Perdue pushing N.C. tax amnesty? Kinda

Good morning. Welcome to O-Pinion, the Observer editorial board's blog of commentary and public discussion. I'm associate editor Fannie Flono, your host today.

Before we get to "tax amnesty," let's talk about the big political news in the Carolinas: the upcoming South Carolina GOP primary where the remaining Republican candidates are still battling it out.

An article in the conservative Weekly Standard has an intriguing take on why "A Gingrich Win Could Benefit Everyone - including Romney. In it Jeffrey H. Anderson contends that if Newt Gingrich wins, it will provide an opportunity for more substantive debate from the Republicans so the party can get its true message out on issues. "Romney should actually welcome additional chances to hone his skills," Anderson said. "After all, if he isn’t confident that he can beat Newt Gingrich without a Mike Tyson-style early round knockout — secured mostly through a huge advantage in cash and a resulting barrage of negative advertising in Iowa — then what chance does he really have of beating Obama?" All right. Let's keep those gloves on.

The Standard also had an interesting story dissecting new polls showing President Barack Obama's approval ratings ticking up. In a blog piece called "Morning Jay: What to Make of Obama's Approval Bounce?" Jay Costa attributes the change to "marginal Democrats" coming back to the Obama fold.

On the liberal side, the Huffington Post takes on Gingrich for continuing at Monday's S.C. debate in Myrtle Beach "to promote his controversial strategy to fight both child poverty and the jobs crisis." That plan being to hire poor children to be janitors in schools. Lila Shapiro writes that "the idea captures Gingrich's spin on two popular right-wing economic claims: Union workers are overpaid and the poor simply need to work harder to improve their lives." She then debunks his contention, saying he got facts wrong. She says he incorrectly said that an entry-level janitor gets paid twice as much as an entry-level teacher. Not only do Gingrich's calculations assume janitors earn much more than they actually do, his theory is deeply flawed, and would likely harm impoverished communities, not help them, she said researchers say.

TAX DEBT PAYMENT PLAN
Here in North Carolina, the battle is at the state level with Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue taking on Republicans by publicly arguing that they should restore part of state sales tax the Republican-controlled legislature let expire last year. Republican Senate leader Phil Berger said predictably that the proposal was "dead on arrival in the General Assembly."
But we wonder what Repubs think about this: Perdue announced today that the North Carolina Department of Revenue is launching the Individual Income Tax Debt Payment Program to help individuals catch up on unpaid taxes.

According to a press release, "This time-limited program will help individuals resolve unpaid taxes and get back on their feet financially by waiving certain penalties and fees and offering payment plan options. Participating taxpayers can avoid forced collections such as garnishments, liens, and levies.

This sounds like somewhat like a back-door tax amnesty program. We said last May that N.C. lawmakers and the governor should both agree to a tax amnesty plan to bring in money to state coffers. At the time, GOP Rep. Tim Moffitt of Buncombe County was sponsoring a bill. Moffitt said then his bill could bring in as much as $200 million during a grace period between July 1 and June 30, 2012. The bill would have allowed taxpayers in arrears to settle their accounts by paying all of their taxes plus half the interest. The state, in turn, would drop penalties and criminal charges.

The bill got nowhere but Moffitt said it was a good one because North Carolina shouldn't impose penalties on tax delinquents at a time when many people can't find a job."There is no reason for the state to rub salt into people's wounds, " he said.
In announcing her plan today, Perdue said: "This is exactly the type of program we need to help our fellow North Carolinians down the path to economic recovery. We are making it easier for our citizens to work with state government.”

Are Republicans and Democrats, gasp, on the same page?

Commission gives silliness a prime seat

We've spent some time recently fretting about folks potentially not getting along on the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Board of Education. We have no similar worries about the Mecklenburg County Board of County Commissioners; we already know how dysfunctional that group is.

