores of unlicensed camps that are never inspected at all.

Berry’s shocking response

This Wednesday, the Commissioner’s official spokesperson, a woman named Dolores Quesenberry wrote the following in an email to reporter Tom Breen of AP regarding the matter.

This is what she said:

“Thanks Tom. Here’s our official statement:

The letter was not addressed to us. It was addressed to Secretary Michaels, so we’ll wait and see what Washington has to say.

This letter is just a political stunt to promote a leftist agenda. We have asked advocates over and over for addresses. They’re always talking about unregistered camps and horrible conditions, yet they will not provide addresses or locations. If they did, we’d go and inspect. Instead of playing politics, we need to find solutions to everyday problems and help the hardworking men and women of our agricultural community. So the question that should be asked is, is Legal Aid actually trying to help people or are they just trying to advance their political agenda?

Dolores Quesenberry
Director of Communications
N.C. Department of Labor”

Did we hear that right?

“A political stunt to promote a leftist agenda”?

Dedicated lawyers who’ve spent decades of their lives toiling in some of our state’s least-desirable places writing a detailed and thoughtful letter to a bureaucrat in Washington in hopes of getting some action – any action – out of a long moribund state regulator to help some of our state’s most exploited workers is a “a political stunt to promote a leftist agenda”?

Since when did providing toilets to human beings become “leftist”?

Surely this woman cannot be that seriously delusional. And surely she could not have dared to author such an absurd and offensive email were it not an accurate reflection of her boss’s beliefs.

Going forward

By any standards of common sense and human decency, any public servant who participated in, authorized or approved such an ignorant and mean-spirited bit of correspondence ought to resign. The email and the attitudes and behavior it reflects are not worthy of a public official who acts in all of our names.

If Berry and her assistant had even a modicum of decency or respect for the workers of the state they’re supposedly sworn to protect, they would depart state employment tomorrow.

Unfortunately, when someone has spent 11 years hoodwinking the public to the tune of well over a million dollars in taxpayer-funded salary, there’s no reason to expect her to develop a conscience.

Unlike the workers forced to endure poison and squalor on a daily basis, we won’t be holding our breath.

House Republicans tell a big fat whopper about jobs

This week, a friend of N.C. Policy Watch forwarded us an emailed fundraiser message sent out by the North Carolina House Republicans. In it, one of Speaker Thom Tillis’ assistants attacks Democratic lawmaker Bill Faison for his recent press conference in which he called for restoration of the sales tax cut enacted in the Republican budget that went into effect July 1.

Faison had called for the special session on bigotry to be converted into a special session on jobs in which lawmakers would “enact Hurricane relief, amend the State Budget and implement a smart tax policy that stimulates small business to hire.”

It’s no big surprise that the GOP would attack Faison. It’s embarrassing to be called out for kowtowing to the religious right and ignoring the real problems of the state. Anyone who watched or listened to Tillis or Senate President Pro Tem Berger this week could see the sheepishness in their respective demeanors. They know better and, like anyone caught in such dirty business, lashed out at Faison in an effort to change the subject.

Out-of-control spin

But wait, here’s where things get interesting and rather startlingly dishonest. This is from the letter:

“In fact, in the one month since the Republican-led North Carolina General Assembly passed its fact-based budget, 6,900 private sector jobs were created. In addition, the Republican-led North Carolina General Assembly passed the following legislation that has already proven to spur job creation inNorth Carolina:

• Workers’ Compensation Reform
• Tort Reform
• Regulatory Reform
• Tax Breaks for Small Business Owners
• Medical Malpractice Reform

The ‘jobs plan’ touted by Democrat Rep. Bill Faison is telling as to the legislative priorities of the North Carolina Democrats. If the Democrats are able to regain control of the North Carolina General Assembly, then their immediate course of action will be to undo the legislation that helped spur the 6,900 private sector jobs created in one month.”

Got that? Tillis is claiming that the FY2012 budget – the one that went into effect July1, 2011 – created 6,900 private sector jobs in July. No, seriously, that’s what he’s saying.

Read this again:

“In fact, in the one month since the Republican-led North Carolina General Assembly passed its fact-based budget, 6,900 private sector jobs were created.” (Emphasis supplied).

Setting the record straight

The jobs claim is dishonesty of the highest order on multiple levels.

First of all, to call the GOP budget “fact-based” is an insult to facts. The budget was based on smoke and mirror tricks and practices that Republicans have long excoriated. This is from the final budget analysis report prepared by the experts at the N.C. Budget andTaxCenter:

“The final budget is structurally out of balance, relying on more than $700 million in nonrecurring funds to achieve annual – rather than structural – balance in the first year of the biennium. The second budget year is even more severely structurally unbalanced due to full implementation of the budget’s $408 million tax-cut package.”

But more to the point, Tillis’ claim that the GOP budget was responsible for producing 6,900 private sector jobs in July is ludicrous on its face.

The only response that an incredulous reader can stammer is: “How?!’

Was it by getting rid of more than 12,000 public jobs during the same month? Does Tillis really believe that a sales tax cut can create private sector jobs in such an environment? And do so that fast? At a time when the cut in public employment is clearly having a negative ripple effect? Heck, most North Carolinians probably didn’t even know what was in the budget by July! Not even a charlatan like Grover Norquist would make such an outrageous assertion.

As any responsible economist would tell you, aside from its direct impact on public employment, state government action can have only a very attenuated and indirect impact on private jobs creation. Sure, over time, having more educated workers, better transportation systems, more and better services and, yes, an attractive tax climate, can improve a state’s job outlook. But there’s no way that can happen literally overnight.

