Red Clay Citizen

More for More at Four? Think Again.

Before voting to spend another $23 million to expand More at Four, lawmakers should be required to read the Charlotte Observer article by Ann Doss Helms, “Does Bright Beginnings really work?” Helms shows how Bright Beginnings  – which in part, served as the model for More at Four – was passed on the promise that CMS would track students throughout school.  CMS has not followed through on its promise.  Albeit, initial results show the program provided early educational benefits to disadvantaged children. Third grade math and reading scores reveal the gains of many disadvantaged students had shrunk considerably. The difficulties of keeping a control group together limited evidence about Bright Beginnings long term impacts. Despite the failed efforts at tracking and lack of positive evidence, the program continues to grow. 

Sound familiar? More at Four has developed much the same way – and regrettably shows many of the same shortcomings.  Helms notes that More at Four students are tracked only through kindergarten and also lack a viable control group. Just like Bright Beginnings, there were lots of promises from pre-school advocates but now there seems to be little proof. All the more reason to stop expanding More at Four and have it evaluated not by a UNC child development office, but by the Program and Evaluation Division of the General Assembly.

18 Years Old - Period

There are some new clever, but epicyclical, ways of determining whether someone is underage for drinking. For example, N.C. is considering vertical driver's licenses for people under 21. Now that's smart, but probably more bureaucratic and costly. So what would be the simple, copernican approach?

Let's make everything happen at 18. Drinking age. Driving age. Voting age. Soldiering age. Currently it's almost cliche to say that you can go to war and vote, but not drink a beer. We entrust driving priveges to 16-year-olds -- some of which would be better off with provisional or learners' licenses. The state should have a single age at which someone is considered a fully responsible agent and citizen. Why not 18? No crazy driver's licenses. No dubious restrictions based on traffic fatality reduction rates and drunk driving concerns. Just 18. Simple. Then we could prepare our children to be responsible citizens along the way without sending them mixed signals and unprincipled notions of rights and responsibilities.
-Max Borders

287(g) Refunded in Proposed House Budget

The N&O is reporting that House budget writers are proposing "$1 million to help sheriffs enforce federal immigration law."

In short, the House seems set to refund the 287(g) program. Last year's budget, allocated $750,000 in nonrecurring funds for the program, which is now in place in several counties throughout North Carolina, with the ongoing assistance and support of the N.C. Sheriffs' Association.

Contrary to charges made by the ACLU, the 287(g) program in North Carolina is a detention model, not a field model. This essentially means that local law enforcement are not actively investigating immigration violations, but only cooperating with ICE when they discover such violations while investigating other crimes. Insofar as sheriffs take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, local law enforcement have both a right and a duty to take such immigration violations seriously. House budget writers should be applauded for recognizing this fact.

What Recession?

Commerce Department says we're still growing.
-Max Borders

Do You Want Fries With That EITC?

From today's Finance Committee meeting comes approval of HB2642. The bill slightly increases the size of the state's Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The state tax credit will be in addition to the federal credit eligible people already receive. To be eligible, you must be below certain income thresholds, based on filing status and number of dependents.

According to Representative William Wainwright (D - Craven), the increase in the EITC will "help families make ends meet." Really?

According to analysis presented by the bill's sponsors, this new law will increase the average recipient's benefit by $24 - per year. That's right, $2 a month. Those ends better be awfully close together if 2 bucks a month will make them meet. All told, the newly increased EITC will provide the average recipient with less than $7 per month - many of these recipients will be families. Seven bucks a month may get you a super-sized value meal at McDonalds - but making ends meet? Please.

Further, the maximum benefit estimated for a family of four is estimated to be $20 a month. Whoopee! Take the family to Golden Corral - kids eat free on Tuesdays!

So what will this minuscule benefit cost North Carolina taxpayers - about $70 million a year. Not one word in that committee meeting was dedicated to the thousands of jobs that could be created if that $70 million were left in the hands of entrepreneurs around the state. But who can think of creating jobs when you are an omnipotent state legislator who can "do something" to help poor people "make ends meet?" Why bother yourself with such trivial details like cost-benefit analysis when you can pat yourself on the back and convince yourself you are a good person because you "helped" people.

Even more maddening was the discussion that the EITC is needed to offset the high burden that state and local taxes and fees place on poor people. Why not just lower those taxes instead? For example, last year lawmakers extended the 1/4 cent "temporary" sales tax - a tax that will extract $258 million from consumers, and hit the poor the hardest. But allowing people to keep more of their money in the first place erodes the amount of money Raleigh politicians control, and therefore chips away at their power.

Of course, lawmakers will always opt to increase dependency on government programs rather than promoting financial independence in the private marketplace. They've figured out that the more folks that are dependent on you, the more votes you will get.

Charlotte Observer: CATS Propaganda Arm

This is a bad piece of journalism - worst I've seen in a long time. Here's some of the fuzzy math and omitted information from the cheerleaders for Charlotte's rail system:

The average Lynx trip costs $2.70 in operating dollars, but that doesn't include the cost of building the line. [Right, what's that TOTAL cost per passenger?] Three-quarters of the train's $462.7 million cost came from federal and state grants [someone has to pay for that]. When CATS' portion of the train's capital cost is included, the per-passenger cost jumps to about $4.50. [So why not tell us the total capital cost instead of making it look like rail is cheaper than buses?]