Your latest example is Item 8a on Wednesday night's meeting agenda, courtesy of commissioner Vilma Leake: "Seek clarity from Chairman (Harold) Cogdell regarding procedure and effective date for seating of commissioners around the dais at the meetings held in the meeting chamber."

Leake is unhappy at her new seating assignment, which is one of the seats at the far edge of the dais. That assignment came from Cogdell, who gets to make those calls now that he's the board chair. Leake complained about the seat back in Demember, but nothing changed, so she's back at it again, this time more formally.

If Leake wanted to know about procedure, however, she could've simply contacted county attorney Marvin Bethune, as we did this morning. Bethune's response, via email:

The only Board policy on seating arrangements is the attached 1979 policy, which reads: “There shall be adequate seating arrangements for the Board, staff, public, and media at all regular and/or special meetings of the Board.

Bethune and others say that as long as they can remember, the practice has been for the chair to determine where commissioners sit.

Leake also could've spoken with Cogdell if she wanted to know why he did what he did, but she clearly wants her complaint aired in public, not private. The board has protocol designed to limit silliness like this - specifically, a rule that requires any agenda item to be co-sponsored by two board members. In this case, that's former chair Jennifer Roberts and George Dunlap, who each should've known better than to allow this to move forward.

We haven't heard back from Roberts, who may still be smarting from Cogdell's unseemly unseating of her as chair. Dunlap, in a note to fellow commissioners today, said that Leake was upset at a remark Cogdell apparently made to media about no one wanting to sit near Leake.
Dunlap hadn't heard that remark, and neither have we.

Cogdell tells us this morning that he doesn't remember saying that "no one" wanted to sit next to Leake, but he said that the Republican members of the board requested to be placed elsewhere. Cogdell also says he remembers Dunlap telling him more than once that he didn't want to be beside Leake "because he would have to explain everything to her and that she talks during the entire meeting."

Cogdell says, and Dunlap agrees, that the board's time is better spent addressing other issues. But, says Dunlap of Leake: "Let her have her say and move on."

Leake already had that say at December's meeting. Wednesday's agenda item is nothing more than pettiness and preening, and it affirms once again that the board - at least three members, anyway - don't mind giving foolishness a prime spot on the dais.

Peter St. Onge

GOP debate in S.C.: Winners and losers

Good morning and welcome to O-pinion, the Observer's place for discussion and perspective. I'm Peter St. Onge, associate editor of the Observer's editorial board, and I'll be your host today.

What are people talking about this morning?

Republican candidates for president held the first of two S.C. debates last night in Myrtle Beach, and frontrunner Mitt Romney took an unsurprising pummeling from his fellow debaters, none of whom has been able to grab and keep the title of Mitt Alternative. At this point, that title means little, however, because unless Romney makes a severe misstep, the other GOP candidates seem to be fighting merely for a good speaking spot at the Republican National Convention.

Still, pundits agree that one candidate clearly had the best night in Myrtle Beach. The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza says Newt Gingrich was the clear winner of the debate, showing that when he's on, he's the best debater in the field.

Cillizza's other winners include Rick Perry and Barack Obama, who benefits from Romney's conservative answer on immigration, which won't play as well in a general election, along with Romney grudgingly saying he will probably release his income tax returns.

Cillizza's big loser: Ron Paul, who was booed by the audience and mocked by Perry. Said Cillizza: "If Paul would deflect all foreign policy questions and turn every answer into something about his economic views, he could be a real contender for the nomination. He won’t do that, so he isn’t."

Time's Mark Halperin also gives the nod to Gingrich in his post-debate report card. Gingrich got an A- from Halperin, who said the Georgian was "At his best: funny, lively, tough, brash, challenging."

Perry ("clear, consistent and relaxed") and Romney ("less dominant") each received a B from Professor Halperin. Santorum, who was overshadowed by Gingrich, got a C+, and Paul ("marble-mouthed on defense") got a C.

