Carolina Politics Online

Like I said last year and the year before they are never going to let this go.  From yesterday’s Post and Courier article, let’s start with the logical fallacies of one Dr. Charles Darby.

“The higher the taxes, the more lives that we can save. It’s time for South Carolina to do what is right for our state,” said Dr. Charles P. Darby Jr., Medical University of South Carolina professor emeritus of pediatrics and executive director of the Children’s Hospital Center for Child Advocacy.

“Those of us who do not smoke pay higher health insurance premiums and taxes to subsidize the habit of smoking,” he said. “It is time the smoker pays for some of the cost.”

The Post and Courier

So according to the good doctor the only way to possibly solve this problem is to hand over more money to the government.  There would seem to me to be a much more logical solution.  Why don’t the insurance companies simply raise their premiums on people who smoke?  What, is that just too easy?  Or is the problem if we go that route our elected officials can’t get their grubby little paws on the money and then redirect it to all of their own little pet projects so they can buy votes at election time?

“Every delay just allows more children to get hooked on cigarettes,” Darby said.

According to what data, Doc?  You think a thirty cent price increase on a pack of cigarettes is going to stop kids from smoking?  It’s a negligible amount.  I am a former smoker myself.  I started smoking in high school back in the early 1990s when Marlboros were a buck a pack.  When I eventually quite smoking in my 20s the price of Marlboros was approaching $5 a pack.  It wasn’t the price that got me to quit.  I just decided to start being more cautious of my health.

Now I am going to shock you.  Unlike in years past, I am not as vehemently opposed to this tax hike this time.  Here is why.

Rep. Chip Limehouse, a Charleston Republican and a ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, made the proposal to get the 30-cent increase in the budget. He said a cigarette tax increase is about the only tax increase he could support and that it’s more important than ever to pass it now. New cash for Medicaid will free up money for schools, law enforcement and other priorities.

If they give so much as a dime of this increase to the schools I am going to be thoroughly pissed.  They don’t need any more money, but other state departments do.  As one example, our jails in particular have been the recipients of excessively painful budget cuts and that effects the safety of every resident in South Carolina.  The state budget has been stripped by more than $2 billion over what it was two years ago, so the efforts have definitely been made to try and reel in spending.

There is also this.

The governor said again in his State of the State address in January that he wants a cigarette tax increase to be used to cut corporate income taxes to make the state more competitive.

“We’re very much of the same mind as we’ve been in years past — that being that we’d definitely be open to an increase in the cigarette tax if it was accompanied by a corresponding tax cut in some other area. In fact, we’ve proposed just such an action in years past,” Ben Fox, communications director for Sanford, said in an e-mail Monday.

The House on Thursday gave key approval to a plan that eliminates the corporate income tax, as a way to make the state more attractive to business, making a cigarette tax increase this year even more likely.

That is a plan I can support.  If the state were to inversely eliminate the corporate income tax in exchange for an increase in the cigarette tax then that is something I can probably roll with.  Unemployment in South Carolina just hit 12.6% and we need a more competitive business environment.  Eliminating the corporate income tax would definitely put us on that path.

But Senator Joseph Lieberman, an independent working with Graham and Kerry, said a detailed outline of a bill could come within days and that it will have to include a ceiling on greenhouse gas emissions that drops in future years.

Last June, the House narrowly passed a climate change bill with cap-and-trade as its centerpiece and a carbon-reduction target of 17 percent by 2020, from 2005 levels.

But the initiative has stalled in the Senate, despite Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approval of a similar bill.

But, as a result of work in the past few months, Kerry said he was feeling “more confident” that a climate change bill could be presented to the Senate for passage this year.

“We’re looking at a new way of coming at this that we think can attract greater support,” Kerry said.

Environmentalists have speculated the bill the senators will produce could take a “sectoral approach” by imposing a new carbon-pricing mechanism on utilities, which account for about 40 percent of the emissions blamed for global warming.

Sources also have said there is talk of a transportation tax. Pollution controls on manufacturers could be put off for a few years to give time for more affordable alternative energy sources to come on line, they have said.

Reuters

I would really like to wonder exactly when it was that someone beat Lindsey Graham with the stupid stick because that guy has nothing but shit for brains.  A transportation tax?  It’s not clear as to what exactly that would entail, but one thing is for certain.  The result will not be good for South Carolina.  Any tax on transportation, but whether its an increase in the gas tax, a tax on transportation companies, on the airlines, etc is going to smack everyone in this state in their back pocket.  A tax on truckers transporting goods would be absolutely criminal because it would cause prices to rise in just about every sector, socking the poor and the middle class harder than anyone.