The average bus trip is about $4.30, which doesn't include the cost of buying the bus. The cost is rising quickly due to fuel prices. [This is the most egregious bit. 1) Compare bus ridership to Lynx ridership, first. Then, 2) compare capital costs to capital costs. Then get back to me.]

The whole section quoted above is worthless at best, misleading and mendacious at worst. It doesn't matter if you packed that train to the gills. There will never be enough riders to make it cost effective. Never. (Update: the paper seems to justify omitting the total cost by saying that Mecklenburg residents don't pay for it directly (i.e. the rest of N.C. and taxpayers around the U.S. do. Concentrated benefits and dispersed costs.)


-Max Borders 

More on Collective Bargaining/Unions/Elections

To those on the left who mocked my question relating the issues, I give you this press release:

Union prepared to spend more than $150 million, mobilize tens of thousands during and AFTER the election to win healthcare, big improvements for working people.

Under the plan, SEIU leaders are pledging to spend more than $150 million and put tens of thousands of members in motion to achieve those goals by the end of the first 100 days of a new administration.

SEIU leaders also pledged to continue the union’s unprecedented growth by creating a national plan to unite more than 500,000 new members in the union by 2012. That would make SEIU the largest union in American history that is not exclusively public sector, and ensure that it has the strength to continue winning high standards of pay and benefits for its members and all working people.

So, once again, tell me how expanding collective bargaining rights to public employees and SEIU's involvement in elections aren't related?

What is a "Push Poll"? It's Not What the Left Says It Is.

Apparently I struck a nerve with some on the left with my poll question on collective bargaining.  Not only did Left-wing Cheerleader-in-Chief Chris Fitzsimon decry the results as "push polling", but the talking points were passed on to UNC Professor Andrew Perrin (who is basically a government-paid lobbyist for the labor unions) who accused us of the same on his blog.

Take a look at the definition of "push polling" by the polling community standards (and interestingly enough, it's the one Perrin links to on his blog.

Basically, a "push poll" is something that is not really a poll, but calls large quantities of people (usually voters) and spreads false information in order to influence public opinion, i.e. "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew that he had fathered 6 illegitimate children?"

Since we conducted an actual scientific telephone survey of a random sample of voters and published the results (that Fitzsimons likes to use when results turn out his way, btw), our poll does not fit the definition of a "push poll."

However, what our poll does do is it tests different messages, and that is perfectly legitimate.  Part of the debate in the public policy arena is how issues are framed and many issues can be framed many ways.  My question on collective bargaining framed the policy question in the terms of organized labor's participation in elections.  It was just another way to frame the debate on the issue of collective bargaining.

Unfortunately, Fitzsimon and Perrin are falling into the usual left-wing play book of using demonization and scare tactics to distract you from a poll result that they disagree with.  It is sad that they have to resort to this to get their message across.  If either would like to have a real debate on the perils of collective bargaining and the influence of big labor in our elections, I welcome it any time.  (As an aside, isn't it funny how Fitzsimon can on one had decry the influence of unregulated money in the political system and the need for clean elections, yet turn a blind eye to the millions of unregulated money spent by labor unions.)

Hugo Chavez Redux: In case you missed it.

Unbelievable.
-Max Borders

Offshore Drilling for N.C.?

Here's the legislation to study it. And the citizens agree, apparently. As gas prices continue to rise, let's see if this bill ever sees the light of day.
-Max Borders

Lessons From the Great Lakes

The economic woes up in my former home state of Michigan continue. Unfortunately for those that have not yet escaped, Governor Granholm somehow believes that state government can tax and spend their way out of recession. This WSJ piece provided a couple of valuable lessons for North Carolina.

"...the latest news of Michigan's deepening budget woe is a national warning of what happens when you raise taxes in a weak economy....Six months later one-third of the expected revenues have vanished as the state's economy continues to struggle. Income tax collections are falling behind estimates, as are property tax receipts and those from the state's transaction tax on home sales."

This dynamic effect should be no surprise. The more you tax an activity, the less of that activity there will be - the lowered economic activity thus creates disappointing tax revenues.

I may note here that one of the justifications for tax increases over the past several years both in Detroit and Michigan is population loss. That's right, for all you folks here in NC that argue or believe that population gains is an excuse for raising taxes - up north they try to justify tax hikes due to a shrinking population. Funny how that works, next thing you know politicians will tell us that no change in population also requires tax increases.

At any rate, Granholm stays true to her liberal ideology by putting her faith in government to turn around the state's economic woes:

"Ms. Granholm argued that these new taxes would raise some $1.3 billion in new revenue that could be "invested" in social spending and new businesses and lead to a Michigan renaissance."

Hmm, this rhetoric sounds awfully familiar to what the liberal leadership in Raleigh is serving up. Government investing in social spending and business development to grow the economy - how's that working out for you up in Michigan? Is this really the example we want to follow?

Of course, if you think that population growth is "out of control" in NC, continuing our tax and spend policies could reverse that trend, just as in Michigan:

"Michigan natives grumble that the only reason more people aren't blazing a path out of the state is they can't sell their homes."

Collectivism v. Individualism

The never-ending struggle between the collectivists and the individualists is becoming more clearly articulated these days, as evinced by this, this and this.

