Morgan's Tax Cuts
Scott Monneyham's column used strawmen and misinformation to defend Richard Morgan. Moneyham claimed to be examining Morgan's critics' charges specifically. But: 1) He ignored Morgan's worst betrayal entirely. He didn't even mention how Morgan pushed a Democrat gerrymander through the legislature, which EVERY Republican Senator had opposed and which the State GOP had comdemned. 2) Moneyham claimed that Mogan's co-speakership deal with Black was no weaker than the deal that the 55-member main Republican faction offered, because their's would also have led to a co-speakership. Moneyham obviously and correctly disbelieves Morgan's lie, which was that the other Republicans were prepared to give Black sole control of the speakership. (But if he knows that Morgan is lying, why doesn't he say so?) Anyhow, Moneyham is wrong to say that Morgan's deal with the Democrats was no weaker than the other Republican offer. The Daughtry/Holmes offer to Black was for equal sharing of power between Republicans and Democrats. Morgan out-bid the other Republicans by giving control to the Democrats. Morgan gets the gavel on alternate days, but the key committee chairmanships (esp. Rules!) went to the Democrats, and Black has a "secret veto" over all Republican bills. The result is that the Democrats are running the NC House, and most Republicans are marginalized. 3) Moneyham misrepresented Morgan's connection with the Republican redistricting lawsuit. Mooneyham says that Morgan "didn't support the redistricting lawsuit." In fact, Morgan is a DEFENDENT in the Republicans' redistricting lawsuit, and Morgan joined the Democrats' lawsuit against prominant Republicans, including State Chairman Ferrell Blount. 4) Moneyham gives Morgan credit for ensuring "that previously delayed middle-class tax breaks -- a child tax credit and elimination of the marriage penalty" were not rescinded. But the child tax credit was only increased from $60 to $75, and at the same time the qualifying age was reduced to 16. It was previously 18, or 23 for students. The result is nearly a wash: some people get $15 more, some get $60 less. See http://www.dor.state.nc.us/downloads/indiv_archive/02archive/D401_2002.pdf (p. 12) and http://www.dor.state.nc.us/downloads/D401.pdf (p. 12) The Senate proposed delaying these two tiny tax cuts by two more years, and the Hosue stopped that. But in exchange for the two small TEMPORARY tax cuts which the Senate wanted, Morgan accepted a PERMANENT tax increase on families with children (by reducing the eligibility age limit for the Child Tax Credit to age 16). Moreover, the marriage penalty is not yet "eliminated," just cut in half - a cut that was already on the books. In the 2002 tax year, a single person could claim a $3000 standard deduction, but a married person could only claim $2500 (or $5000/couple). In the 2003 tax year, a single person could claim a $3000 standard deduction, but a married person could only claim $2750 (or $5500/couple). Next year we may finally see the long-delayed elimination of that marriage penalty tax. See http://www.dor.state.nc.us/downloads/indiv_archive/02archive/D400_D400TC_2002.pdf (p. 3) and http://www.dor.state.nc.us/downloads/D400_D400TC.pdf (p. 3) The already-scheduled increase in the deduction for married people results in a tax cut of, in most cases, $17.50/person ($35/couple) -- an amount that is dwarfed by the other tax increases that they enacted. 5) Moneyham calls Morgan an anti-Tax Republican. But the House budget, which Morgan supported, included a net tax increase that was almost as large as what the Senate wanted. The House, under Morgan and Black, proposed $384 million in tax increases for 2004; the Senate wanted to up the ante to $499 million. See: http://www.johnlocke.org/press_releases/2003042947.html http://www.johnlocke.org/cj_weekly/2003063067.html http://www.johnlocke.org/cj_weekly/2003042154.html For Fiscal Year 2005 (which starts in July 2004), the Senate wanted $639.6 million in tax increases, and Morgan went along with $632.5 million -- nearly identical. See: http://www.mooregop.org/tax_spreadsheet.html -Dave Burton webmaster http://www.mooregop.org/ W.Tel: 1-919-481-0149 H.Tel: 1-919-481-0098 C.Tel: 1-919-244-3316 -----Original Message----- ref: http://www.thepilot.com/news/022004Morgan.html "Morgan's Foes Seek His Ouster From Committee" To the Editors, MORGAN LIED Rep. Richard Morgan claims that his Republican opponents (the 55 Republicans who backed Republican Caucus nominees Daughtry and Holmes) had offered Democrat Jim Black sole control of the House speakership. They "would have given the Republican gavel away and settled for speaker pro tem," Morgan told _The Pilot_ ("Morgan's Foes Seek His Ouster From Committee", 2/20/2004). That is an obvious lie. The other Republicans say that what they actually offered the Democrats was an equal sharing of power between Republicans and Democrats. But Morgan "outbid" the main Republican faction by making Black a better offer. There are two reasons why it is obvious that what Rep. Morgan told _The Pilot_ is a lie: 1. Morgan was not privy to the negotiation between the other Republican faction and the Democrats. Whatever he says he knows about it is just speculation or hearsay. 