July 04, 2009

'Freedom is slavery,' circa 2009

Posted by Jon Sanders at 2:52 PM

We are facing an array of challenges on a scale unseen in our time. We are waging two wars. We are battling a deep recession. And our economy – and our nation itself – are endangered by festering problems we have kicked down the road for far too long: spiraling health care costs; inadequate schools; and a dependence on foreign oil.

Meeting these extraordinary challenges will require an extraordinary effort on the part of every American. And that is an effort we cannot defer any longer.

Now is the time to lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity. Now is the time to revamp our education system, demand more from teachers, parents, and students alike, and build schools that prepare every child in America to outcompete any worker in the world.

Now is the time to reform an unsustainable health care system that is imposing crushing costs on families, businesses, large and small, and state and federal budgets. We need to protect what works, fix what’s broken, and bring down costs for all Americans. No more talk. No more delay. Health care reform must happen this year.

And now is the time to meet our energy challenge – one of the greatest challenges we have ever confronted as a people or as a planet. For the sake of our economy and our children, we must build on the historic bill passed by the House of Representatives, and make clean energy the profitable kind of energy so that we can end our dependence on foreign oil and reclaim America’s future.

These are some of the challenges that our generation has been called to meet. And yet, there are those who would have us try what has already failed; who would defend the status quo. They argue that our health care system is fine the way it is and that a clean energy economy can wait. They say we are trying to do too much, that we are moving too quickly, and that we all ought to just take a deep breath and scale back our goals.

These naysayers have short memories. They forget that we, as a people, did not get here by standing pat in a time of change. We did not get here by doing what was easy. That is not how a cluster of 13 colonies became the United States of America.

We are not a people who fear the future. We are a people who make it. And on this July 4th, we need to summon that spirit once more. We need to summon the same spirit that inhabited Independence Hall two hundred and thirty-three years ago today.

It's not going to work. You can call your freedom-destroying statism many things, give it whatever euphemism you want, but not even "sort of God" can honestly say that the spirit of liberty is upheld by enslaving people to the power of government.

Own up to the fact, Mr. President, that the Declaration of Independence does mention your kind of government when it denounces King George. Consider especially this part:

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat our their substance

I agree with Obama in that last statement. From this Independence Day forward, we need to summon the same spirit that inhabited Independence Hall two hundred and thirty-three years ago today. We need to summon that spirit to kick out those who would grow government on our backs, destroy our opportunities, eat out our substance, harass us with multitudes of new regulations and swarms of czars, and to our faces call it freedom and progress. Sic semper tyrannis.

Linkable Entry

Happy Independence Day!

Posted by Terry Stoops at 09:13 AM

"It is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God it shall be my dying sentiment, — Independence now and Independence forever."

Daniel Webster
Eulogy on Adams and Jefferson
Aug. 2, 1826

Linkable Entry

Issues with Apex?

Posted by Rick Henderson at 08:45 AM

Happy Independence Day, everyone!

The N&O's Triangle Politics column writes up JLF's N.C. Transparency Initiative by noting that officials in Apex seem a bit nonplussed they got a "D."

Town Manager Bruce Radford said the documents would have been made available to the organization had it asked for them.

"We run quite a transparent operation," Radford assured Triangle Politics. "We'd be happy to give that information to anybody who came today. ... To my knowledge, we have never denied a request for any public information."

Well, at least not since last month.

Town officials, including Radford, sat on public planning documents related to a massive real-estate project that could add 20,000 residents and more than double the town's tax base -- despite e-mail, telephone and in-person requests for the documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

Apex finally released the documents, several days after they were submitted, and a couple of hours after town officials hosted a back-slapping news conference with the developer.

Looks as if the transparency site is already holding some folks accountable (or, at a minimum, making them uncomfortable).

Linkable Entry

July 03, 2009

Text of the Eminent Domain Amendment

Posted by Daren Bakst at 5:47 PM

As I have argued, the eminent domain amendment (HB 1268) that may be considered in the House next week is a cure worse than the disease.

Here's the text of the amendment:

"Private property shall not be taken by eminent domain except for a public use. Public use does not include the taking of property in order to convey an interest in the property for economic development. This paragraph does not apply to the taking of physically blighted properties as defined by general law, nor to takings for access to property. Just compensation shall be paid and, if demanded, shall be determined by a jury."

There are many problems with this amendment.  I just want to focus on the "physically blighted" language.  The second sentence creates the "prohibition" on economic development takings.  The third sentence then creates exceptions to the general prohibition: Economic development takings are allowed if the property is physically blighted or the taking is for access to property.

The problem is that "physically blighted" can mean almost anything--also notice that the legislature will be able to define its meaning--so, for all practical purposes, "physically blighted" will mean whatever the legislature wants it to mean.

This is a case where the exception swallows the rule--the exception of taking property for blight, to a large extent, completely negates the actual prohibition on economic development takings.