I think Boaz sums things up nicely:

The real issue is that Messrs. Obama and McCain are telling us Americans that our normal lives are not good enough, that pursuing our own happiness is "self-indulgence," that building a business is "chasing after our money culture," that working to provide a better life for our families is a "narrow concern."

They're wrong. Every human life counts. Your life counts. You have a right to live it as you choose, to follow your bliss. You have a right to seek satisfaction in accomplishment. And if you chase after the almighty dollar, you just might find that you are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do things that improve the lives of others.
-Max Borders

Recycling Destroys Wealth

As you can see from this article, the costs of recycling idiocy are going up and up.
-Max Borders

Are Illegal Immigrants Human?

In a previous post, I asked whether "illegal alien" is a hateful term, referring to the recent exchanges regarding this question in the News & Observer. Here, I want to respond to one letter, in particular. Written by the director of the Franciscan Coalition for Justice and Peace, the letter states:

In his May 18 column "The name game for immigrants," Public Editor Ted Vaden seemingly agonized over what to call people who enter the United States in violation of federal immigration law.

Illegal immigrant? Illegal alien? Undocumented worker? Unauthorized immigrant?

Here's one we could maybe consider: How about "human being"?

Insofar as the letter is written by a representative of the "Catholic Community of St. Francis of Assisi" of Raleigh, permit me to respond as one Catholic to another.

First, I wholeheartedly agree that illegal aliens are human beings. This is not up for debate. But, they are more than human beings, just as all of us are more than human beings. The human person, in fact, is never just a human being, but a human being who is always participating in several layers of relationships with other human persons. Generally speaking, these relationships are as follows: 1) a relationship with one's family (no human being is ever born outside of a family -- at least not yet); 2) a relationship with one's community, or country; 3) and a relationship to every other human being, characterized by John Paul II as the relation of "neighbor."

Questions related to illegal immigration are essentially related to this second relationship -- which is a political relationship. To use the language of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, the human being is a political being, which is also to say that he always has a particular connection to some political community or another -- in our case, the United States of America.

Indeed, even our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was not known simply as Jesus -- son of God, currently a resident of Earth. But, as Pilate prophetically called Him, "Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews." Jesus' devotion to his own people, his own tribe and nation (cf. Luke 13:34 and Matthew 15:24), is a hallmark of his humanity.

All this is to say that to be a human being is to be in relationship with a family, as well as a political community, as well as all other human beings (who are undoubtedly our neighbors.)

Much of the confusion over illegal immigration comes from giving undue weight to the relation of neighbor or family over that of citizen. In truth, the integrity of the human person requires that each of these relationships coexist in a complementary fashion.

In the end, referring to any person as simply a "human being" is inadequate -- and, arguably, de-humanizing.

Jameson Taylor

Is Illegal Alien a Hateful Term?

This past Sunday, the N&O devoted its Sunday forum to illegal immigration. Many of the letters voiced opposition or support for a previous letter that characterized the term "illegal alien" as "hateful."

As our regular readers know, the term illegal alien is not hateful at all, but an innocuous legal term that refers to an alien (i.e., a foreign national) who is in the United States illegally.

The truth of the matter is that "illegal alien" is not a hateful term, but a term that the Left hates. Liberals hate the use of illegal alien because it reminds the public of what is at stake here ... that opposition to illegal immigration has nothing to do with race or, even immigration, but with respect for the law.

In the end, of course, liberals hate the law too. And, with the law, reason. Hence, all that is left is demonization of one's opponents -- and with this demonization, comes a dehumanization, as we saw with the Nazi regime (recall that the Nazis were socialists) and communist Russia.

Democrat Majority Leader Proposes Early Release for Criminal Illegal Immigrants

N.C. Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand (D) has introduced a new bill (SB 1955) that would release criminal illegal immigrants from North Carolina jails into the custody of ICE for theoretical deportation.

While Rand's bill might sound like a good idea, it contains one fatal flaw: criminal illegal aliens deported by ICE routinely return to the United States. Thus, Rand's bill amounts to granting early release to criminal illegal aliens. In fact, Rand is proposing that criminal illegal aliens eligible for early conditional release need only serve half! the time that a U.S. citizen convicted of the same crime would get.

While concerns over prison overcrowding are legitimate, Rand's bill is not the solution. Criminal illegal aliens need to do the full time they deserve. Under Senator Rand's bill, that won't happen.

Healthcare Reform a la John Goodman

He's nailed the trends and the fixes. Here's a sliver:

Reform Idea: So what can be done? To ameliorate all five trends and neutralize perverse incentives there should be a government commitment of $X (in this case $1,500) to every individual. Those who choose private insurance would receive a refundable tax credit to offset premium costs. For those who do not insure, $X would be sent to local safety nets in the communities where they live - to be spent on Medicaid-type programs or on free care services.

This plan (1) makes private insurance just as attractive as public insurance as far as subsidies are concerned, (2) makes a fixed financial commitment to every individual, (3) lets money follow people as they move from insured to uninsured status and vice versa, and (4) guarantees a minimum per capita funding for the safety net.

