NC-02: District GOPers pass resolution condemning corporate welfare, targeted economic incentives

Ancgopt their convention this weekend, Second Congressional District Republicans passed a resolution condemning the use of taxpayer money to, um, “persuade” businesses to come to North Carolina or to expand within the Tar Heel State.  The move is sure to cause a few tremors in the Republican-controlled governor’s office and legislature in Raleigh.  The subject of economic incentives has been a hotly-debated subject in the current and previous legislative sessions. 

A source closely tied to the resolution effort told me that the passage of the resolution at the district level opens the door for the matter to be discussed and voted on and, possibly, included in the party platform at the NCGOP state convention in June.   Here is the text of the resolution passed this weekend:

[…] WHEREAS, it is contrary to the free-enterprise system to recruit or retain businesses with targeted tax and other financial incentives when other businesses bear the full burden of taxation; and

WHEREAS, higher tax rates on the many to provide preferential treatment for the few is fundamentally unfair; and

WHEREAS, it is contrary to the free-enterprise system to take money in the form of taxes or fees from citizens and businesses in order to give money to certain businesses for the purpose of funding said enterprises; and

WHEREAS, corporate welfare arrangements cause market imbalances, resulting in unintended consequences such as short-term government subsidy of products and services and infrequently lead to corporate failures or premature project terminations; and

WHEREAS, Article V of the North Carolina Constitution prescribes a system of uniform statewide taxation and explicitly prohibits jurisdictions other than the General Assembly from making exceptions in classifying property for taxation or granting tax relief; and

WHEREAS, the use of financial incentives is an intrusion of government in the exercise of free enterprise, resulting in reduced freedom, efficiency, and innovation in state commerce; and

WHEREAS, the governor and some legislators have advocated funding corporate welfare arrangements through state appropriations—for example, the expansion of the Job Development Investment Grant program (JDIG), a corporate welfare fund which moves taxpayer money to select corporations meeting specific criteria; and new targeted tax credits for investments redeveloping structures deemed historic; and

WHEREAS, the best way to promote economic growth is to reduce the overall corporate tax burden and unnecessary regulations; and

WHEREAS, buyers and sellers in a free marketplace, not government, make the best decisions about creating and sustaining jobs and businesses; andcorporate_welfare_medium

WHEREAS, the free market, rather than so-called “investment” by government, is the best way to produce a strong and vibrant state economy; and

WHEREAS, Republican candidates are elected to office to reduce the scope and reach of government, and this conservative mandate does not include financing certain businesses with grants, loans, tax credits, or other means on the backs of other businesses and individuals;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, we, the Second Congressional District Republican Party of North Carolina, oppose targeted financial incentives and corporate welfare; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, we, the Second Congressional District Republican Party, call upon the governor, legislature, and local governments to cease developing and/or maintaining all forms of targeted financial incentives and corporate welfare, and, instead, work to build a stronger North Carolina economy by reducing the heavy burden of taxes and regulations on all businesses and individuals. […]

13 thoughts on “NC-02: District GOPers pass resolution condemning corporate welfare, targeted economic incentives

  1. Don’t get your hopes up. The state convention resolutions committee is under no obligation to forward “controversial” ones submitted by the districts. There have been conventions with several districts passing similar resolutions, only for them to be absent from the printed agenda.

    1. It can still be submitted from the floor if they can get enough deligates educated enough about it to support it.

  2. The final motion and vote was to forward this resolution to the floor and not to the committee.

    But I think even more remarkable than this resolution is the resolution that chair and vice-chair be unpaid volunteer positions. Allegedly some top people may “take” $10,000 a month salary for a “volunteer” position, even when they are playing golf in another country.

    1. I would love to get a copy of that resolution about the Chairman and Vice Chairman pay what district passed this ?

      The State Executive Committee is not even allowed to know the chairman’s salary

      This is not a open process like it should be and is insulting to the donors to the party

      1. It is not difficult to examine the pay of the chairman…the records are public filings.

      2. Transparency is important within a party. The State Executive Committee should simply move to table the budget until they are fully provided with information on it.

        Even Pelosi said you had to pass the bill to find out what is in it. We have GOP chairmen who say you have to pass the budget and will never find out what is in it. That is worse than Pelosi in my book.

    2. Another interesting idea is the movement too close the Republican Primary. It failed in the 1st District. Not sure why, but beforehand, it was getting intense opposition from Establishment backers in Edgecombe and Wayne Counties.

      However, it DID pass in the 6th District. Not sure if any others ran with it.

      1. I’m told it was presented at the 7th and hotly debated before being tabled. Apparently some of the GOPe faithful even realized that passing it was akin to cutting off your nose to spit your face. We’ll see what happens with this one.

        1. It amazes me that people are debating this issue in terms of political consequences when its actually a moral question of letting other people pick your nominees for you. But hey, if the Party rank-and-file by and large want moderate candidates, who am I to argue?

Comments are closed.