And yet Graham can’t figure out why he keeps getting booed when he speaks around his own state, oblivious to the fact he is alienating his own constituents in the name of junk science.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 24, 2010

Contact: Aaron Groen

202-225-2071

WASHINGTON—The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) today awarded Foxx an “A” grade for her record of consistently voting to reduce spending and keep taxes low.  In NTU’s detailed rating of more than 300 House votes in 2009 Foxx scored a 94 percent, giving her the highest score out of North Carolina’s congressional delegation.

“Working hard to keep federal government spending in check and to keep North Carolina families’ taxes low is one of my top priorities,” Foxx said.  “So I’m pleased that NTU recognized my commitment to fiscal responsibility and limited government in their 2009 vote ratings.”

NTU’s rating of members of Congress’ votes covers 333 House votes in 2009 that had a significant affect on taxes, spending or debt.  Foxx’s “A” grade reflects her voting record on these 333 votes and also earns her the NTU’s “Taxpayers’ Friend Award”.

For more information on NTU’s congressional ratings, how the ratings are calculated and what roll call votes are used please visit www.ntu.org.

Will we ever be rid of this guy?

For those concerned about warming, it’s time for a shift in emphasis. Fortunately, one has already been provided to them by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has done more than any Democrat to keep climate legislation alive this year. His solution: skip the hurricanes and Himalayan glaciers and keep the argument on the hundreds of billions of dollars spent annually on foreign oil, some of that going to terrorists rather than to domestic job creation.

The Washington Post

There are people that claim they are sick and tired of the bipartisanship in D.C.  I personally see nothing necessarily wrong with partisanship in government because I tend to view reaching across the aisle as a selling out of your beliefs most of the time and what your constituents elected you for.  Graham has tried to play Mr. Uniter throughout his Senate career, but unfortunately keeps choosing the most inopportune times to do so.  First there was the big blow back on his support for McCain’s illegal immigration bill, the origin from whence came the nickname Grahamnesty.  Now he’s running around the country chapping his lips on the butt of Senator John Kerry (D-MA) over this climate change bill, much to the dismay of many South Carolinians.

Graham is correct that our heavy reliance on foreign oil is a serious issue, but we don’t need to cripple our economy through the Cap and Fraud bill to resolve that problem.  We just need to start drilling our own oil which we have plenty of.  We need to start building more nuclear power plants, which the Obama administration seems to be warming to.  Green energy investments in the private sector have been steadily growing as well.  We can do all of these things now without legislation.  None of them are illegal.

Instead of barking up the Cap and Fraud tree, Graham should simply be making a public push to pressure the administration to accept these other initiatives and move faster on them.  It’s highly unlikely that that the Waxman-Markey bill will ever become law at this point, but there has been talk of the Obama administration going around Congress and instead having the fascist EPA regulate green house gases.  This would essentially produce the same economic disastrous results on our nation by an unelected body, which in my opinion is unconstitutional.

A cap-and-trade system necessarily harms the economy because it is designed to raise the cost of energy. Given the current economic crisis, an expensive energy policy is a bad idea.

Almost all acts of economic production are powered by combusting fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), a process that emits greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming. A cap-and-trade system is simply a mechanism to put a price on emissions in order to compel businesses and consumers to emit less. That is, it’s essentially an emissions tax. But greenhouse gas emissions are virtually synonymous with energy use, so it’s actually a roundabout energy tax. In fact, economists agree that the simplest, most efficient way to reduce emissions is a direct tax. Politicians, however, are terrified of the “t-word,” which is why they have embraced a cap-and-trade system.

The numbers are staggering. President Barack Obama’s recently unveiled cap-and-trade plan would raise $645 billion in revenue from the government-run emissions auctions over eight years. Everyone would feel the pinch. Businesses would compensate for higher production costs and diminished markets by slashing jobs. Consumers would have to pay more for energy and energy intensive goods.

Expensive energy is bad enough, but the real danger of a cap-and-trade policy is a global trade war. A cap-and-trade system would give a competitive advantage to industries in countries that aren’t subject to a de facto energy tax. Jobs would flow overseas, but so would emissions, a dynamic known as “carbon leakage.” To prevent this, a broad coalition of industry, labor, and environmental groups have expressed interest in a tariff that would tax the emissions content of imports from countries without stringent climate policies. Naturally, these countries would retaliate if such a tariff were enacted. Protectionism deepened the Great Depression, just as climate protectionism would worsen the current recession.