Stephen F. Hayes of the conservative Weekly Standard said Gingrich was a clear winner, with a "a performance Monday night that reminded people why he was once the Republican frontrunner for the Republican nomination." Romney was "less sure-footed," says Hayes, but the clear loser was Santorum, simply because his biggest not-Mitt opponent did so well.

Politico's Maggie Haberman agrees that Gingrich got his groove back and said that the pummeling Romney took from his fellow debaters shows that he's in for a hard week in South Carolina. But, like the others, Haberman didn't see any lasting bruises on Romney from last night.

Romney, she said, is "one step closer to the finish line."

Which Carolinian will become president?

Barack Obama vaulted to the presidency just four years after being a state senator in Illinois. Jimmy Carter was an unlikely future president when he was governor of Georgia. Michele Bachmann, who led this year's race at one point, is a representative from Minnesota. And Rick Santorum is a legitimate presidential candidate just a few years after Pennsylvania voters threw him out of his U.S. Senate office.


It all goes to show: Presidential candidates can spring from anywhere. And it got us to thinking: Which Carolinian is most likely to make a serious run for the White House in the future?


No one who lived much of their life in North or South Carolina has ever been president. Andrew Johnson and James K. Polk were born in Raleigh and just outside Charlotte, respectively. But both left when young and mostly lived in Tennessee. Andrew Jackson was born near the N.C.-S.C. border but also mostly lived in Tennessee.


So a true Carolinian as president would be a first. Who might it be? Any suggestion seems far-fetched right now, but so would have Obama before he gave his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and so would have Sarah Palin, who would have been a heartbeat away.

• N.C. Gov. Bev Perdue? She'll be fortunate if her political career isn't over in 10 months.




• Former Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory? Highly unlikely, but if he beats Perdue and serves two terms as governor, who knows?




• S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley? She's unseasoned, to put it mildly, but she has cred with the tea party and has shown she can pull the upset.




• U.S. Sens. Richard Burr or Kay Hagan? We'd give the edge to Burr, if only because he's in the running to be the vice presidential nominee this year.




• U.S. Sens. Jim DeMint or Lindsey Graham? Now we're getting warmer. DeMint was frequently mentioned as a tea party favorite and might have considered a run this year. Graham would have little shot.




• Hard to imagine any of North Carolina's current U.S. House members. Heath Shuler, maybe, if moderation ever comes back into vogue? Patrick McHenry if it doesn't?




• No one in South Carolina's delegation seems likely. Mick Mulvaney? Tim Scott? Joe Wilson? You lie!




• John Edwards? Ha, just seeing if you're paying attention.




• Maybe we need to look more locally. You may laugh at the idea of Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx. But he has made the right moves so far, and will raise his profile when the DNC comes to town. Give him 15-20 years of seasoning, and who knows?

Tell us who you think by voting in the poll at upper right.

-- Taylor Batten

Fair vote is too sacred for rushed judgment

It’s hardly surprising that Democrats would complain about North Carolina’s new congressional and legislative districts. They were drawn by Republicans and are shaped in a way that almost guarantees the GOP will do better than it did under the old maps.

If that were all there was to it, Democrats should be told: Too bad. Republicans won control of the General Assembly in 2010, and to the victors go the spoils. Of course Republicans would draw lines that help them. It was their first shot at drawing the maps in over 100 years. Democrats did the same thing for decades when they were in power.

But that’s not all there is to it. Challenges to the new districts, which will be considered at a court hearing in Raleigh today, are built on statistical evidence that says mapmakers used race as a predominant factor, and to an extent that they violated the U.S. Constitution.

Such concerns seemed to be undercut when the Obama Justice Department approved the N.C. maps in November, indicating that they did not illegally dilute blacks’ voting power. Sen. Bob Rucho, a Mecklenburg Republican who co-chaired the redistricting effort, and others pointed to that as proof that the districts were fair and legal.

The courts, however, have disagreed with the Justice Department frequently over the years. And opponents have now presented voluminous statistical analysis that suggests the courts should take a closer look.

