Red Clay Citizen

Thanks for a Great Year!

On behalf of everyone here at Civitas, I want to thank all our readers for making this such a great year for Red Clay Citizen and for Civitas. This month we broke another record for unique visitors, and we hope to continue the trend going into 2008. In usual New Year's Eve fashion, here is our countdown of the top stories of the year:

1) Former House Speaker Jim Black (D) Goes to Prison on Bribery and Corruption Charges

2) The Drought (but thanks to God for the Christmas gift of rain)

3) The Expansion of Publicly Financed Campaigns -- Tied for Third -- with the Expansion of Taxpayer-subsidized Health Insurance for Families Who Earn $60,000-plus

4) The Medicaid Swap

5) Community Colleges Forced to Admit Illegal Immigrants

6) The Defeat of the Transfer (and Sales) Taxes

7) The Nonemergence of a Presidential or Gubernatorial Frontrunner from either Party

8) The Goodyear Incentives Deal

9) Publication of the Civitas Institute Public Policy Series and the Launch of Civitas' Citizen Legislature (... shameless self-promotion here)

10) The Continued Underperformance of the "Education" Lottery

Send us any other items you think merit inclusion -- or better yet, let us know what your own top 10 list is.

Happy New Year!

Flexible Pay for Bureaucrats

Interesting idea from Singapore: make government more flexible with wages, pay, and performance. (I'd add, of course, cost-cutting incentives.)
-Max Borders

Billionaires for Big Government

Soros and other guilt-ridden ex-hedge-fund speculators are putting big bucks behind their favorite big government candidates. (More here.)This is about corporate interests backing horses as much as ideology.

Expect no less from the likes of Z. Smith Reynolds and the Fletcher Foundation here in North Carolina. What a titanic war. What a titanic waste of resources.

Just think if all this political money went to social entrepreneurship -- rather than who gets to run the bureaucracies.
-Max Borders

We're Being Overtreated

Moral hazard and overconsumption are huge problems in healthcare. Don't believe it? Here's your New Year's book -- NYTimes calls it the best economics book of 2007. Yes the NYTimes.

Boudreaux on Today's Krugmania

I'm starting to think that Paul Krugman is so enamored with being a darling of the left, that he has forgotten - or perhaps abandoned - even the fundamentals (law of comparative advantage). Boudreaux pits him against himself again:

Paul Krugman worries that, although trade between high-wage countries is mutually beneficial, "trade between countries at very different levels of economic development tends to create large classes of losers as well as winners" - and so is suspect because it likely harms ordinary American workers (“Trouble With Trade,” December 28).

A famous trade economist argues that this concern is misplaced.  In a 1996 essay, this economist - responding to a protectionist who worried that western trade with low-wage countries would harm workers in the west - wrote that this protectionist "offers us no more than the classic 'pauper labor' fallacy, the fallacy that Ricardo dealt with when he first stated the idea, and which is a staple of even first-year courses in economics. In fact, one never teaches the Ricardian model without emphasizing precisely the way that model refutes the claim that competition from low-wage countries is necessarily a bad thing, that it shows how trade can be mutually beneficial regardless of differences in wage rates."

Oh - the economist who wisely warned against the pauper-labor fallacy is none other than Paul Krugman.*

-Max Borders

Do It For The Children!

What is wrong with all you North Carolinians?  Do you not know there are needy children out there in our state depending on you to buy lottery tickets so they can have Pre-K, scholarships and school buildings?

According to this article, the Lottery folks are begging people to buy tickets.  They are even dispatching sales representatives to lottery outlets (gas stations) around the state trying to convince people to plunk down $20 for the second installment of the $1 million raffle. 

"Fill 'er up with Regular, grab me a Diet Pepsi, a Moon Pie and a hand full of them there raffle tickets, please."

Lottery officials are shocked, shocked I tell you, that people aren't willing to shell out the cash for lottery tickets right after Christmas.  I guess we're all just selfish and don't really care about the chil'ren, right?

Roberts on Economic Pessimism

Sky falling? Nah. Onward and upward.
-Max Borders

Warming Back Up

As the New Year approaches, RCC will be warming back up. But expect only light posting. Till things are back in full swing, try random tidbits:

Arnold Kling on his version of global warming skepticism.

Tyler Cowen on taking Ron Paul seriously.

Ryan Beckwith on more Randy Parton schlock (and Big gubment Republican McCrory and Munger's new do).

and... Me in the Fayetteville Observer offering zany ideas for your Xmas stocking.
-Max Borders

Climate Change: What's Wrong with the Sims?

OK, so they (IPCC modelers) tell us the earth's "fever" (average global tempurature) is going to keep going up. But it's not. And it hasn't since 2001. What gives?
-Max Borders

Healthcare: (Individual) Insurance market not as bad as reported

From Grace Marie Turner:

AHIP ... released a survey yesterday of the individual health insurance market, showing that it is healthier than commonly believed. Yes, people can have trouble buying coverage, especially if they have pre-existing conditions, but fewer than the media would have us believe. And these more difficult cases are the ones that the new AHIP proposal is designed to help.

But the survey shows that insurance generally is more affordable in the individual market than through the workplace: Nationwide, average annual premiums were $2,613 for singles and $5,799 for families, half the cost of the average job-based policy.