If there’s any single best and fastest way for state government to stimulate private job growth in the near term, it’s clearly to put a meaningful amount of money in the hands of more people who will spend it right way.

That’s what unemployment insurance does, for example: get people who have little, if any, savings to spend more money in local businesses than they ordinarily would. That’s what Medicaid payments for health care can do. The money quickly filters through the economy and soon, local retail outlets and restaurants and car dealers (and their suppliers) hire (or at least keep) more employees.

Providing a sales tax cut of six or seven bucks a month or income tax cuts to rich people with plenty of disposable income? There’s simply no way — certainly not with the speed claimed by Tillis.

Of course, if we accept Tillis’ premise – that the state budget in effect for any given month can be tied directly to private job growth for the same period– then it seems the Speaker will have to start give the Democrats credit for the months in which private job growth rose dramatically while their budgets were in effect.

For instance, North Carolinaunemployment fell much faster under the Democratic state budgets of 2010 and 2011 than national unemployment. In February of this year, North Carolina created 17,400 nonfarm jobs under a Democratic budget. Why isn’t Tillis giving Democrats credit for this “achievement”?

The answer is obvious: As this week’s kangaroo legislative session and his repeated false statements about public school employment make plain, the Speaker and his staff have an aversion to facts and have no intention of letting them get in the way of their political spin or their ideological agenda.

State Senator sells out his daughters in a backroom deal

The North Carolina state Senate joined the House in overriding Governor Perdue’s veto of the scandalously misnamed “Woman’s Right to Know Act” yesterday. Under the new state law which is scheduled to go into effect this October (and which would be more accurately referred to as the “North Carolina Rapists Relief Act”) North Carolina women will be required to endure a scripted ultrasound examination, a waiting period and undergo what amounts to an anti-abortion lecture written by conservative lawmakers before they exercise their constitutional right to an abortion. Rapists and perpetrators of child incest are empowered under the law to bring suit to help enforce the law’s requirements.

Back when the bill passed the Senate by a 29-20 margin in June, Republican senator Stan Bingham of Davidson County was the only member of his party to vote “no.” (Another Republican, Richard Stevens of Wake County, was absent).

Here is the extremely rational statement Bingham made at the time, as reported by Mark Binker of the Greensboro News-Record:

“I’ve got four daughters and I have never imposed on them. They are bright, smart young women and I trust the decisions they make. I’ve got one’s a doctor, one’s a lawyer and two engineers,” Bingham said, adding that he raised his daughters to think for themselves.

He said that Senators who were doctors spoke against the bill and swayed him. But, he said, it was mainly thinking about the women in his life that caused him to side against the bill.

“I leave it up to them to make decisions about their own bodies,” Bingham said. “It’s just like if I were going to be castrated, I wouldn’t want them to make that decision for me.”

Override switcheroo

The requirement to override a veto, of course, is three-fifths. Assuming everything else remained the same, one or more of a couple possible things had to happen in order for the veto in this matter to be overridden

Possibility #1 was that Senator Stevens would show up and vote for an override. Once again, however, he was conveniently absent.

Possibility #2 was that Senator Bingham would change his vote. But given his previous statement and action, how could he possibly do that?

In light of these two hard facts, it might have seemed that supporters of the bill were over a barrel. They just didn’t have the votes, right?

Not so fast my friend.

It turns out that Senate Republicans had an alternative plan: convince Bingham not to vote at all – to “take a walk,” as the lawmakers sometimes say. This would make the vote 29-19 – just enough to make the 3/5 requirement.

And that’s just what happened. Bingham came to the Legislative Building Thursday morning, sat in his seat and then went to a hastily convened Republican caucus.

When he came out, he was high-tailing it for the door.

Mark Binker reported Bingham’s great skedaddle this way:

“I can’t vote for that bill, that’s all there is too it,” Bingham said.

Asked if he knew his absence would all for the override to happen, Bingham said that he did.

“Yes, I know. I know the circumstances. This is very difficult for me,” Bingham said.

However, he said the Senate Republican caucus made this abortion vote a “caucus issue,” a vote where members would face sanctions if they voted out of line with other Republicans. Such sanctions could range from everything from being tossed out of the caucus or losing committee chairmanship to facing party-sponsored opposition in a primary.

“This is the first time in my history in politics I’ve been asked to do this and have done it,” Bingham said.

To which, any sane person would have to offer the following responses:

#1: Say what?! What the heck is the man thinking? What possible difference does not voting make when it has precisely the same effect as switching sides? The bottom line is the same: in either case, Bingham’s change would decide the issue. Senator Bingham is now directly responsible for the passage of this new and horrible law. Can anyone really be so simple and shallow as to think that he can absolve himself from responsibility for such a noxious result just because he ran away and hid at crunch time?

#2: Why?! What could the Republicans have possibly threatened Bingham with that would evoke such an about face? A primary opponent? Physical harm?

Bingham is a generally moderate, soft-spoken, 65 year-old lumber company owner. He has long been recognized as a maverick who frequently voted from Democratic proposals – including multiple state budgets. He had and has no realistic prospects to gain significant power in the ultra-conservative Republican caucus. He’s come as far as he’s going to in the state Senate, where, despite having served six terms, he isn’t even trusted by his colleagues to chair a committee on his own. In short, there’s nothing they could do to him of consequence.

Ah, “but that’s politics,” you say. Sometimes people have to do hard things in order to get other things they want.

