Civitas Review January 2009

ReviewCivitasN C C I V I T A S . O R G | Vo l u m e V, I s s u e 1 | J A N UA RY 2 0 0 9

LIMITED GOVERNMENT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITYCIVIC ENGAGEMENT

The Renewal of CONSERVATISM

PLUS: Who’s Who in the General Assembly • Ballot Measures Nationwide

JANUARY 2009 • CIVITAS REVIEW • �www.nccivitas.org

P O L L I N G I N S I G H T S4 North Carolina Is Still a Conservative State

T H e D I r e c T O r ’ S N O T e5 It’s Time to Look Ahead

T H e r I G H T P e r S P e c T I v e6 Who’s Who in the General Assembly

9 Open Government in North Carolina: An Idea Whose Time Has Come

11 Back to the Future: North Carolina’s Homegrown Financial “Crisis” Is Highly Similar to 2001

26 Ballot Measures Nationwide

28 North Carolina Still Lacks Fetal Homicide Law

30 Big Labor’s Big Splash in NC

S P e c I a L16 Future of Conservatism

InsideReviewCivitas

J a N U a r Y 2 0 0 9

In Depth

12Turning

Another Leaf

23Cruisin’ For

Transportation Cash:

State officials eye toll roads and a pay-per-mile odometer tax

16

9 Le T TerS TO THe eDITOr

Wanttosoundoff?Respondtoanarticle?Pointoutanerror?Sendusaccolades?Writejana.benscoter@nccivitas.org orsendsnailmailtotheaddressbelow. ©2008byJohnWilliamPope.Allopinionsexpressedarethoseoftheauthorsanddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsoftheeditors,orthestaffandboard,oftheCivitasInstitute.Materialpublishedhereinmaybereprintedaslongasappropriatecreditisgiven.Submissionandlettersarewelcomeandshouldbedirectedtotheeditor.

Civitas Review readerswantingmoreinformationbetweenissuescancall919-834-2099andasktoreceivetheweeklye-lettersorcangotowww.nccivitas.organdsignuponline.

V O L U M E V , I S S U E 1

ReviewCivitasFrancisX.DeLuca

[email protected]

JanaBenscoterMANAGING EDITOR

[email protected]

PicanteCreativeDESIGN & PRODUCTION

picantecreative.com

Editorial&Advertising100 S. Harrington Street

Raleigh, NC 27603919-834-2099 (phone)

919-834-2350 (fax)

www.nccivitas.org

All non-advertising content published in Civitas Review may be republished as

long as appropriate credit is given.Copyright 2009

cOver ar T

VisionsofAmerica/JoeSohm/GettyImages

� • CIVITAS REVIEW • JANUARY 2009

by Chris hayes

We’ve heard it echoed many times this past

year from liberal pundits and politicians

alike: the “reagan revolution” is dead; the

conservative movement is over; and it’s

time to embrace the fact that people want

more and bigger government involvement

in society.

Fortunately, this cannot be further from the truth. While the 2006 and 2008 elections were certainly a setback for the conservative move-ment, the nation, and to a greater extent, our state, remains ideologically conservative. De-

spite Twain-like predictions of its demise, the center-right movement of Goldwater and Reagan is still alive and well.

The conservative ideals of our state are abundantly clear in our monthly polling. From a baseline perspec-tive, without even asking about issues, a majority of North Carolinians consider themselves both fiscally and socially conservative. When asked to describe their ideol-ogy, 62 percent say they are somewhat or strong fiscal conservatives, while 51 percent say they are somewhat or strong social conservatives. Compare that to less than one in four who consider themselves fiscally liberal, and roughly one third who consider themselves socially lib-eral. So on a broad spectrum, North Carolina voters are decidedly conservative in ideology.

While these generic categorical descriptions are useful, further evidence of North Carolina’s true conser-vative leanings are found when voters are asked specific positions on key issues facing our state. Whether it’s a question of protecting traditional marriage or protecting private property rights, North Carolina voters over-whelmingly side with conservative viewpoints.

On social issues, we asked voters in September: “Do you support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman?” The poll revealed that 66 percent of voters said yes, only 30 percent said no. By a more than 2-to-1 margin, voters agreed with protecting traditional marriage, yet this issue was not dis-cussed in the previous General Assembly nor was it made an issue during the last election cycle.