BTW: Just an example of the sloppiness of this amendment: Notice how it says "This paragraph shall not apply to the taking of physically blighted properties..."  As currently drafted, the just compensation sentence is part of the paragraph--is the amendment saying that just compensation doesn't need to be awarded when the seized property is physically blighted?  It certainly reads that way.

There could be some fragile compromise that is at stake if the amendment is changed (this would be typical), but that is no excuse for pushing a poor amendment through.

Linkable Entry

Re: The "Vote" Charade

Posted by Becki Gray at 1:30 PM

 More on this charade and the politics of the referendum amendment is reported in the Winston Salem Journal this morning.  

In part….

Until yesterday, Democrats had consistently blocked attempts by Republicans to require referendums before cities could engage in forced annexation.

Holliman, however, said he has long favored giving residents a vote. He represents the Lexington area, where many people are angry over that city's recent annexation efforts..

Republicans, especially Rep. Dale Folwell, R-Forsyth, accused Holliman yesterday of offering the amendment as a political maneuver to try to shield himself from the anger in his district. Holliman strongly denied that.

Folwell accused Holliman of using the amendment as "a political charade."

During a testy part of yesterday's meeting, Holliman responded sharply, saying that Folwell "has no idea what a political charade is."

I think we're all getting an idea of what a charade the annexation referendum vote is.

Linkable Entry

This weekend on Carolina Journal Radio

Posted by Mitch Kokai at 06:50 AM

Some lawmakers are haggling over property rights issues as well. Daren Bakst will make his case for expanding one bill moving now through the General Assembly to increase property owners’ protection against eminent domain abuse.

We’ll hear from Fox News and Weekly Standard rising star Mary Katharine Ham, who will share her ideas about the major political controversies of the day. Ham spoke at the recent Take Back Our State Tea Party, and we’ll also hear words of wisdom an 85-year-old World War II veteran delivered at another recent Tea Party.

Plus we’ll learn why N.C. Common Cause executive director Bob Phillips supports creation of an independent redistricting commission for the Tar Heel State.

Linkable Entry

July 02, 2009

The "Vote" Charade

Posted by Daren Bakst at 5:53 PM

Here's a Q & A on how the annexation vote would work (as passed by the House Finance Committee):

Q: How many signatures have to be collected to get a vote?

A: It requires 15% of the total registered voters of the municipality plus annexed area.

Let's take Raleigh as an example.  It has 251,654 registered voters.  This means that someone would have to get 38,198 signatures AND then add 15% of the number of registered voters from the annexed area.  Let's say there are 2,000 registered voters in an annexed area--we would add 300 people.

Note: When gathering signatures for petitions, there always is a need to collect more signatures than needed due to challenges (and the possibility of ineligible people signing it).  The number of signatures needed would likely be much higher.

Basically, someone would need to get about 39,000 signatures (not including the extra signatures that would be needed) to have a vote if being annexed by Raleigh.  As if that would ever happen.

Since this isn't a research paper and I'm not suggesting exact numbers, let me do some quick and dirty math.  NC has 9.2 million people and 6.2 million registered voters--the % of total population that consists of registered voters is 67%--I'm going to apply that to population numbers.

Let's take a much smaller city, like Goldsboro with 37,639 people--it would have about 25,000 registered voters.  Someone would "only" need to get about 3,750 signatures (not including the 15% from the annexed area and the extra signatures that would be needed).

Q: How much time does someone have to get the signatures?

A: This is where it really gets amusing.  The referendum petitions may only be picked up after the resolution of intent has been adopted.  The petition must be provided to a municipality before the tenth day after the public hearing (i.e. 9 days).  The public hearing is no less than 60 days and no more than 90 days after adoption of the resolution of intent.

Short Answer:  Someone could have as short a period of time as 69 days!  The longest period would be 99 days.  This also assumes (probably incorrectly) that affected property owners would immediately know of the resolution of intent.

In a little over 2 months, someone in Raleigh would have to get around 39,000 signatures.  This would be impossible.

Someone in Goldsboro would need to get about 3,750 signatures in 69 days (not including the 15% of registered voters from the annexed area or the "extra" signatures that would be needed).  Getting 3,750 signatures would be highly unlikely and probably impossible.

Q: Who gets to vote?

A: If all of this weren't enough of a farce, the eligible voters of the proposed annexed area and the municipality would vote.

The number of eligible voters in even a smaller municipality like Goldsboro would overwhelm the number of eligible voters in the proposed annexed area.  There would be no voice for those in the annexed area (their voice would be drowned out), and as a result, for all practical purposes, the vote would be based on the will of municipal residents.

It would come down to convicing the municipal residents to reject the annexation.  The proposed annexation victims would be up against the municipality and its resources that would be used to "educate" its residents on the benefits of the annexation.