To which, all a body can say is: “Really?!” What could Bingham have possibly “gotten” in return for such an act? What could possibly make it worth it for a man who publicly admits he knows better, to subject his daughters and granddaughters to a law so over-the-top Orwellian that it has to include a provision like the following?

“Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a pregnant woman from averting her eyes from the displayed images or from refusing to hear the simultaneous explanation and medical description.”

What could Bingham have gotten that would make him facilitate the passage of a law so disgraceful that it specifically empowers “any father of an unborn child” (including a rape or incest perpetrator) to sue the abortion provider for not following the official government script?

It’s hard to imagine what it could have been. What’s the price for selling out your fundamental principles (not to mention the freedom and well-being of millions of women)?

Too harsh?

Some would say that this attack on Bingham is too harsh. After all, weren’t there 29 other senators and 72 Representatives who voted for this noxious bill?

Yes, there were. And several clearly did so despite knowing better. Like Bingham, they sold out and traded women’s freedom for political gain. In the House, a handful of Democrats also voted for this dreadful legislation. Rep. Jim Crawford even switched his vote from “no” to “aye.” Senator Stevens has yet to explain his “no show” performances.

Unfortunately for Bingham, however, all of his colleagues were cagey enough never to admit pro-choice beliefs in public. They never mislead people by making strong public statements that the bill was wrong.

That’s one of the tough realities of politics: Your words and actions have consequences. No one expects much of reactionary nincompoops, but when people who know better sell out, the damage that results is likely to be their legacy.

Stan Bingham is about to learn this lesson.

Governor Perdue and average North Carolinians vs. conservative ideologues and the moneyed interests

Events are moving fast in Raleigh these days. Tired of waiting for Republicans running the General Assembly to pass legislation that would restore unemployment benefits to tens of thousands of deserving workers and their families, Governor Beverly Perdue, in effect, said, “the hell with it” today and issued an executive order to do what legislative leaders would not. It could lead to a fascinating and illuminating conflict if the GOP attempts to challenge her action and affirmatively stop the payment of federally-funded benefits to deserving people.

Here’s part of the statement she issued:

“For weeks, I have been trying to work with the Republican legislative leaders to get them to do the right thing: send me a clean bill to extend the unemployment benefits for 47,000 North Carolinians who have lost their jobs. But instead of acting responsibly on this matter, the Republican legislature has repeatedly refused to send me such a bill. Instead, they have persistently attempted to use our unemployed workers as hostages by tying the extension of their benefits to my acceptance of budget bills that would inflict severe and unnecessary cuts to our schools and other essential programs.

Meanwhile, thousands of North Carolina families are running out of money and options. I hear from them all over the state. They visit my website and Facebook page to beg for help….

Every week we deny these benefits is another week that we keep $11 million of federal funds from flowing into our economy. This money would pay for things like groceries, rent and clothing and help small businesses who sell these items or collect that rent.

North Carolina cannot wait any longer for the legislature to do what they should have done more than a month ago. Today, I am issuing an executive order extending federal unemployment benefits to these 47,000 North Carolinians. Republican leaders in the General Assembly have been unwilling to take the necessary steps to extend these benefits, and no doubt they will attempt to interfere with this action. But I, for one, believe these people are entitled to and need these federal funds, and the Republican-controlled legislature needs to stop using the unemployed as pawns.”

Meanwhile, the conflict over the regressive state budget proposal got ratcheted up significantly as Democratic leaders, local officials and a large and growing coalition of advocacy groups brought more and more of the proposal’s dreadful provisions to light. Perdue’s chief education spokesperson Bill Harrison patiently explained at a press conference how the budget proposal would, if enacted, cause devastating harm to classrooms throughout the state. Harrison said the proposal was full of “smoke and mirrors.”

Both of these developments came on the heels of Thursday’s hottest debate – the fight over whether the state should raise interest rates on vulnerable consumers who are forced to patronize storefront loan companies. After the bill squeaked through the House last night over the strong objections of North Carolina-based military leaders, Governor Perdue issued a strong statement of condemnation. 

“The General Assembly should listen to the top leaders of the Pentagon and the leadership of our North Carolina military bases and vote against the current version of House Bill 810. This legislation will expose our men and women in uniform and their families to high cost financial obligations and potentially predatory lending practices.”

A pattern emerges

The bottom line all of this is that after months in which the combination of somewhat muted Republican rhetoric and hesitance (patience?) from the Governor had combined to keep things relatively and surprisingly calm in the capital city, the gloves are finally coming off.

With less than a month to go in the current fiscal year and a veritable mad scramble to pass all sorts of backwards-looking bills overtaking the General Assembly, it is now crystal clear that there are two main sides in the state policy debate: Governor Perdue and average North Carolinians vs. conservative ideologues and the moneyed interests.

Think about the issues listed above.

On unemployment insurance – Try as they might to attack the Governor with the silly, inside-the-beltline claim that her action on unemployment insurance benefits indicated “incompetence” because she could have done it weeks ago (when she was trying to get them to do their jobs!), the Republicans have clearly been maneuvered into a difficult political position.

Whereas the Governor has aligned herself with average people (i.e. the unemployed and the overwhelming majority of voters, who support extension of benefits), legislative Republicans have aligned themselves with those who do not want to extend benefits (i.e. a handful of market fundamentalist ideologues and…and…well, nobody that’s willing to admit it). Even the conservative business community (which generally hates unemployment insurance and is trying to ruin the program in another bill) hasn’t had the courage to speak up against workers on this issue.

