Luebke 'flexible,' just opposes tax

State representative thinks the restaurant bill tax Durham wants would harm the poor

DURHAM -- Left-leaning Durhamites swell with pride when state Rep. Paul Luebke fights for liberal causes in the halls of the legislature, even -- or perhaps especially -- when his message goes against the more conservative mainstream.

But it's a different story when the nine-term state House member takes aim at city and county politicians for not toeing the progressive line.

Typically an ally, Luebke's steadfast opposition to a 1 percent tax on restaurant and bar bills has irritated local leaders. They say the tax is needed to finance projects that boost tourism, such as a proposed Minor League Baseball museum. Luebke says it unfairly burdens the poor.

The tax's advocates have grown increasingly frustrated as Luebke has refused to budge, despite repeated attempts to cajole and compromise.

Well, asks Chris Kukla, president of the liberal Durham People's Alliance, what did they expect?

"If anything, he's been consistent in his argument," said Kukla, who called Luebke "a fantastic representative for Durham."

"I don't know why anyone would be particularly surprised he would take the position that regressive taxes should be avoided," he said.

Luebke, 62, disputes the "stubborn" tag. Despite being one of the legislature's most liberal members, he is ranked 13th on the N.C. Center for Public Policy Research's list of most effective House members.

That doesn't happen if he's a hard-head, he said in an interview.

"I am a flexible person," said Luebke, who is also a sociology professor at UNC-Greensboro.

It's hard to convince city and county leaders of that these days. They'll meet with Luebke and other lawmakers this morning to once again try to forge a compromise.

A legislative procedure rule allows Luebke to single-handedly block a bill that would authorize the tax. Any bill pertaining to a specific local area requires unanimous consent from that area's legislative delegation. If anyone objects, the local bill never gets submitted.

"It is frustrating that Paul has a position of being a one-man veto on this," City Councilman Mike Woodard said. "And, frankly, the fact [that local officials have] got such a good relationship with him may be another frustrating factor."

Indeed, local leaders are hard-pressed to think of another issue where Luebke has been an obstacle rather than an ally.

But Rep. James Crawford, a Democrat from Granville County who has collaborated with Luebke despite steep ideological differences, knows his colleague will dig in his heels.

"When he gets something he feels very strongly about, he doesn't yield," Crawford said.

That's particularly true on tax issues. Luebke championed a bid several years ago to eliminate the state sales tax on groceries (the 2 percent tax that remains is a local tax). About the same time, he pushed for an income tax "surcharge" on households earning more than $200,000 a year.

Both measures were passed.

That doesn't bode well for a Durham prepared foods tax, though Luebke still says his ears are open.

Advocates argue that it would raise millions to promote tourism while imposing a negligible burden on diners -- an average of about $18 a year, according to a 2003 study.

Without the tax, the estimated $89 million in projects, such as refurbishing the Civic Center, would have to be funded through property taxes.

Local leaders point jealously to Wake County, which has levied such a tax since 1993 and has used the money to finance tourist draws such as the RBC Center.

But Luebke thinks it hurts those to whom every penny is precious.

"Taxes should be based on the ability to pay, and our present tax system actually takes higher percentages from those who have less dollars," he said. "I think it's good to have policy debate, but I believe that a sales tax on restaurant meals will extend that inequality."

The idea on the table at today's meeting will be to put the matter to a referendum this fall -- but even that would require legislative approval.

Asked whether he could support that, Luebke said, "I have not made a decision. But putting it on the ballot in November is a good example of a compromise."