William Yeatman – Council on Foreign Relations

The North Carolina FreeEnterprise Foundation has compiled a list of the top ten most competitive State Senate races in North Carolina this year.  It’s pretty much on par with what I have written about as well.  They list the most likely seat to flip being District 43 currently held by Senator David Hoyle (D).  This is a very heavily Republican district and Hoyle has hung on over the years due to his more conservative and pro-business voting record, but he has decided to retire from the Senate this year leaving it an open race.  Two other open seats, Districts 8 and 9 held by Democrats R.C Soles and Julia Boseman are also open seats this year.  Both have decided not to seek reelection and both are Republican leaning districts.

The Foundation also has the following on their radar:

I don’t agree with all of the above. In what is looking like to be a Republican wave year, I don’t see any of the first term Republicans they list as being in trouble unless one of them is a real jag off.

Personally, I would include Marc Basnight as being potentially vulnerable this year. He represents a district that is just barely Democratic and in a year in which voters may throw his party overboard on top of him orchestrating a huge tax increase on the people of this state. The state Republicans would be wasting a colossal opportunity to not recruit a decent candidate against him. They have plenty to beat him over the head with.

So as I’ve said before North Carolina Republicans have an opportunity to capture the State Senate this year for the first time in, well, ever, providing their organization is competent enough to do so. Redistricting will begin next year and the Republicans will want to take control so they can undo the gerrymandering done by the Democrats and turn around and gerrymander it all over again in their favor instead. We really need an independent commission drawing districts in this state.

Former Mecklenburg County Sheriff Jim Pendergraph (R) has announced today that he will seek one of the at-large seats in this year’s Mecklenburg County commissioners race.  Pendergraph was elected Sheriff four times as a Democrat before accepting a position with the Department of Homeland Security under the Bush Administration in 2007.  He switched parties afterward.  Pendergraph’s resignation from the office of Sheriff is what sparked off a several month controversy over who would replace him, a controversy that made the notorious Nick Mackey a household political name around the Charlotte metropolitan area.

Pendergraph was a highly admired and respected Sheriff from Mecklenburg County residents on both sides of the political aisle and even outside the region as he was appointed to a Republican administration while still a Democrat.  He stated today on the radio that one of his biggest concerns is the county’s fiscal budget which he feels is going to worsen in the coming year.  Pendergraph is also extremely worried about the constant rise in property taxes throughout the county and even said that he and his wife have speculated that they themselves may have to move out of the county down the road if the problem is not reined in due to their own financial state as a retired couple.

I can’t think of a better man for the job.

There are a slew of candidates running to replace Congressman Gresham Barrett (R) in South Carolina’s Third Congressional District.  As you probably know, Banker Bailout Barrett is trying to become our next governor (fat chance of that) and his R+17 district virtually guarantees that a Republican will succeed him next year.  Of the six candidates running I had the pleasure of interviewing State Representative Jeff Duncan of State House District 15.

Duncan is the father of three boys and has been married to his wife, whom he met in high school, for 21 years.  He got elected to the State House in 2002, but don’t blame him for the 40% increase in state spending and all the pork and waste racked up by our legislative assembly during that time.  Duncan was one of the good guys, consistently opposing the largesse of our trough feeding state legislative leadership.  Yes, Bobby Harrell and Glenn McConnell, I am talking about you, amongst others.  Duncan has received multiple high marks from the South Carolina Club for Growth, a taxpayer hero award from Governor Mark Sanford, and commendations from the South Carolina Policy Council.  In fact, it is this invariable commitment to small government policies that Duncan feels is what makes him the best candidate to receive his party’s nomination and go on to be an effective representative in Washington D.C.

South Carolina has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.  I asked Duncan specifically about what could be done in Congress to improve our state’s economy.  He supports overhauling the tax code and regulatory environment.  Banking regulations, he says, have frozen access to capital for many businesses preventing expansion and an increase in jobs.  He also advocates slashing the Corporate Income Tax, which is the second highest in the world, and getting back into the business of nuclear power.

I also asked him about health care costs because that’s been a huge issue lately across the country.  One criticism I’ve heard from some of my more conservative friends is that they hold some blame on the Republicans for this health care disaster we’ve been seeing in Washington.  They say the rising cost of health care and insurance has been a complaint from many Americans for years and during all that time the GOP held the majority in Congress they could have addressed that issue, but they didn’t.  Now we have the Democrats on the verge of destroying the entire system.