Bottom Line  

If someone being annexed in Raleigh could get about 39,000 signatures within 69 days, then that miracle would lead to municipal residents dictating whether an area is annexed.  Note: The vote could only take place in a general election.  This ensures that there's high municipal turn-out (this is the cherry on top of this charade).

One final thing: Let's use Lexington, NC as an example, where Rep. Holliman who is the sponsor of the amendment is from.  There are 20,338 people in Lexington (about 13,650 registered voters).  Anyone being annexed would need about 2,050 signatures just from Lexington (plus there is 15% of the registered voters in the proposed annexed area and the extra signatures needed to make up for any signatures that are rejected).  A conservative estimate for all the signatures that would be needed would be about 2,750-3,000 signatures.

I wonder if areas in Davidson County that are being annexed by Lexington could get 3,000 signatures in 69 days--highly unlikely.  If they did manage this incredible feat, they then would have the residents of Lexington ultimately determine if the area should be annexed.

This "vote" isn't a vote--it is an insult.  Some legislators think that if people hear that there's a vote, the citizens won't realize that this is a charade.  NC citizens are a lot smarter than these legislators think.

Note: This post was changed at 9:56 pm on Thursday to correct data.

Linkable Entry

Re: Were the Founders Greedy?

Posted by Dr. Troy Kickler at 4:39 PM

Indeed.  As I argued in the last month's Carolina Journal (print edition),  McDonald argued convincingly in We The People: The Economic Origins of the Constitution (1958) that the founders were not greedy.  He put forth this argument because he had studied each Constitutional Convention delegates' financial records and each individual state's ratification debates.  Tough work. 

Beard essentially reversed his interpretation in his Basic History of the United States (1944).

Linkable Entry

Fayetteville Observer takes Mary Easley to the woodshed

Posted by David N. Bass at 3:23 PM

The Fayetteville Observer pwns the Easleys in this editorial, registering disgust at Mary's vow to fight her termination:

It appears that she feels no sense of embarrassment or shame - not about the job itself, nor about the pall this scandal is draping over North Carolina's reputation. She's yet to say a word about this controversy, letting her lawyer make a few comments on her behalf.

It's beginning to appear that, from the Easley perspective, this is all about the money, and everything else can take a back seat.

All of this makes us wonder what's next. Will Mike and Mary try to get the state jet back?

It boggles the mind why Mary would try to get severance when public opinion, and the brutal financial scenario at N.C. State University, are all against her. What is/was she thinking?

Linkable Entry

Annexation reform bill moves along

Posted by Becki Gray at 3:23 PM

The House Finance Committee meeting continues. A few more amendments are considered, including John Blust's proposal to prohibit annexations across county lines and Dale Folwell's amendment, which would have authorized the Joint Legislative Committee on Municipal Incorporation to provide oversight. That one failed, 12-15. 

Having heard all amendments that were turned in yesterday, the debate moves to the bill.  Rep. Kelly Alexander, D-Mecklenburg, says too many ornaments have been put on the Christmas tree and the bill was now unworkable in the real world of how cities and towns operate. 

Rep. William Wainwright, D-Craven, says a compromise had been reached with too much work, all parties have not been treated fairly, and the agreement on the compromise has been breached.  He won't suppport the bill.

Rep. David Lewis, R-Harnett, talks about unintended consequences that he will try to fix after the committee finishes. Rep. Earl Jones, D-Guilford, says he thinks this is a good balance. Rep. Dale Folwell, R-Forsyth, criticizes the legitimacy of the vote referendum, calling it a charade. 

Rep. Curtis Blackwood, R-Union, says many have been left out of the decisions on the compromise bill.  Rep. Thom Tillis, R-Mecklenburg, says this is great progress, although not perfect.  He hopes it will go forward and continue to be improved. 

Rep. Hugh Holliman, D-Davidson, says he takes issue with Folwell's accusations of political charades and says Folwell has no idea what a political charade is. He says he's trying to help the people in his district. 

Rep. Jennifer Weiss, D-Wake, says reforms in the bill will keep abuses from happening again and says this is a rural/urban issue.

The director of government affairs for the League of Municipalities says the billl makes major changes in annexation. It addresses many of the concerns they have heard and makes changes that all could live with and a bill that would pass and then put this behind us all.  Only five citizen groups were here, but there's over 500 cities that she represents. They now strongly oppose the bill with the referendum included in it.

Rep. Larry Brown, R-Forsyth,  having worked tirelessly for over five years on annexation reform, says a lot of hard work has been done, but a lot of the points have been missed. He tells his colleagues that they represent the people, not the League. He would like to see a continuation of a study committee to keep ironing out the wrinkles in the process. The people really don't have a vote.  Holliman meant well, but there should be a special election for a fair election and the bar should be lower.  He'll work on this any way he can.