Premiums varied greatly by state and were highly correlated with the rules set by the state governing premiums, coverage, and underwriting. The heavier the burden, the more costly the insurance. When will states figure out that their "solutions" have been a big part of the problem? Maybe it's time for a little cooperation with the insurance industry.
-Max Borders

Illegal Immigrants: 340 and Progressive Self-Delusion

I have a friend who, up until last year, taught for a few years at Wake Tech Community College. She taught English as a Second Language (ESL) to immigrants. Yesterday, I asked her: What percentage, if any, of your students would you estimate to be here illegally? This was her response--and I quote:

"I would estimate about 90% - 95% were here illegally.  But Wake Tech kind of caters to that population; the classes I taught were Basic Skills classes. It wasn't a problem for us.  Students had to have a tax id number, which is not hard to get (the IRS and INS don't really talk).

New guidelines came out a year or so ago that may restrict some students from getting into the program  - I think they have gotten tougher."   

I don't think my friend is aware of Lancaster's November directive, since she stopped teaching about a year ago. Anyway, to those who still believe there are only 340 in the Community College system, I would emplore you: go to a community college near any agglomeration of immigrants here in NC and do an anonymous survey of their ESL "Basic Skills" students. Then come back, look us all straight in the eye and tell us there are a) "340" in the system, and b) that taxpaying citizens are not subsidizing them.

Most who are untroubled by abandoning the rule of law site this low estimate as some sort of scriptural truth that dissolves the law because its relative illegality is a matter of tiny degree. But in reality, the subsidy of illegals in N.C. community colleges very likely goes much deeper than our Progressive friends would have us believe. I have said, and will repeat, that we need federal immigration reform that will get illegals out of the shadows, into the light, and into a streamlined immigration (and assimilation) system. But I am not willing to toss the law while waiting for that hope. If I were to toss out the law every time I thought it needed reform, I'd pay a hell of a lot less in taxes each year and drink beer on the sidewalk. But I know that the rule of law must be changed from within, not from without by capricious politicians looking to woo Hispanic voters, or by Progressives who hate the very idea of citizenship.
-Max Borders

The Narrative of Subprime Villainy

What are markets? Markets are nothing more than individuals engaged in exchange. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, sometimes in the process of trading, there is fraud. One party can lie or cloud the terms of an agreement to his or her benefit. We can all agree that it's the government's responsibility to protect people from said fraud. Otherwise, markets are just people engaged in free activity -- mutual benefit, mutual gain--with risks sometimes involved. If such a relationship didn't exist, there would be no trade and therefore no market.

But some of our favorite Mercedes Marxists think of markets as some abstract enemy -- a Darth-Vaderish force that inhabits the greedy and puts Vampire eyeteeth in the necks of the poor. Perhaps this mien - common among progressives - is fueled by guilt. Perhaps by ignorance. Who can say? But of course, anything that happens that's perceived as a social bad is the market's fault and the market's alone. Markets aren't perfect (whatever perfect means -- I guess by their lights that no one should ever have to take risks or fail at anything.) And the government is the almighty, allgood, fix-er-up-er of justice--an objective Board of Control that with the smartest, morally upright people will set straight all the little people who clearly can't make economic decisions for themselves. (What could be more condescending, except perhaps putting a Wikipedia link to the word Schadenfreude as if people have never heard of it?)

Most recently, for example, Progressives have a post that lays blaim for the mortgage crises squarely at the feet of "Republicans" and of course those they derisively refer to as free-market fundamentalists -- despite the fact that the former and the latter don't always occupy the same area of the Venn diagram. Evil capitalists, the story goes, are drinking the blood of the homeowner (forgetting that some of these companies, and their employees, are teetering at the edge of bankruptcy themselves due to poor decisions). For support of their view, they throw in the Left's favorite neo-Keynesian hack Paul Krugman as evidence that they're right, as if this polemicist has said anything sane since 1999 -- or whenever it was Krugman started getting paid more to think less.

Instead of looking for villains in any other places besides his favored place -- that horrible market he (and all of us) have benefitted from -- he sticks to his master-narrative. And if any consideration falls outside of that haves- and have-nots story he jealously guards, he will ignore it, wish it away, or search frantically through Paul Krugman archives for witty retorts. Because rectitude courses through his veins. To consider other ideas ruins that good feeling righteousness brings. In the case of the subprime "crisis", he ignores the fact that HUD regulations have pressured and even forced lenders - either politically or by law - to "serve" populations that would otherwise fall out of the risk calculations lenders use to remain solvent businesses. But no, the government can do no wrong. So this couldn't be a factor.

And while in the wake of the dotcom bubble there was certainly an excessive migration of capital to real estate fueled by Fed policy, our Robin Hoods of home ownership write as if they a) knew all along, suggesting some crystal ball living where the sun don't shine (hindsite being 20/20 and all), b) that Alan Greenspan is any better at planning an complex economy than their favorite progressive politicians are of fixing it, and c) ordinary people are simply not capable of making risk calculations for themselves and to live with the consequences of their choices.

And if we, as our champagne socialist bloggers might hope, had regulated away the kinds of loans they finds so abhorrent, how many of the 97+ percent of those subprimers who still own and are paying for their mortgages would very likely still be renting? So which is the "crisis"? Never having the opportunity to begin with? Or freely accepting the risk? Our gentle paladins for social justice know better than YOU what risks you should take. And so do the government nannies they serve with such utter faith and obsequiousness. (I'll pass over the irony in that this author simultaneously derides "market fundamentalism" [yes, again] while taking shots at the former Chairman of the FEDERAL Reserve -- you know, that august government body.) When the government monkeys come around to over-regulate the mortgage industry so no one in the lower quartiles EVER gets a lone, what will they say? 'Screw 'em' I suppose. Or perhaps they'll hand out 3% fixed-rate loans like candy to everyone and bail them out whenever they default--all at everyone else's expense. Either way, they'll know what's best.

