Perdue should reverse Easley attitudes
My column today, which expands on a blog entry from last week (you have to do some recycling these days):
Every day brings more bad news for Mike Easley, but it could be worse.
He could still be governor.
His successor, Bev Perdue, is dealing with a deepening budget crisis and plunging popularity.
She should use Easley’s troubles to strengthen her own image by casting herself as the anti-Easley governor. ...
Last week, Public Policy Polling measured Perdue’s approval rating at 34 percent. Among teachers, it was just 29 percent.
That was a huge drop from previous surveys and a mass desertion by a group that overwhelmingly backed her election last year. My household received dozens of pro-Perdue mailings from the N.C. Association of Educators. Now teachers feel she’s betrayed them by imposing a small pay cut to help close a tiny portion of the state’s $3 billion deficit.
The anger was demonstrated in Raleigh last weekend during an NCAE-organized protest. Dave Owens, a maintenance supervisor for Guilford County Schools, told the N&R’s Lorraine Ahearn:
“When you start taking money back that you’ve already budgeted, after all the confidence Bev Perdue said she had in teachers, that’s devastating. It shouldn’t be our responsibility to balance her budget.”
To explain things to Mr. Owens: It doesn’t matter what was budgeted. When the economy tanks, tax revenues drop. That means the funds simply aren’t there to meet budgeted expenditures. “Taking money back” is unavoidable. As governor, Perdue is required by the state constitution to balance the budget. She is empowered only to cut spending, not to raise taxes.
This is what separates governors from the president, by the way. Barack Obama’s approval ratings remain relatively high because he can ramp up federal spending to record levels with record borrowing. Politicians who give away money are better-liked than those who take it away — at least until the weight of accumulated deficits crushes the country. But that’s going to take a few years.
Democratic consultant Gary Pearce wrote in his Talking About Politics blog last week that Perdue “seems to have neither personal popularity nor popular policies.”
What she lacks is simple, Pearce added: “a powerful positive message. Something the voters believe she stands for no matter what happens, something they see her fighting for that is good for the state.”
I agree. She should stand for honest government. She should fight against corrupt politics, even within her own Democratic Party.
The Easley scandals give her the perfect opportunity.
Although she served as lieutenant governor during Easley’s entire eight-year tenure as governor, Perdue wasn’t politically close to him. Rather, she considered his predecessor, Jim Hunt, her mentor. During her gubernatorial campaign last year, she tried to keep her distance from Easley as it became increasingly clear he’d mismanaged some big issues like mental health and probation.
Another Easley failing was ethical leadership. His administration tended to be secretive, and he seemed unconcerned about corruption by former Speaker Jim Black and others. Maybe now we know why.
Perdue already has been much more open and visible than Easley, but she needs to draw a sharper contrast.
She should denounce Easley for, at the very least, giving the appearance that he used his office to gain favors for himself and his family.
Furthermore, she should pledge that her administration will adhere to the highest standards and promise to call out anyone in state government who does not.
The governor’s direct authority is limited. She doesn’t rule the independently elected members of the Council of State, the General Assembly or the judiciary. But she has the state’s highest bully pulpit, and she should make it known that the governor will loudly demand accountability for dishonesty anywhere in state government.
She should urge state employees to call her office, without risk, if they see or suspect corruption. She should promise to have all credible leads investigated.
Perdue can’t mend the economy. She can’t balance the budget without drawing some blood.
She can resolve to make state government function better by assuring that it operates honestly and openly.
If she does, it will be good for North Carolina and she’ll earn the public’s support.
An anti-Easley is just the kind of governor needed right now.
Thanks for reading. Give me a call at 373-7039, email me at dgclark@news-record.com, or post a comment here.
Comments (1)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I wanted to share an anonymous response I received via email:
As a special education teacher, I have been, and will continue to be, affected by the current state budget crisis. I am certainly willing to make any sacrifices that I can in these tough times, especially if it will help children or if it means that other teachers will not be laid off.
It is true, as you said, that our state's constitution requires Gov. Perdue to balance the state budget. You are also correct in pointing out that she has no other recourse than to cut spending. However, an old Shaker adage states, "Truth hath many aspects". So I would like to share with you how this truth looks from a slightly different aspect.
As a single mother, I have struggled for years to make ends meet on a teacher's salary. Unfortunately since December, both of my sons, my son's disabled girlfriend, and a homeless teen whom I took in last year have all been laid off from work. Without jobs, they can't afford their own apartments, health or car insurance or even food. So currently, they are all living here with me.
In addition, my sister, who supports a disabled husband and 4 children, has just learned that she will be laid off at the end of the week. My boyfriend's parents, an upper middle class couple in their 80's, who thought they had planned ahead well enough to live quite comfortably in their golden years, suddenly lost virtually everything when the stock market tanked and their former employers went bankrupt. My boyfriend is now responsible for a significant portion of their financial support. Unfortunately, he has also been notified that he will be laid off at the end of May.
10 adults. 4 children. 1 salary. That's the shocking reality of today's economy.
State employees have already lost our longevity pay and face cuts in health coverage. What seems like a "small pay cut" to you, is for me, an additional six percent reduction in my paycheck this month. (I realize it has to be done by June 30th, but having the entire amount taken out of one paycheck without any advance warning will place a real hardship on families such as mine. I never imagined that I would ever find myself in a position where I had to choose between buying food or buying medicine for my loved ones.)
I, along with all other state employees, are being asked to make these sacrifices in order to balance the state budget.
Meanwhile, my dear friend, whose husband makes almost a 7 figure salary working for one of those notorious financial firms that have raked in huge profits and given out record-high bonuses to their top employees, has just returned from all all-inclusive, ALL expenses paid week-long trip to an exclusive, luxury ocean-front resort in the Domnican Republic that was given to several hundreds of the commpany's executives and their spouses. This trip included unlimited liquor, food, body massages, various types of entertainment, a personal in-room butler, unlimited golf, outrageously expensive bottle of champagne, etc. at an average cost to the company of over $3,000 per person per day. (I especially enjoyed her tales of how much fun it was to be able to be able to sample every drink on the menu. Order one. Taste a sip. Pour it out. Order another one ----all at stockholder's expense.)
I know it doesn't sound like it, but I actually don't begrudge my friend her good fortune. Life isn't fair...But government should be.
My friends aren't being asked to sacrifice one dime to balance the state budget.
While I realize it's unavoidable at this point, I don't think it is fair to balance the state budget on the backs of one group of state citizens simply because the governor has the power to do so, while lacking the power to fairly assess my neighbors their fair share.
The burden of paying for whatever the state chooses to spend each year should be fairly borne by all N.C. citizens.
I respectfully submit that what is needed here is not a simple, "powerful, positive message" from Bev Perdue. What is needed is regulaton of the out-of-control spending of company CEOs at the expense of the entire economy and massive reformation of our tax laws, at both the state and federal level so that our government budgets will always be balanced and paid for in an equitable fashion.
I've struggle all my life to balance my own budget. As a state employee, I shouldn't be unfairly singled out and penalized so that the Gov. Perdue can balance hers.
Posted on May 21, 2009 2:39 PM