Duncan says that Congress could take advantage of the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution and use it to bring down state boundaries in health insurance to allow companies to sell across state lines.  Competition will drive down the price.  He is also a supporter of some type of tort reform.  Furthermore, Duncan says that individuals who purchase health insurance outside their company should be allowed a dollar for dollar Federal tax deduction to help pay for it.  Additionally, associations in an industry should be able to pool together to purchase insurance at a lower cost.  He cited the National Association of Realtors, for example.

I also hit Duncan up about the Boeing deal that just happened a few months ago.  Boeing ultimately decided on South Carolina over Washington State to locate their plant that will assemble their new 787 jetliner.  This decision was based on the state’s cheaper labor costs and also targeted tax breaks for the company.  There has been criticism by some groups over these tax breaks, referring to them as corporate welfare.  Duncan, who voted in favor of the deal, said that while it probably isn’t good policy, to not go along with it would put the state in a non-competitive spot due to other states engaging in the practice.

Some additional information.  Jeff Duncan would support a Constitutional amendment imposing term limits on all Federal elected officials and he also is of the opinion that we do not have enough small business owners in D.C. who understand economics and what it takes to run a business in America.  Small businesses make up 75% of all American industry.

The primary is June 8th of this year.  Aside from Duncan, State Representative Rex Rice, State Senator Shane Massey, businessman Richard Cash of Anderson, Easley attorney Neil Collins, and Dr. Mike Vasovski of Aiken are also vying for the nomination to run in the November general election.

Congressman Brad Miller (D-NC-13) wrote a column for the Huffington Post over the weekend in which he referred to the Republicans in Congress as hypocrites for opposing Obama’s tax on “too big to fail” banks because they posed a similar plan just a few years ago.  Well, that may be true and they probably are hypocrites.  I have met very few politicians who aren’t, but hypocritical or not, this tax should not be implemented and that’s the bigger picture Miller isn’t seeing through his partisan eye glasses.  He quotes a 2000 testimony by Stephen Moore of the CATO Institute.

“The user fee is a partial payment for the implicit guarantee it receives from Uncle Sam,” Moore said. “The rationale behind such a fee is that since taxpayers are bearing an implicit risk on Fannie Mae activities, it is reasonable that the federal government recoup fees to pay for that assumption of risk. The main advantage of such a fee is that it would help level the playing field between Fannie Mae and its fully private competitors.”

What I am reading there amounts to double taxation on you and me.  First of all, Moore is right about Fannie and Freddie.  We, the taxpayers, are bearing a huge risk on backing their overly risky and poor business activities.  We are already being taxed to pay for their recklessness.  The question that should be asked here is why?  Why is the government continuing to take responsibility for Fannie and Freddie with our tax dollars?  That’s what should be addressed.  Miller also notes that the tax will go to help reclaim $120 billion in tax dollars that were lost through the TARP program.  Again, it begs the question, why was it done in the first place?  Adding a 15% tax on all banks to cover this stupidity is what amounts to the second round of taxation on people like you and me because as Congressman Miller and many in the Democrat party don’t seem to understand, businesses don’t pay taxes.  They pass their tax burden on to us  through increased fees and prices and we pay for it when we patron them so I don’t see how Obama’s bank tax is good for anybody other than the power brokers in D.C. steering our nation into the crapper.

The Wilmington Star did an informative expose on North Carolina’s liquor laws and all of the costs involved in getting a bottle of alcohol from its distributor to your home.  You probably won’t be surprised to know that the vast majority of the price you are paying for your liquor is almost all taxes you are ceding over to your state and local governments.  So much in fact that the $6 you pay for that one glass of Vodka Tonic you order at your favorite watering hole is actually enough to manufacture a whole case of Vodka.  According to the article, it cost a mere $5.79 to manufacture an entire case of Vodka at its Kentucky distillery, yet by the time it reaches the liquor store, you’re paying $61.92 for it.

You probably shouldn’t be drinking anyway, though.  It’s bad for you, in case the bureaucratic guardians haven’t told you that yet.

Read more at the Wilmington Star

Senator Jim DeMint has taken the lead in the Senate over the past couple of years to promote responsible government spending and sound the warning siren on the waste and excess in the Federal government that is slowly bankrupting our nation.  It is for that reason that I am supporting his reelection next year to the U.S.  Senate.  There are only a handful of representatives in Congress that are taking up this cause and we need to hang on to each and every one of them.