NC is Still a Conservative State

P O L L I N G I N S I G H T S

SEPTEMBER 08

ON FISCAL ISSUES, DO YOU THINK OF

YOURSELF AS A LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE?

strong conservative – 31

some conservative – 31

moderate – 9

some liberal – 16

strong liberal – 7

ON SOCIAL ISSUES, DO YOU THINK OF

YOURSELF AS A LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE?

strong conservative – 27

some conservative – 24

moderate – 8

some liberal – 21

strong liberal – 15

ISTO

CKPH

OTO

.CO

M


it is time to look ahead. Our centerpiece on the “Future of Conservatism” does just that; it looks ahead at the bright future of conservatism. But first I want to add my two cents worth on the election.

The 2008 election was historic for one very important reason; America elected its first African-American president. That is to be celebrated.

Americans embraced the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. when he said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” And by putting President Obama in office, hopefully we have turned the page on the issue of race. While I would have preferred the first black president to be a committed conservative, I am willing to give Obama a chance to prove that he is not the committed liberal that his record to date indicates.

As to why the national election turned out the way it did in North Carolina, there are several explanations. The most widely noted — one that we at Civitas polled throughout the year — was President Bush’s unpopularity. In our November post-election poll of voters, Bush registered an approval rating of only 26 percent, while 66 percent disapproved of his job performance. The Democratic Party was already in a good position leading up to the election, as political parties typically exchange leadership roles after eight years of a two-term presidency.

With a very unpopular president and an energized Democratic base, it is only surprising that the election results were not deeper and more sweeping in North Carolina.

But these results were more than just about political party affiliation. They were about issues, specifically, conservative ones. Among some of those advertised on paid commercials: tax cuts for 95 percent of the people; no government takeovers of health care; and protect 2nd amendment rights. These are all conservative issues that I, and most conservatives, have no problem embracing. At the state and local level, ads were aired by election winners on taxes being too high, their opponents supporting illegal immigration and the threat of taxes being raised; all issues on which conservatives have long proposed positive solutions.

Then there were the 16 local referendums to raise local taxes — all soundly defeated! If some say this election was a call for a liberal (or as they like to say, progressive) agenda, my hearing is worse than I thought. What I heard was that North Carolinians are still conservative. They want lower taxes, their rights protected and the laws enforced. Oh and government, don’t even think about raising taxes until you clamp down on spending.

The election is the easy part. We spend three weeks (no longer just one day) voting and see the results on the first Tuesday night in November. Now the hard part; we must watch what the winners do. Most of the winners in Legislative races ran on conservative platforms: lower taxes, more efficient government and get tough on crime. Now it is up to us, the voters, to hold our elected representatives accountable to do the things they espoused while campaigning.

North Carolina is facing this year a budget hole in excess of $1.6 billion, and it may get worse next fiscal year. The Legislature created the problem by growing a state budget faster than the rate of inflation and population growth. When they had surpluses, they spent every dime and then some.

The same situation is showing up at the local level. Cities and counties have to rein in spending and start being more fiscally prudent when spending taxpayers’ dollars. But they will only be accountable if voters keep an eye on them. If they don’t follow through on campaign promises, follow Ronald Reagan’s advice: “When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.”

With this issue, we welcome the North Carolina General Assembly back to Raleigh. When the Legislature is in town, it is always wise to remember what Daniel Webster said, “Every man’s life, liberty, and property are in danger when the Legislature is in session.”

As in the past, we will devote significant resources covering the Legislature and state government as a means to inform and to educate the public on what state government is doing to and for North Carolinians. Please use this issue to become familiar with some of the individuals and issues that will be in the news in 2009. And to all of our readers and supporters — thank you from Civitas for a great 2008.