On education cuts – Again, the lines are clear. On one side stands the Governor along with teachers, parents, and local officials of both parties throughout the state who understand the devastating impact of slashing education. On the other side stands fundamentalist ideologues, who don’t even believe in public education in the first place and…and…well, nobody that’s willing to admit it. Other than partisan attack groups like the ironically-named Americans for Prosperity, there has been zero organized support for slashing education. Again, even conservative business leaders know better and have, if anything stood with the Governor.

On raising consumer loan rates – Once again, the Governor has seized the political high ground. While she stands with consumer groups, senior citizens, military leaders and 84% of voters, her opponents consist of a combination of predatory, mostly out-of-state loan companies and…and…, well, Americans for Prosperity.

Where things go from here

Though encouraging, none of these developments guarantees a near-term policy victory for the Governor and her allies. The Republicans have large majorities in both houses and may have succeeded in buying off enough conservative House Democrats to override a Perdue budget veto.

Still, when it comes to the longer-term battle for the hearts and minds of North Carolinians, it’s increasingly clear that Perdue has finally struck upon a winning political strategy. At long last, she seems to have finally figured out the fact that there’s no peace to be made with the reactionaries running the General Assembly.

Meanwhile, though unrepentant, her opponents seem to be feeling the heat. After months of confident and deliberate action to pass a steady stream of legislation, legislative Republicans lurched suddenly into overdrive this week, scurrying to ram through dozens of controversial bills and promising a June 17 adjournment. It almost resembled the behavior of looters who realized that police had been alerted to their presence.

Will conservatives figure out a way to get out of the political hole they’ve dug for themselves? Given the way the battle lines are shaping up, it’s likely to be a tough and uphill fight.

The problem with the move to expand tax check-offs

Several weeks ago, a column in this space raised the ire of some good guy advocates and at least one confused state Representative when it questioned the wisdom and sincerity of a House bill that will create a check-off box on the North Carolina income tax returns to support an eminently worthy cause. The bill in question would allow taxpayers to donate funds to the Cancer Prevention and Control Branch of the Division of Public Health of the state Department of Health and Human Services. At last check, the measure resides in the Senate Finance Committee after having passed the House by a wide margin.

The point of that column, of course, was not to question the worthiness of a fine public program that does great work or the specific objective of the legislation. In case there’s any doubt on anyone’s part, however, it should be noted clearly and right up front once again that the Cancer Prevention and Control Branch desperately needs more funding and no one can blame cancer prevention advocates for doing everything and anything they to raise money to support it – including working for a passage of a check-off bill.

The point of the column was, instead, to highlight a troubling trend in government that has been aggressively advanced by the market fundamentalist right in recent years – namely, the concept of what might be called “vending machine government.”

Vending machine government

In the view of many on the extreme right, the idea of broad-based, progressive taxes to support a wide array of vibrant public services and structures is an anathema. These ideologues simply hate the idea of a strong, well-funded government in which the people come together democratically and intentionally to a tackle society’s problems. Instead, they favor a weak, decentralized, privatized government modeled after our modern, consumerist private economy.

Rather than a system in which citizens hire and empower a corps of skilled and well-funded professionals to help them build a better society for all, the market fundamentalists want a government in which “consumers” “shop” for services and public institutions “compete” for “customers.”

Hence, the moves to privatize pre-K and K-12 education, jack up college and university tuition, add new toll roads, eliminate public financing of campaigns, defund public health care, and enact a new package of fee increases that will extract nearly $100 million annually from persons who “consume” things like services of the court system and driver’s education.

And yes – hence, the move to support things like more check-off boxes on state income tax returns whereby programs can battle other good public programs for public support.

In and of itself, the breast and cervical cancer check-off is a harmless addition for a good cause. Unfortunately, as the original column in this space presaged, conservatives do not intend that it will be by itself.

To the contrary, as a House committee’s action this week makes plain, the conservative majority in the General Assembly has big plans for income tax return check-off boxes. Under a bill passed by the House Government Committee this week, six new check-off boxes would be created – and not just any ordinary check-off boxes, either. Rather than specific, worthy programs like cancer prevention, these boxes would actually allow citizens to designate money for basic, overarching government functions—namely:

• The Department of Cultural Resources,
• The Department of Health and Human Services,
• The Department of Public Instruction,
• The Department of Public Safety,
• The General Fund of the State of North Carolina, and
• The University of North Carolina.

Got that? Under the conservative plan, several core functions of government would be transformed – at least partially – into competing charities.

Political games

According to bill sponsor and House Speaker Pro Tem, Rep. Dale Folwell, the proposal empowers people. Folwell told WRAL.com that “[the bill] pushes the power away from this town, and back down to the people who truly feel the urge that, if they’re not taxed enough, that they can donate more.”

But, of course, this is just a silly and disingenuous smokescreen. No one seriously believes that people are going to voluntarily support any of these departments or funds on anything approaching the scale that would truly make a difference in their respective funding streams. More to the point, no one who cares about any of these bedrock government institutions thinks it makes any sense to turn core public services into competing charities that would be forced to fight for donations.

Folwell may make noises about providing a means to fund government services, but he knows better.

As any first-year college economics student can tell you, a “market” only works effectively when consumers have information about the products or services they are buying – ideally complete information. Does anyone really think average North Carolinians have the time or energy or background necessary to allow them to make informed decisions about which core function of government deserves their support?

The answer is “no, of course not.” That’s why people elect a representative government that, in turn, employs professional experts – to gather the necessary information and make those informed decisions for them. Under the check-off/vending machine approach, core public services that ought to represent the best of human collective action become little different than deodorant brands or “American Idol” contestants – fodder for crass competitions in which contestants rise and fall with the whims of a distracted public’s fleeting attention. 