Bloomberg has a featured article on DeMint today that goes over his plan on actions he thinks the government should take in order to save our nation.  Here is a piece of that:

Against Bailouts

Thus, he believes that the bailouts of New York-based American International Group Inc. and probably Citigroup Inc. were a mistake, and that former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s plan to purchase toxic assets was a fraud.

He doesn’t spare Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke. “If you look at his mission, which is to protect the value of the dollar and to protect employment, the grades aren’t good,” DeMint says. He plans to vote against extending the Fed chief’s term for another four years.

Fiscally, he wants to balance the budget and cut taxes, while acknowledging that defense spending will have to increase. “You’ve got the Air Force flying around in 50-year-old airplanes right now,” he says, “and we don’t have anything scheduled to replace the antiquated things.”

Flat Tax

On taxes, DeMint advocates a flat rate of 10 percent on the first $100,000 of income for a couple, and 25 percent on income above that. He would eliminate all taxes on interest income, capital gains, dividends and estates and end the alternative minimum tax.

For businesses, DeMint would kill the corporate income tax and substitute an across-the-board 8.5 percent consumption tax.

He would balance the federal budget in 10 years and then constitutionally require it to stay balanced.

This would call for draconian changes in the big entitlements.

DeMint would allow those currently 55 and older to receive Medicare benefits at 65. The program would be discontinued for younger Americans, who would get a $9,500 yearly stipend when they turn 65 to pay for private health insurance. The federal- state Medicaid program, which covers health-care costs for poor people, is “financially unsustainable,” he says.

‘Socialist Solutions’

DeMint considers Social Security a “socialistic” measure and blasts the American Association of Retired Persons for promulgating “socialist solutions.”

“What’s the harm of your grandma getting a Social Security check every month from the government?” he asks in his book. “It seems harmless enough, but that check changes the relationship between your grandma and the government.”

In the interview, he talks of reviving President George W. Bush’s failed plan to partially privatize Social Security by having workers put a small percentage of the current levy in a personal savings account.

Now this is an agenda I could get behind wholeheartedly.  Medicare and Social Security expenditures are consuming more and more of our Federal budget each year.  Today they eat up 44% of it.  By 2050, they are projected to account for 18.6% of GDP.  Federal revenues as of 2007 were 18.8% of GDP.  As you can see, that path will be completely unsustainable.  We’ll have to kill the programs or gut them to a fraction of what they provide today, cheating the people (which will include me) who will have paid into it our entire lives or raise taxes so astronomically that we will wipe out the middle class and create an elite aristocracy of the few that have money while the rest of us are serfs on the manor.

I think his Medicare idea has a lot of merit.  I also agree with the main principles behind the Bush Social Security plan, however, the main flaw with that is that it would have created a trillion dollar budget deficit off the bat and that is not acceptable so something would need to be done to address that issue.  As for his tax plan, I would prefer a national consumption tax to replace the income tax, but a two-tier income tax, much like Reagan had implemented, would be a substantial improvement over the mess we have today.

Rumors have been brewing that DeMint could be a possible presidential candidate in 2012.  So far, all the potential nominees being thrown around have not enamored me.  He could be an interesting option.

In the House, Budget Committee chairman John Spratt on Tuesday (D-S.C.) said he would not support a tax because of the recession. Spratt said a measure introduced by Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) would do so.

“We don’t want to raise taxes, especially a surcharge on income taxes in the middle of a bad recession,” Spratt said on ABC News’ Topline webcast.

The Hill

Wow, that’s the first in as long as I can remember.  Spratt bucking his party and actually thinking about the interests of those he represents?  I do have to ask though, if there is no war tax to continue funding the actions in Afghanistan, how does the Congressman intend we pay for it?  Hopefully not more debt spending.  This is the same man after all who chaired the House Budget Committee and put through a fiscal year budget with a historic $2 trillion debt.

How about canceling the remainder of the unspent non-stimulus money and using that?  Although, that is all basically funded by debt too so that may not cut it either.  I do agree with the Democrats who are calling for a funding mechanism for this continued war.  Honestly, I am not that enamored with Obama’s decision to send more troops.  If Obama was willing to do what was necessary to finally get the job done in Afghanistan I would be supportive of it, but he’s not.  He’s weak and everyone knows it.  We are going to spend a few more years there dicking around and pissing more of our money away and in the end the result will be no different than things are today.  I put most of the blame, however, on George Bush.  He had seven years to take care of business in Afghanistan and quite frankly if his administration had done their job we wouldn’t need to be having this discussion right now.

