N&O columnist flails McCrory on budget -- "not the stuff of which legacies are made"

NC Governor Pat McCrory



By Verne Strickland / March 22, 2013

Please read this. It will remind you again of why liberal Democrats are smitten by pie in the sky, then spend themselves and the government into the poor house. And don't care. 

These are a few lines of a blog by Rob Christensen -- political blogger at the News & Observer. I have always liked and respected Rob even though in my considered opinion his stuff was pretty liberal.

More recently, he seems to have edged closer to that dreaded line which states clearly, "I'm not moderate, and if I were I wouldn't admit it."

Past sins aside, I had a vision prompted by Rob's recent column about Governor Pat McCrory's budget proposal for the State.

In the vision, I saw what really makes liberals so loose with the money. Not their money. Your money.

I'm going to reveal some portions of Rob's column and drop in a few personal notes to demonstrate what I mean. 

According to writer Christensen, McCrory's budget suggested that he is "a pragmatic, moderate conservative, not a Tea Party Republican. The budget colored him an incrementalist with a modest vision of what government can or should accomplish."

Verne: Excuse me? Are we now complaining that Pat has no imagination or flair for accomplishment and growth because he is holding the line on spending? I know that in North Carolina the balanced budget is sacrosanct. Pat McCrory should not be mistaken for an empire builder. But he will distinguish himself for his innate sense of responsibility and (gasp) fiscal restraint.


Rob continues: "McCrory’s budget offered no sweeping vision of what he wants his governorship to be about. If anything it seems to be a green-eyeshades budget that puts an emphasis on fixing things or making things run more smoothly – it put more than $1 billion in funds designed to repair buildings or update computers and telecommunications equipment, or build up reserves for future emergencies."

Verne: What the hell? Now you're really making me mad! Of course the "green-eyeshades" dig is insulting enough, but to belittle the "emphasis on fixing things or making things run more smoothly" cuts to the quick. It's childish. 

One of the main problems in America and in the states and communities is building exciting monuments to politicians -- gargantuan buildings, soaring bridges, sports palaces -- anything you can put a plaque on saying who spent your money to put up this thing and why they were wonderful.

That ain't all bad. But all over the State, and across the nation, we have neglected infrastructure -- disintegrating streets, highways, bridges, electrical systems, and other necessities that keep us safe, secure and functioning. As a result, these things don't get fixed. No one wants to spend money to keep up something that has lost its luster. How you gonna create excitement by overhauling a municipal sewer system?

"This may be sound management," the N&O blogger ventures, "but it is not the stuff of which legacies are made."

Verne: Legacy? Is that what all this is about? I know that politicians are egotists, but if "building a legacy" breaks the bank, or comes close, then it's clear that this is not why we elect leaders. It's always needlessly expensive, in many cases barely functional.

I don't think I have heard any presidents talk of "my legacy" more than Obama and Clinton. JFK and LBJ, further back in time, had the same affliction.They happen to be showboats with inflated opinions of themselves. They reside in a rarefied atmosphere where they feel they deserve lavish praise and recognition, and, by dang, they are going to buy it. Or we are. Republicans are generally more reserved. George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Dwight D. Eisenhower. And Ronald Reagan? In a class all by himself.

But I seem to be taking a ramp off the Interstate. My point in all of this is to support Pat McCrory, who does have imagination, drive, energy, vision, and great leadership qualities. And to shine the spotlight on his character and capabilities.

He is a businessman. This is what attracted many of us to his candidacy. And I say it's about time that we have a businessman as our Governor. Of late, we've had a succession of skilled politicians, self-promoters, with an occasional embarrassing side trip into malfeasance and total incompetency. This has cost us and tarnished our reputation.

Governor Pat McCrory will do us right. He won't blow his budget on frills. He won't abuse his privileges. He won't misbehave. He will tend to business. He won't fail.

I know you like your Democrats, Rob Christensen. But after the "administrations" of Easley and Purdue, you're going to find Pat McCrory an exceptional governor, a breath of fresh air, and a leader who will accomplish great things -- always within his means. Yep, Rob -- you're gonna love this guy.

By the way, here's just a little bullet point that showed up in an editorial in the N&O on Thursday:
"This budget may be dull, but it’s politically shrewd."

That's what I'm talking about, Rob!

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/03/21/2769437/mccrorys-budget-sets-up-a-debate.html#storylink=cpy

By Rob Christensen — rchristensen@newsobserver.com

Gov. Pat McCrory proposed a hold-the-line budget on Wednesday that offered key clues about his still-fledgling governorship.

Budgets by and large are political documents, reflecting the goals and priorities of the governor.
A governor’s first budget is particularly important because the governor is at the height of his or her power to push an agenda through the legislature. McCrory will never has as much leverage as he has today. So what did he do with his leverage?


Andrew Taylor, a political science professor at N.C. State University, said the McCrory budget contrasts with the more ideological proposals coming out of the Republican legislature.
“We have the governor taking a more moderate, pragmatic approach, more interested in issues of management and administration,” Taylor said. “The legislature is taking the bolder, more pre-emptive and ideological position on issues.”