news-record.com

NEWS

Budget awaits deal over which taxes to raise

Sunday, June 28, 2009
(Updated 7:06 am)

RALEIGH — Lawmakers will miss their July 1 deadline for putting a new state budget in place as they wrangle over which programs to cut and which taxes to raise.

Barring a major blow-up,  North Carolina will operate off a temporary spending plan for some time, allowing agencies to maintain basic services but making none of the changes needed to ensure the state doesn’t fall into deficit next year.

The so-called continuing resolution will instruct agencies to hold back on automatic pay raises and other increases, allowing them to operate at 85 percent of last year’s budget. That measure is still pending in the House, where lawmakers want to give themselves two weeks to finish their work. Senate budget writers would prefer an indefinite time frame.

“We’re in pretty good shape right now except for the finance part,” said Rep. Mickey Michaux , a Durham Democrat and the House’s senior budget writer. Finance refers to the tax plan that both chambers agree is needed.

Although there are differences over proposed spending, it is the tax plans favored by the two chambers that have proved the real sticking point, negotiators say.

Democrats, who control both the House and the Senate, as well as governor’s mansion, say the state faces a $4.5 billion budget gap. That figure is based on the amount of money lawmakers projected spending over the past year before the sour economy limited the amount of money the state collected in taxes.

Republicans argue the gap would be much smaller if Democrats based their proposals on what was actually spent during the past 12 months and properly accounted for federal stimulus funds. However, the GOP controls none of the budget-writing apparatus.

Plans drafted by the House, Senate and governor all make cuts to state programs in order to balance the budget. But all rely on raising more taxes as well.

Leaders of both the House and Senate finance committees, which write the state’s tax laws, say they have agreed that they need to make changes that would raise roughly $990 million in new taxes over the next year and $1.3 billion more the year after that.

But the two chambers disagree on how that should be done.

The House budget proposal would raise income taxes on the state’s wealthiest citizens, those making more than $200,000 a year.

“It’s a good way to have a fair and balanced package that includes both a tax on high-end income and a sales tax increase,” said Rep. Paul Luebke, a Durham Democrat and the House’s chief tax writer.

By contrast, the Senate plan would lower sales and income tax rates but apply them to more items.

“We on the House side do not want to tax Social Security income or raise the sales tax on electricity,” Luebke said, speaking about two proposals the Senate had floated.

But Senate budget writers are equally adamant that raising taxes on the highest-income individuals will drive them out of the state.

“We’ll run them all off to Florida,” said Sen. David Hoyle, a Dallas Democrat and one of his chamber’s finance chairmen. “It doesn’t sit right with us.”

Hoyle said that budget writers should also include more sin taxes — increases in the taxes on beer, wine and cigarettes — which the House largely carved out of its budget.

Both sides are taking a break in their negotiations over the weekend.

“This year, they’re in very good company having to extend their budget writing,” said Thom Little, an adjunct faculty member in UNCG’s political science department. “It’s not at all uncommon across the country, particularly this year because it’s such a challenging year to balance the budget.”

Little said most citizens won’t notice that the state’s budget is overdue.

However, local officials, particularly those running county governments and school systems, may be on edge as they wait. Large portions of county funding come from the state.

On the spending side of the equation, appropriators say that there are dozens of individual items that are putatively different between the two chambers.

Rep. Alma Adams, a Greensboro Democrat who also has a seat at the top level of the budget writing process, said that there is a difference over education spending. The House, she said, would rather spend revenue raised from extra taxes on kindergarten through 12th-grade classrooms, a view Gov. Bev Perdue espoused on a recent barnstorming tour through the state.

Senate leaders say they want to ensure the UNC system receives enough public funding.

Negotiators are to continue their work this week.

Contact Mark Binker at (919) 832-5549 or mark.binker@news-record.com

 

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

ravencottage

June 28, 2009 - 7:17 am EDT

This is easy...cut enough spending so taxes do not have to be raised. And while they're at it cut enough spending so we taxpayers get a substantial refund.

Get the facts

June 28, 2009 - 7:54 am EDT

How do you propose that a reduction in spending and a refund be achieved?

Wally43

June 28, 2009 - 9:59 am EDT

Spreading the tax incresse across the tax payer base and the consumer spending base keeps the increase affordable. As taxpayers and consumers maybe we will need to cut some of our personal discretionary spending in order to balance our personal budgets. Education and health care are vital to the future sucess of our state.

Panacea

June 28, 2009 - 9:06 am EDT

So, you want to opt out of educating your kids, building/fixing roads, keeping criminals locked up, and let the poor drive hospitals underwater with uncompensated care just so you can get a tax refund?

Look, I don't like paying taxes anymore than anyone else. But I also know that education, law enforcement, transportation infrastructure, and health care are important. These things must be paid for.

Raising the sin taxes would go a long way to helping the problem and is an easy tax to avoid: just don't pay those products if you don't want to pay.

ravencottage

June 28, 2009 - 11:46 am EDT

I've noticed over the years that all levels of government never have enough money. There always seems to be a new study resulting in a new project resulting in a demand for higher taxes. As our household incomes continue to shrink government's just gets larger and larger year after year. When would you draw the line and say enough is enough? Would it be 50%...60%...75% of your own income being taken in taxes?

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search