The big news out today in Charlotte are the record level of students enrolled in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School system living in “poverty.”  Around 68,000 students in the school district, or roughly 51% of the school population, get taxpayer funded lunch aid, according to the Charlotte Observer.

First off, I want to verbalize my disgust at how we so loosely throw around the word poverty in this country.  I get incredibly annoyed as to whom we refer to as living in “poverty.”  Go to a third world country where people are living in mud huts and eating flies and rice and then come back and tell me that there are Americans living in poverty.  It isn’t happening.

Now that I have gotten that out of the way, how many of these children getting subsidized meal are from families who are truly at the “poverty” level?  According to the same article, not all of them.  CMS has a higher income threshold than the federal “poverty” level they use to determine which kids get a free ride on your dime so the school district is spending more of your money on this than they need to in the first place.  I also wonder how many of these students would still be living in “poverty” if the school district quit subsidizing the lifestyle with your tax dollars and the parents of these kids would instead actually have to be responsible for them.

Here are some facts about America’s so called “poor”.  This is an excerpt of a publication from The Heritage Foundation using data straight from the Census Bureau.

The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from various gov­ernment reports:

• Forty-three percent of all poor households actu­ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
• Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• Only 6 percent of poor households are over­crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
• Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
• Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
• Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Still interested in subsidizing those “starving” children in Mecklenburg County with that multi-million dollar price tag each year?

The current laws took effect following overwhelming voter approval of a 2006 constitutional referendum.

The changes eliminated most school taxes on owner-occupied homes, raised the statewide sales tax by 20 percent in an attempt to make up for that lost revenue, and capped increases in the taxable value of any property that hadn’t been sold or substantially improved to 15 percent every five years.

Any property with a change in ownership, however, is immediately reassessed and taxed at full value the following year.

Those “point-of-sale” reassessments keep the tax base growing and help pay for the tax relief enjoyed by others because a larger tax base means a lower tax rate is needed to raise a certain amount of revenue.

The State

I don’t see the problem, frankly.  I bought my place in 2008 and when I saw how low my property tax bill was my jaw dropped.  I came here from the northeast where property tax bills were several thousand dollars a year on homes that were worth less than $100k.  My property tax bill in South Carolina is less than $700 on a home that I bought for a little under $120k.  Amazing.

I do realize that many businesses have complained of having to shoulder an unfair burden in property taxes.  If that’s the case and it’s hurting our state’s competitiveness, then raise the sales tax again.  A sales tax is the fairest there is because everybody has to contribute, which is the way it should be.  We shouldn’t have half the population getting a near free ride off the backs of the other half.

But legislation awaiting action in the state Senate would put a 15 percent cap on the assessment changes that follow a change in ownership. Supporters say the change would spur economic development. Capping point-of-sale reassessments would remove an estimated $44 million in revenue from schools and local governments annually, the state estimates, resulting in possible property tax rate increases that would affect all property owners, cuts in school budgets and local services, or both.

Oh well we can’t have that.  We can’t take money away from the children, regardless of how carelessly it’s been spent by the school districts.  I’ve touched on that plenty of times here.  The schools in this state have all the money they need to function and educate children.  The problem is that the bulk of the money they are getting isn’t making its way to the classroom and that is the fault of those administrating the school districts.  It’s not a taxation issue, but don’t worry, they’ll scream like Chicken Little as soon as any cuts look to be on the horizon and there will be weak-kneed politicians who will cave.

Several hundred taxpaying protesters staged a Raleigh rally this weekend protesting the overall destructive policies of the current presidential administration.

In the Asheville City Council race this coming Tuesday, several candidates are competing, but only three can be elected to the At-Large seats.  I have gone over the platforms and statements of each candidate and have narrowed down the three that I would vote for if I live in Asheville.  You can call these endorsements if you like; I prefer to call them my recommendations.  Endorsements come from important people and institutions and I am but a humble blog administrator.  In no particular order, my choices are as follows:

Ryan Croft

Mr. Croft is big on the budget and while it may not be the most sexy issue out there, it should be one of the top discussions in everyone’s mind.  We are a country drowning in debt.  Our Federal government has accumulated a national debt of over $11 trillion with an almost $2 trillion budget deficit for just this fiscal year.  Our Congressional leaders are driving us into bankruptcy.  The Asheville City Council may not have any influence over the carelessness of the Federal government, but they can keep their own fiscal house in order.  Croft is committed to fighting for a balanced budget and rooting out waste and unnecessary government spending to get there, not raising taxes.  Croft seems to understand that in tough economic times, tough decisions must be made and he doesn’t appear frightened to make those calls.

