by Sarah Michels, Carolina Public Press April 16, 2025
RALEIGH — In February, state economists warned of a looming fiscal cliff if the income and corporate tax rates continue to drop. Senate Republicans don’t exactly believe them. On Monday, they presented a budget proposal that doubled down on income tax cuts, not only ignoring advice to pause them, but also eliminating pesky revenue “triggers” getting in the way of further reductions.
The proposed budget would spend $32.6 billion in the first year and $33.3 billion during the second year (North Carolina operates on a two-year budget.). These are 5.8% and 2.1% year-over-year budget increases, respectively.
Overall, Senate Bill 257 shows “modest growth” to reflect North Carolina’s rising population and economy, Senate leader Phil Berger said.
Tax policy and Helene recovery were the focuses of the 439-page proposal — the first major move in a months-long spending negotiation with the state House.
In a statement, the NC Budget & Tax Center, a nonprofit organization that documents economic conditions, blasted the proposal, saying it was “rooted in magical thinking and cruel cuts that will leave North Carolina unprepared for recessions, federal cost shifts and climate disasters.”
Meanwhile, the budget bill sped through a series of committee hearings Tuesday and will be fast-tracked to the Senate floor. If it passes the Senate, the House will likely make changes.
The final budget will almost certainly be crafted in a joint committee during the coming months.
Then, that version will go to Gov. Josh Stein’s desk, who may opt to sign or veto it, sending it back to the legislature.
But the state doesn’t have that kind of money, Republican Sen. Ralph Hise, who represents nine counties on the state’s western border, told reporters during a press conference on Monday.
Instead, the working strategy is to load millions of dollars into the Hurricane Helene Disaster Recovery Fund, not to be spent now, but to be saved for future federal matching requirements.
The NC Senate’s budget proposal shifts $700 million from various state funds to the Helene Fund, but only reserves $25.5 million for specific purposes:
$10 million to the Governor’s Recovery Office for Western North Carolina
$5 million to the Division of Community Revitalization
$8 million to the UNC Board of Governors to improve emergency response in Western North Carolina schools
$2.5 million to the North Carolina community college system for enrollment loss
Hise said North Carolina is in a “good position” to meet matching requirements as it anticipates a variety of funds to come from the federal government.
The budget proposal also takes $634 million of underutilized transportation funds and reserves them for federal matching requirements for transportation infrastructure recovery.
It further divides $686 million in federal American Relief Act money between Helene-related clean water, drinking water and wastewater treatment system improvement needs.
Extensive damage to roads and property in the Chimney Rock Village area of Rutherford County in the aftermath of Tropical Storm Helene are seen in this aerial image on Nov. 10, 2024. Colby Rabon / Carolina Public Press
Finally, it directs state agencies administering certain grant programs to prioritize applicants from the most impacted counties.
Since Helene, the state has used a significant portion of its “Rainy Day Fund.” So, the budget replenishes it to pre-Helene levels, to the tune of $1.1 billion.
Democratic Senate Minority Leader Sydney Batch isn’t pleased with the lack of actual spending, calling the budget proposal “a blueprint for neglect and cowardice.”
“Instead of investing in the people who make this state work, Republicans are continuing to hoard taxpayer dollars in a Rainy Day Fund — undermining critical agencies and ducking their responsibility by kicking tough decisions over to the House of Representatives,” she said in a statement.
Tax ‘triggers’
If you don’t meet your goals, well, why not just lower the goalpost?
That’s what Senate Republicans chose to do in their budget proposal. Under current law, the state needs to meet specific revenue “triggers” in order to drop the income tax rate another half percent each fiscal year.
Based on February’s Consensus Revenue Forecast, produced by the Office of the State Budget and Management, North Carolina met the revenue threshold for the first year of the biennium, but missed it by less than $100 million the second year.
While North Carolina is growing, the state budget office forecast that the downward pressure of income and corporate tax rate cuts, as well as the unpredictability of inflation and tariffs, would outweigh any revenue increases in fiscal year 2026-27.
The current income tax rate is 4.25% and is scheduled to drop to 3.99% in 2026.
After meeting the first-year trigger, the state is free to further drop the rate another half percent to 3.49% in 2027. But current law would force a pause in 2028.
The Senate budget works around that obstacle by eliminating the trigger from 3.49% to 2.99%.
The budget proposal leaves the next trigger, from 2.99 to 2.49%, in place for 2029, and adds two quarter percent drops the two following years.
Heba Atwa, the director of legislative advocacy and campaigns for the NC Budget & Tax Center, spoke out against the proposed cuts in a Tuesday legislative committee.
She said rate reductions would cost $13 billion annually. Furthermore, Atwa argued that lawmakers weren’t adequately considering the potential loss of federal funds. Last year, North Carolina received federal funding in an amount equivalent to its entire state budget ($30.8 billion). The next two-year budget cyclemay be different.
“Y’all will be left holding the bag when North Carolinians come to you and say, ‘What happened to our services and our programs?’” Atwa said.
Berger isn’t convinced federal cuts will actually happen, but his caucus is monitoring things.
