NC could have used Erskine Bowles as governor
Published July 31, 2014
by Rob Chrisensen, News and Observer, July 30, 2014.
What North Carolina needed during the past 18 months was Erskine Bowles sitting in the governor’s chair.
Bowles, a Charlotte investment banker, has precisely what has been sorely lacking in Raleigh: broad management experience, proven negotiating skills and a deep appreciation of education’s role in North Carolina’s economy.
Bowles, a Democrat, seriously considered running for governor in 2012 after Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue bowed out.
But he chose not to run, and Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton ended up being the Democratic nominee, losing to Pat McCrory.
Besides a career as an investment banker, buying and selling companies, Bowles headed the U.S. Small Business Administration, was White House chief of staff and deputy chief of staff under President Bill Clinton, and was president of the 16-campus University of North Carolina system.
Every governor has problems, but it’s hard to believe that Bowles would have permitted the Department of Health and Human Services to deteriorate to such a condition that the Senate wanted to take Medicaid away from it.
Bipartisan track record
Even though Bowles is a Democrat and the legislature has a Republican majority, Bowles has a strong track record of working in a bipartisan manner. As White House chief of staff, he put together the last balanced federal budget while negotiating with House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Leader Trent Lott, both Republicans.
If he can work with Gingrich and Lott, he could certainly work with state Senate leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Thom Tillis.
Bowles also was appointed by President Barack Obama as the Democratic co-chairman of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, along with former Sen. Alan Simpson, a Republican. The group put forth recommendations to reduce the budget deficit. Bowles was so complimentary of the work of GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan in 2012 that he had to reiterate that he was supporting Obama’s re-election.
With Bowles’ negotiating skills, one wonders whether the state would have taken so long to develop a budget agreement.
Investing in education
Finally, Bowles understands the importance of education. Bowles knows that North Carolina will never win a race with Alabama or Mississippi – not to mention Mexico or Vietnam – to have the lowest taxes and regulations. He knows that North Carolina traditionally competes best when it uses its brainpower, investing in universities, community colleges and secondary and elementary schools.
Bowles is particularly well-equipped to make the link between education and business. In addition to having served as the president of UNC from 2005 to 2010, he has served on such corporate boards as General Motors, Morgan Stanley, Norfolk Southern and Facebook.
But of course, Bowles decided not to run and at age 68 is unlikely to do so in the future. If he had run, he may very well have lost to McCrory.
McCrory is a gifted campaigner, while Bowles is not, as his two ill-timed Senate losses – to Elizabeth Dole in 2002 and Richard Burr in 2004 – proved.
“He is not comfortable as a candidate,” his one-time consultant Gary Pearce once noted. “It’s just not his nature. That is a big drawback for him. He was never comfortable running negative ads. He was never comfortable with the oversimplifications that you have to do in politics. He is a very brainy, studious person, and that doesn’t lend itself to the Twitter world.”
But the state would have been well-served if Bowles were governor.
http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/07/29/4037392/christensen-nc-could-have-used.html
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/07/29/4037392/christensen-nc-could-have-used.html#storylink=cpy
July 31, 2014 at 8:09 pm
Norm Kelly says:
Imagine this. An editorial appearing in the N&D lamenting that we don't have a demoncrat in the mansion.
Bowles is a Democrat. However, he would be expected to be a middle-of-the-roader. Why? He has served in lib administrations as a lib. He served on the committee that came up with the plan of how to get the feds back in order. Not sure what his input was on this, but they came out with some good ideas. All of which were ignored. But it's a lib who is favored by the N&D. Should be nuff said.
Even when we've had demon Gov's we've had budget negotiations going on for MONTHS. So far, we haven't gotten to the same point as in recent past. This IS NOT the longest short session. The 2 year budget was passed last year. Which means this year it's just a tweak opportunity. If the session ends without doing anything budget-wise, the budget still exists. Every agency in the state, every local government in the state, can operate on the EXISTING budget.
As for 'investing' in education. Is there a limit for any lib? Is there a point where any lib would say that enough had been spent? Is there a per-child amount that could possibly be reached where the average lib would say we had spent enough? When big education funding continues to go up, and the results are still not satisfactory, the lib mantra is that spending needs to go up even more. At what point will enough be enough? No matter what the issue, the lib solution ALWAYS is to spend more. At some point an equilibrium has to be achieved - where we are spending enough to get the results we want and spending more would simply be a waste of money. Can ANY lib tell us where that line is? For libs, does that line exist? Is it possible to spend enough on ANY lib scheme? At some point the 'investing' in the education establishment simply becomes 'spending'. What is that line for libs?
Since Bowles is a demon, we could have expected him to govern as a demon. We could have expected him to want to spend more on every line item in the budget. We could have expected him to want to increase funding for the education establishment, with complete disregard for the value received. I expect Bowles would also have been a major proponent of continued 'incentives' to bribe more companies to do business in our state. Libs love business only, it seems, when they are in the position to bribe them to do certain things. Otherwise, libs tend to hate, despise private business. Would Bowles have been a proponent of selling off the ABC stores? Would Bowles have been a proponent of extending unemployment benefits again, even if it meant borrowing more money from the central planners? If so, how would that have HELPED the state economy & budget?
I am NOT one lamenting the absence of libs in Raleigh. I hope & pray that we have the patience to give Republicans sufficient time to see how well they can manage the state. The libs were given over 100 years to implement their policies and drive the state in the wrong direction. The libs had a chance to have the legislature and the mansion. It's time the Republicans had a chance at this also. Cutting spending, cutting taxes, cutting regulation, can all have a positive impact on the economy and the lives of NC citizens. We tried the tax & spend routine under the libs. We tried the 'temporary' sales tax increase turned permanent. We tried increasing the sales tax and 'giving' a single tax free weekend once a year scheme. We are better off by lowering the tax and paying it every day on every product, instead of a specific weekend on specific products sale. When I buy something now, I know before I get to the register what the tax will be, not try to figure out if I've bought the products that some government employee decided should be on the tax free list. It's much more fair this way, which is the goal of TEA people and libertarians.
