Why Jeffus voted yes
The News & Record editorially opposed a compromise bill that granted state incentives to Goodyear and Bridgestone Firestone plants that could pay thosee companies taxpayer-funded grants even if they cut jobs.
State Rep, Maggie Jeffus of Greensboro offered this explanation in an e-mail why she supported the bill:
Allen, I respect your feelings and mine are somewhat mixed as I've said before. We started giving incentives in order to be competitive with other states, and the fact that NC is in need of jobs; retaining jobs and recruiting new jobs.
It's difficult to stop something once its started. With all of that said, we were in a difficult situation. I honestly went to Raleigh with the thought of upholding the Governor's veto unless something could be worked out.
I had heard prior to Monday that they were trying to work on a compromise. I also felt and heard that the votes were there for an override which would have left us with the original bill. Speaker Hackney and a few other key people worked hard to construct this compromise , and I think the Speaker deserves a lot of credit for his perseverance. There were many concerns and that is the reason a study was inserted into the legislation to look at the policy side of the incentive issue and other things as well.
The legislators from the two Tier 1 areas also gave compelling reasons why this was needed for their area. A few reminded me that Guilford had received their votes for things such as the Nano School, the Civil Rights Museum, the High Point Furniture Market, the Natural Science Center, Fed Ex, etc. and that Guilford may want or need something in the future. These things bring people to Greensoro/Guilford to spend money, boost our economy, and encourage businesses to locate here.
This is a very long answer for your short question. I did vote "yes" for the compromise. There are some differences in the two bills but I understand the "principle" is the same. Hopefully the study will give more answers and maybe congress will do something in the future as well.
Maggie
Comments (2)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I'm glad we at least obtains some chits for future porkage. As they say, it's difficult to stop something once it's started. Luckily, we have a "study" inserted into the legislation that will doubtlessly clear up the murkiness of incentives and other things. Once the clear light of reason is shed by the study, the answers will appear obvious. That will be a relief, I can tell you.
Posted on September 17, 2007 12:35 PM
Allen,
Your editorial today is very dishonest. It is certainly the newspaper's right and privilege to support the coming bond referendum and to build support for it with voters, but your editorial calling any that might oppose it "parsimonious" is just wrong. One synonym for parsimonious is "miserly", which is defined as "stresses a pathological pleasure in acquiring and hoarding money that is so powerful that even necessities are only grudgingly purchased". That is a dishonest attempt to demonize people that might vote against the bond. People may vote against it for very good reasons that have nothing to do with "cramming our kids into overcrowded classrooms in outdated schools, hindering academic progress, but it's cheap, easy and politically expedient".
A cheap shot, Allen. Is this the News-Record Way?
Posted on September 17, 2007 1:11 PM