J. Neal Jackson

Mr. Jackson is the owner of Eagle Supermarket in downtown Asheville.  Who better to know what a growing business needs than someone who possesses the experience of owning and operating his very own business in the city?  Additionally, Jackson has a strong educational background with a Bachelors Degree in Psychology and a Masters Degree in Entrepreneurship.  You can’t ask for better credentials in a city leader.  Jackson shares Croft’s fiscal sanity and is committed to pushing the city towards employing local companies for city infrastructure needs.  That’s just good sense.  The local government should use its local businesses and give back to the people of the community.

Esther Manheimer

I choose Ms Manheimer because she has a strong focus on improving the overall quality of life in Asheville.  It takes more than lower taxes to build a strong community, but a combination of affordability, efficient services, and environmental aesthetics.  Manheimer is a backer of reducing pollution and expanding public greenways and transportation.  All of these factors are important features that enhance the quality of life for all residents in a city and serve as incentives to attract more people to the community.  She also is an advocate of a strong business climate and supporting new and existing entrepreneurs in the city.  I think she has the right balance with the issues.

I think these three candidates would bring a nice equilibrium to the council.  We have a bit of the right, a little on the left, and some consensuses right in the middle that everyone can agree on.  I feel it’s important that all views get represented on the issues in order to generate the brightest ideas and solutions possible for the city.

It was officially announced yesterday evening.  We got the Boeing plant.  It has decided on South Carolina over the Washington State.  The plant will be located in North Charleston and could bring an estimated 3,800 new jobs to the state.  As I wrote yesterday, talks between Boeing and the Machinist Union in Washington broke down.  Once again, we see the example of a union chasing away thousands of jobs they could have had in their community, but I’m not complaining.  Their loss is our gain here in South Carolina.

Part of what also made up Boeing’s mind was the $450 million incentive package approved by the state legislature, which is coming under some controversy.  Pure laissez-faire economy advocates are decrying this as corporate welfare that would be unneeded if the state went further in improving the business climate here.  Others say this isn’t corporate welfare because it is mostly tax breaks, rather than the actual giving of taxpayer dollars to Boeing out of the state coffers.  Furthermore, other states engage in handing out incentives to big business so if we don’t do it too, we’ll be unable to compete.  There is some truth to that.

I’m somewhere in the middle on this.  I don’t look at tax breaks as corporate welfare.  I view that as government getting out of the way.  I do, however, have an issue when they are targeted to only a specific business, rather than all businesses throughout the state.  Tax incentives don’t always work either, case and point, Dell.  There is also the underlying question that if Boeing doesn’t have to pay these taxes, does that mean I am picking up their share of the burden?

This is the biggest investment in South Carolina history so the legislature is taking quite a risk.

Either way, if the plant brings in the number of new jobs it says it will it’s obviously a good thing for the state.  If the tax revenue surpasses what was forgone through the incentive packages then it will be a worthwhile investment in the long run.

It’s always a privilege to have a candidate come visit us in York County because so few do despite the fact we are one of the fastest growing counties in the state.  Tonight I had the pleasure of being able to meet State Representative Nikki Haley, the woman I am supporting to be our next governor here in South Carolina.  She gave a great speech and entertained many thoughtful questions from the audience.  Her answers only reinforced why I am supporting her candidacy.

On tax reform she wishes to eliminate the small business income tax and the personal income tax in order to spur investment in the state by attracting more businesses and people.  To address our current and possible future deficits, she intends to audit every state agency to weed our waste and institute spending caps on the state government, much like the workings of Colorado’s TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights).

She addressed the issues of education and unemployment.  South Carolina needs to put a larger focus on technical schools around the state so that unemployed residents and non-college bound adults can get trained in skilled professions that pay well.  Such an initiative will bring manufacturing jobs back to our state and lower unemployment in some of the poorest counties in our state, like Allendale, Chester, etc.

What struck me the most, however, was her commitment to Federalism and pushing back against the dangerous growth of government we have been seeing in Washington D.C. for several years now.  Haley intends to put together a coalition of governors from around the country who will stand shoulder to shoulder and fight the unconstitutional and unfunded mandates being forced on the states by the Federal government. Ah, this was music to my ears.  I’ve always gotten frustrated by the fact that the states will bellyache about being bullied by the Feds, but never do anything about it.  I’ve always thought how easy it would be to stop this unconstitutional infringement of the Tenth Amendment by just a dozen or so governors getting together and saying, “You know what?  We’re not going to do it!”  The publicity it would garner and the support from the American people it would spark would be effective.