Now read John's five megatrends. They'll be similar to ones I've enumerated here. Remember, that direct subsidy of healthcare will remove some if not all of the distortions of the current system.
-Max Borders

Ed Budget Update

Even though the number crunching is far from over, there’s good and bad in Wednesday’s release of draft budget recommendations from the Joint Appropriations Subcommittee on Education.  While the current numbers still must be reviewed by Chairs of the Appropriations Committees, the lack of extra money has worked to keep spending – relatively speaking -- in check.  The increase in the K-12 budget is about a 1 percent increase over approved FY2008-09 budget levels.  On the negative side, there’s still enough questionable K-12 spending  in the education budget to infuriate most North Carolinians.  Some of the worst examples include: 

ABC Bonuses
The subcommittee recommended $90 million in ABC bonuses ($70 million  in FY 2007-08) for schools that meet or exceed expected growth in 2007-08 school year. That’s a lot of money. Is it worth it? Since 2000, NC has paid out approximately $760 million in bonuses. I’m all for rewarding excellence, but last I checked 42 percent of NC schools did not make AYP goals (2005). In 2007 Only 46 percent of white and 14 percent of black eighth grade math students were classified as "proficient" or above on 2007 NAEP math tests. Performance is an issue as well as how the ABC bonuses are distributed. ABC bonuses are based on school performance, NOT on individual merit.  In my view, ABC bonuses merely dilute and work against the concept of true merit pay -- a concept the entire system sorely needs. 

Low Wealth
The subcommittee recommended a second year of one-time funding ($2.9 million in non-sSupplemental Funding from FY 2007-08. I always assumed a drop in the need or eligibility for Low Wealth Counties Supplemental Funding was a good thing. The committee is saying, we need to provide additional assistance because improved economic conditions are creating a hardship for the district. Go figure.

Dropout Prevention Grants.
The subcommittee recommended an expansion of the dropout prevention grants from $7 million to $10 million.  While this may look like a good thing, don’t be fooled. Terry Stoops of the John Locke Foundation raises some legitimate criticisms of the program. Instead of being targeted to high need areas, many of the grants are going to schools that already have considerable resources to address dropouts or don’t really have a dropout problem.  A good program evaluation – such as those being conducted by the Program and Evaluation Division of the General Assembly -- would normally bring to light such shortcomings.  However, if the Joint Legislative Commission on Dropout Prevention and High School Graduation gets its way, that will never happen.  As I wrote about previously, the final draft of Commission’s report deleted language requiring the Program and Evaluation division to evaluate the impact of dropout prevention grants. The current language merely requires DPI to evaluate the recipients and report back to the legislature. There are several problems here. First does anyone really think DPI is going provide an unbiased and better evaluation than the Program and Evaluation division? Secondly, and equally important; why are we expanding a program that is poorly targeted and lacks sufficient evidence to say it is even working?

Right Wing Strategery

My friend Jon Henke and some of his brainy pals have started a new site called Next Right. Check it out.
-Max Borders

Green Corporate Welfare

Here's a bill by our dear economically challenged Janet Cowell (D-Wake) - yes, she's running for state treasurer [yikes] - to bribe companies/developers to be more energy efficient. With the rising costs of energy, isn’t there already an incentive for companies to do that? My colleague Brian Balfour asks: "Can the government reimburse me for a new air conditioner (an energy efficient one, of course)?"
-Max Borders

Gas Prices: Incentives (or Disencentives) Matter

People will change their behavior if it affects their pocketbooks. Incentives matter. Is that free-market fundamentalism or a law of economics?
-Max Borders

Good Reporting

Follow Laura Leslie's reporting on NC corruption...

Healthcare: Another Lesson in Government Failure

This WSJ article describes what anyone with a lick of common sense could have predicted. Massachusetts's "Romneycare" plan is already coming in wildly over budget, and government run "free" healthcare is simply unaffordable.

"One lesson here is that while pledging "universal" coverage is easy, the harder problem is paying for it. This year's appropriation for Commonwealth Care was $472 million, but officials have asked for an add-on that will bring it to $625 million. For 2009, Governor Deval Patrick requested $869 million but has already conceded that even that huge figure is too low. Over the coming decade, the expected overruns float in as much as $4 billion over budget."

Never to be discouraged by actual fact and results, our two leading Democratic presidential contenders are clinging to their ideological faith of government being the solution to, well, everything.

"Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both proposing versions of RomneyCare on a national scale, with similar promises that covering everyone under a government plan will reduce costs. Mr. Obama at least argues that more people would be covered were insurance more affordable. But his solution is Massachusetts on steroids – make insurance less expensive for policyholders by transferring the extra costs onto the government. Mrs. Clinton likes that but also wants the individual mandate, despite the mediocre results so far."

Voters in North Carolina should take note as our lawmakers move incrementally to shift more and more of our population onto government health care programs (i.e. Medicaid, NC Health Choice, Kids Care).

Recycling Plastic Bags: Goofy Reasoning

(Update: The perils of not reading the whole article. I was hasty. See Elma's post below.)

Representative Pricey Harrison (D) has introduced a bill that would force stores to recycle plastic bags. Now, here's what the News & Record says about it (followed by my commentary) - though the N&R still doesn't agree with Rep. Harrison's legislation:

• "Plastic bags burden landfills: It's estimated Americans discard 100 billion of these bags annually. Because they don't easily biodegrade, they are likely to be plaguing us for centuries."