With the 2008 election behind us,

t h e d i r e c t o r ’s n o t e

FRANCIS X. DE LUCAExecutive Director, Civitas Institute

� • CIVITAS REVIEW • January 2009

The 2009 North Carolina General Assembly will convene on Wednesday, Jan. 28. Democrats

hold a 30 to 20 advantage in the Senate and a 68 to 52 majority in the House. Current Senate

President Pro Tempore Marc Basnight (D-Dare) and Speaker of the House Joe Hackney

(D-Orange) are expected to retain their leadership positions. The House will welcome 16 newly

elected members, and a former member, re-elected Rep. Johnathan Rhyne (R-Lincoln), to the

body. Included in its new member makeup is the first House Republican African-American,

Rep. Pearl Burris Floyd (R-Gaston). The Senate will welcome five new members, including for-

mer Rep. Debbie Clary (R-Cleveland), who won

election to the seat vacated by

Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton (D). Sen. Bob Rucho (R-Mecklenburg)

returns to the chamber after a

four-year absence.

Who’s

House District 107Kelly Alexander (D-Mecklenburg)Campaign Address: 2128 Senior Dr., Charlotte, NC 28297,704-392-6775

Election Notes: Rep. Pete Cunningham (D-Mecklenburg) retired for health reasons. Kelly Alexander (D-Mecklenburg) won the Primary and General Elections.

Incoming General Assembly Freshmen

House District 52Jamie Boles (R-Moore)Campaign Address: 321 Santee Rd., Carthage, NC 28387, 910-692-5807

Election Notes: Jamie Boles (R-Moore) defeated Rep. Joe Boylan (R-Moore) in the GOP Primary. Boles defeated Betty Mangum (D-Moore) in the Gen-eral Election.

House District 86Hugh Blackwell (R-Burke)Campaign Address: 321 Mountain View Ave., Valdese, NC 28690, 828-879-8454

Election Notes: Hugh Blackwell (R-Burke) defeated Rep. Walter Church (D-Burke) in a rematch.

House District 110Pearl Burris Floyd (R-Gaston)Campaign Address: 518 E. Main St., Dallas, NC 28034, 704-922-2970Election Notes: Rep.

Debbie Clary (R-Cleveland) retired to run for Sen. Walter Dalton’s (D-Rutherford) open Senate seat. Pearl Burris Floyd (R-Gaston) defeated Davy Lowman (D-Cleveland) in the General Election.

N E W R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S

T H E R I G H T P E R S P E C T I V E

Who:

January 2009 • CIVITAS REVIEW • �www.nccivitas.org

N E W S E N A T O R S

House District 25Randy Stewart (D-Nash)Campaign Address: P.O. Box 7594,

Rocky Mount, NC 27804, 252-937-4164Election Notes: Rep. Bill Daughtridge retired to run for Treasurer. W.B. Bullock (R-Nash) and Randy Stewart (D-Nash) won their respective primaries,Stewart won the General.

House District 67Justin Burr (R-Stanly)Campaign Address: 225 Smokehouse Lane, Albemarle, NC 28001, 704-983-3833

Election Notes: Justin Burr (R-Stanly) defeated Rep. Ken Furr (R-Stanly) in a runoff of the Republican Primary.

House District 90Sarah Stevens (R-Surry)Campaign Address: 2161 Margaret Dr., Elkin, NC 28621, 336-789-0639

Election Notes: Sarah Stevens (R-Surry) defeated Rep. Jim Harrell (D-Surry) in the General Election by 287 votes.

House District 92Darrell McCormick (R-Yadkin)Campaign Address: 4820 Old US 421 Hwy E., Yadkinville, NC 27055, N/A

Election Notes: Rep. George Holmes (R-Yadkin) retired. Darrell McCormick (R-Yadkin) defeated Ric Marshall (D-Surry) in the General Election.

House District 18Sandra Spaulding Hughes (D-New Hanover)Campaign Address: P.O. Box 302, Wilmington, NC

28402, 910-251-2165. Election Notes: Rep. Sandra Spaulding Hughes (D-New Hanover) won the Primary and General Elections.

House District 97Johnathan Rhyne (R-Lincoln)Campaign Address: P.O. Box 38, Lincolnton, NC 28092, 704-735-2616

Election Notes: Rep. Joe Kiser (R-Lincoln) retired. Former Rep. Johnathan Rhyne (R-Lincoln) won outright because no other candidate filed.

House District 43Elmer Floyd (R-Cumberland)Campaign Address: 207 Courtney St., Fayetteville, NC

28301, 910-488-6903. Election Notes: Elmer Floyd (D-Cumberland) defeated Rep. Mary McAllister (D-Cumberland) in the Democratic Primary.