Tony Tetterton of the Fair Annexation Coalition says water and sewer costs are unreasonable, the bill offers no oversight, and it still leaves opportunities for abuse. The bill doesn't address all of the problems; the bill just cobbles a broken wheel. It's a poorly designed, poorly written bill.

The bill sponsor, Rep. Bruce Goforth, D-Buncombe, says the bill has huge changes that represent good reform. The amendments today have made it even better.

Rep. Paul Leubke says this will keep our cities strong.  He says the Holliman amendment was not necessary.

The bill passes with the following voting no:

Kelly Alexander
Becky Carney
Tricia Cotham
Larry Hall
Sandra Hughes
Dewey Hill
Deborah Ross
Pryor Gibson
William Wainwright

It goes to the House floor next and with the tight title will not be able to be amended.

Linkable Entry

Re: Staying on board

Posted by Hal Young at 3:07 PM

I was working as a publisher's representative at the National Black Home Educators conference last weekend and I heard the same sentiments, which I have also heard here in North Carolina from families who were totally wiped out by Hurricane Floyd. They may have to live in substandard housing and eat beans to pull it off, but they are committed to providing their children the sort of education that's just not available in most, if any, public school settings.

People who have made a choice for non-public education as a matter of principle, not just choice, are working from a different set of values than purely financial considerations. I'm going to talk about that some at Monday's Shaftesbury Society luncheon.

Linkable Entry

Pro-life Dems to Pelosi: exclude abortion from health care reform

Posted by David N. Bass at 2:28 PM

Nineteen Democrats in the U.S. House have sent a letter (PDF download) to Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledging their opposition to any health care overhaul that mandates abortion coverage.

North Carolina congressmen Heath Shuler, D-11th, and Mike McIntyre, D-7th, were among the Democrats who signed the letter.

It says in part:

We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitely excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidizied health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.

That would be nice. But given the current president and Congress' forte for using giant bills (such as stimulus 2) to smuggle kickbacks to their political allies, I wouldn't count on it.

Linkable Entry

Re: State of Private Schools — 'Staying on Board'

Posted by Jon Sanders at 2:10 PM

Many people are pinching pennies these days, but many, like Janine James, also say there is one thing they are not willing to give up: private school for their children.

"I really would do whatever I had to do. I would scrub floors if necessary," said James, whose son Clarence attends Cardinal Gibbons High School. ...

As money dries up for families, many private schools are stepping in to keep students from walking out the schoolhouse doors.

"Sometimes it's a matter of stretching out the payments or a matter of a grant that they might need immediately," Curtis said. ...

Many parents say private school is an expense they are willing to pay, regardless of the economy.

"To me, providing them an environment where they learn spirituality and get comfortable with it, as well as getting a good academic foundation, is important," James said.

Linkable Entry

Were the Founders Greedy?

Posted by Dr. Michael Sanera at 1:32 PM

Burt Folsom, professor of history at Hillsdale College, reviews the debate over Charles Beard's 1913 book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States in this Freeman article. You may recall that Columbia historian Charles Beard, a leading progressive, set out to destroy the Constitution by attacking the Founders.  How could we live by a Constitution that was written by Founders who were creating a document that was designed to protect their economic wealth?

    The Founders’ economic motives, according to Beard, were straightforward—they were owed money from their support of the Revolution, and those “public securities” (receipts for loans made to support American independence) were not being repaid under the weak Articles of Confederation. A stronger governing document was needed to ease the transfer of tax dollars from ordinary citizens into the pockets of the more affluent Founders.



    Thus, according to Beard, the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787 was promoted by “a small and active group of men immediately interested through their personal possessions in the outcome of their labors . . .. The propertyless masses were . . . excluded at the outset from participation. . . .”

    Some of Beard’s mistakes are more subtle. He classifies delegate William Few as a security holder because Few funded a “certificate of 1779” with a “nominal” value of $2,170. True, but what Beard neglects to say is that Few’s “nominal” value was scaled down to a mere $114.80, a sum hardly worth motivating Few to sign the Constitution to redeem.

    What Beard omits from his history is the wisdom and dedication of the Founders in overcoming narrow self-interest to produce a masterful guiding document for the country. The actions of Robert Morris of Pennsylvania and Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts, for example, are remarkable. Both men signed the Constitution and supported it vigorously even though they ultimately lost money doing so.



    Both men had committed to buy land with public securities—which were trading at only about 15 percent of par value before the Constitution was ratified. When the Constitution was ratified and the public securities were redeemed, both Morris and Gorham had to buy the securities at par value, so they both lost fortunes. Morris, in fact, went from being the wealthiest merchant in the United States in 1787 to being tossed into debtors’ prison in the 1790s. Contrary to Beard, Morris had voted against his own economic self-interest, and for his country’s financial integrity.

Linkable Entry

The state of private schools: Recommended reading

Posted by Terry Stoops at 1:04 PM

The Economist features two interesting articles on the state of private schools in the United States and the United Kingdom.