Actually, since plastics are petroleum products, and the price for petroleum is nearing record levels, it may eventually be cost-effective not only to pay people to bring their bags back, but to strip mine the landfills for plastics... But even if they aren't mined, why would a landfill "plague" anyone for centuries? It's not like people live in landfills. If they live near them, a plastic bag isn't going to creep out and attack them. This makes no sense.

• Plastic bags waste finite resources: Less than .5 percent of a barrel of oil or unit of natural gas goes toward making plastic bags, but that still is significant.

I, of course, make this point above, but add some rational economic analysis. So why should we worry? Price signals change behavior; not regulations. That's what you get when journalists weigh in on things they don't understand, which happens all too often.

• Plastic bags harm wildlife. It's thought that plastic bags contribute to the deaths of birds and sea mammals.

I'll pass over the fact that wind turbines harm birds significantly more than plastic bags - the former which the News & Record vociferously advocates - but there is no reason to think that they're less likely to harm a bird flying out of the back of someone's pickup truck on the way to being recycled. At least with the landfill, we know where it's going.

Here's why the N&R doesn't agree (again, my apologies for being hasty):

"Still, we don't support Harrison's legislation, which requires retailers of more than 10,000 square feet to provide a collection site for plastic bags and to arrange for the bags' recycling.

People who want to recycle plastic bags already have ample opportunity to do so through the voluntary recycling programs run by major grocery store chains in our state. Also, if enacted, Harrison's bill wouldn't reduce plastic bag use by 75 percent, the legislation's intended goal. Officials in San Francisco estimate a similar program in that city resulted in only about 1 percent of bags getting recycled. That city now has banned retailers from using plastic bags.

A less Draconian but effective measure is taxing bags. That's what Ireland has done (and what Seattle is considering doing). After Ireland put a tax on plastic bags (the rate is now 22 euro cents per bag), consumers began carrying reusable ones -- reducing the use of plastic bags there 95 percent. (And paper bags, which have their own baggage, weren't allowed to be substituted: The government said it would tax them if retailers tried to switch.)"

-Max Borders

Light Rail: Blueprint for a Boondoggle

The multi-billion dollar dreams of government planners are now complete for yuppies and developers to salivate over. If you think this is a good idea, here are some thoughts for you.
-Max Borders

Corruption North Carolina: File Another One

How many instances of corruption must come to light before the citizens of this state say enough? Here's yet another.
-Max Borders

Libertarians are Back in NC!

According to Mark Binker at the Greensboro N&R, Gary Bartlett will sign a letter today officially recognizing the Libertarian Party (once again) as an official political party in North Carolina.

North Carolina Elections Director Gary Bartlett said he is about to sign a letter that will give the Libertarian Party the same status as Republicans and Democrats in North Carolina.

“They have sufficient numbers to be recognized as a new party,” Bartlett said.

Starting today, voters will be able to register as Libertarians and Libertarian candidates chosen by the party will be put on the fall election ballot.

Now sit back and watch the exodus from the GOP begin...

The Public Disconnect Between Bonds and Taxes

While reading through this article in the Greensboro News-Record about a county commissioner's push to increase their local sales tax, this specific passage jumped out at me:

"Guilford County voters this month approved $651.4 million in bonds for schools, GTCC and a county jail. And after the vote, many commissioners said the only option to pay for the debt would be through property tax rate increases. On that same day, a quarter-cent sales tax failed by a 3-to-1 vote."

The fact that bonds are approved by voters so routinely while local tax increases continue to be defeated by wide margins provides more evidence to a theory of mine: many voters simply are not aware of what it means when they approve a bond. I believe many of them do not understand that they are authorizing an increase of their local government's debt. A debt that will have to be repaid - with interest - using their tax dollars.(For many years, I was one of those people) This lack of understanding explains, in part, why voters approve bonds so frequently while rejecting tax increases - they don't realize that approving a bond will put upward pressure on their tax burden.

Another factor, I believe, is that the bonds are always sold to the public as paying for something specific like schools or parks, so citizens are made to feel guilty about "rejecting" such projects.

How can we fix this disconnect? How about some "truth in lending" practices on bond referenda, one of our recommendations in our Budget & Taxes Blueprint:

"The state should mandate that “responsible lending” language be included on bond referendums. Specific details about the total amount required to repay the debt, including a breakdown of principle and interest, should be required in the ballot language. Voters should also be clearly informed that the spending of bond funds is above and beyond the current operating budget and thus constitute a new spending burden. Finally, the ballot language should clearly explain that the debt will be repaid using tax dollars and that a tax increase might be required to finance the debt."

I would be very curious to see the approval rate of bonds if government became more transparent about the debt they are issuing.

Poll: McCain 44 Obama 39

As earlier promised, here are the Presidential numbers from this month's poll.

Full release here.

Among all voters, Sen. McCain leads Sen. Obama 44-39; however, only 58 percent of Democrats said they would vote for Senator Obama. 22 percent would vote for McCain while 20 percent were unsure. Conversely, McCain is garnering 77 percent of Republican support, with 11 percent choosing Obama and only 12 percent unsure.

Only 27 percent of white voters say they plan to vote for Obama, however Obama is capturing 90 percent of the African-American vote.

Obama is garnering less white Democratic support than other statewide Democratic candidates. Among white Democrats, 43 percent support Obama, 55 percent support Bev Perdue for Governor and 60 percent support Kay Hagan for U.S. Senate (Full results of those races coming late).