To our progressives blogger's false dichotomy I'll say this: the lending industry has already corrected itself. Bailouts will only skew the risk assessment of lenders and buyers more than the government and Fed have already done. Over-regulation a la SARBOX will result in unintended consequences that will be with us well beyond the healing of this burst bubble. We're now paying for a confluence of factors not even a majority of which were products of the market. But more importantly, the cure will be much worse than the disease if you, Bush and Congress get your way.

Despite all the sarcasm they can muster, our Mercades Marxists won't be able to explain away (much less acknowledge) myriad other factors in the subprime issue. They will be content instead to throw out non sequiturs about war or wiretapping. They will offer no substantive solutions. They will be content to hide behind rhetorical devices their readers will happily lap up without reflection. But they will not get into the actual critical thinking. (That's Krugman's job, apparently). No, they are, and will remain, second-hand dealers in bad ideas.
-Max Borders

Ugly Christmas Tree?

Seeing as Christmas is just days away I thought I would write about a favorite complaint of my friend, Dallas Woodhouse, State Director of AFPNC. Every time he walks by the state capitol he complains about the evergreen that serves as the state's official Christmas tree. While it looks good with the Christmas lights lit, he complains that North Carolina should have a tree more representative of a state that is number two in the nation in Christmas tree production. So what do you say - a fresh Frazier Fir for the state Christmas tree?

Climate Change: the Counter-Consensus

This new report by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is staggering. Basically, it looks like they have put together the counter-consensus -- i.e. those who are skeptical of the IPCC and the notion of man-made global warming as it is presented by the UN and Al Gore.

Remember, the UN has lots of money (billions) invested in this climate narrative. So why wouldn't they exclude any and all skeptics to create groupthink? At the risk of wearing my tinfoil hat, I'd say this is the wedge the UN would like to use to being taxing (cap and trade), and then governing the world.
-Max Borders

Hero of the Week

Not to make this a weekly awards thing, but special recognition goes out this week to High Point City Councilman Mike Pugh, who fought valiantly against giving away more than $3 million in city money (and another $6.57 million in state money) for a corporate welfare project.

In reference to the awarding of welfare to TransTech Pharma of High Point, Councilman Pugh is quoted:

“I know it’s vital to get new industries started and to have them in your city, but I don’t believe in extortion,” Pugh said. “When multimillion dollar companies come to us while small businesses are suffering and say, 'Give us money or we’ll leave or we won’t come at all,’ well, I think sometimes you just have to call their bluff.”

So, cheers to Councilman Pugh for standing up for economic integrity.  I raise my glass of holiday beverage to you! May there be more like him coming to understand that corporate welfare penalizes all other businesses for the benefit of one.

Small Victories

As we fight the larger battle to end the practice of state and local governments giving away our taxpayer money to corporations or to "promote" economic development, we sometimes gloss over the small victories that occur along the way.

Take this announcement out of Raleigh that the City, Wake County and the operators of the RBC Center will not extend a new package to recruit the MEAC basketball tournament to Raleigh.  Previously, the city and county gave away $550,000 of your money each year to bring the tournament to the RBC Center.

Taxpayers in Wake County saved a little money today, let's just remain vigilant that the elected officials don't just turn around and give it away to someone else.

Follow the Money

Just a reminder to use Citizen Legislature to follow the money, when it comes to our state legislature. If you have comments, suggestions, or questions about how to use this tool, contact Dion Terry at Civitas.
-Max Borders

Charter Schools: A Glimmer of Hope

Commissions are usually intended to give politicians time, political cover and some wiggle room on controversial topics.  I’m sure these were some of the goals when the Blue Ribbon Commission on Charter Schools was formed several months ago. Yesterday the commission held its last formal meeting  and in the next few weeks a final report with recommendations will be submitted to the legislature.  While we know it’s early, some of the recommendations give charter school advocates reason to be hopeful.  For starters, it looks like the cap is being lifted. Exactly how high will, in part, be determined by where charter schools locate and by the overall performance of the schools. The Commission is recommending the number of charter schools be increased by at least six annually. However, other factors could boost that number. For example, new charter schools that open in counties where none previously existed, would not be counted against the cap.  In addition, “high performance” by charter schools could also increase the number of new charters. Specifically, the Commission will recommend  that DPI approve up to as many new charter schools as there are “high performing” charter schools.  As yet, there is no definition for “high performing.” Most likely this will be the next battleground.

While there is reason for cautious optimism, it's still hard not to notice that many commission members hold charter schools to a standard that they are unwilling to apply to public schools. I’m all in favor of performance based measures and closing charter schools that don’t meet standards. However what does it say to others when we’ll shut down a school of a couple hundred that doesn’t meet standards, but will keep open for years schools with total enrollments in the thousands that consistently fail to meet performance standards? If someone knows the reasons for exempting public schools from the same evaluation process, please let me know.      

Road to Reform?

I'd love to hear your thoughts and comments about some of the ideas for transportation in this piece from today's N&O.

Despite my hostility towards wasteful light rail, I wanted to add a few points: a) that under the scheme outlined here, you'd get a lot of environmental benefit in rural and natural areas -- particularly as we focus more resources around urban areas; b) that tracking vehicle usage could amount to a tool for central planners and state nannies, but perhaps such tracking could be administered by a private third party, much in the same way our cellphones are; and c) can you imagine a free-market type suggesting a czar? What can I say, I'm a pragmatist, too.
-Max Borders

Teachers' Union Fights the Future

Really interesting story about a virtual school in Wisconsin being attacked by the teachers' unions - who, of course, know better than you do what's best for your kids.