As with their support of the cancer check-off earlier this year, the new check-off scheme is in reality a cynical sleight of hand by legislative conservatives – a P.R. move aimed at softening the public image of GOP lawmakers at a time that they are decimating essential public structures and services and attempting to usher in a grim new world of dog-eat-dog conservatism.

Will the ploy work?

One gets the sense that these kinds of gimmicks are starting to wear thin. Recent polls suggest that the public is largely disgusted at the way conservative leaders have held thousands of unemployed workers hostage in a game of political football over a totally unrelated subject. Independent voters have been abandoning the GOP in large numbers over proposed cuts to education and other hard right policy positions.

Let’s hope that the public sniffs out the hypocrisy involved in this act as well. 

The Charlotte Observer hosted

Though it was probably too much to expect that Tillis would have used the event as an opportunity to make some real news or admit some errors in his party’s heavy-handed handling of the first three months of the 2011 legislative session, it would have been nice if he had, at least, taken the opportunity to really listen to the tough questions and opposing views voiced by some members of the public and maybe even displayed a little humility and flexibility.

Instead it was the same, increasingly tiring performance that we’ve come to expect from Tillis – the one in which he uses the language and demeanor of a seemingly modern and no-nonsense corporate manager type to cloak what is really a rather remarkable combination of arrogance and ideological rigidity.

Consider the following:

On the GOP’s decision to hold up the unemployment benefits of 37,000 families in order to force the governor to agree to their budget plan and refusal to allow a bill to advance (HB 676) that would free up the benefits immediately:

Tillis: “Whether it is HB 676 or another bill, I am hopeful we will work something out this week. We need to extend the benefits AND we need to avoid the future risk of temporary job losses if we reach an impass[e] on budget negotiations.”

Then, later, he wrote this:

Tillis: The Employeement (sic) Security Commission (ESC) has done a disservice to tens of thousands of NC citizens, not the least of which is only providing 2 weeks notice about the disruption of benefits payments. We need to put the ESC and the Governor on notice that we need certainty for those on unemployment AND state employees the Gov may otherwise use as pawns for her negotiations with the General Assembly.

And this:

Tillis: I’m hopeful we will work something out on EB this week. I’ve told the Governor we are willing to compromise. Hopefully the Gov does not view compromise as simply accepting her going in position.

Setting the record straight: All of these statements are transparently disingenuous. The extension of unemployment benefits, which would be wholly funded by the federal government, has NOTHING to do with the state budget — other than that Tillis and his colleagues saw it as a convenient bargaining tool. Similarly, the attack on the Employment Security Commission is a complete cheap shot. Tillis knows as well as anyone the bill to extend benefits could have (and still could) pass both houses of the legislature and be signed by the in Governor in less than a day.

On the explnation for Republican efforts to reduce and restrict early voting: 

Tillis: “Several factors, not the least of which is cost.”

And this:

Tillis: “BTW…early voting is very important. It is only a matter of duration and scope. Shorter duration can allow for more locations for example.”

Setting the record straight: Come on, Mr. Speaker, give us a break. Anyone who believes that the Republicans are pushing proposals to restrict early voting (and mandate photo ID for voters) because they want to promote more voter participation has been utterly snookered.

On the obvious conflict between the Republicans’ alleged aversion to “new taxes” and the plan to raise $100 million in new fees on everyday government services.

Tillis: “I complete disagree on the fee argument. Are you telling me that my tax dollars should be used to subsidize cost of people who use the courts? The fee package was $100,000,000. The tax decrease we proposed is 1,700,000,000. I’m at peace with trying to recover some cost. NONE of the fees we’ve proposed fully (or come close) to recovering cost to provide the service.”

Setting the record straight: Uh, Mr Speaker, yes – tax dollars should support the courts…and the schools and the road and clean water, etc…. These are core functions of government. The last thing we need is to turn government into a giant vending machine.

On the Republican efforts to advance a bill that would cause already usurious rates on small loans to skyrocket – all in order to benefit a small handful of large, out-of-state corporations:

Tillis: “I’m not aware of the details on HB 810. However, I do know that some folks who need loans are not getting them and I do believe that this is some sense in charging people and interest rate comensurate (sic) with the risk.”

Setting the record straight: Let’s see – the bill is being advanced by one of his most powerful allies in the House and the process had already been jury-rigged so that the bill will no longer have to travel through potentially hostile committee and Tillis is pleading ignorance? Please, Mr. Speaker. As for the notion that current rates aren’t already “commensurate” with the risk involved in these loans, Tillis needs to check out this report.  

On the disastrous state of mental health – another area in which the Republican budget would inflict new and likely disastrous cuts – and the plans for Dix Hospital:

Tillis: “The GOP is working closely with Sec. Cansler (DHHS) to allocate resources to MH. Even with the budget cuts, we are making progress. As to Dix, we need to find a way to provide MH services in Raleigh. Whether that is via Dix or an alternative is he (sic) only question.        

Setting the record straight: The GOP is “working to allocate resources” in this area in the same way that it’s “working to allocate” them in education, the environment and public safety – that is, by cutting them dramatically. This is doublespeak of the highest order. 

On the destructive decision to cut the sales tax at the same time that state revenues are just beginning to recover from the Great Recession:

Tillis: “We believe returning the 800,000,000 in sales taxes to the private sector will create jobs and revenue that will put the state in a BETTER position to help the most vunerable (sic). The current tax and tax more proposition is NOT working. That is why we have a huge deficit and above average unemployment (compared to other states).”

