Kay's worried about rich white flight?

Mark Binker of the Greensboro News-Record has two reports today on the US Senate Democratic primary. Both are worth reading: the dead-tree version and the blog extras.

The trigger for his stories was a blogpost by David Allen about Kay Hagan's support for the wholly unnecessary FISA legislation proposed by the Bush Administration.

After hearing Hagan speak about the wiretapping bill now before Congress, Allen said he could not vote for her. Among other things, the bill would give phone companies immunity for illegal acts they may have committed in cooperating with phone taps requested by the Bush administration. Democrats, Allen said, should be pushing back against that bill.

"What I get tired of is people like Kay Hagan telling me why it can't be done," Allen said.

Interviewed Friday, Hagan did not offer a yes-or-no answer as to whether she would have backed the Senate version of the wiretap bill to which Allen objects. "I think it depends on which amendment you're looking at, and which bill you're looking at and we've got to look at all of that and see what's best for North Carolina," she said. Neal was more definitive when asked.

Pardon my French, Ms. Hagan, but that's a bunch of bullshit. You said you would have voted for the Senate bill that grants immunity to teleco's. You said it loud and clear. And now you're hedging by arguing that "it depends" ... depends on what? How could it possibly be good for North Carolina to have corporations that get to play by their own set of rules at the expense of privacy and civil liberties?

What changed between the time Hagan announced her support for the FISA legislation and the time Mark Binker interviewed her? The only change I can see is a big-time blow-back in the progressive blogosphere. Is that all it takes to get Kay to change her mind on something this important?

Jim Neal, true to form, was more than willing to give a "yes-or-no" answer, with "no" being the operative word:

"I was disappointed that the Senate buckled on the issue of retroactively granting immunity to the telecom companies," Neal said. Allowing lawsuits, he said, would allow lawyers to probe what kind of pressure the Bush administration used and figure out why some companies felt they had to cooperate and at least one did not.

But the telecom bill was only one of many issues Binker explored today. The other - Hagan's support for rolling back taxes on the wealthy in North Carolina - was something he and I talked about yesterday.

James Protzman, who writes under the name Anglico (note to Mark, I'm now writing as James) and is one of the founders of the BlueNC social networking site, says he likes Neal's credentials and has reservations about Hagan's record. He points to a legislative battle during the 2007 General Assembly, when lawmakers had a choice between cutting upper-end income taxes or the sales tax, which disproportionately affects lower income workers. Largely at the insistence of the Senate, for which Hagan is a key budget writer, the legislature cut the income tax. Protzman calls that a case of the government favoring the wealthy over "regular" people.

Hagan says that the issue is more complicated than just a vote for or against the tax options. The same legislation, she said, expanded the earned income tax credit in the state and bolstered education funding.

She added that North Carolina's higher upper-end income tax rate was driving people out of state, meaning North Carolina would lose out entirely on those taxes.

These comments by Kay Hagan really floor me. Does she think we're all morons? The only reason there was a linkage between tax breaks for the wealthy and expanded earned income tax credits was because the North Carolina Senate created that linkage in the first place. Arguing that the Senate did something good to justify doing something patently obscene is just a bunch of insider doubletalk for "we had neither the will nor the spine to do the right thing."

And if you'll forgive the repetition, I have to ask about this gem:

She added that North Carolina's higher upper-end income tax rate was driving people out of state, meaning North Carolina would lose out entirely on those taxes.

Did you know rich people were leaving North Carolina because of a quarter of a percent increase in income tax? North Carolina Policy Watch doesn't think that's true. Do you?

Heck, I'd settle for the name of even one wealthy person who has left the state primarily because of our personal income tax rate.

Can anyone verify Hagan's claim that we've been driving rich people out of North Carolina?