"Staying on board" - In both America and Britain recession has so far done little to dent the demand for private education.

"Learning lessons from private schools" - The right and wrong ways to get more poor youngsters into the world’s great universities.

For information about North Carolina's private schools, I recommend "Building a Case for School Choice: Initial Results from a Survey of North Carolina's Private Schools."

Linkable Entry

Let's not rejoin this list

Posted by Joseph Coletti at 11:59 AM

Former JLF Shaftesbury speaker and Tax Foundation analyst Joe Henchman has the recently updated list of states with income tax rates of 8.0% or more. Like the House proposed, some of these states have multiple brackets in the zone.

Linkable Entry

This should really frighten Obama

Posted by George Leef at 11:59 AM

Apparently, the media is coming out of its trance.

According to this piece Helen Thomas says that Obama is worse than Richard Nixon in trying to manipulate and control the media.

Hey, Helen -- why don't you ask Obama (or that clueless puppet Gibbs) what the administration is doing to restore to America a sound monetary system?

Linkable Entry

Thoughts on Annexation Charade

Posted by Daren Bakst at 11:53 AM

I think many legislators think their constituents are stupid.  How else to describe this morning's House Finance Committee?

Approval of a vote:  As I mentioned before, don't be surprised if a vote (and nothing else that is worth anything) is passed in committee with full knowledge by some legislators that a vote has little to no chance of passage on the floor, or in the Senate, and all that would be left over is a horrible bill.  This is what happened this morning.

This doesn't mean getting a vote approved is bad, but it does mean that if nothing else gets passed (especially modest changes), you can easily see that support for vote is just political cover.  As Becki mentioned, there has been talk that this amendment was used for precisely this purpose.

However, it is even worse than I expected.  The vote amendment that passed today is an absurd voting system, where it would be extremely difficult to get a vote (15% of people in proposed area and municipality must support a vote) and the the vote is for citizens of both the municipality and the affected area.

To see how legitimate the support for a vote is, all we need to do is see if any of the Democrats (this all of a sudden has become partisan) supported the far more modest amendments.  Let me stress, the Republicans haven't exactly fought for reform, but now they are at least trying to some extent.

The following got shot down, as Becki described here and here:

1) Amendment to Require Municipalities to Pay for Water and Sewer Infrastructure: A city initiates a forced annexation--it therefore should be their responsibility to pay for the water and sewer lines necessary to provide the services annexation victims neither want nor need.  This simple change got shot down and annexation victims will have to pay well over $10,000 for something the city should be paying for--these costs may be the biggest single problem with annexation--forcing people, especially those on fixed incomes, to leave their homes.

2) Higher Level of Services: I'm very happy this amendment got shot down!  It was horribly drafted and would have helped cities.  The amendment demonstrates that legislators from both parties don't understand the Nolan case or what the issue of meaningful services is about (i.e. cities should only be able to annex if they can provide a service than an area needs--of at a minimum, provide a service that is significantly better than what annexation victims currently have).

3) Allow Amendments on the Floor: The Democrats (yes, they deserve all the blame for this one) are trying to keep anyone from amending the bill once the bill gets on the floor.  An amendment was introduced that would have allowed representative democracy to work by allowing all House members to have a say on annexation.  What a novel concept!  Along party lines (D's against the amendment, R's for the amendment, except for Faison who is a D), the amendment failed.

The failure to pass this amendment that would have allowed the full House to have a say on the bill is utterly despicable.  Some legislators that make a big deal out of the need for government reform, open government, ethics (all of which is needed) voted to make sure that the full House doesn't have any say--so much for their support of ethics, etc.  Opposition to this amendment was indefensible.

Wait until the videos come out regarding the discussion of this amendment--if you hadn't lost faith in the NC legislature before, the video clips will do the trick.

Later today, the Finance Committee is supposed to consider some additional modest amendments, which of course they will shoot down.

Linkable Entry

Is Decker more deserving of a break than Black?

Posted by David N. Bass at 11:50 AM

Scott Sexton of the Winston-Salem Journal raises a noteworthy point about Michael Decker being more deserving of leniency than Jim Black.

Black’s lawyer has recently called for him either to be released early (his scheduled release date is 2012) or be moved to a prison closer to home. But Sexton points out that Decker, who was sentenced in 2007 for accepting a bribe, appears to have been more cooperative with investigators, helping to unearth more corruption in state government:

Just before Decker's sentencing in April 2007, federal prosecutors asked Judge James C. Dever III to cut by half any prison time that Decker might face because the help he provided was the "critical turning point" in making a case against Black. Decker, you probably remember, admitted that in late 2002 and early 2003, he solicited $50,000 to support Black's bid to remain co-speaker of the House.

Black has maintained that the money was not part of any quid pro quo. Yet he agreed to the plea bargain that sent him to federal prison in Lewisburg, Pa., for 63 months. Once a weasel, always a weasel.