Obama has not garnered more than 39 percent of the vote in any of Civitas’ polling in North Carolina.

February – McCain 46, Obama 36
April – McCain 48, Obama 39

Poll: NC Voters Oppose Collective Bargaining

Full press release here.  Highlights follow...

Now that the State Employees Association of North Carolina (SEANC) has officially aligned with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), these groups have made overturning North Carolina’s ban on collective bargaining their highest priority. Unfortunately for them, the voters disagree.

When asked if state employees and teachers’ unions should be able to engage in collective bargaining with elected officials they might endorse in elections, 56 percent said no. Only 30 percent thought it should be allowed. 14 percent were undecided.

Not even a majority of self-identified government employees approved of collective bargaining when asked – 49 percent approved, 40 percent disapproved.

Full text of question:

Should state employee and teacher's unions be allowed to engage in collective bargaining with elected officials they might endorse in elections?

Yes - 30%
No - 56%
Not Sure - 14%

Poll: Voters Approve of Marriage Amendment

Sorry for the delay in getting this up on the blog... Been a long couple of days at the General Assembly.

Full release here.

With the recent decision by the California Supreme Court overturning its state’s ban on gay marriage still in the headlines, voters in North Carolina strongly support enacting an Amendment to the North Carolina Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

When asked, 71 percent of voters support enacting the Amendment while only 26 percent are opposed.  Three percent were not sure.

Among African-American voters, 86 percent favor the marriage amendment, while only 13 percent oppose. The margin among white voters is considerably closer at 67-30.

Full text of question:

Do you support a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman?

Yes - 71%
No - 26%
Not Sure - 3%

Your Elected Officials Hard at Work

Budget to pass? Transportation needs in the state?

None of that is being done today.

Nope, as I write this the Honorables in the NC House are "debating" a resolution honoring the Person County High School girls volleyball team.

Yep, that is apparently the most pressing issue in the state. At least the Senate is tackling anti-gang legislation.

And tomorrow they are all taking off to Greensboro for an honorary session there (so nothing will happen tomorrow either).

$125,000 a week -- that's what you're paying for.

Light Rail: Some Thoughts

For the proposed Triangle light rail system, consider this:

- $3 billion will serve (at most) 3 percent of the population on any given day.
- Less than 1 percent of congestion will be relieved. Some light rail traffic is lunch-goers and site-see-ers.
- If the most ambitious estimate - 25,000 per day - is true, you could buy every potential rider 4 Toyota Priuses.
- Or, you could buy each of those people a Prius and buy 2000 miles more roadway for them to drive on.
- Where are they planning light rail? Chapel Hill, Cary, North Raleigh and Duke -- the wealthiest parts of the state. Is this so wealthy people don't have to take buses?
- You'll be subsidizing 90-95% of mostly wealthy people's tickets.
- The average light rail line in America takes only 1/5 the riders of the average comparable highway mile. It costs 5 Xs as much.

Chew on those tidbits for a while.
-Max Borders

Voters Oppose Gas Tax Holiday

But support drilling off the coast of North Carolina.  Here's the full release.

Full text of questions:

Do you support a proposed gas tax holiday over the summer months or believe these funds should be kept for road construction and maintenance in North Carolina?

Support Holiday - 28%
Kept for Roads - 60%
Not Sure - 12%

Do you support or oppose oil and gas exploration off the coast of North Carolina?

Support - 68%
Oppose - 20%
Not Sure - 11%

Gas Prices: Some Sanity

Excellent perspective on gas prices in this interactive presentation. Enjoy.
-Max Borders

Poll Results Coming this Week

Our May DecisionMaker poll results are in and I'll be releasing the details over the next few days leading up to the full results at our monthly luncheon next Wednesday.  (Register here to attend).

We've got some really good information in this month's poll that we're billing as a "Preview of the Upcoming General Assembly Session."

A little teaser on what's coming:
Later today:  Gas tax holiday and the marriage amendment
Tomorrow: Collective bargaining for state employees
Thursday: A first look at the Federal races for the General election (President and US Senate)
Friday: Governor and Lt. Governor numbers

So check back throughout the week for the latest insight and analysis here on the blog as well.

Oops... Accidentally Deleted "A million a Mile?"

According to the Greensboro News & Record, State Rep. Nelson Cole seems to peg the cost of road construction at $1 million per mile - no wonder we're running out of money for roads...

Here's the excerpt:

"The cost is going to equate to what it costs us to pave 20 miles of new road, and we just can't afford to do that," said Rep. Nelson Cole, a Rockingham County Democrat who is chairman of a pair of key committees on transportation. He estimated that compliance with the law this year would cost at least $20 million, largely for computer upgrades.

(Commenters, please feel free to repost your comment. Accidents happen.)

It's the Law, Stupid

The N&O reported last week that the N.C. Center for Public Policy Research (have you seen their website?) will be releasing a report that claims that illegal immigrants are one of the keys to solving North Carolina's "looming worker shortage."

What shortage?

North Carolina's unemployment rate has increased three months in a row.

As of March 2008, 234,086 workers were unemployed in North Carolina. This number does not include thousands of working-age residents who are not counted as part of the civilian labor force because they are not looking for a full-time job. Many of these people would go back to work full-time if offered a suitable opportunity. Shouldn’t we find jobs for these people before we hand over their jobs to illegal aliens?