Kids coming together and learning in virtual environments is the wave of the future, folks: lower costs, better education, 3D simulation, and the benefits of scale... But it will be fought by nanny statists and teacher's clinging to their interests.
-Max Borders

Freedom Will Help Africa

Franklin Cudjoe and Thomas Ayodele of IMANI are two freedom fighers in Africa doing great work. I've meet Franklin and he's a great guy doing yeoman's work. Here's their new website. Check it out. Peace and free trade in Africa!
-Max Borders

State Employee Benefits: Another Government Burden to Hit Taxpayers

First we're told that Social Security and Medicare are facing bankruptcy, now we learn that taxpayers will be on the hook for yet another case of shortsighted government fiscal irresponsibility.

The Washington Post informs us that

"According to a new analysis by the Pew Charitable Trusts' Center on the States, states owe employees about $2.73 trillion for pension and health-care costs, much of which is unfunded."

Unfortunately, the article doesn't say how much is unfunded, but let's do some quick math. Assume that half of the $2.73 trillion is unfunded, that gives us $1.365 trillion. To put that into perspective, there are currently 303.6 million people currently in the US (according to the US Census). That means every man, woman and child is facing a bill of roughly $4,500 to pay for the collective state liabilities. That adds up to $18,000 per family of four (and this doesn't even include thousands of local government liabilities).

I've written about North Carolina's situation recently.

Social Security, Medicare, state employee pensions and health benefits...what's next? Is there any doubt that if "universal health care" is put in the hands of these same folks, the results will be anything else but financial disaster?

Journalistic Integrity

Journalistic integrity is not dead:

Mary Cornatzer, business editor, said she wasn't aware of that connection [between Workplace Options and Public Policy Polling] and would not have used the survey if she'd known. She said the reporter knew that Debnam was an investor in Public Policy Polling but didn't pursue that link - "a decision she is now regretting," Cornatzer said.

This was a problem. It undermines the credibility of the story. The N&O should have done more due diligence in checking out that poll and, especially, checking into Debnam's dual roles. I first became aware of the problem through this blog [Red Clay Citizen].

Kudos also to Chris Hayes for pointing this out, yesterday, and to the N&O for their humility in recognizing an honest mistake and handling it with grace. (Not so much, perhaps, for Public Policy Polling, who probably should've known better.)
-Max Borders

Bootleggers & Baptists Redux : Gobble Gobble

If you're wondering what is going on with all these bio-fuel boondoggles dotted around North Carolina, it's because the Bootleggers and Baptists (pdf) are at it again!

A short paragraph inside North Carolina's landmark renewable energy bill could mean millions for one obscure company.

The provision requires major utilities to sell electricity produced from poultry waste -- a potential boon for Fibrowatt LLC, which spent $85,000 this year lobbying the General Assembly about the company and its product.

The legislation, passed earlier this year, requires major utilities to produce at least 12.5 percent of electricity by 2021 from renewable sources, including solar, wind and poultry excrement, among others.

Who pays? You do. And if you believe the hype about jobs and the environment, you'd better think again (and again and again and again).
-Max Borders

Borders on Immigration and the Rule of Law

Kudos to Civitas' own Max Borders on this article published in the Greensboro News-Record. Borders uses the recent community college/illegal immigrant issue as a backdrop for the broader issue of the rule of law.

"Despite the rhetoric, those who would simply ignore the law for the sake of what they consider to be a nobler good not only undermine the rule of law but what it means to be a citizen. And while voices charging xenophobia are growing louder, this issue is not about blood and soil. It is ultimately about respect for fundamental institutions."

He closes the piece with a slap at the damaging notion being put forth by fringe groups that if one doesn't like a law, you should break it:

"Citizenship is not some arbitrary designation. It is membership in a political community, and it carves out a special, two-way relationship between a person and the institutions of the state. We may all agree that the process for becoming a citizen is long and burdensome and should be less so. But that doesn't mean the rights and privileges of citizenship should fall like manna from heaven until our system of naturalization is reformed. If we think they should, then we are saying that the appropriate mechanism for change is not judicial, legislative or democratic processes at all but lawbreaking. If reform occurs outside our legal order, that order has been made impotent. At that point, we are no longer a nation of laws, but a nation of caprice. Citizenship and order have then become curiosities of a bygone era."

Right Hand, Left Hand

What is a state to do when it tries to serve two masters?

One one hand, those in charge are trying to "do something" about global warming and limit the use of coal-fired power plants.

On the other hand, others in charge are trying to "do something" about economic development and use corporate welfare to create jobs.

Thus, we get this situation where the Division of Air Quality must decide whether to allow the expansion of Duke Power's Cliffside power plant near Charlotte.

The problem is, the company who will do the construction of the expansion, Shaw Power Group, just received incentives from the state to expand their operations.  So how do they add jobs if the power plant isn't allowed to expand?

Who will win the battle between environmentalism and corporate welfare?  I don't know, but it's going to be fun to watch the Dept. of Commerce and the Division of Air Quality squirm their way through this.

Healthcare: Let me Drive

John Hood has a good piece on consumer-driven healthcare. (Personal note: my family and I like our HSA and HDHP, too. We're cost-conscious, but it's there when we need it and we may have something to show for it in five years, where we wouldn't with an HMO.)
-Max Borders

Disclosure Needed?

In Sunday's News & Observer's Business section, one of the main articles detailed the growing use of "backup daycare" centers and how this was becoming an increasingly useful benefit to employees to reduce absences.

The article cites polling data from our friends over at Public Policy Polling that "80 percent said they have missed one to five days of work because they lacked backup care."

Then, the article cites solutions being offered by a company called Workplace Options and their CEO Dean Debnam.

What the article doesn't point out is that Debnam is also the President of Public Policy Polling, whose poll is cited earlier in the article.  Now I'm sure he did not intentionally conceal that fact from the reporter, but didn't the reporter and the News & Observer have a duty to report it?