Among the most notable: An affidavit filed last week by Ted Arrington, a former UNC Charlotte political science department chairman and a nationally recognized expert on redistricting.
Arrington dove into a block-by-block, precinct-by-precinct analysis of the maps. He determined that mapmakers systematically packed blacks into heavily black districts, leaving other districts safer for whites and Republicans. Rucho and co-chair Rep. David Lewis led an effort to split hundreds of precincts, siphoning black voters off with other black voters, and white voters off with other white ones, Arrington found.

“The General Assembly has created in all three plans a kind of political apartheid,” Arrington wrote.

He called the precinct-splitting patterns “a direct attack on black political participation.”
This can hardly be dismissed as the whining of some out-of-sorts liberal. Arrington was a long-time Republican and has been retained as an expert witness in 41 voting rights cases all over the country. His findings over the years have helped each party.

If you’ve read this far, you probably already appreciate why this is all vitally important and not just inside baseball. Election results hinge largely not on who’s the best candidate but how the lines are drawn. A well-qualified Republican almost certainly won’t win in a heavily Democratic district, and vice-versa. So fair, legal redistricting is essential to a healthy democracy.

A three-judge panel in Wake County Superior Court today will hear the state’s request that the case be thrown out and elections held under the disputed maps. That would be premature. The questions raised by Arrington and others are significant, and deserve a full hearing. The court should deny the state’s motion and lay the groundwork for making a decision based on the merits of both sides.

What cities can do about pedestrian accidents

If you've spent much time walking in uptown Charlotte, you're likely troubled but not surprised by the pair of pedestrian accidents this week at the intersection of College and Stonewall.

Most of us have seen our share of close calls, heard the honking of drivers' horns, chuckled at the subsequent gestures flung back by pedestrians. But what's happened at College and Stonewall is a sobering reminder of what busy urban traffic can bring.

On Tuesday, Wells Fargo executive Brett Morgan was walking legally in the crosswalk across South College Street when he was struck and killed by a dump truck turning right in the rain and fog. This morning brought the same kind of accident, again in rain and fog, though thankfully without serious injuries.

Almost 5,000 pedestrians a year are killed in accidents across the United States, and tens of thousands more are injured. Some of the incidents come from cars not stopping - or even slowing - to see a pedestrian with the right of way in the crosswalk. Sometimes, pedestrians are to blame for scooting through crosswalks even when the traffic signal blinks no.

Charlotte Department of Transportation spokeswoman Linda Durrett tells the Observer today that city engineers are meeting to discuss the Stonewall/College intersection, which the city has studied after looking at crash data over a number of years. She said she'll have an update later today.

What can cities do? If the crosswalk has the appropriate signals, as Stonewall/College does, the U.S. Department of Transportation recommends looking at intersections for potential design improvements. The crosswalk in question is more angular than most - does that create potential vision issues for approaching cars? If so, the stop line could be moved further back from the intersection to give drivers a better look.

U.S. DOT also recommends signs at or before crosswalks to remind drivers that pedestrians have the right of way. For particularly dangerous intersections, cities can consider in-pavement lights to alert motorists that a pedestrian is crossing. That's an expense, but given the heavy pedestrian traffic coming from the Stonewall rail station, it could be a worthy investment for the city.

Other cities with similar problems have embarked on public information campaigns about crosswalk dangers. A recent example is Chicago, which kicked off a "One of 32" campaign in December by placing black mannequins at 32 spots across the city to remember 32 pedestrians killed in the previous year. The city also is installing bright red street crossing flags at intersections that pedestrians can grab and display when crossing a street, then place in a bin on the other side.

All of which may not matter, of course, if a rushed or careless driver turns into a crosswalk without looking. We've asked Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police if they'll be putting an increased emphasis on the College and Stonewall intersection - or any other uptown intersections. We hope so. We'll let you know what they say.

