The less regressive but equally cynical and inadequate House budget
Published June 11, 2014
by Chris Fitzsimon, NC Policy Watch and NC SPIN panelist, June 10, 2014.
The best thing you can say about the House budget released this week is that it’s not the same as the dreadful Senate budget released two weeks ago.
The House plan does not kick thousands of aged, blind and disabled people off Medicaid or fire 7,500 teacher assistants or slash funding for hospitals and medical providers. It does not give a raise of 11 percent only to teachers who agree to give up their career status protections.
The Senate budget does all those things and more and House leaders deserve something for not stooping to the Senate’s base level, though praise doesn’t exactly seem to fit. Not being awful is hardly worthy of a compliment.
And the House budget makes unwise cuts of its own, most notably more reductions to the already strapped university system and the scandalously underfunded courts, and it counts on more than $400 million in reversions from state agencies—that’s legislative speak for an across the board cut to the operations of state government.
The House plan gives teachers a five percent raise that is not tied to giving up job protections, a step in the right direction, but pays for the increase with a cynical move that smacks of hypocrisy and the further shift of the cost of paying for state government to people who can least afford it.
The House proposes to double the advertising budget of the state lottery to sell enough tickets to raise enough money to pay for the teacher raise.
Studies are clear that low-income people play the lottery disproportionately. More advertising and more lottery ticket sales mean more money from families who can ill-afford to pay.
Republican legislative leaders and conservative think tanks know that’s true because they have been making that case for years as part of their opposition to creating and then expanding the state lottery.
Now they are reversing themselves and using the lottery to raise money that they would rather not raise honestly, with budget cuts or–more appropriately–with more tax revenue.
The additional lottery money built into the budget for next year is roughly the same as the cost of the next round of tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy that take effect January 1, 2014.
House leaders decided to prey on poor families with more aggressive lottery advertising rather than put off yet another tax cut for the rich and big corporations.
It’s a disturbing choice on its own. It’s startling when you consider the longtime opposition to the lottery by most Republicans. Just last year many Republican House members wanted to lower the percentage of the lottery’s budget spent on advertising.
Governor Pat McCrory railed against lottery ads in his State of the State speech last year, asking lawmakers to direct some of what he called the “bloated and annoying” advertising budget to pay for school technology.
All that seems to be forgotten now in a House budget that still makes too many cuts to vital state institutions and services and funds teacher raises and tax breaks for the wealthy on the backs of low-income families.
Many health care and education advocates understandably breathed a sigh of relief with the release of the House budget, which at first glance seemed far better than the Senate’s draconian proposal.
But House leaders are playing their own regressive game with people’s lives, demanding more from people least able to afford it because they can’t find the political courage to raise revenue honestly.
The House budget is better than the Senate budget. There’s no question about that. But the House plan is not about progress or helping people. It’s about cynical politics, pure and simple, and we deserve better.
June 11, 2014 at 7:56 pm
Norm Kelly says:
'Studies are clear that low-income people play the lottery disproportionately'.
Obviously these studies have only been done since our state passed a lottery into law. Cuz, after all, if libs don't like 'taxing' low-income people disproportionately the libs wouldn't have allowed a lottery in the state at all.
However, history shows a few things about libs. They hate when Republicans raise taxes on 'low-income people'. Libs NEVER complain when the demon party raises taxes on 'low-income' people. Take the temporary sales tax that the libs put in place. And converted to permanent. Who is affected most by a sales tax increase: the rich, hated by the demons OR low-incomers, beloved by the libs? Answer: low-income people. Who was it that did this to 'low-income people'? The LIBS!
Take the gas tax. Remember when the libs insisted that they HAD to raise the tax on a gallon of gas cuz the state couldn't afford not to raise it. It didn't matter that citizens were being hit twice at the gas pump, the state couldn't afford NOT to raise the gas tax. And who is it that's hit hardest by a gas tax increase at the same time as a gas price increase: the hated rich or the beloved 'low-income' people?