Nikki Haley has proven to be a reformer in the state legislature so when she says she is committed to these ideals I believe her.  She has walked the walk.  She is up against some strong competition in the primary, but she has proven to not be small potatoes herself.  I think she can succeed in this endeavor and become a governor that will be responsible to the people of this state.

People have asked me why I am running for the State House 33 seat in the North Carolina legislature.
I have to respond that “We are losing our freedom and God given rights on a daily basis”.

People ask me why in a state so dominated by the Democratic Party why I am running as a Republican.
I have to respond that “My core principles are a best fit in the Republican Party. It is apparent with the level of corruption and quid pro quo that is happening in North Carolina, we are corrupt only second to Illinois”. Let me be blunt, the Democratic Party leadership is responsible.

I have been asked what we can do about jobs in North Carolina. I have been asked what we can do about returning this state and District 33 back to prosperity.
First we need to reduce the tax burden on the small businesses and people who are the spenders in this capitalist society. And at the same time we need to go back to zero based budgeting. It is common sense to only budget what we NEED and what we can AFFORD as a state.

Another question that has come up is the Defense of Marriage act.
Unlike my opponents I am fearless when it comes to defending marriage being defined as the union of one woman and one man at one time. This is especially important in District 33. I will put any opponent I face next year in the spotlight concerning this issue.

I have been asked about forced annexation and property rights in this state.
Those two issues are both separate and connected in some way. The municipalities are allowed to annex without reservations any blocks of unincorporated land in their zone of influence. And the Supreme Court allows a government to take from you to give to another private entity. These are both issues where we need to pass laws not allowing either one of these issue without those citizens approving it.

I have been asked about redistricting and how that will affect us in the future.
Republicans have to win the State House and or State Senate next year. And we need the help of independents and Conservative Democrats next year. Not winning is not an option. Gerrymandering, some of which has been struck down by the courts, disenfranchises many voters.

How are Republicans going to win?
We need the grassroots volunteers and most of all we need money. $20 dollars from many people will add up for us state level candidates, and donations of $100 will be critical. In my case I can expect my opponent to raise close to $50,000. My campaign as an example will need at a minimum of $20,000 to get out the mailers to like minded voters before the election. If 1,000 people gave $20 or even 500 gave $40 that would equal the minimum.

I am enthusiastic about the results of the School Board elections in Wake County. It was a bipartisan effort by everyone along the entire political spectrum that brought change to our schools. Unlike the current House 33 seat holder, I will be on a mission to do what is right for all of House 33’s citizens. Listening to the citizens will be my first priority.

Five elite and rich Democrats formed a group in order to deceive the voters of three Wake County School Board districts according to the News and Observer. In today’s October 10th, 2009 print edition the recently formed Wake Citizens for Good government paid for a ad on WRAL. The ad cost $11,000 to run.

Here is a list of who gave, all five of them.

PPP Democratic pollster Dean Debnam- $4000 and loaned $6,000 which he got back.

Democratic political strategist Ken Eudy gave $4,000

National Education Association Executive Director John Wilson gave $4000.

Both Democratic fundraiser Kinda Davis and former Raleigh Councilwoman each gave $2000.

These five people aired a false ad claiming that voting for Chris Malone, Debra Goldman, and Deborah Prickett would raise our property taxes to pay for neighborhood schools. Apparently they didn’t put in the ad the graduation rate of African-American males under the current forced busing policies.  

We need to remain vigilant and get John Tedesco elected to bring to the school board honesty, transparency, and professionalism. I can’t wait to see what the anti-parent forced busing side comes up with now.

If you’re serious about purchasing the Eastland Mall then you need to get in touch with Rep. Charlie Rangel (D) and ask him for some tax advice.  With Rangel’s help, Charlotte may be able to purchase the mall at a discount, declare it the city’s primary residence, and then just “forget” to report any income for a few years and hope no one notices.  It definitely beats spending $50 million the city doesn’t really have at the moment.

With all this talk of bi-partisanship in the new era of hopeychange, can’t Republicans and Democrats (and even you Libertarians) at least come together on the issue of corrupt politicians?  We all know what the reaction would be if a prominent Republican was involved in a real estate scandal like Rangel, and it would be totally justified.  In a world where voters still held certain expectations of their elected representatives, Charlie Rangel would have been voted out of office years ago, if he hadn’t already resigned first.  But according to the Gov. Sanford school of politics, Rangel should just call it a moral failure and go about his business.

Here’s to corrupt politicians everywhere: