tax increases

Putting the House's FY 2000-01 budget into proper perspective requires careful consideration of how spending should be measured and how it has changed over time. Furthermore, proposed changes in how the payroll and teacher bonuses are budgeted are more than just accounting gimmicks. They represent a net reduction in state savings. The bottom line for taxpayers: if current trends continue, state leaders will be setting the stage for tax increases in the near future.

As state lawmakers grapple with a projected budget gap of at least half a billion dollars, some observers have blamed recent tax cuts for the problem. But modest tax reductions in the mid-1990s followed big tax increases earlier in the decade. The net change in taxes in the 1990s was a tax increase of nearly half a billion dollars. Other proposed causes for the gap, including poor legal representation and excessive spending growth during the decade, are more persuasive.

Responding to calls for billions of dollars for capital needs in the UNC and community college systems, legislative leaders are considering asking voters to approve a $3.1 billion bond referendum this November. Because the bonds would more than double the state's debt burden and generate a debt service budget approaching $600 million in four years, taxpayers have little reason to believe that a bond issue of that size won't result in tax increases in the future.