"Decker substantially assisted in federal and state investigations and prosecutions of public corruption in regard to the North Carolina House of Representatives," wrote Dennis Duffy and John Stuart Bruce, the assistant U.S. attorneys who did much of the heavy lifting in that case.

That "substantial assistance" court filing still languishes somewhere in a federal building in Raleigh. The only insights that Bruce offered when reached in his office Tuesday was to acknowledge the obvious.

"It has not been ruled on by the court," he said.

The funny thing about the situation is that federal prosecutors rely on cooperation to strengthen their cases and win convictions, so you would think that rewarding that cooperation would be standard, especially if it leads to landing bigger, more corrupt fish.

Surely, potential witnesses in the investigation of former Gov. Mike Easley have noticed that Decker has received nothing.

To read Carolina Journal's coverage of some questions surrounding how Jim Black paid the last half of a court-ordered $1 million fine, click here, here, and here.

Linkable Entry

RE: Mystery group

Posted by Rick Henderson at 11:48 AM

The entire story grows more and more bizarre. The address of the pharmacy services company Nancy McFarlane owns also serves as the HQ for the N.C. Water Rights Committee (or at least it did as of the time the N&O went to press late last night).  And yet McFarlane was "recommended" to become president of the committee by the firm handling its PR. How was she chosen? And by whom?

Nor have we learned what kind of organization the water rights committee is. CJ's Don Carrington has not been able to find any articles of incorporation. Is it a nonprofit, as its Web site suggests? Who's the governing body? Is there a board?

McFarlane's unwillingness to talk about the committee is fishy, too.

The shadowy group that has been spearheading a hostile takeover of the Alcoa hydroelectric dams and adjacent property -- a move that could cost N.C. taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars -- remains mighty secretive.

You have to wonder how deeply under the covers state lawmakers want to get with this outfit.

Linkable Entry

John Stossel on Obamacare

Posted by George Leef at 11:29 AM

In pitching his plan for a "public option" (which is to say, the gradual federal takeover of most if not all health care), our Beloved Leader has said that opponents will just resort to scare tactics.

In this column John Stossel shows exactly why we should be scared. Politicizing health care will mean less of it and lower quality.

And exactly why do we want to save money on health care? So politicians can squander more on their favorite projects and constituencies?

Linkable Entry

I can see clearly now

Posted by Mitch Kokai at 10:49 AM

Those of you in a certain age group are now humming a Johnny Nash tune in your head (and cursing me for reminding you of the song).

Others might be happy to learn about the unveiling of NCTransparency.com. Joe Coletti discusses it below.

Linkable Entry

Obama pitches health care reform

Posted by David J. Koon at 10:06 AM

In a town hall meeting of handpicked audience members, Obama relied on (gasp!) emotion to pitch his plan to make sweeping changes to health care.  Common sense and reason, it appears, aren’t entering the picture. 

Linkable Entry

McFarlane quits 'mystery group'

Posted by David N. Bass at 09:56 AM

Raleigh city council member Nancy McFarlane has resigned as head of the N.C. Water Rights Committee, a secretive group that has pushed for a state takeover of a hydroelectric project owned by Alcoa Power Generating Inc.

Don Carrington first brought the issue to light in the pages of Carolina Journal.

The News & Observer now reports:

The committee, and McFarlane's involvement with it, has drawn some minor scrutiny as the battle between Alcoa and its opponents has spilled into the courtroom and the legislature. Alcoa is seeking to renew a 50-year license that allows it to operate the dams, but opponents want the state to acquire and operate the project.

The N.C. Water Rights Committee, a private citizens group that incorporated in May 2008, was described as a somewhat mysterious and secretive entity in a recent article in the Carolina Journal, a weekly publication owned by the John Locke Foundation, a conservative think tank.

In an interview conducted before McFarlane's announcement, Roger Dick, one of the founders of the N.C. Water Rights Committee, said her lack of openness is not helping the organization.

"We don't need people being suspicious about the N.C. Water Rights group," said Dick, who lives in Stanly County and is the CEO of Uwharrie Capital, a holding company for several banks. "We didn't maybe make the best choice right now with having Nancy as the president of the water rights because her political platform, I guess, is getting in the way of this."

McFarlane, who is running for re-election in District A in October, said she is proud of the committee's work and didn't intend to appear tight-lipped. She said she was simply trying to choose her words carefully.

"I was just being overly cautious and I didn't want to say the wrong thing. That's all," she said.

Linkable Entry

Annexation Amendments continued

Posted by Becki Gray at 09:54 AM

Rep Edgar Starnes R Caldwell amendment changes density level to 3 people per acre (from 3.2)This one failed in the J 2 committee last week and fails here 12-16.