Until then, the best advice is the most obvious: Whether you're behind the wheel or walking the pavement, be attentive out there.

Peter St. Onge

Why do we loathe John Edwards? A brainy explanation

Interesting examination today by Time Magazine about why Americans feel such hostility toward John Edwards.

It's partly self-evident. The North Carolina senator cheated on his wife and fathered a child outside of marriage, all while Elizabeth Edwards was battling the breast cancer that ultimately took her life.

But, as writer Jeffrey Kluger says:

There's a certain deliciousness to the way we loathe Edwards. We dismiss a mass killer like Osama bin Laden with a simple "rot in hell." We dismiss O.J. Simpson with a simple "rot in jail." And before you say that the difference is that both of those thugs have at least been dealt with, consider that the thrice-married and repeatedly unfaithful Newt Gingrich behaved nearly as despicably as Edwards, yet even now he is making a credible, if fading, run for the White House. Edwards, by contrast, can't walk into a restaurant without the risk of getting pelted by dinner rolls.

Why is that so? Kluger says a big factor is our brains. Studies using functional magnetic imaging have shown researchers there's an overlapping circuitry that governs morality and disgust. Our brains are triggered by different manifestations of that disgust - personal betrayal, the feeling we have when we see others cheated, and the pragmatic consequences of bad behavior.

Edwards, with his bad behavior, essentially played pinball with that circuitry - setting off all of our disgust triggers. Not only were we repulsed by him cheating on a sickly wife, that action brought potential consequences to his party and, perhaps most of all, was a surprise to many given his public choirboy persona. With Gingrich and Bill Clinton, we were disgusted - but not particularly surprised - at their infidelities.

Could our brains actually forgive him? You might be surprised at what science says. Give it a read.

Peter St. Onge

N.H. primary: The aftermath

The sift continues.

The New Hampshire primary did about as much to shake up the Republican race for president as it did to energize New Hampshirites. Citizens trudged dutifully to the polls but didn't reach predicted turnout levels, despite uncharacteristically clear roads and non-snowy driveways. The state just didn't get jazzed up for this one - a reflection, maybe, of the inevitability of a Mitt Romney win.

But New Hampshire, like Iowa, helped eliminate one candidate from the race - even if the candidate won't admit it yet. Jon Huntsman did everything Rick Santorum did in Iowa - pledging his heart to every corner of the state - but he didn't produce the result he needed, finishing third behind Romney and Ron Paul. Huntsman's strategy is to let South Carolina, up next on Jan 21, knock everyone else out and leave him and Romney to fight it out. But Huntsman has neither the money, organization or, as New Hampshire showed, the support to make that happen.

Onward to South Carolina. If Romney, the elite, Mormon, northeastern, establishment candidate, can win in an evangelical, southern, Tea Party state, the nomination is sealed. Paul has put together two impressive second-place finishes, outperforming expectations of everyone but his passionate supporters. But polls show he isn't the second choice of enough voters to take advantage of other candidates falling away.

That leaves the conservative alternatives - Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum - who will go hard at Romney and each other with the kind of harsh politicking that doesn't fly in genteel Iowa and reticent New Hampshire. South Carolina, well, it's different. Says the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza: "The state has a history of, how should we put this, contentious campaigns. (Think John McCain vs George W. Bush in 2000.)"

The NYT's Jim Rutenberg is a little more lyrical - and pointed about the Palmetto State, which he calls: "A place famous for surfacing the dark undercurrents of American politics."

Other New Hampshire reaction:

Politico's Maggie Haberman has six takeaways, including that the GOP will grudgingly have to acknowledge Ron Paul in a big way at its convention.

Her colleague, Dylan Byers, says the media's favorite narrative went splat with Huntsman's third-place finish.

The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes says history is on Romney's side.

And finally, RedState's Erick Erickson wishfully reminds us not to count out Rick Perry.