Moreover, economic historians have repeatedly found that during those periods when the U.S. labor supply contracted -– such as after the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924 –- tight labor markets stimulated capital investment and operating efficiencies that raised productivity by 40 percent.

This is not to say that the retirement of the baby boomers won't put tremendous pressure on our economy and society. It will. But what should the solution be? Illegally importing millions of low-skilled laborers? This is a recipe for disaster, to say the least because low-skilled immigrants pay less in taxes than they use in services.

Or, encouraging investment (by cutting the capital gains tax) and the state income tax and encouraging the legal immigration of high-skilled workers? Of course, if we really have a labor shortage, the best policy is to "grow" our own labor by: 1) training legal workers who are already here; and 2) making abortion illegal again.

What is most important here is that a strong economy must be based on the rule of law. Thus, this issue should not be framed as a zero-sum game between breaking the law and preserving the economy. We can choose both: to obey the law and to enact a labor policy that will better serve our economy.

Economic solutions based on breaking the law are short-sighted and just plain stupid. If we want to grow the economy, let's start by obeying the law.

Liberals for School Choice?

Florida seems to be undergoing a school choice revolution - finally - with liberals coming aboard. A sliver:

When Florida passed a law in 2001 creating the Corporate Tax Credit Scholarship Program for underprivileged students, all but one Democrat in the state legislature voted against it. Earlier this month, lawmakers extended the program – this time with the help of a full third of Democrats in the Legislature, including 13 of 25 members of the state's black caucus and every member of the Hispanic caucus. What changed?

Our guess is that low-income parents in Florida have gotten a taste of the same school choice privileges that middle- and upper-income families have always enjoyed. And they've found they like this new educational freedom. Under the scholarship program, which is means-tested, companies get a 100% tax credit for donations to state-approved nonprofits that provide private-school vouchers for low-income families.

-Max Borders

Easley's Pessimistic View of You

Borders had an excellent piece in yesterday's Fayetteville Observer on the best way to help "those in need."

Our Governor thinks so little of the people of North Carolina, that he believes the most vulnerable among us will be cast aside without the "help" of those angelic bureaucrats in Raleigh:

"Third, Easley claims that without government, the state’s most vulnerable people would be neglected and “not receive the critical aid they need.” That means you, dear reader, would neglect them — unless a more enlightened majority voted against your selfish demons. But is that true? Easley is offering us a low-cost way to vote away our sense of moral responsibility for our neighbors and our communities. That moral sense will then be entrusted to an army of bureaucrats who know better than you what your community needs. But isn’t that just compulsory compassion based on a pessimistic view of mankind?"

Borders suggests there is a better way to help those in need than subjecting them to dependency on a faceless bureaucracy:

"So as the pendulum between left and right swings back and forth between election days, let me humbly suggest that we stop thinking of the world in terms of dualities such as government welfare and self-reliance. Instead, let’s embrace a third way. Let’s return the government to its rightful place protecting our lives, our liberty and our property. Then we can get together and help those in our communities without making them dependent, or robbing them of the dignity that comes with work and upward mobility."

Tolls and HOT lanes in N.C.?

Taft Wireback has a good piece on tollways for the News & Record. Pay-per-use is the way forward.
-Max Borders

Education: Funding Formulas Reformed?

North Carolina spends  $7.9 billion on K-12 education. Much of that money is distributed to LEAs and local schools through 13 different formulas. Doubtless, the average citizen finds many of these formulas dated, convoluted and unnecessarily complicated.  To remedy these issues, the Joint Legislative Study Committee on Public School Funding Formulas has been meeting for the past several months in hopes of improving how the state distributes money to the schools. This past Thursday the committee issued its interim report. Some of the committee’s recommendations include:

·         Mentoring Allotment – The commission recommends a significant expansion to the current Mentor Pay program ($8.1 million) to provide mentors for all first and second year teachers and instructional personnel. The committee also wants the state to pick up the tab for mentors for teachers  as well as those who aren’t paid by the state (Why?).  The cost to provide mentors to all first and second year teachers and instructional personnel: $7.9 million. I see little evidence touting the success of such programs. Double the money and give LEAs more flexibility in spending? It doesn’t sound like a good plan.
 

·         Transportation – Funding inconsistencies between LEAs have occupied much of the committee’s time. To remedy an immediate shortfall in funding due to the rapid escalation in gas prices, the committee recommends transferring $47 million from general fund estimates and another $7.5 million to a reserve fund to cover additional increases in costs.

·         Education Lottery Reserve –To compensate for counties that don’t qualify for Education Lottery supplemental proceeds, the committee recommends using $32 million from lottery reserve and distributing it to districts to equalize the ADM distribution for FY07-08. Yes, there are things wrong with the current formula, but this proposal is much worse than the problem.

Reviewing all thirteen funding formulas is a large task and won’t be finished this year. The highlighted recommendations and the inevitable tweaking are sure to keep the committee in the news. More later. 