Rep Dale Folwell, R Forsyth, tries to amend the expansion of sewer lines expenses provisions in the bill. Cities could not charge residents for extending the major lines (does not apply to tap lines).  Should be paid for by those doing the annexing, not those who are being annexed against their will. Luebke argues the current twenty year assessment period is fair and shouldn't be changed. Folwell says the goal should be to keep people in their homes as long as possible, not make it more difficult, especially for older residents. Amendment fails 13-14.

Rep Edgar Starnes amendment addresses appeals to the courts - people would have to show that they enjoy a higher level of service after the annexation than before. Amendment fails 13-14.

Rep Johnathan Rhyne, R Lincoln tries to change the title back to it's original title, Annexation - Omnibus Changes, rather than the extensive lenghy and extremely tight new title. See previous note on title rules. In an effort to make the debate fair and deliberative, he asks for an open and democratic system. Reps Stam and Blust speak in favor of fairness.  Rep Bill Owens (and Rules Chair) encourages a no vote and he and Rhyne spar on the process. Rep Starnes, one of the sponsors of the bill does not support the long title and fully supports the amendment to change it.

Amendment fails 13-15 with all Rs and Faison voting yes; all Ds voting no.

Details on the amendment to change to title and allow amendments and full debate on the floor vote:

Voting yes 13:
Curtis Blackwood R Union
John Blust R Guilford
Bill Faison D Orange
Dale Folwell R Forsyth
Julia Howard R Davie
David Lewis R Harmett
Danny McComas R New Hanover
Darrell McCormick R Yadkin
Johnathan Rhyne R Lincoln
Mitchell Setzer R Catawba
Paul Stam R Wake
Edgar Starnes R Wake
Thom Tillis R Mecklenburg

Voting no 15:
Kelly Alexander D-Mecklenburg
Van Braxton D-Lenoir
Becky Carney D-Mecklenburg
Tricia Cotham D-Mecklenburg
Larry Hall D-Durham
Sandra Hughes D-New Hanover
Dewey Hill D-Columbus
Hugh Holliman D-Davidson
Earl Jones D-Guilford
Bill Owens D-Pasquotank
Deborah Ross D-Wake
Paul Leubke D-Guilford
Pryor Gibson D-Anson
William Wainwright D-Craven
Jennifer Weiss D-Wake
 

Rep Curtis Blackwood, R Union, tries to amend the bill to upgrade the fire and police protection in annexed areas.  Concerns about fees being charged for voluntary fire departments in addition to taxes for fire protection.  Amendment fails 13-14.

Committee runs out of time. Will reconvene immediately after session today (probbably around 2:00)to consider remaining four amendments and will then vote on the bill.  

Linkable Entry

This is my 1,000th LR post

Posted by Terry Stoops at 09:52 AM

To recognize this achievement, I'll receive a complimentary lunch at the Shaftesbury Society event on Monday.

Linkable Entry

Dumbest Moments in Business 2009...Midyear Edition

Posted by Terry Stoops at 09:37 AM

The staff of Fortune ranked the dumbest moments in business for the first six months of the year.

Congratulations to the Obama administration, which earned four of the ten spots on the list.

1. GM Partners With Segway
2. Tropicana's Botched Redesign
3. KFC Runs Out of Chicken
4. John Thain's $35,000 'Commode on Legs'
5. SEC Bars Madoff...Just in Time!
6. Not-So-Stressful Stress Tests
7. Yankees' $200,000 Seats
8. U.S. Debt is 'Safe.' Seriously. Stop Laughing
9. Geithner gives few details, tanks the market
10. Obama's spending cuts...a ways to go

Linkable Entry

Annexation Amendments and Referendum prior to annexation passes

Posted by Becki Gray at 09:31 AM

Rep Paul Luebke, D Durham has a few technical amendment, including one at the request of the state treasurer that would allow LGC to charge a fee for some analyses that would be required. Side note: The State Treasurer is the head of the Local Government Commission and there are currently no county representatives on the LGC.  The treasurer has indicated she did not want the LGC to be assigned oversight responsibilities but per an inquiry by Rep Folwell, R-Forsyth, she reportedly has agreed to the financial oversight of the annexations.

Amendment by Rep Hugh Holliman, D Davidson, addresses "the core issue of annexation" by providing a vote of the people. If people being annexed think it is unfair - petition of the voters in the city and annexed area and if 15 percent of the registered voters agree, the proposed annexation would be up for a vote  at the next municipal election.  The annexation could not take effect until after the vote.  Several members have questions including Rep Deborah Ross, D Wake, says in a large city it would be difficult to get 15 percent to oppose the annexation for a small areas - concerns about the one size fits all provision (Essentially what the amendment does is exempt the reality of a referendum in a large city - begins to dawn on committee members). Rep Bill Owens, D Pasquotank, asks what other states do and is reminded that very few states have forced annexation so it's hard to find a model.

