Jerry Langley and "doing the right thing" | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

    We think Mr. Langley raised an important--indeed an absolutely vital--issue that we should address in Beaufort County. He contended that "when we cut taxes we cut services." That statement was made in the context of his argument that the county must look after "its children and its seniors."

    This is the classic liberal Democrat argument. But it is a ruse. It perpetuates a fraud on the people. Mr. Langley knows this but he still waves the "it's for the children..." mantra. Here's why it is a fraud.

    First, the county does relatively little to look after children and seniors. The state does most of that.

   Here is Jerry Langley's closing statement at the October 16, 2012 Candidates' Forum:



    But, he will say: "we have to put money into our schools..." And certainly that is true. But the problem with his argument is that most of the money that the county appropriates to the "schools" does not go to the children. The largest part of the schools' budget is for personnel. Yet the county puts only a small fraction into salaries of teachers or even teacher assistants. It puts more into bureaucrats and buildings than it does in direct services to children.
Beaufort County Commissioner tells everyone how it truly is: Above.     photo by Stan Deatherage
    But, "maintaining our investments in our facilities is important" he will argue. And again that is true, as far as it goes. The problem is that we would have more than enough money to maintain our facilities and pay the operating expenses if he and his fellow Gang of Five commissioners had not spent $6.4 million more than the people voted for them to spend on bond projects and had they not approved a foolish school board building 2000 more student spaces where they are not needed. Those spaces represent three schools, or more than $20 million. And then there was Chickengate. That was $5 million (and counting) that was causeded by bailing out Mr. Langley himself because he tried to trade his official vote in return for personal family favors. And he could not tell you anything about how that Chickengate windfall was spent by the schools. Had Mr. Langley and his cronies in the Gang of Five been doing their job, that nearly $30 million would have more than "taken care of our children."

    As for "taking care of our seniors..." we would simply point out that again, most of what is done to take care of seniors comes from state funds, not county funds. You can annihilate this argument by simply holding harmless (untouchable) those county funds appropriated for those over 65 and even those on Medicaid and just deal with the remainder of the county budget. And Mr. Langley knows what we're going to say next: Just cut the EDC and use that $10 million to help seniors.

    Hood Richardson and Stan Deatherage offered a plan that would have cut county spending by $2 million this year. Mr. Langley "disrespected" that considered effort. He dismissed it out of hand. He insured it would not even be debated. Stonewalling it is called by some. We would challenge him even now to show how that $2 million reduction in spending Hood and Stan proposed would have hurt even one child or one senior.

    Then Mr. Langley has the gall to say that what the voters get in electing him is "integrity." Mr. Langley, in our opinion, violated one of the most sacred trusts a public official has, not once but twice...if the official court records are correct. In two separate years he threatened to block the schools' budget request unless his wife was given the job in the school system she wanted. Then he was a ring leader in making the taxpayers bail him out of his criminal liability of that accusation (found in the court records and never denied by himself). Tell us, Mr. Langley, where you learned such integrity.

    Is that criticism extreme? Yes, indeed. But nobody illustrates the corruption that is Beaufort County politics more than Jerry Langley. He stands before the public and says "the most important thing for a Commissioner to do is to do the right thing." Trading his official vote for the benefit of his wife is not "the right thing." Then making the taxpayers bail him out is not "the right thing." Claiming that the taxpayers' burden in hard times (and that includes many seniors) cannot be reduced while he votes to give millions of dollars to well-to-do business leaders, including a state legislator who sells property to a county funded front group that hides behind closed doors is not "the right thing to do." And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Mr. Langley, perhaps the time has come to practice what you preach.