Slapdown
On my tree stump yesterday, I applauded Gov. Mike Easley for slapping down a really bad incentives deal slipped through the legislature this summer.
We talked about that this morning, and about the governor's proposed American Productivity And Competitiveness Act of North Carolina, which he plans to submit to the legislature next spring. Underneath its over-inflated title, the measure sets out some sensible parameters:
"Grants would be available to manufacturing facilities that require assistance to modernize in the state and that employ at least 1,500 workers in high-paying jobs in Tier 1 distressed counties. Companies receiving grants would be required to maintain current levels of company jobs, pay wages that equal or exceed 140% of the county average wage, and provide quality health insurance and benefits. They would also be required to maintain clean environmental and workforce safety records and not be delinquent on taxes owed."
One problem with the Goodyear deal that Easley vetoed was that the company actually could eliminate up to 750 jobs and still earn millions in incentives. Bad policy!
I think there also was something of a power struggle going on. The governor, through his Commerce Department, really needs to run North Carolina's economic development programs. The administration's authority and credibility are undercut every time the legislature -- at the behest of powerful senators or representatives -- makes special deals for this company or that.
We'll be working on this for an editorial next week.
Also on the radar: Older drivers and traffic safety. What are your observations?
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Why bias the program in favor of very large companies only? And why bias it in favor of those that provide "quality health insurance and benefits", thereby exacerbating the trend of generous third party payment causing health care inflation?
Posted on August 31, 2007 11:23 AM
Hmmm, complex questions.
Offhand, I'd say the policy is intended to mitigate the detrimental effect on communities when large companies shut down and throw hundreds out of work at one time. The governor might think it's easier to absort smaller layoffs. We can put that question to his office, however.
Companies that provide health coverage are considered preferable to those that don't, but of course whether that's the most rational system of paying for medical services is debatable.
Posted on August 31, 2007 11:39 AM
The APACANC sounds a lot like the Bill Lee act? What ever happened to that? Is this dejavu all over again? You may recall that exceptions were made to the Lee act when its limitations didn't fit a desired project (exception spearheaded by the Commerce Dept.). A history of the Lee act and how it came to be meaningless might help you put the potential of the APACANC in perspective for your readers.
Posted on August 31, 2007 2:25 PM
"Also on the radar: Older drivers and traffic safety. What are your observations?"
"Poorly performing" older drivers needs to be the defining issue here.
Age by itself is not the factor. Physical and visual impairment plus mental focus capabilities need to have some standards for continued eligibility to drive on our roads.
It's an issue that needs to be re-examined without the usual superficial treatment.
Posted on August 31, 2007 4:17 PM
Agreed. But a 75-year-old driver who does just fine might decline rapidly in driving ability over the next 3 or 4 years. Should people of a certain age have to pass a test every year or two to retain a license?
Posted on August 31, 2007 4:33 PM
"Should people of a certain age have to pass a test every year or two to retain a license?"
There's no doubt about that being an appropriate course of action.
The test needs to have special requirements that measure capabilities such as decision making and reaction times to real world situations.
Posted on August 31, 2007 5:06 PM