Recent editorials from North Carolina newspapers:

June 4

The News & Observer of Raleigh on John Edwards:

One of former U.S. Sen. John Edwards' lead attorneys, trying to ward off a federal indictment for conspiracy and campaign finance violations (a too-antiseptic description of the sex scandal that was Edwards' downfall), said prosecutors' theory of the case was "wrong on the facts and wrong on the law." OK, the prosecutors responded, see you in court.

The indictment rests on an interpretation of the one-time presidential candidate's conduct that is not designed to cut him much slack. His defenders will say that it overreaches, putting the deceptions and lies he used to try to cover up his extramarital affair into a political context when all Edwards sought was to hide the sleazy business from his wife.

The pattern of secretive payments chronicled in the indictment had the obvious purpose of keeping Rielle Hunter and the child Edwards fathered with her out of the public eye and of keeping the relationship hidden from Elizabeth Edwards, stricken with cancer.

But those payments also unquestionably helped keep Edwards' 2008 presidential run from imploding while he remained a viable candidate for the Democratic nomination, staking out the role of family-values populist in a three-way race with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Hence, the thrust of the indictment obtained by the federal prosecutors in Raleigh and Washington. Since the money had the effect of furthering Edwards' campaign — or shielding it from destruction, at least for a time — these payments should have been reckoned as campaign contributions, the indictment asserts.

And since the $908,000 that changed hands was far more than the two people who provided the money were allowed to contribute under federal law, that amounted to a big problem for the gifts' beneficiary, who is accused of conspiring to carry out the scheme. ...

North Carolinians who sent Edwards to the Senate in 1998 and followed his rapid ascent to the highest levels of national politics have had a couple of years to absorb the shock, disappointment and disgust of finding out that he not only cheated on his wife, but also brazenly lied and went to outrageous lengths to conceal the sordid details. ...

We will find out whether, in the judgment of the courts, crimes were committed. We already know that, in an orgy of selfishness, Edwards abused the system.

Online:

http://www.newsobserver.com

___

June 5

The Daily Reflector of Greenville on the state's tax structure:

For years, Democratic leaders in the General Assembly tackled the nuances of the North Carolina budget while ignoring the obvious need for comprehensive reform of the state's tax structure. Their refusal to confront that challenge saddled North Carolina with an antiquated system of revenue collection that inadequately supports the needs of a growing population.

There was hope that Republicans, taking control of the Legislature for the first time in a century, would be eager to tackle the larger issue and provide some long-term stability for government programs. The $19.7 billion budget working its way through Raleigh does nothing of the sort, and instead shows the GOP willing to make the same mistakes as their Democratic predecessors.

After winning election in 2008, Gov. Beverly Perdue made a familiar choice when she shrugged off calls for comprehensive revenue reform when drafting her first budget. Calling the task too difficult, she instead sought to eliminate a multi-billion deficit with the imposition of a temporary 1 cent sales tax and savings measures. As per usual, the state's elected leaders were content to treat the symptoms of the state's economic ills rather than the disease.

With the Republican victories last year, tax reform advocates hoped a change at the top would be reflected in a willingness to embrace even the most difficult of debates. They will be disappointed by the budget approved by both the House and Senate, as Republican leaders nibbled around the edges to balance the budget. They stuck to a campaign pledge to allow expiration of Perdue's temporary expense, but GOP leaders accomplished that by imposing deep cuts on public services. This spending bill will eliminate thousands of jobs and force difficult decisions from public schools to the university system, all for 1 cent in tax relief. ...

Those calling for comprehensive tax reform should continue undaunted, assured that their case is prudent. North Carolina will continue its annual cycle of deficits and spending cuts so long as it relies on a system better suited to the 1930s than the present day.

Online:

http://www.reflector.com

___

June 3

Winston-Salem Journal on state borrowing policy:

North Carolina government borrowing policy may soon be changing for the better, returning to the state's traditional policy.

There can be good reasons for government borrowing. When a school or road must be built, a government can move more quickly by selling bonds and repaying them over 20 years.

But borrowing has a downside. Amortized over 20 years, the typical bonds cost twice as much to pay back as they raised. And bonded indebtedness has a way of piling up, making for big annual repayments.

North Carolina's constitution leaves borrowing authority with the voters and pledges the government's full faith and credit.

At least that's how it is supposed to work. Since 2001, the Legislature alone has authorized borrowing more than $3 billion of "special indebtedness." The state has not sold all of those bonds but has still borrowed billions without a public vote.

Legislation passed the House in May, if approved by the Senate and signed by Gov. Beverly Perdue, would repeal special indebtedness. Rep. Edgar Starnes, R-Caldwell, says returning to the status of having voters approve bonds will restore public confidence. We agree.

But more than public confidence, we're concerned with the state's debt load. North Carolina once had one of the lowest public debts in the nation. Now the state is bumping up against a self-imposed debt ceiling, and the annual budget regularly contains repayment above a half-billion dollars. The good news is that the state retains its top credit rating.

Supporters of special indebtedness say it works well, and that the state will not be able to move quickly to meet needs without the 2003 law. We disagree.

The state has been borrowing in haphazard fashion, selling bonds for projects whenever it could get the legislative votes to do so.

Instead, the state should have a well-conceived plan for borrowing, one that identifies the kinds of projects for which selling bonds is wise and that takes a long-term approach to needs. ...

Online:

http://www2.journalnow.com