Side note: the word in the halls is that this is a hail Mary move to save Hugh Holliman in his district. If so, his proposing the amendment allows him to claim advocating for a vote, no matter where the amendment goes. See this letter to his hometown newspaper. Rep Dale Folwell asks Holliman if he is proposing the amendment to kill the bill, Holliman says no.

Rep Paul Luebke, D Durham, speaks against the amendment, Rep Earl Jones D Guilford and Rep Bill Faison D Orange speak for.

Starnes calls for ayes and noes on the vote. The amendment passes 16 - 12. 

Details on the amendment to allow affected citizens to vote prior to being annexed:

Voting yes 16:
Curtis Blackwood R Union
John Blust R Guilford
Van Braxton D-Lenoir
Bill Faison D Orange
Dale Folwell R Forsyth
Hugh Holliman D-Davidson
Julia Howard R Davie
Earl Jones D-Guilford
David Lewis R Harmett
Danny McComas R New Hanover
Darrell McCormick R Yadkin
Johnathan Rhyne R Lincoln
Mitchell Setzer R Catawba
Paul Stam R Wake
Edgar Starnes R Wake
Thom Tillis R Mecklenburg

Voting no 12:
Kelly Alexander D-Mecklenburg
Becky Carney D-Mecklenburg
Tricia Cotham D-Mecklenburg
Larry Hall D-Durham
Sandra Hughes D-New Hanover
Dewey Hill D-Columbus
Bill Owens D-Pasquotank
Deborah Ross D-Wake
Paul Leubke D-Guilford
Pryor Gibson D-Anson
William Wainwright D-Craven
Jennifer Weiss D-Wake

Linkable Entry

Annexation debate continues

Posted by Becki Gray at 08:54 AM

The House Finance Committee meets this morning to consider amendments to House Bill 524. This is the only chance to amend the bill. Pursuant to a House rule, once the bill goes to the floor, no amendments will be accepted that change the title to the bill. This title has been re-written, runs 59 lines, over 500 words and is so tight there is no way any amendment would qualify for consideration.

Members have a packet of the 15 amendments (4 are technical). Chair Pryor Gibson, (D-Anson) welcomes the room full of red shirts and reminds everyone to be polite.  They will consider all the amendments and vote on the bill today - either this morning or continuing this afternoon after session, if needed.

Linkable Entry

Michael Barone on the Ricci case

Posted by George Leef at 08:44 AM

Michael Barone's column today on the Ricci case is excellent. The Court's decision isn't really his focus, but rather the ugly background of the case. The heart of the matter was that a black activist in New Haven threw a fit when the firefighter promotion exam proved too difficult for any blacks to pass. Barone twists the knife, saying that what such activists want is the exact opposite of Martin Luther King's dream that people would be judged on their character not the color of their skin.

Barone also digs into the justifications offered by leftist intellectuals for the new racism. They're awfully feeble.

Linkable Entry

Did abortion reduce crime rates?

Posted by Terry Stoops at 08:33 AM

In Freakonomics, John Donohue and Steven Levitt argued that legalized abortion led to a dramatic decline in crime during the 1990s.

A new NBER paper by Theodore J. Joyce of Baruch College finds little evidence to support the Donohue/Levitt hypothesis.

Donohue and Levitt’s presentation of the evidence relied too much on highly-aggregated regressions, run over limited time periods, with questionable specifications and no acknowledgement of the endogeneity of abortion. If they had started with simple time-series of age-specific arrest and homicide rates pre and post the points of abortion legalization, they would have been confronted with the lack of discontinuities consistent with large cohort effects.

Linkable Entry

Stossel: "Billy Mays, Free Market Hero"

Posted by Terry Stoops at 07:50 AM

John Stossel's short take (below) on the late TV pitchman and Pittsburgh native Billy Mays is spot on.

On its opinion page, The Christian Science Monitor ran a column that sneers at the success of TV pitchman Billy Mays, who died this week at age 50.

”He promised that acquiring superfluous junk could be a ticket to a better life, even at a time when that life seems to be slipping further and further out of reach,” writes an elitist young author.

Smug journalists just cannot accept capitalism. Mays sold “as seen on TV” products like OxiClean detergent and Mighty Putty; products that he believed in and backed with a money-back guarantee. And people apparently loved the products, since Mays sold an estimated billion dollars worth of goods. He enriched himself by persuading people to voluntarily give him money. His customers got goods they hadn’t known they'd wanted. In practicing capitalism, Mays was more of a “public servant” than the regulators who claim to serve us by restricting it.

Linkable Entry

Today's Carolina Journal Online features

Posted by Mitch Kokai at 06:58 AM

Today's Carolina Journal Online exclusive features David Bass' report on the waste of gas-tax money for hotel and airline bills associated with Attorney General Roy Cooper's legal battle with the Tennessee Valley Authority.

John Hood's Daily Journal rebuts the argument that North Carolina should pursue federal stimulus money for high-speed rail projects.

Linkable Entry

<< Last Entry