Local News

Protesters Send Message to Lawmakers Considering Veto Override

Posted September 9, 2007

— Lawmakers return to Raleigh Monday for a special session to consider overriding Gov. Mike Easley's veto of the Goodyear incentives bill. One group spoke out Sunday against the potential veto.

"Americans for Prosperity-North Carolina" said the bill would simply be a matter of the government picking winners and losers. Organizers, along with Sen. Fred Smith (R-Johnston), met Sunday in front of the State Legislative building, stating their opposition to giving taxpayer money to private corporations.

Although the bill does not specifically refer to Goodyear, it would end up giving the company about $40 million in new state tax incentives to its Fayetteville plant. The company would have been eligible for the grants if it invested $200 million to upgrade its Fayetteville tire plant and limited any cuts to its work force.

Those in favor of the bill have said Cumberland County cannot afford to lose the Goodyear plant. Goodyear employs about 2,700 people in Fayetteville and is Cumberland County's largest private employer.

North Carolina's governor received veto power in 1997. Easley has issued eight vetoes since being in office; of which none  have been overturned.


Please with your WRAL.com account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
View all
  • Z Man Sep 10, 2007

    These protestors are right! State government subsidies to attract/keep business violates our free economy. An analogy could be drawn to giving in to terrorists - it's just not right.

    If Goodyear wants to leave, so be it - don't let the door hit you on the way out. It's not fair to the taxpayers nor to businesses not getting a tax break.

    If Goodyear is subsidized, when will IBM, Cisco, Glaxo demand tax breaks to stay?

  • blackdog Sep 10, 2007

    ...radical conservatives protesting...bunch of short hairs...

  • horseonthefly Sep 10, 2007

    ifcdirector:Subsidizing Goodyear to keep relatively low wage jobs here is socialism pure and simple.
    yes of course $30/hour is "low paying"

    It would be greatly appreciated if wral would stop misrepresenting this bill. Every five minutes I hear that with this goodyear could cut 700 jobs. In one of the earlier readings of the bill the requirement was a 2400 job minimum but lawmakers pushed for that to be lowered to 2000 so that the Firestone plant in Wilson would be eligible.

    For others who think Goodyear will be gone...well we all know companies just throw away 200 million in a plant so they can shut it down...

    Finally, I don't think any state should give businesses incentives, but change has to come from the feds since one state stopping only puts that state at a disadvantage...

  • Darren Sep 10, 2007

    You couldn't be more right, Steve. But even the so-called "conservatives" around here will probably jump all over you for such heretical talk!

  • Darren Sep 10, 2007

    From the story: "One group spoke out Sunday against the potential veto."

    Huh? AFPNC is speaking out against the veto OVERRIDE, not the veto itself. The veto isn't "potential." It's already happened. Almost 12 hours and this still hasn't been corrected?

    From ifcdirector: "Subsidizing Goodyear to keep relatively low wage jobs here is socialism pure and simple."

    You're absolutely right. Of course, subsidizing jobs of ANY wage is socialism and is destructive to the economy. On a moral/ethical level, the government has no right to coercively confiscate money from one group of people and give it to another person or group. On a practical level, the government simply doesn't have the ability to make rational economic decisions. Only the freely operating market can allocate resources with any sort of efficiency.

  • Steve Crisp Sep 10, 2007

    You want econ 101? Eliminate all local, state, and federal taxes on all business profits. Every one of them. Corporate taxes are just passed on to the consumer anyway and result in higher prices, lower wages, and less investment in infrastructure. If we get rid of corporate taxes, there will be an explosion of business investment in this country the likes of which we have not seen since the late 1800s.

  • Halyard Sep 9, 2007

    Heyyyy, no problem! If they can't keep 'em there just raise property taxes....like they do in Wilson Co!!! Just ask any Blue Bell, Mello Ice Cream or Universal Leaf employee or any property tax payer in Wilson Co. Wilson City Council had rather give millions to Target to come here w/ their own upper level employees w/ about 100 local employees than save 2000+ Wilson grown jobs. I know the only thing two of these co.'s wanted was a break on their water bills (according to the paper)......BUT NOOOOOO!!!!!!! Now we are among one of the highest taxed co,'s in the State. YAY! {;-(

  • ifcdirector Sep 9, 2007

    Subsidizing Goodyear to keep relatively low wage jobs here is socialism pure and simple. Why doesn't our communist legislature just vote to seize the Goodyear plant Hugo Chavez style and then we can just have our own state tire industry? Oh I guess it's just easier to steal at gunpoint from taxpayers like me?

  • meep Sep 9, 2007

    Canyon did you pass econ 101, because it does'nt sound like it(no personal attack intentional, but no one who has actually studied econ knows this tax benefit is wrong on multiple levels) I can not believe I am going to defend Easley, but he has it right in not introducing a subsidy in particular to this situation where the state has no real guarantee of future performance.

  • THE ETERNAL Sep 9, 2007

    If you work fo Goodyear,I am sure that you want the plant to stay.Do we really want them to go to Mexico?