 

 

Pro-life and Family Legislation

Here is a rundown of the pro-life and family legislation introduced during the 2007-2008 session:

ABORTION/REPRODUCTIVE ISSUES

H 1782 Ultrasound Before An Abortion
H 419 State Health Plan/No Abortion Coverage
H 1552 WRTK-Woman's Right to Know
S 481 Notarized Consent for Minor's Abortion
H 420 Abortion-Parental Consent Notarized
S 480 No Abortion Coverage/State Health Plan
H 155 Conscience Protection/Health Care Providers
S 897 Choose Life Special Registration Plate
H 1774 Born Alive Infant Protection Act
S 968 Born Alive Infant Protection Act

FETAL HOMICIDE
H 263 Unborn Victims of Violence
S 295 Fetal Murder

SEXUAL/EMOTIONAL EDUCATION
H 879 Modify School Health Education Program
S 664 Social-Emotional Curriculum in Public Schools

MARRIAGE
H 493 Defense of Marriage
S 1608 Defense of Marriage
S 13 Defense of Marriage

HOMOSEXUALITY
H 1366 School Violence Prevention Act

VACCINES
S 1018 Vaccine Requirements/School Entry
S 710 Immunization Changes-AB

See, also, our recap from last session.

And, if we missed anything, please let us know.

Conservative Bills Filed

During the opening week of the Legislature's so-called "short" session, conservative lawmakers are filing honest to goodness conservative bills.  Senator Jim Forrester (R-Gaston) has once again introduced the Defense of Marriage bill SB 1608.
Dr. Forrester has been a tireless advocate of defining marriage and has decided once again to rally the troops and charge up the hill.  Unfortunately,  what waits at the top of this metaphorical hill is likely to be Don Quixote's windmill.  The leadership of the Senate has probably already picked out just the place for this bill to die: Bill Prison, aka the Ways and Means Committee.  For the uninitiated, the W&M committee hasn't met since 2001.

A similar fate occurred in the NC House last session when Speaker Hackney showed just how open to debate he really was when he refused to allow a vote on the floor and killed HB 493 Read more here.

The issue has even great urgency now that the California Supreme Court has decided to overturn thousands of years of practice tradition and law by declaring gay marriage to be legal on the Left Coast.

The legislative leadership may find a bill delayed to be more of a campaign issue than a bill voted on.

Another conservative bill was filed this week by Senator Robert Pittenger (R-Mecklenburg) was SB 1596 entitled the NC Citizen Protection Act.  The bill attempts to roll up North Carolina's welcome mat for illegal aliens by requiring municipalities and their contractors to verify the legal status of their employees and  make it a crime for a business to fire a citizen while the business still employs an illegal alien.  The bill also shares a number of provisions with Rep. Debbie Clary's bill HB 55 as well as Georgia's law that went into effect in 2007. 

Critics will charge Pittenger with election year grandstanding due to his candidacy for the office of Lieutenant Governor, but, given the way the Senate conducts its business, this may be the only way he can communicate his ideas to the voters.  Since the Senate leadership will not  allow floor votes on bills they deign to be politically risky to the majority, the only thing a conservative can do is make a big splash when filing a bill.

Voters should have the opportunity to cast their vote for the candidate whose beliefs most closely match their own.  And the phrase "Actions speak louder than words" has real life relevance when you can review an incumbent's voting record.  But, if the leaders of your legislative body are skillful at preventing votes on issues that may inform and motivate the voters in a direction the leadership may not want, then you have a situation that now exists in the North Carlina General Assembly.  Members may tell the folks back home how much they support both the Defense of Marriage Act  as well as cracking down on illegal immigration without ever having to cast a vote for or against it and the rubes in the district are none the wiser.

An Earmark for your relative?

While not quite rising to the level of nepotism, the bill sponsored by Representatives Joe Tolson & Tricia Cotham should raise some eyebrows. It will provide $3,000,000 to the North Carolina Biotechnology Center to fund the expansion of it's headquarters building. With 170 elected representatives in the NC Legislature surely one of the other 169 could have introduced (in the senate) or co-sponsored this bill in the house so that the relationship of one of the primary sponsors to the President & CEO of this private non-profit would not be an issue. Of course the Biotechnology Center has been a major recipient of state money so why change things now...

Real ID: Small Price to Pay

Representatives Cole (D) and Coates (D) just filed a bill that would prevent North Carolina from participating in Real ID. The bill rightly refers to Real ID as an unfunded federal mandate, but then comically goes on to say that "compliance with the provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005 will result in a fiscal cost that the State cannot afford."

Who are they kidding? The total cost to implement Real ID for North Carolina has been put at $20 million -- this represents 1/10 of the $200 million in pork barrel spending the General Assembly approved last session. Indeed, $20 million is 0.01 percent of the current state budget.

The Department of Homeland Security is providing $360 million to assist states in implementing Real ID. Moreover, identity theft costs U.S. citizens some $68 billion a year.

I encourage folks to have genuine dialogue over the merits of Real ID -- but saying the state can't afford the $20 million Real ID might cost is simply not true. What do you think? Is Real ID worth it?

How the Rest of the World Handles Illegal Immigration

Italian police arrested 400 illegal aliens in a raid today, immediately expelling 53 of them.

I would bet that ICE hardly made more arrests last year - before their recent "crack down."

What is most astonishing is that Italian authorities worked with Libyan officials to actually arrest hundreds of would-be illegal aliens before they even arrived in Italy.

Budget Myth: Cig Taxes Will Pay for Teacher Salaries

All we've heard this week on t