N.C. legislature's actions keeping lawyers busy

Job growth across the state may be lagging but N.C. lawmakers are at least keeping state (and other) lawyers busy. Another change by the Republican-controlled legislature is now in the courts.

A Wake County judge on Monday temporarily blocked lawmakers from instituting a law that prohibits members of the state teachers association from having their dues automatically deducted from state paychecks. The N.C. Association of Educators sued the state on Monday. The group is challenging the constitutionality of the move lawmakers made in a surprise session at nearly 1 in the morning last week.

This court challenge follows a series of others to legislative moves during the perpetual legislative session:

Planned Parenthood filed suit in the summer seeking to prevent the enforcement of the Planned Parenthood defunding amendment passed as part of the North Carolina budget during the 2011 legislative session. Planned Parenthood said the move cuts the group from federal money that comes through the state and is unconstitutional. A judge in August blocked the move and said funding must stay intact until the lawsuit is settled.

A judge in November also granted a preliminary injunction blocking the state's Division of Motor Vehicles from issuing the license plates, which say "Choose Life." The state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is suing to block the plates, saying they violate the First Amendment because there's no specialty plate for supporters of abortion rights. Twenty-nine states either already make "Choose Life" plates available or have approved such plates but have not manufactured them. But the plates have a mixed record when it comes to court challenges, with some judges ruling states can sell them and others siding with challengers who say the plates are unconstitutional.

The legislature, faced with a huge budget shortfall this summer, also cut the state's pre-kindergarten program (then known as More at Four) by 20 percent. That meant no space for 6,000-plus at-risk kids. But in June, Wake County Superior Court Judge Howard Manning declared that cut violated the state Constitution's guarantee of an equal, basic education for all. He ordered the state to provide pre-K to any at-risk 4-year-old who applied. (The Supreme Court appointed Manning to oversee its earlier ruling in a school-funding case known as Leandro.)

And as you read here Monday, lawmakers' redistricting maps are under fire. Democrats and the NAACP have filed suit to block them, and former UNC Charlotte professor Ted Arrington, an independent and respected expert on redistricting, filed an affidavit saying Republicans used race as a predominant factor in drawing new maps for congressional and legislative districts. A hearing is set for Thursday.

Elections have consequences. And wherever you sit politically in North Carolina, the changes and court actions show that. Politicians and interest groups have been aggressive about striking back over the last few months against changes don't like.

UNHAPPY CHRIS CHRISTIE: 'I'll change the court'
Republican N.J. Gov. Chris Christie has taken a truly aggressive stance to striking back against something he doesn't like. The Wall Street Journal reports he plans a new challenge to a court-ordered state education funding formula that has provided billions of dollars in extra funding to poverty-stricken schools. In an interview with The Journal, Christie said that he would nominate two state Supreme Court judges this spring who won't "grossly" overstep their powers - something he contends the state's high court did in ordering more school funding after he slashed state funding for schools. "Eventually, the court is going to admit it was wrong or I'm going to be able to change the court so that the new members are not as tethered to [that] decision," Christie said during a 45-minute interview with the Journal ahead of his State of the State speech.

In May, in a 3-2 decision, the state Supreme Court ruled that the governor's cuts to education funding were unconstitutional. The court ordered him to send about $500 million more to 31 of New Jersey's poorest and most underfunded school districts. The Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Christie's budget violated the state constitution by shortchanging the school funding plan adopted by the Legislature in 2008 and affirmed by the court in 2009.

We've noted in the past the similarities between the New Jersey school funding case and North Carolina's Leandro case. We don't expect Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue to try to get around this state's school funding case. She's been pushing the legislature to restore funds for the state's pre-kindergarten that Republican lawmakers stripped last summer. She now says she wants to use higher than expected state revenues to restore funding. But there might be some Republican lawmakers yearning for Christie's way of handling the situation eventhough the judge who's overseeing the N.C. case - Judge Manning - is a Republican.

- Posted by Fannie Flono