Setting the record straight: One penny on the sales tax that most people don’t even notice is responsible for all that? Really? Cutting the sales tax will put the state in a “BETTER position to help the most vulnerable.” How? When?

Finally, on the Carolina Panthers’ decision to take collegiate football star Cam Newton of Auburn University as the first overall pick in last night’s National Football League draft:

Tillis: “I am season ticket holder and I LOVE the Panthers. Even when I hate them. If Cam can do for the Panthers what he did for LSU, it will be a lot of fun.”

Setting the record straight: It’s not a big deal, Thom, but that’s Auburn, not LSU. But, given the House GOP’s penchant for consistently promoting inaccurate comparisons between southeastern states, it’s not surprising that you missed that one too.

GOP budget ploy is as cynical as it gets

A new standard for gall, chutzpah, brazen cynicism – whatever you want to call it, the latest act by Republican leaders in the North Carolina General Assembly hits a new low.

This past week, in an out-of-the-blue announcement, the House Speaker and Senate President Pro Tem decreed that they would only allow passage of a mostly technical legislative change to extend the federally-funded unemployment benefits of around 37,000 jobless workers if Governor Perdue agreed ahead of time to the GOP’s proposed state spending levels for fiscal year 2012.

Got that? In order to short-circuit negotiations and force the Governor to agree now to a FY 2012 budget that slashes state spending by 13%, Republican leaders are willing to hold 37,000 families hostage and deny them their modest insurance benefits (on average, around $300 per week). The leaders combined the two unrelated topics into one bill, passed it in near-record time and now plan to deliver it to the Governor tomorrow – the day the unemployment benefits are scheduled to expire.

It’s hard to imagine a more cynical or mean-spirited ploy.

But wait, it gets even worse.

A game-playing power grab

In addition to freely admitting their willingness to jeopardize the wellbeing of 37,000 innocent families in order to blackmail the Governor into pre-agreeing to their budget, Tillis and Berger announced at that their action was driven by a desire to avoid the phenomena of “brinkmanship” or “playing politics.”

This is about as plausible as the claims of a young would-be entrepreneur that he’s going into the business of telemarketing time shares to nursing homes residents in order to protect his ethics.

Members of the capital press corps could barely suppress their smiles at this whopper.

Dictionary.com defines the term “brinkmanship” as “the technique or practice of maneuvering a dangerous situation to the limits of tolerance or safety in order to secure the greatest advantage, especially by creating diplomatic crises.”

In this case, Republicans are clearly precipitating an unnecessary crisis. The budget hasn’t even passed one house of the legislature yet. The current fiscal year doesn’t end until June 30. The notion that we must condition the extension of federal unemployment benefits now on the Governor capitulating six weeks ahead of time on the state budget is utterly ridiculous.

But perhaps even more important than this rank hypocrisy and shameless political brinkmanship is the fact that Republicans are also attempting a power grab that ought to have all North Carolinians up in arms – regardless of their party or ideology.

North Carolina’s state constitution makes the General Assembly and the Governor partners in crafting a state budget. It does not say that the Governor must accept whatever a majority of lawmakers comes up with; it says that the budget cannot become law without the Governor’s approval or a three-fifths legislative majority (the vote necessary to override a gubernatorial veto).

In other words, the constitution calls for negotiation, dialogue and compromise between the two lawmaking branches of government – a budget-crafting process in which there is give and take and in which a responsible middle ground is achieved.

But, of course, in this case, that’s not possible in April because the Republicans are just beginning to put forth the details of their budget proposal. How do you negotiate with a side that hasn’t even spelled out exactly what it wants?

Some, of course, might say that the Republican effort to withhold unemployment benefits is “negotiation” – that the entire legislative session is one big give and take and that everything ought to be “on the table.”

If this is really true, however, what’s the next ploy that will be mere “negotiation?” How far will lawmakers be prepared to go in the future in holding the immediate needs of average North Carolinians hostage in order to get pre-agreement on the budget?

• Will it be okay for a party in power to make pre-agreement to some version of next year’s budget a prerequisite for it allowing some other essential public service or program to go forward?
• What’s to stop lawmakers from blocking some other new, mid-session federal initiative – say, for hiring law enforcement officers or improving airport safety or improving vaccinations?
• Would it be okay to hold up a bill that addressed an immediate health or environmental crisis?

In any honorable and logical world, the answer to such questions ought to be a resounding “no.”

Unfortunately, for North Carolina legislative Republicans, the answer appears to be an unabashed “yes.” Like their comrades in Congress and the Wisconsin legislature, Republicans in the North Carolina General Assembly seem to have decided to adopt a “no hold barred,” “ends justify the means” approach to governing that promises to ratchet up the levels of rancor and confrontation in our state to new and disturbing heights.

Going forward

At last report, Governor Perdue stood ready to deny the legislative power grab by vetoing the legislation. The question that this gives rise to, of course, is: what’s next?  Will legislative leaders adhere to their game-playing ploy or come to their senses and allow the benefits to continue apart from the unrelated budget debate?

Let’s hope for the latter development. If not, things could get even uglier on Jones Street very soon.

Competing budget proposals don’t offer much of a choice

As most people are well-aware, Governor Beverly Perdue released her proposed state budget this week. Responses from the state policy world have been mixed. Democrats were, not surprisingly, broadly supportive. The progressive advocacy coalition Together NC also praised some parts of the proposal.

Meanwhile Republican leaders at the General Assembly attempted to get themselves worked up into a lather by claiming that it was some kind of leftist, “tax and spend” manifesto. Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger alleged that Perdue’s proposal showed that she wanted to balance the budget “on the backs of North Carolina taxpayers and local governments.”

