Friday, January 28, 2011

Burps from the GOP General Assembly

Instead of dealing with "jobs, jobs, jobs," like they promised, our new Republican overlords in the NC General Assembly are instead bent on gesturing like nine-year-olds in a snowball fight, so that their first official business was rushing through a bill (in the House Judiciary Committee) to exempt this state's citizens from a key provision of the federal Affordable Health Care Act.

Are they even talking "jobs, jobs, jobs"?

No, they're talking a conservative agenda to strangle our cities (no forced annexation), to disenfranchise voters without picture ids, and to further cripple public education by lifting the cap on charter schools.

John Grooms, in Creative Loafing:
...Our suggestion, as has been made by many others in the state’s press, progressive think tanks, and most Democrats, was that the GOPers should leave the current “temporary” sales tax, and the tax rate on wealthy residents, the same as it is now for the coming year. That one simple decision could reduce the shortfall by more than a billion dollars without raising taxes. It’s something that nearly 60 percent of North Carolinians support, according to a recent nonpartisan Elon poll. Granted, leaving the tax rates alone would still leave us in a $2.7 billion hole; but when you’re desperately deep in debt, cutting a quick billion is a good place to start, and a sensible way to manage a government.

To our dismay, but certainly not our surprise, the new House Speaker, Thom Tillis, yesterday shot down any talk of making such a sensible, responsible move. According to a Charlotte Observer story by Jim Morrill, even former N.C. governor Jim Martin, A Republican and no slouch in the political-strategies department, told the new GOP leaders that they should at least “hold open” the idea of keeping the temporary taxes on the books to help cut the budget deficit. As Morrill succinctly reported, however, “Tillis said later the decision has already been made to let the taxes expire.”

As we wrote earlier, one thing is for sure: If the $3.7 billion shortfall is handled through spending cuts alone, North Carolina will be left with a second-rate excuse for a state government; many of its people will be worse off; our public schools will be in the crapper; and desperately needed human services will be a mere memory.

So, here’s a big Thanks For Nothin’ to Thom Tillis, the House Speaker and supposed education proponent from Mecklenburg County, for immediately caving in to Tea Party irrationality, right off the bat. At least now we know what we’re dealing with, which is, frankly, a major shit storm that will hit the state for the next two years. It’s not a pretty sight.


Oliver said...

So, J.W., which part of this is a surprise? The people of this state elected a pack of bought and paid for duffuses. If they do anything but for the rich whose money paid for the LIES that put them into office, then you can be surprised.

you lost stop crying said...

Getting rid of the odious health care bill will help provide jobs and better health care.

Cutting taxes will increase revenue as small businesses can INVEST the money to retool and hire more people. Of Course consumer confidnece will have to return. That can happen by cutting government waste, spending, and over regulation.

Anne said...

If "Cutting taxes will increase revenue as small businesses can INVEST the money to retool and hire more people" is true, then please explain why this theory didn't work when Bush was in office. We've been testing this theory for 10 years now, and it hasn't worked.

Republicans today announced they are looking at changing Medicare so that Seniors will get a voucher to buy private insurance and so that one is not eligible for even that until age 69.

This is what happens when Republicans are elected. The people have no one to blame but themselves.

really???? said...

you lost stop crying

You should change your name to "you have lost your mind"

How is saving a couple of pennies on sales tax going to stimulate anything. As for the other on higher income earners. Haven't you figured out that trickle down economics does not work. It never did when Reagan tried it.

I'm all for cutting waste, but let me tell you that there is not a lot left in the k-12 system.

stop the whining said...

Anne - It DID work when Bush was in office!!!!! Tax revenues grew at a faster rate than the economy during the Bush years, particularly the early ones. Of course, if you keep listening to Maddow and reading HuffPo you'll never hear or read anything but leftist propaganda that will say otherwise. Try reading the CBO reports.

here's a hanky said...

Anne, Bushes tax cuts worked. They increased revenue. Unfortunately his "progressive" spending overcame these monies. Do some research.

Brushfire said...

Actually cutting taxes discourages businesses from investing and encourages them to take profits as income. When the tax rate is higher for high earners, businesses tend to invest their profits so they can write off the income. Eonomic growth in the 50's and 60's was fueled by a tax rate of 90% and government investment in infrastructure and research. In the long run this benefited everyone.

Brushfire said...

STW - George Bush took over a nation that was operating in the black and erased all the gains of the Clinton administration, ended up doubling the deficit and bringing the whole financial system to the brink of collapse. Surely you are not suggesting we use his economic philosophy as a guide?

stop the whining said...

brushfire - so the financial system meltdown is Bush's fault? You are living in leftist fantasy land and obviously refuse to even try to understand all the players involved - including barney frank and his merry band of idiots. Yes, the tax cuts the Bush introduced were a good start, the spending was not. Cutting taxes does not discourage businesses from investing - I am not sure from what planet you got this information. There are other factors involved to keep businesses from investing, but cutting taxes is NOT one of them.

do the research said...

A Harvard study by Silvia Ardagna and Albert Alesina of 21 nations examine 91 episodes of government intervention to stimulate the economy. Increases of taxes and government spending failed while tax cuts resulted in an average of $3 increase in GDP for each dollar of reduced tax. You can read about this in the archives of The New York Times.

Brushfire said...

Whining - High marginal tax rates during the 50's correlated with economic growth and jobs. Low tax rates during the 2000's correlated with essentially no economic growth for the middle classes and terrible job creation rate. See the graph in the middle of this article.
And are you saying that Bush did NOT cause the meltdown? How do you explain it, then? Remember we had a budget surplus when Bush took office.

williamson loves one sided arguments said...

Bush caused the problems with his "progressive" spending programs that were more than the amount of revenue that was taken in, even though that revenue increase.

I made this point in a censored post so this one will probably get censored too.

Brushfire said...

Progressive spending programs? Like Iraq and Afghanistan.