And apparently providing day care options runs deep in the Debnam household.  His wife, Stephanie Fanjul, is the President of NC Smart Start.

Bipartisan Scholarship on Health Insurance

A must-read (this too) for progressives. (Oh, they're at Duke. So buy them a coffee and learn something.)
Max Borders

Jim Blacking the Youth

Move over Socrates... Corrupting the youth has reached new levels. 'Do what you have to to succeed -- even if you have to lie, cheat, steel or use violence.' This is what 40 percent of young people (teens) think according to a recent survey. At the top of their list of the unethical?

When asked to evaluate the behavior of a number of groups - business leaders, religious leaders, doctors, lawyers, police officers, teachers, professional athletes and fire fighters - teens ranked high school students second to last. In their view, only politicians are more unethical than they are.

People always fret that the younger generation has no morals or is worse than the last. But when we think about the generation in power - leading by example - names like Wright, Black, and Geddings come to mind.
-M

Fitzsimon and the Facts...Or the Lack Thereof

Plucked out of thin air. That’s Chris Fitzsimon’s wild charge regarding our claim that there are an estimated 10,000 noncitizens enrolled as undergraduates in public higher education in North Carolina.

A quick look at the facts reveals Chris’ claim to be wrong and irresponsible. The 10,000 figure is derived from an analysis of American Community Survey (ACS) data.  ACS is administered by the US Census bureau. Identified in the data are noncitizens (noncitizen is an ACS term) enrolled in public higher education as undergraduates. Our analysis excludes foreign students (UNC and NCCCS) as well as individuals with other academic or professional degrees. Specifically, the 10,000 figure is the number of noncitizens enrolled in public higher education in North Carolina who aren’t current foreign students or have other academic degrees. This information was all available when Chris inquired about our numbers. The point: the 10,000 figure is NOT derived from our data. It’s from ACS data (See: Higher Education Enrollment in North Carolina by Non U.S. Citizens).

Chris said he called the Census Bureau and no one had any idea of our analysis.  I’m not surprised. The Census bureau makes thousands of data sets available so researchers can do all sorts of analyses. Our analysis was a simple query done on a PC, one of probably thousands of similar analyses conducted every day. There is no way census personnel can know how the data is being analyzed. Next time, if you have a question about the research, it might be more helpful to call the researcher.

I am not bothered by those who are skeptical of data or research. However, I am bothered by those who display an attitude of selective skepticism. While questioning our numbers, I am puzzled why Chris Fitizsimon fails to cast a second glance at statements many find debatable. For example: Does anyone honestly believe there are only 340 undocumented immigrants in North Carolina's community colleges? Despite the shortcomings of how the data was obtained – and there are many – Chris sees no problem.It’s valid simply because the North Carolina Community College System (NCCCS) told him so. End of case, right?

Then of course there is the mantra that all the immigrants now eligible for community colleges were brought here as children. Where’s the evidence to support this claim?  What we do know is the average age of students is 29. Finally, Chris says illegal immigrants really are subsidizing NCCCS.  Figures from NCCCS might say one thing, but they are incomplete. To believe immigrants really subsidize NCCCS you also have to believe those who are here illegally would suddenly be willing and able to pay out-of-state tuition. Are those likely propositions? If you ask me, it seems Chris knows what he wants to believe --and doggone it -- he's not going to let any facts or questions muck it up. Once again, the double standard, played to perfection.

Water-head Bureaucrats

How many times do we have to say it? : if you charge people the full costs of what they consume, they will opt for all sorts of conservation measures -- including spigots, showerheads, and low-flow toilets (the latter of which, by the way, sometimes require 3 flushes to take -- wasting water as an unintended consequence).

So why are authorities trying to regulate our lives like this?

Unless North Carolina seeks new water conservation methods, the ongoing population boom will make it difficult for state officials to prevent long-term water shortages, experts told hundreds of state and local leaders Friday.

If simple technology solutions such as low-flow shower heads aren't used, governments will have to consider limits on residential growth or the development of smaller, more expensive water reservoirs, said John Morris, director of the North Carolina Division of Water Resources.

Will somebody please pass a law requiring all public officials to have had economics?
-Max Borders

Why does Civitas run Google Ads?

Under the Dome is intrigued by the fact that Civitas runs Google ads -- enough to warrant this post. Not sure why that's interesting, but ... Why do we do it?

1. Traffic. 2. Traffic. and... don't forget about 3. Traffic.

More specifically, though, we want people to look on our poll results (in which questions about Smith, Moore, and Neal are featured). Why did we not purchase the names Graham, Hagen, or Dole? They were too expensive! We are a non-profit you know. Oh and we're also running Google ads so people will come to our Juan Williams event. (Try it, you'll see.)

Mystery solved. You can go back to your regularly scheduled lives -- and thanks for visiting a Civitas-associated website (at no cost to us this time)!
-Max Borders

Bali: Behind all the Hissing and Booing

Apparently there was tumultuous end to the Bali meeting, which resulted in the US being booed and hissed. The US - rationally - wanted developing nations to be bound to any climate agreement. So, if you believe that climate change is anthropogenic and that carbon reduction targets will help mitigate it (all of which is beyond belief -- particularly the latter premise), then you still have the problem of defection.

See, if China, India and other developing nations get to opt out of any agreement, the rest of the world suffers economically while these countries reap all the gains as legacy energy migrates to their shores. Since they're not bound, why would they comply? They're getting richer as we speak and they know they won't get rich if they artificially drive up the price of the master resource. Now, all the booing and hissing is coming from countries that stand to benefit from carbon sink schemes. It's an end-run around traditional foreign aid channels. And who pays (again)? That's right: we do.