2. If Democrat leader Black had an offer for sole control, he'd have taken it, obviously. He is not an idiot! When the main Republican faction asked Rep. Black to agree to an equal sharing of power, Black turned them down, because he already had a better offer. What Morgan offered to Black is now known, for the most part, because that is the deal which the Democrats accepted. In order to get the gavel every other day, Morgan sold out his fellow Republicans and put the Democrats firmly in control. Morgan's deal with the Democrats had 3 main points: 1. Black and Morgan would be co-speakers, and preside on alternate days. 2. The co-speakers would each have "veto power" over any bill that they deemed controversial (except, apparently, for the lottery, which they seemed ready to bring up if lottery supporters could have found the votes to pass it). Also, the co-speakers apparently agreed to cover for each other, and not blame or embarrass each other for such "vetos." 3. Democrat Rep. Wm. Culpepper would be sole chairman of the most powerful committee in the House, the Rules Committee, and he would control the "calendar" that determine which bills are voted upon, and when. The last 2 points are big concessions to the Democrats. Point 3 is the most obviously unfair to Republicans, since it puts all bills at the mercy of Democrat Rep. Bill Culpepper. But point 2, the "mutual, anonymous veto" provision, is really just as bad for Republicans. Point 2 sounds even-handed, but it isn't. That's because in the 2002 election Republicans made big gains, so under normal circumstances you would expect that Republicans would be on the offensive, trying to enact their reforms, and Democrats would be on the defensive. So Democrats, naturally, have a lot more use for their "veto" than Republicans do. The Democrats have used their veto to devastating effect. The most cherished Republican initiatives have all been killed by the House leadership, mostly in the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee. Point 1, the co-speakership, also sounds even-handed. It would be, if Richard Morgan were a loyal Republican. But he's not. For all intents and purposes, Rep. Morgan is now a Democrat. He proved it during the special redistricting session. On November 25 Richard Morgan sealed his defection to the Democrats. That was the day he presided over the House and personally rammed through the Democrats' gerrymander of the NC Senate. Every Republican Senator had voted against the Democrats' redistricting plan, because it is so unfair to Republicans. The State Republican Party publicly condemned it as an unconstitutional Democrat gerrymander. The House Republicans could have blocked it, but Richard Morgan defected to the Democrats and rammed it through. That's why Republicans consider Rep. Richard Morgan a traitor. Regards, -Dave Burton Webmaster http://www.mooregop.org/ "Trustworthy, Independent News and Views for Moore County Republicans" W.Tel: 1-919-481-0149 H.Tel: 1-919-481-0098 C.Tel: 1-919-244-3316 109 Black Bear Ct, Cary, NC 27519-4157 USA --------- Begin forwarded message ---------- SCOTT MONNEYHAM: Richard Morgan Is Not a Boogie Man Over the past year, many Republican Party activists have come to the conclusion that House Co-Speaker Richard Morgan is the boogie man and his GOP rivals are the guardians of all that is good and right in the world. You've got to wonder if these same people, in a few weeks, will be looking for a furry creature hiding candied eggs in their backyards. Their view of the world, and certainly North Carolina politics, is pretty simplistic. Since becoming co-speaker last year in an alliance with House Democrats, Morgan has been accused of all manner of things. The chief charge from his critics is that he has sold out the Republican Party and its ideals. Morgan's detractors say that he is brooding and vengeful, that he doesn't let go of grudges. His supporters say he is a straight-shooter, a man who tells you what he thinks and follows through on what he says. That's a rare commodity in the halls of the legislature. I've watched, written about and spoken with Richard Morgan countless times over the past six years. No doubt, there is truth in both assessments. But personality and character aside, let's examine the specific charges leveled against Morgan by his critics: (1) Morgan prevented the election of a sole Republican House speaker. No. His crafty counterpart, Democratic Co-Speaker Jim Black, did that. Black recruited disgruntled Republican Rep. Mike Decker temporarily to the Democratic Party, leading to the even 60-60 party split in the House last year. Once that happened, some form of House coalition was inevitable. (2) Morgan negotiated a weak deal with the Democrats. Was it any weaker than other offers that came Black's way? Leo Daughtry of Johnston County and George Holmes of Yadkin County also tried to strike a deal with Black that would have led to a co-speakership. (3) Morgan has been co-opted by the Democrats. Interesting theory, but I'm not sure that his friendship with Black translates into being "co-opted." Morgan is the guy who decided that previously delayed middle-class tax breaks - a child tax credit and elimination of the marriage penalty - had to go forward. He and Black also blocked plans by Senate Democrats to raise sin taxes. Yes, he supported a budget that kept in place sales and income tax hikes. But North Carolina, unlike the federal government, has to balance its budget. (4) Morgan didn't support the redistricting lawsuit that has helped Republicans gain legislative seats. Yep. That one is true. Perhaps it would have been in the GOP's best interest had he done so. He says he didn't see legislative redistricting as the courts' business. Morgan bears some responsibility for his troubles. He could have set a more conciliatory tone with at least some of his GOP rivals. Daughtry and Holmes, both reasonable men, are two that immediately come to mind. But those are matters of style. When it comes to substance, Morgan is still a pro-business, anti-tax Republican. Scott Mooneyham writes for the Capitol Press Association. --------- End forwarded message ----------