newsobserver.com projects - David Lewis - Comments

Re: Batchelor running for Wake House seat

jlpe1969 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:49:07 -0500

If one were to be chief of staff wouldn't there need to be another person over whom that person is chief? Otherwise, you're just "staff."

Re: Batchelor running for Wake House seat

letigre — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:59:24 -0500

It's Heagarty, not Heagerty.

Re: Batchelor running for Wake House seat

englewood — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:14:42 -0500

Isn't he the ONLY staff to Rep. David Lewis?

Re: Batchelor running for Wake House seat

seajenks — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:13:34 -0500

there only two members of the general assembly with chiefs of staff.
one of them is not a rep. from dunn

Re: Batchelor running for Wake House seat

bniolet — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:14:44 -0500

Ha ha, PJ. Already fixed it. — BN

I'm just glad they're not Austria

PoliticalJunkie — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:11:41 -0500

for a change in leadership.

Re: Boseman, Soles spent most for seats

BitterEXdemocrat — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:16:08 -0400

WHY do NC democrackkks even NEED to spend this kind of money, when they already control the state elections?

Re: Dome Memo: Promises and counting

bnartist — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 05:34:57 -0400

It doesn't help when you claim the state wasted $635 million and the link substantiating the claim puts that number between $177 and $226 million. The fact that it's spread over three years is lost in the confusion. The Beaufort Observer explains it thus:

First, they looked at how much money could have been saved had the cost controls that should have been put in place which were ultimately installed had actually been in place from the beginning. That number came to $635 million, of which North Carolina's share was $226 million.

Then they looked at what would have happened had there been earlier detection and reaction once the soaring expenditures began. That number was $498 million, of which $177 million was state money.

The annualized "waste" is thus $59-$75 million at best. Also lost in the confusion is the fact that many Republicans voted for the Mental Health Reform bill that pushed these services in the direction of private providers. These Republicans included free market champion James Arthur Pope. Now Tom Fetzer & his Republicans want to claim there wasn't enough of the government red tape they constantly decry. Also forgotten is the fact that Fetzer was part of the Martin administration that "raised" taxes including the Highway Use Tax, another much abused political football. Fetzer is a professional spin doctor and McClatchy has been spun.

Re: Dome Memo: Promises and counting

TheNextCalifornia — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:11:44 -0400

Hhhhm, so bniolet, do you suggest that because the constituents are making less money and spending less money that the answer is for the government to take more money from them through taxation?

That doesn't sound like a formula for success in my book. We cut our household budgets and our personal spending, the government should do the same.

Re: Dome Memo: Promises and counting

bniolet — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:39:32 -0400

dahedgehog,

If you follow the link provided in the Dome Memo, you will see the following paragraph:

Revenue next year is expected to be more than $4 billion behind what it would have taken to keep funding programs and services at recent levels. Even measuring against this year's spending, which has been cut from what was approved in this year's budget, revenues are nearly $3 billion behind. Those figures do not account for approximately $1.3 billion in federal stimulus money, as the state historically has not calculated federal money in totaling up the general fund budget.

We wish there was a simple answer. But the fact is the size of the deficit depends on how you calculate it. Each side of this argument has their own way of crunching the numbers.

Re: Dome Memo: Promises and counting

dahedgehog — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:34:00 -0400

Meanwhile, Rep. David Lewis, a Dunn Republican, launched a campaign to show that the Democrats are using faulty math in describing a budget deficit.

This seems like a great opportunity for a reporter to step up and inform his or her readers! Are Democrats using faulty math? Is Rep. Lewis wrong? As a reader, I'm unable to make any sort of informed opinion from the reporting offered via this blog.

Given that this is an argument over math, there is presumably an objective answer. As a reporter, you should work to provide your readers that answer, and serve your primary function of informing your readers.

By presenting this issue in terms of he said/she said, you do nothing to better inform your readers. Instead, partisans leave here assuming that their opponents on the other side are lying. Nonpartisans just throw their hands up in the air in frustration. It's a lose-lose situation. But it's a lose-lose situation that could be rectified....with actual reporting!

Step up and be a reporter, bniolet! Your readers need you!

Re: Milk chugged for charity

melted — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:59:19 -0400

And us taxpayers paid each legislator $104 in per diem money yesterday to chug milk instead of working on passing a budget. It was taxpayer money wasted because every second the general assembly is in session right now should be spent on passing a budget. They should be working 24 hours a day since they were unwilling to pass a budget by June 30th. Another waste of time and taxpayer money by the general assembly. Keep this event in mind when you go to the polls. Remember us taxpayers are paying the general assembly as a whole $17,600 every day in per diem money. Was it worth that amount of money for the publicity of chugging milk. I don't think so.

Re: Lewis fights 'billion dollar lie'

robdarich — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:21:30 -0400

Being a republican cuts this guy off at the knees. He's saying stuff that isn't stupid, but he's not credible. Having him interact with Hackney is just perfect. That's the beauty of political parties, neither's credible.

Lewis spent about $232K to get elected in 2008. Must be impossible to stick with your principles when those who gave Lewis (and Hackney) money knew what they were paying for. (Hackney spent over $900K for his job.)

Besides, the idea that NC state legislators are lying to the voters isn't anything new. Doing something about it would be new, but just letting us know about it - isn't.

Re: Lewis fights 'billion dollar lie'

JPQuick — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:20:34 -0400

cdtew,

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Libertarian Party.

The "one battle at a time" mentality that you espouse is exactly the reason that Democrats like Bev Perdue won in 2008.

The NC Republican Party stands for nothing if the party supports the use of one-time federal stimulus funds from Washington to create the illusion of a balanced budget.

The single unifying principle within the GOP is the need to reduce taxes and limit the growth of government. Mr. Lewis is further fracturing an already shattered coalition by advocating loose accounting practices, instead of spending cuts, to balance the state budget.

Mr. Lewis would best serve his constituents and his party by proposing credible short-term spending cuts to close the budget gap.

Reintroducing voodoo economics is not a good solution for North Carolina's budget woes.

Re: Lewis fights 'billion dollar lie'

cdtew — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:10:12 -0400

Ok, guys, I sympathize with your respective libertarian tendencies, but lets be realistic for a moment.

Lewis is talking about the budget. This year. This year's budget. The amount of money this state can spend this year.

He's not talking about forever having stimulus. The fact is, Democrats wanted stimulus, so therefore we have to spend what we've gotten.

What Lewis is saying is that we shouldn't count expenses that we have to make as "unfunded" and in need of a tax raise when they're being fully covered by the stimulus.

Instead of criticizing him, why not at least support him for incrementally bringing down state government spending. One battle at a time, gentlemen. This sort of third party mentality is going to keep getting Democrats elected year after year.