So as you listen to all the environmental posturing and moralizing, remember that behind any boo or hiss are a bunch of greedy b*#@rds ("bootleggers") trying to benefit from green regulation that will do nothing to abate climate change (that is, if it's, indeed, human-caused).
-Max Borders

A Question on Ethics

Need a little feedback here.  I will lay out a scenario and please respond in the comments whether you think it represents an ethical problem and if so, how severe it is.

A legislator serves on the board of directors of a foundation.  That foundation grants money to an organization that advocates for a policy position. The legislator introduces, moves through committee and approval by the full body a bill to enact the policy position of the advocacy organization.

Is this an ethical problem?

Where is Al Sharpton?

This story points to the sickening, racist double standard we've had to live with since the principles of civil rights movement were abandoned for political correctness -- a double standard that threatens to undo all the gains made by real civil rights leaders like MLK.

How have we come to a place where six people who, having given a life-threatening beat-down against one young man, get marches for "justice"? But people of other races victimized by racist attacks are basically ignored? Where's the outcry? Where are Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? Why has this not yet been classified as a hate crime?

Contact the Rainbow Coalition and let them know that hate crimes against any race are still hate crimes. Violent crime is violent crime -- and we should not tolerate it by anyone, regardless of their ethnicity. Does their rainbow not include the victims in Baltimore?
-Max Borders

So Much for Renewables...

From today's Charlotte Business Journal:

Duke Energy Carolinas is seeking permission from N.C. regulators to build two combined-cycle, natural-gas-fired generating units.

Good to see them taking steps towards building those renewable baseload generation plants...

An Interview with Ron Woodard

As the community college system has discovered over the last few weeks, using state funds to educate illegal immigrants is a bad idea. As Ron Woodard states below, this policy is both illegal and unfair. As president of NC Listen, Ron has been advocating for immigration reform here in North Carolina and at the federal level for the past few years. Civitas interviews Mr. Woodard here:

Civitas: Ron, why is the new community college policy a bad idea?

Woodard: Some of the illegal aliens being considered for admission to our N.C. community colleges were brought to America as dependents by their illegal alien parents. However, anyone old enough to attend community college can now return to their host country as an adult and acquire a post-secondary education there. To continue to provide non-emergency benefits and privileges to illegal aliens will only serve to encourage more illegal immigration to America. It is also unfair to would-be legal immigrants who are currently standing in line to come to America legally and are abiding by the rule of law.

Civitas: Illegal immigrants are already being educated in the public school system. Why not let them attend college as well?

Woodard: It has been suggested that some of the illegal aliens who came to America as dependents of illegal alien parents and have spent some time in our public schools, should now be allowed to enroll in our UNC system and N.C. community colleges. Based on the Supreme Court’s Plyler v. Doe decision in 1982, dependents of illegal aliens can attend public schools in grades K-12. The Court did this only because the dependents were of young age. Many jurists have questioned the true legality of the decision. However, the 1982 ruling should not be obfuscated to suggest this benefit applies to those who are now adults and can return to their host country for an education. Applying to a university or college is a selection process, and often there are more qualified students than openings. A qualified American student should not be disenfranchised by losing his or her chance to achieve higher education due to our State permitting someone illegally in our country to attend college. One might ask the question, who will be the real victim?

Civitas: But aren't illegal aliens who pay the out-of-state rate going to be paying their own way?

Woodard: The insinuation is that an illegal alien attending a N.C. community college will pay an out-of-state tuition rate, possibly greater than the cost of services, thereby the illegal alien will actually make money for the state. I suppose there is some merit in this statement, given the negative impact the typical illegal alien has on our governmental and societal cost, so maybe we could recoup some of our earlier loss? But a deeper look into the total capital and operational outlays of a community college would suggest the out-of-state rate doesn’t really cover “all” costs for a college education. Let’s understand the real intent of those pressing for the admission of illegal aliens in our community colleges at out-of-state rates is to ultimately give them in-state tuition rates, as former Governor Jim Hunt (D) and other Democratic leaders have attempted to do.

Civitas: We are a nation of immigrants. Isn't denying Hispanic immigrants the opportunity to attend college just another form of xenophobia?

Woodard: Another story line we are hearing is the old and tired one about Hispanics facing opposition because they are the latest wave of immigrants. The undertone is to purport that Hispanics, as an ethnic group, are being discriminated against. But the real issue is simply legal versus illegal immigration. In the specific case of Hispanics/Latinos, more of their ethnic group is allowed into America as legal immigrants each year than any other ethnic group. Where is the discrimination?

Civitas: Governor Mike Easley (D) has essentially stated that because the federal government is not enforcing U.S. immigration law, the state of North Carolina has been left to deal with this problem on its own -- and should do so by permitting illegal immigrants to attend the state's community colleges. What do you think of this claim?

Woodard: It is implied that since illegal aliens are working in North Carolina in large numbers in violation of federal law, we must accept this and just provide benefits and privileges to them as if they were citizens. Actually our government is beginning to address the problem of illegal immigration, and we will have our laws enforced. It is against the law for an illegal alien to work in America. And why would our state provide an illegal alien the skills to take a good job away from an American citizen?

Civitas: On a related note, President Martin Lancaster of the community college system has argued that if we don't educate illegal immigrants we will be fostering the creation of an unruly underclass. How would you respond to this charge?