Ultimately though, neither Berger nor his partner, House Speaker Thom Tillis, really seemed as if their hearts were fully in the attack. There is good reason for this. As Chris Fitzsimon noted yesterday in his analysis, the proposal contain plenty of the kind of pain for which Republicans always clamor:

“There is plenty of pain in Perdue’s plan too. Ten thousand positions in state government will be eliminated and as many as 3,000 of them are currently filled. Imagine the headlines if a factory that employed 3,000 people was closing.

The revenue package makes the state’s regressive, antiquated revenue system more regressive and more antiquated by giving corporations a tax cut, while allowing the 2009 temporary income tax surcharge on the wealthy to expire while keeping ¾ of the temporary sales tax increase in place that’s falls disproportionately on the poor.”

The Together NC coalition put it this way:

“However, it’s important to acknowledge that the cuts proposed in the Governor’s budget will still be extremely painful. Thousands of people will lose their jobs, including those who support our K-12 classrooms. Our world-class university system will take a heavy blow.

For these reasons, we must note that Gov. Perdue’s budget missed an opportunity to fundamentally address our antiquated revenue system and update it for the future. Her decision to cut the corporate income tax rate, which will cost the state over $400 million per year when fully implemented, was an illusory quick fix that will do little to boost the economy or create jobs.”

Placing the proposal in context

At the heart of the budget and the debate surrounding it is the matter of revenue. Interested groups and individuals can debate specific spending priorities all they want, but ultimately, the debate comes down to a fight over tax policy.

When there isn’t enough money to fund essential public structures and services, spending debates are somewhat akin to arguing about where to place the deck chairs on the Titanic. And right now, when it comes to revenue, it’s clear that the state has rammed a fiscal iceberg.

The hard truth is this: despite a modest but real economic recovery, North Carolina tax revenues are in the tank. While total personal income in the state has fallen only slightly in the past year, revenues have fallen through the floor. That’s why we have a huge budget shortfall; our tax system is inadequate and obsolete. The tax system relies much too much on middle and lower income taxpayers (the people suffering the most) and, in effect, fails to go “where the money is.”

Seen in this light, the two main choices provided by Governor Perdue and the Legislative Republicans are remarkably similar and disheartening.

Faced with a large budget shortfall caused by an inadequate and obsolete tax system, Republicans demand and promise a budget that would make things worse by cutting income taxes on the wealthy and corporations and reducing the general state sales tax.

Meanwhile, in response, Governor Perdue has proposed a budget that makes things worse (albeit somewhat less worse) by cutting income taxes on the wealthy and corporations and reducing the general state sales tax.

The only difference is that Republicans would cut the sales tax by a full penny immediately, while Perdue would only cut it by a quarter-cent for two years and then a full cent at the end of the two-year budget. That’s pretty much it. Both sides may couch some of these cuts as “allowing temporary taxes to expire,” but this is mostly semantics. The practical result is that both are advocating cutting taxes in an extremely regressive way at the precise moment the state can least afford it.

Setting the record straight

As noted by Chris Fitzsimon and Together NC, it is to the Governor’s credit that she’s doesn’t go as far the Republicans. Her proposal to delay some of the sales tax cut would keep $750 million or so in absolutely essential funding flowing to the state and thereby prevent a great deal of unnecessary pain. A corner of a loaf is better than no bread at all.

Moreover, given the current political realities in North Carolina posed by an arch-conservative legislature, it is difficult to imagine anything much better actually becoming law in 2011. And realism has its place.

On the other hand, Governor Perdue is and ought to be an equal partner in the budget-making process. What’s more, unlike the legislative leaders, she has a genuine bully pulpit at her disposal. Were she interested in doing so, it’s clear that the Governor could put up a heck of a lot more spirited fight than she appears willing to engage in.

After all, no matter how much she parrots the conservative line on tax cuts when it comes to corporations and the rich, there is no way to placate the hard right. Witness the comments of the Berger-Tillis tag team. One rookie state senator, Thom Goolsby of Wilmington, is already attacking Perdue for not doing away with the corporate income tax in its entirety.

Seen in this light, Perdue’s proposal must be viewed as a weak opening volley in this year’s budget negotiations. At a moment in which whatever she proposed would immediately become the most progressive politically viable solution imaginable – the far “left” proposal in the debate if you will – the Governor has opted for an ideologically conservative budget that’s mostly about just hanging on and getting by rather than a spirited effort to confront the far right and renew our state.

In the days ahead, progressives will no doubt speak out in favor of the Perdue budget over the Republican alternative and they should. But it’s hard to imagine that it will be full-throated support – the kind of people power one sees boiling up in Wisconsin and other states, for instance. At this point, North Carolina’s budget choice appears to be between conservative and ultra-conservative. We could do better.

Dear Friends:

Now that the campaign is over and you are about to take over the levers of power in North Carolina government, there are a few things that some of us in the progressive movement would ask you to consider – about our state, about the budget and the public services and structures it funds and about the nature of our concerns.

We offer this appeal with all sincerity and in good faith.

To begin, we’d ask that you please bring an open mind to Raleigh. Over the decades, countless politicians who based their campaigns on a particular argument have come to discover upon entering office that they had received bad information. In 1960, John F. Kennedy famously campaigned on a supposed “missile gap.” When he took office, however, he discovered that it did not exist.

We believe that a similar phenomenon may now be at work in North Carolina. This is especially true if you are basing all of your opinions and attitudes upon what you have seen and heard on FOX News, talk radio or the various reports and opinion pieces generated by the conservative think tanks here in Raleigh.  

