Coming up on the docket:
— NC Policy Watch (@NCPolicyWatch) August 22, 2017
Trying to correct the unbalance of powers:
This particular Cooper v. Berger and Moore stems from a bill passed during that special session and signed by McCrory that took the dual action of combining the state Board of Elections and state Ethics Commission into a new agency and greatly diminishing Cooper’s power to appoint the new governing members.
After Cooper’s initial court challenge succeeded in obtaining a decision by a three-judge panel striking that law down as unconstitutional, lawmakers rewrote the proposal and passed it again over a Cooper veto in April. This is from a summary of the latter law authored by voting rights experts at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law:
“Among other things, the new law combines the State Board of Elections with the State Ethics Commission into one evenly-divided eight-member body. The Governor’s power over appointments to the Board is severely limited: the Republican Party and Democratic Party each provide the Governor with a list of six nominees, and he must choose four members from each list. The law further provides that the Executive Director of the current state Board of Elections, a Republican, would become Executive Director of the new combined agency. Any action—including removal of the Executive Director—would take a vote of six of the new Board’s eight members. The law also restructures each of North Carolina’s county boards of elections so that they too would be evenly-divided instead of controlled by the Governor’s party. Chairmanship of the state and county boards would rotate annually, with the party that has fewer state-wide registrations (which has always been Republicans) chairing during even-numbered (i.e. election) years.”
It's hard to fathom the Supreme Court would find this anything other than a blatant power grab, but nothing is certain these days. We'll be watching.
If you're frantically trying to buy eclipse glasses right now, you'll understand why 30 day registration deadlines reduce voter turnout.
— sean. (@SeanMcElwee) August 21, 2017
Boom. That's the sound of a truth bomb going off.
More eclipse references to politics:
— Jane pInsky (@ncethiclobby) August 21, 2017
— anne (@vegannedc) August 21, 2017
What she said.
— David R Lewis (@RepDavidRLewis) August 21, 2017
Dude, you spoiled it for me. :(
— Brad Crone (@JBradleyCrone) August 22, 2017
Wow. Did not know that. I was in the Army at the time and only vaguely aware of state politics, and apparently I missed a lot.
— Action NC (@Action_NC) August 22, 2017
This is not good, to say the least:
The report finds that when you spread the costs of paying for the tax cuts, through reductions to spending on Social Security and public assistance and increases to income tax, equally across each household or proportional to income, it would make Trump’s plan “far more regressive and would leave the vast majority of households worse off than they would be if the tax cuts were not implemented in the first place.”
Without factoring in the costs of the tax cuts, 90 percent of the taxpayers in the top 1 percent will get a pretty big tax cut. Three-quarters of the middle class will get a tax cut. And about two-thirds of the lowest-income households would get a tax cut, though only about $100 a year. (See Jared Bernstein’s excellent Washington Post column on this report for some helpful charts.)
But when you factor in the cost of pay-fors (which the report assumes would come through both tax increases and spending cuts), the share of poor people who would get a tax cuts is wiped away to a flat zero percent. In the middle class, the share of beneficiaries falls to just 6 percent.
Meanwhile, 88.6 percent of the top 1 percent would still get tax cuts.
The depths of these disparities are further clarified when examining after-tax income. While in the lowest-income households—in which 44 percent of children live—after-tax income would tick up by 0.3 percent without considering the cost of the cuts, they would fall by 16 percent when you factor in the costs. For the middle class: up 1.3 percent before; down by nearly 3 percent after.
And for the 1 percent, you ask? Their after-tax incomes would rise 11.5 percent without considering the costs of financing the cuts. With the pay-fors, their income would still rise by 11.3 percent.
Gives a whole new twist to the term "regressive." Unfortunately, getting a majority of the voters to look past the lies and propaganda to understand the reality is a challenge we've yet to overcome.
— Cat Williams (@dizzycatdesign) August 22, 2017
Yeah, all you really need to do is read Carr's dedication speech, where he bragged about whipping a black woman in public for not doing what she was told. That's the legacy of these monuments, not some sort of "honored remembrance." Take 'em down.
— J. Miles Coleman (@JMilesColeman) August 22, 2017
Oh, man. All these different maps are running together in my head. I don't even know what this one is supposed to represent. Of course Roy did better than Hillary and Deborah, he's the only one out of the three who won. You want to give me a map I can use, then do one that shows each new district and its blue/red leanings, with the closest in demographics lightly colored and the unbalanced ones darkly colored. That I can use.
On that frustrating note, here's your Onion:
— The Onion (@TheOnion) August 21, 2017
"I know a winner when I see one." :)