Woodard: The example is often the situation currently in France with their large illegal alien population. I suppose we should heed this warning and step-up our efforts to enforce our immigration laws by controlling our borders, denying driver’s licenses and other privileges to illegals, fine employers who hire them, implement the 287g program to engage local law enforcement, and then most illegals will self-deport and our problem will go away. To pander to illegal aliens will only encourage more illegal immigration, as evidenced by observing the result of a lack of attention to this matter over the last 20 years.

Civitas: Likewise, Lancaster argued that we need to educate illegal immigrants to compete in the global economy. What do you say to this?

Woodard: Probably the weakest intellectual response by the other side is the notion that illegal aliens benefit America, as it relates to the global economy. Why would the knowledge-based economy of America want large numbers of poorly educated and low-skilled illegal aliens to come across our borders? So we would then have to build more student space in our N.C. community colleges to educate them here to take jobs away from legal resident North Carolinians?

Civitas: Finally, just how many students are we talking about? What are the real numbers?

Woodard: The administration of our N.C. community college system says there are only 340 illegal aliens enrolled out of a total of 271,000 students. Martin Lancaster, the outgoing president of the N.C. community college system said, “This is hardly the inundation of our colleges.” Well, if there are only 340 illegals in our community college system, why is he so worried about removing them for being in our country illegally? I expect the real truth is the administration doesn’t honestly know how many illegal aliens are in our community college system. And as noted earlier, the intent of some of the leaders is to in fact create conditions to make it easier for more and more illegal aliens to attend. This is not in the best interest of the citizens of North Carolina. Our state should be part of the solution, not part of the problem of illegal immigration in America.

Light Rail for the Triangle: Be Careful What You Wish For

Results from a poll reported in the N&O today caught my attention. The left-leaning group Public Policy Polling asked respondents if they "would say yes to one of three tax options for transit improvements if it would reduce traffic congestion." The majority of folks were agreeable to some sort of tax increase. Of course the vague term "transit improvements" will be manipulated in the future to mean "light rail." Also left out of the question is any clarification of just how much these "transit improvements" may or may not "reduce traffic congestion."

I think it is safe to assume that light rail guru Randal O'Toole (aka the Antiplanner) was not included in the survey. Check out his blog - he has simply been on a roll of late. Folks clamoring for light rail in the Triangle, pay attention:

"Is there anything that transit agencies and rail advocates say about light rail that isn’t a lie? They call it high-capacity transit and it isn't. They claim they build them on budget and they don’t. They claim rail reduces congestion, and it increases it. They claim light rail catalyzes economic development, when all it does is catalyze more subsidies to development.

Light rail is really just one big, fat lie."

Taxes: Who pays what?

Here's an interesting post from Cato-at-Liberty.
Read it and comment away...
-Max Borders

Climate Change: The Burning Question

So when is NASA going to explain away the apparent planetary warming trends of our solar system neighbors? NASA has been almost as outspoken about global warming as the IPCC (both of whom have billion dollar budgets that depend on their being at the forefront of this issue). So why haven't they drawn the simple inferences about the possibility of natural variability? I think I answered my own question above.
-Max Borders

The Left's Troubling Double Standard on "Educational Opportunity"

We seem to have sliced and diced poor Fitzsimon's arguments on the community college/illegal immigrants issue quite a bit. But here is one more angle I think is important to ponder.

Fitzsimon and his fellow fringe extremists spout in their talking points their concern over "denying educational opportunities" to illegal immigrants. It seems curious to me that they can show concern about educational opportunities in this instance, but they are the first ones to ferociously deny educational opportunities for K-12 children (actual kids, not 30 year-olds) who are on waiting lists for charter schools. Furthermore, the Fitzsimon fringe will scream bloody murder about any plan to allow parents increased educational opportunities for their children through school choice.

So, in short, the tiny band of progressives represented by Fitzsimon and Co. say we should welcome - and subsidize - "educational opportunities" to people who are violating our laws by being here. But for parents who are begging for an alternative "educational opportunity" for their children outside of their government-chosen school system, they vehemently say NO! 

The self-contradiction is disturbing.

Parton Theater: Lawyers only real winners as taxpayers go on Paying!

Taxpayers need to follow the money while the Randy Parton Theater meltdown happens.  We now have our three law firms feeding at the public trough.  Don Carrington keeps reporting on the travails of Roanoke Rapids and the floundering Parton Theater with his latest Dolly Speaks Out to Support Brother story detailing the hiring of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice to represent the city of Roanoke Rapids in this dispute.  Carrington had already reported that Ernest Pearson, a lawyer with the Sanford Holshouser law firm, has signed checks from funds advanced by the city to his own firm. And let us not forget that Randy Parton has a lawyer from the firm Poyner & Spruill LLP representing him. Since Parton was given a very large sum from the city up front and they have already forgiven him a $475,000 advance - taxpayers are really the ones footing his legal bill in the end.

Let's look at this again:

• Parton yearly artist fee - $1.5 million
• public money invested in a risky scheme- $21 million
• Lawyers continuing to make money - Priceless

As has been said many times, follow the money.

Fitzing the Numbers, Futzing the Truth

Chris Fitzsimon is upset. And he should be. Popular sentiment for his position is low. And this time, the unwashed masses are correct. No quicker than he can utter the word "xenophobe" or "demogogue" has he thrown out citizenship, the rule of law, and the truth with the bathwater. Allow me to dissect his latest effort...

The first of his talking points, he has rehashed ad nauseum:

Community college officials say 340 undocumented immigrants are currently enrolled and paying out of state tuition. That is less than one tenth of one percent of the system’s 270,000 students.

We know, Chris, we know -- 340. Fitzsimon - with all the win-at-all-costs mendacity that comes naturally to the left - doesn't care to mention the possibility that people who are willing to lie and use forged documentation to get jobs here, might also do so to get into community college. Doesn't occur to him that illegals may be using false numbers, IDs, etc.? If it does, he's willing simply to overlook the overwhelming anecdotal evidence -- so he can use the 340 number to suggest people are making a big deal out of nothing.