To illustrate this point, consider a recent essay written by a staffer at the Pope-Civitas Institute. It was produced in an effort to take this author to task for saying the following in Raleigh’s News & Observer regarding the huge state budget cuts currently under consideration:

"These kinds of cuts would be an absolute disaster. They would decimate a host of already underfunded programs and wipe out decades of progress. We're talking about firing thousands of teachers, health care providers, mental health workers, and providers of aid to seniors.

"If we want North Carolina to look like some dark, crumbling rust belt state that's all but given up on progress, that is merely trying to survive, these are the kinds of cuts we would implement”

In the essay, the staffer tosses out a volley of statements and statistics that purport to show that progressives are a bunch of power hungry freaks and that state government spending is out of control. At first blush, some of these arguments might seem persuasive – especially if you don’t get to hear much from progressives. The truth, however, is just the opposite.

Here, therefore, is a sincere and genuine response that seeks to bust a few myths and maybe even uncover some common ground:

#1 – The current budget crisis is not, as the staffer alleges, “a minor speed bump on the out-of-control race down North Carolina’s budget highway.” The current crisis is real and enormous. If you attempt to meet your constitutional obligation to balance the budget next year without enacting any changes to plug the budget hole caused by the economic downturn and expiring taxes, you will be causing great harm. Thousands of classrooms will be darkened; thousands of people will do without essential medical care; thousands of mentally ill and disabled people will be worse off than they already are; many roads, bridges and sewers will crumble; scores of college professors will leave for other states; hundreds of businesses that depend on a well-educated workforce and a robust infrastructure will wither or never come to North Carolina.

Moreover, state spending is demonstrably not “out-of-control.” Indeed, next year’s state budget is on pace to be the smallest (as a percentage of state personal income) since 1972! The Pope-Civitas staffer makes much of the fact that North Carolina has added 34,824 state employees between 2001 and 2009. What he fails to tell you is that this constitutes 12.3% growth during a period in which the state’s population grew by 14.5%. Add to this the fact that the overwhelming majority of growth was in education – an area in which North Carolina has long lagged behind the rest of the nation and has been trying to catch up and it’s obvious that his claim is baseless.  

As for his allegation that there is some vast and diabolical network of “paper-pushing bureaucrats” in the education system, consider the following facts from the U.S. Census: North Carolina ranks 49^th in the nation in state and local spending on public school central office administration and 38^th in the nation in spending on in-school administration.

Finally, the staffer’s claims that this growth is especially terrible because private employment fell slightly during this time frame and because state employees make more than folks in the private sector are just absurd. First of all, the decline in private employment occurred entirely during 2008 and 2009; it was growing before that. Does the writer think we should fire state employees when the economy turns south – at the moment in which the demand for services goes up? As for the allegations that state employees are overpaid, walk into any public school classroom, DMV office, prison or mental health facility in the state and try explaining that to the frazzled and “overpaid” state employees doing their best under difficult circumstances.

#2 – Progressives do not, as the writer alleges, “advocate for concentration of power in the hands of the ruling class.” While the writer is entitled to his rhetorical flourishes, this allegation is just silly. You, as a newly elected state lawmaker, have not become part of the state’s “ruling class.” Neither are the thousands of average North Carolinians who staff our various agencies and teach our children. Anyone who really believes this has a lot to learn about power and about our state. To the contrary, one of the key objectives of the progressive movement is to democratize power in our state – to press large corporations and the super-wealthy (the real ruling class) to share at least some of the overwhelming power that they possess and will, inevitably, always possess.   

#3 – Many services and structures are already underfunded. The writer complains, absurdly, that it is wrong to say that state programs are already underfunded and that “liberals never provide an answer” as to what levels would be sufficient. The truth, of course, is that people of all parties and philosophies have long acknowledged that all kinds of essential state services and structures are underfunded. Good grief – has the writer ever visited one of our state adult care homes?! A correctional institution?  Inspected a crumbling bridge or worn out school building? Looked at the waiting lists for child care subsidies for low-income working moms or life-saving AIDS drugs? Talked to an overwhelmed special ed teacher? The list of unmet needs is as long as your arm. Moreover, there are scores of bipartisan reports and recommendations that spell out in great detail what it would take to move the state to a respectable level of services.

#4 – Progress is threatened. The writer complains that “liberals” define progress as “a greater accumulation of power into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats.” Come on, man, get serious! It was "progress” when North Carolina left behind its past as a poor, segregated, underdeveloped state. It occurred when, through visionary and intentional action, state leaders built a raft of public structures, systems and services that lifted us above our erstwhile peers in South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi.

Progress is threatened when decades of such work is undermined and/or rolled back. And not firing thousands of people who teach our kids, guard our prisons, preserve our roads and help tend to our most vulnerable citizens does not constitute some kind of mad rush to accumulate power in the hands of “politicians and bureaucrats.” Neither does keeping state spending from falling to its lowest level in 39 years.

Dying in the streets?

According to the writer, my warnings were so dire that I might as well have alleged that people will be “dying in the streets.” Well, actually, if one looks at the inadequacies that already plague our systems of mental health, justice and public safety, and even public education (where the lack of alternative schools condemns thousands of troubled teens to a premature life on their own) it’s not a stretch to say that people are already “dying in the streets.” Sadly, big new budget cuts will only increase these numbers.

Such hard facts may be unpleasant to contemplate and mesh poorly with talking points provided by anti-government ideologues and campaign consultants, but they are undeniably real. And they are your responsibility now. We pray that you will listen to and work with all who would help you address them.