When the demon party passed the lottery, did they know that it impacts 'low-income people' most? Obviously the answer is yes. So stealing money from low-income people is good. So long as you don't exceed the limit (artificially) set by the demons in power. Cuz stealing just enough from them is good, but stealing more than 'just enough' is bad politics. Remember when Gov Mike promised that the lottery would solve ALL the financial issues in the state? Remember when some who knew the lottery wouldn't do much of anything said that it would impact 'low-income people' the most, we were told not to worry about it? But now Chris has a problem with it? Why all of a sudden, Chris? Do you NEED to find things about the Republican budget proposals to complain about? Will your day not be complete unless you can complain about Republican budgets?
First, the lottery IS A TAX. Call it a fee, if it makes you feel better to agree with how demons in Washington wanted to fund Obamascare. Does that feel better? Ooooooh! Second, implementing 400 million dollars in reversions sounds like budget cuts. In the second statement, the author even calls them budget cuts. Am I missing something or am I thinking?
Has the budget been too high for a number of years? Yes. Are the Republicans making cuts? Yes. At the same time they are raising revenue. Perhaps NOT the way LIBS want to raise revenue, but then, to quote the occupier, 'elections have consequences'. You lost. You have a minority vote on budgets. You play second fiddle to where budgets get cut. You play second fiddle when it comes to determining where to RAISE revenue. The lottery is a voluntary tax. Let those who volunteer to pay more actually pay more. Drivers have no choice but to buy gas. Penalize us again by raising the gas tax? Why NOT raise voluntary taxes so the people who choose to participate do the paying.
And let's also not forget that NO DEMON has ever complained about stealing MORE money from 'the wealthy'. Even though 'the wealthy' earn their OWN money, libs feel just fine preventing someone from keeping their own money. It's not a voluntary tax that libs want to force on 'the wealthy'. It's forced confiscation that interests libs. If you or I stole money like this, we'd go to jail. But for some reason libs feel no moral qualms about stealing money from anyone they can label 'wealthy'.
Must be reading from the central planner lib hand book. Never anything new in the demon party play book. When Republicans control the budget, always, ALWAYS refer to it as 'a draconian proposal'. This makes lib pols feel good. And it sucks in the low-information voter who just feels compelled to believe their lib pol. If it's 'draconian' it can't be good. And if some lib in a position to know calls it 'draconian', then it MUST be. If low-information types are to ever get any information outside of the Kardashians or Survivor or whatever, then libs expect these types to feel right along with them and not think for themselves. Because if they could think for themselves, they obviously wouldn't be 'low-information people'. But some editorialists can count on enough low-information types to simply repeat their drivel without question and without knowledge otherwise.
And then there's the demon plan to put the state $2BILLION in debt; that's about 10% of the total budget for a SINGLE line item. How's that for 'draconian'? There was NO PLAN from the demons for paying back a loan that equaled about 10% of the total budget, but at least it wasn't 'draconian'!
The budget is NOT about helping people. Let's examine that statement. What's better for people, a government subsistence check or a job? Think long and hard on this one, libs. You still won't come up with the proper/correct answer. It's not in your knowledge base. The correct answer is also the right answer! It's always better for someone to HAVE A JOB than to get a government SUBSISTENCE check. First, a subsistence check is only meant to insure a vote at the next election, it's not meant to actually HELP anyone. Second, when someone earns a paycheck, they tend to want to keep pols in line and government spending in line. Those on the take don't care what has to happen so long as they continue to get their subsistence payment. When they are actually paying for someone else's free ride, they tend to want to be more conservative about it. How does government encourage job creation? By raising taxes and raising spending? Or by creating a tax and regulation environment that encourages businesses to do business here, generating job demand. And generating tax revenue. Also remember, that it was under the auspices/power/control of the demons that the regulators WEREN'T doing their jobs. It was under the power/control of the demons that the environmentalists failed to protect the environment. Even though lib pols want us to believe that they are the ones to protect the citizens at the same time they care more about the environment than those bigoted Republicans, it was the libs that created the coal ash ponds; allowed these ponds to be created along side fresh water sources (rivers, streams); and failed to protect citizens from seepage that was dangerous to kids health. (kids health because when it's libs, it's always for the children!)
Elections have consequences. I pray that it's a long time that libs are playing second fiddle. The state wasn't working well when they were in control, why would we listen to how they want to do things now that they are playing second fiddle. Continue to tell us how you want to raise taxes, raise spending, pay for more people NOT to contribute, go along with socialist plans from the central planners, and all the other schemes in the demon party play book. We all need to know just how bad it could be if yous guys are allowed back in power.