But this point comes back to bite him. Because if there are so few people in the system, why is he so eager to break the law to extend them subsidized benefits? It cuts both ways. But what cuts deeper is his apparent naivete -- in the face of common sense (i.e. illegal immigrants lie to get what they want.).

Next untruth: undocumented students are actually subsidizing the community college system.

How many times do we have to explain to Chris that - in order to subsidize a system - you have to pay over-and-above the full costs (including capital costs - you know, like lights, buildings, parking decks and all that good stuff). Sadly, tuition funds only around 12.5 percent of the community college budget. That leaves 87-odd percent unfunded. No matter how you slice it, out-of-state tuition does not a subsidy make. But that's ok. It's not about the truth for Fitzsimon. It's about a talking point he's hoping will become some sort of meme. (Nope. Not on our watch.)

Distorted claim: The new anti-immigrant talking points includ [sic] assertions based on numbers plucked out of thin air.

Hmmm. OK, so let me get this straight -- Fitzsimon is willing blindly to accept the community college's 340 number (not exactly speaking truth to power), but is giving Civitas researchers a hard time because they are trying to determine how many people may plausibly be lying in the system? Last time I checked, liars don't fill out surveys with the "real truth" so that government number crunchers can have accurate data. Civitas uses the only proxy it can: census data + reasonable inferences. Fitzsimon is content with 340. And that's fine, because people aren't as stupid or gullible as he assumes.

OK, here's the real doozy -- a contradiction so obvious we can only conclude either Fitzsimon failed Intro to Logic, or he thinks we're really dumb: The average age of community college students is close to 30, so the demographics are at best confusing.

Confusing, huh? It turns out that only 1/3 of community college students are from 18-21 -- those whom Fitzsimon has curiously defined as "children". (Ah, poorly done sophistry.) So we might infer, then, that only 114 are "children". The rest of these truth-telling illegals are in their 20s and 30s (certainly not children, nor those likely educated here from K-12) -- taking advantage of a system they may or may not pay for in taxes. But it gets even better. Only a few sentences down:

They [Civitas] are obsessed with keeping immigration front and center in this years political debate, no matter ... how many teenagers they have hurt in the process.

Cracking, ain't it? Well, at least these college students have finally been upgraded from children to teenagers. Now, to belabor the obvious: is it that there are only x immigrants, so why make a big deal that they're unlawfully attending community college? Or is it that there are x immigrants being "hurt" by preventing them from receiving benefits reserved for legal taxpaying citizens?

Fitzsimon has really outdone himself this time. If I were his funders, I'd think about de-moting him. If I were hopeful politicians on the left, I'd find him a muzzle. You see, implicit in all his rhetoric is that people who are interested in protecting citizenship and the rule of law are somehow racist, xenophobic nativists. But the trouble is, the people who are angry about this affront to fairness, the law and the meaning of citizenship aren't going to take too kindly to those kinds of accusations -- not to mention those people - black, white and brown - enduring legal processes.

So, go ahead, keep it up. We'll just sit back and watch him self-destruct (along with those he serves).
(Update: here's a chart detailing Civitas's methodology for estimating how many illegals may be in the N.C. system.)
-Max Borders

More Bruton Smith Fallout

You knew tax increases were coming as part of the handouts to Bruton Smith's empty threats to move Lowe's Motor Speedway.

The latest:  Cabarrus County is trying to push through a 1 percent increase in the hotel/occupancy tax to pay for "promoting tourism" in the county.  Geez, I thought having two signature NASCAR races a year was promotion enough...

Demagogonomics

"I'm positive it's in our best interest to keep XYZ company with 1,000 jobs, even if they're making buggy whips." says Rep. Prior Gibson (D-Anson), quoted in the News & Observer. How about...?

I'm positive it's in our best interest to keep XYZ company with 1,000 jobs, even if they're building pyramids... or

I'm positive it's in our best interest to keep XYZ company with 1,000 jobs, even if they're paying teenagers to break windows and paying workers to replace them... or

I'm positive it's in our best interest to keep XYZ company with 1,000 jobs, even if they're building a Temple to Randy Parton... or

I've got it. Here's how it should read: I'm positive it's in my best interest to keep XYZ company with 1,000 jobs, especially if they're paying me back in votes.
-Max Borders

$1.3 Billion

That's how much the state gave away in corporate welfare last year according to a draft report produced by the General Assembly's Fiscal Research Division. (Report isn't available online yet, but I hope to scan it in and post it for you sometime today.  Meanwhile, here's the AP article that says so.)

$1.3 billion.  Yep, that's billion with a "b."  And that doesn't include any Federal or local money that was spent either.  Such as the One North Carolina Fund that requires a local match of cash payment.

And just for reference sake, the state collected $1.2 billion in corporate income tax revenue in 2005-2006. (Overview of Fiscal and Budget Actions - NC Fiscal Research Division, p. 305).

So... cutting the corporate income tax rate to 0% and eliminating corporate welfare incentives would actually save the state $100 million.

Rest assured, we'll have much, much more on this exciting new development in the coming days/weeks/months.  (Thought we had a lot to say on incentives before?  Now we've got hard evidence!) 

Immigration: Taylor v. Fitzsimon

Dr. Jameson Taylor of Civitas should be debating Chris Fitzsimon of NC Policy Watch tomorrow at 7:05 a.m. on WPTF radio (Jack Boston), Raleigh.

At least we think and hope, but you know the media can move things around.
-Max Borders