“I think we’ll be able to, if necessary, make adjustments, but it’s our belief that we have adequate reserves to address any scenario that is likely to occur,” said Berger, a Rockingham County Republican.
While the Senate’s proposed budget doesn’t account for potential federal funding cuts, it does take inspiration from Elon Musk’s cost-cutting agency: the Department of Government Efficiency. It dedicates $5 million so that State Auditor Dave Boliek could oversee a state version of DOGE, aptly named the Division of Accountability, Value and Efficiency (DAVE).
DAVE would determine whether state agencies and their vacant positions are necessary as well as how effectively they spend money.
Unlike its federal counterpart, the state auditor would not have the authority to eliminate programs or spending, but could offer recommendations to the General Assembly, Berger said.
SUMMARY: Jim Jenkins, a North Carolina baseball trailblazer and Negro Leagues player, exemplified resilience and excellence both on and off the field. His sons recall his superior skills—hitting, running, and catching—and how he faced challenges due to his skin color. Beyond baseball, Jenkins was a community father, teaching youths fundamentals and helping those in need. He shared a friendship with legend Hank Aaron, often attending Braves games with his family. His legacy endures through his children, who honor not just his athletic achievements but his kindness and humanity, inspiring future generations to carry on his impact.
James “Jim” Jenkins had a profound impact on the game of baseball as a trailblazer known in the Carolinas.
SUMMARY: A scientist reflecting on the politicization of science warns that ideological influence undermines objectivity, breeds mistrust, and hampers public understanding. The FY2026 budget proposal cut NIH funding by about 40%, saving taxpayers $18 billion, but only 1.5% of the total federal budget, while increasing defense spending by 13%. These cuts severely impact states like North Carolina, where science drives $2.4 billion in tax revenue and thousands of jobs. The cuts target indirect costs vital for research infrastructure and diversity efforts, mistakenly seen as ideological rather than essential scientific practices. The author calls for unity to prioritize facts over politics and protect scientific progress for societal and economic health.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-06-15 02:01:00
North Carolina’s U.S. House members voted along party lines on two Republican-backed bills: the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (H.R. 1), which cuts \$1.6 trillion in government spending, and the “Rescissions Act of 2025” (H.R. 4), which eliminates \$9.4 billion from entities like USAID and public broadcasting. Republicans called it a purge of waste, citing spending on drag shows and foreign projects. Democrats criticized the cuts as harmful and symbolic, calling the effort fiscally irresponsible. H.R. 1 passed 215-214; H.R. 4 passed 214-212. No Democrats supported either. A few Republicans broke ranks and voted against their party on each bill.
(The Center Square) – North Carolinians in the U.S. House of Representatives were unwavering of party preference for two bills now awaiting finalization in the Senate.
Republicans who favored them say the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, known also as House Resolution 1, slashed $1.6 trillion in waste, fraud and abuse of government systems. The Rescissions Act of 2025, known also as House Resolution 4, did away with $9.4 billion – less than six-tenths of 1% of the other legislation – in spending by the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Corp. for Public Broadcasting (PBS, NPR), and other entities.
Democrats against them say the Department of Government Efficiency made “heartless budget cuts” and was an “attack on the resources that North Carolinians were promised and that Congress has already appropriated.”
Republicans from North Carolina in favor of both were Reps. Dr. Greg Murphy, Virginia Foxx, Addison McDowell, David Rouzer, Rev. Mark Harris, Richard Hudson, Pat Harrigan, Chuck Edwards, Brad Knott and Tim Moore.
Democrats against were Reps. Don Davis, Deborah Ross, Valerie Foushee and Alma Adams.
Foxx said the surface was barely skimmed with cuts of “$14 million in cash vouchers for migrants at our southern border; $24,000 for a national spelling bee in Bosnia; $1.5 million to mobilize elderly, lesbian, transgender, nonbinary and intersex people to be involved in the Costa Rica political process; $20,000 for a drag show in Ecuador; and $32,000 for an LGBTQ comic book in Peru.”
Adams said, “While Elon Musk claimed he would cut $1 trillion from the federal government, the recissions package amounts to less than 1% of that. Meanwhile, House Republicans voted just last month to balloon the national debt by $3 trillion in their One Big Ugly Bill. It’s fiscal malpractice, not fiscal responsibility.”
House Resolution 1 passed 215-214 and House Resolution 4 went forward 214-212. Republican Reps. Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky were against the One Big Beautiful Bill and Republican Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Nicole Malliotakis of New York and Michael Turner of Ohio were against the Rescissions Act.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article presents a straightforward report on the partisan positions and voting outcomes related to two specific bills, highlighting the contrasting views of Republicans and Democrats without using loaded or emotionally charged language. It neutrally conveys the Republicans’ framing of the bills as efforts to cut waste and reduce spending, alongside Democrats’ critique of those cuts as harmful and insufficient fiscal discipline. By providing direct quotes from representatives of both parties and clearly stating voting results, the content maintains factual reporting without promoting a particular ideological stance. The balanced presentation of arguments and absence of editorializing indicate a commitment to neutrality rather than an intentional partisan perspective.