House District 11Efton Sager (R-Wayne)Campaign Address: P.O. Box 11387, Goldsboro, NC 27530, 919-735-9458

Election Notes: Rep. Louis Pate (R-Wayne) ran for Sen. John Kerr’s (D-Wayne) open Senate seat. Efton Sager (R-Wayne) defeated Ronnie Griffin (D-Wayne) for this Open Seat.

House District 95Grey Mills (R-Iredell)Campaign Address: 156 Brick Kiln Way, Mooresville, NC 28117, 704-664-0863

Election Notes: Grey Mills (R-Iredell) defeated Rep. Karen Ray (R-Iredell). Mills defeated Jeffrey Ober (R-Iredell) in the General Election.

House District 99Nick Mackey (D-Mecklenburg)Campaign Address: 11142 Hunters Trace, Charlotte, NC 28262, 704-593-0210

Election Notes: Nick Mackey (D-Mecklenburg) defeated Rep. Drew Saunders in the Primary and won the General Election.

House District 116Jane Whilden (D-Buncombe)Campaign Address: 8 Busbee Rd., Asheville, NC 28803, 828-277-0059.

Election Notes: Rep. Charles Thomas (R-Buncombe) retired. Jane Whilden (D-Buncombe) defeated Tim Moffitt (R-Buncombe) in the General Election.

House District 113W. David Guice (R-Transylvania)Campaign Address: 297 Cardinal Dr., Brevard, NC 28712, 828-883-4998

Election Notes: Rep. Trudi Walend (R-Transylvania) retired. David Guice (R-Transylvania) defeated Tom Thomas (D-Transylvania) in the General Election.

House District 94Shirley Randleman (R-Wilkes)Campaign Address: 487 Triple Cove Dr., Wilkesboro, NC

28697, 336-921-2043. Election Notes: Rep. R. Tracy Walker (R-Wilkes) retired. Shirley Randleman (R-Wilkes) defeated Larry Pendry (D-Wilkes) in the General Election.

Senate District 16Josh Stein (D-Wake)Campaign Address: 216 E. Park Dr., Raleigh, NC 27605, 919-834-1152

Election Notes: Sen. Janet Cowell (D-Wake) ran for State Treasurer. Josh Stein (D-Wake) defeated Jack Nichols (D-Wake) and Mike Shea (D-Wake) in the Democratic Primary. Stein then defeated John Alexander (R-Wake) in the General Election.

Senate District 46Debbie Clary (R-Cleveland)Campaign Address: 105 D02 North Shore Court, Caroleen, NC 28019,

704-480-1407. Election Notes: Sen. Walter Dalton (D-Rutherford) retired to run for Lieutenant Governor. Rep. Debbie Clary (R-Cleveland) defeated Keith Melton(D-Rutherford).

Senate District 27Don Vaughan (D-Guilford)Campaign Address: 902 Sunset Dr., Greensboro, NC 27401, 336-370-1582

Election Notes: Sen. Kay Hagan (D-Guilford) challenged U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole. Don Vaughan (D-Guilford) defeated Joe Wilson (R-Guilford) in the General Election.

Senate District 5Don Davis (D-Greene)Campaign Address: 413 W. Greene St., Snow Hill, NC 28580, 252-747-2385

Election Notes: Sen. John Kerr (D-Wayne) retired. Don Davis (D-Green) defeated Kathy Taft (D-Pitt) in a runoff election on June 24. Davis defeated Rep. Lewis Pate (R-Wayne) in the General Election.

Senate District 39Robert Rucho (R-Mecklenburg)Campaign Address: 305 Trafalgar Place, Matthews, NC 28105, 704-847-3461

Election Notes: Sen. Robert Pittenger (R-Mecklenburg) retired to run for Lieutenant Governor. Former Sen. Bob Rucho (Mecklenburg) won the seat by defeating Andy Dulin (R-Mecklenburg) in the GOP Primary. In June, Rucho was appointed to the seat when Pittenger resigned.

Senate District 12David Rouzer (R-Johnston)Campaign Address: 108 Peach Orchard Dr., Smithfield, NC

27577, 919-740-3225. Election Notes: Sen. Fred Smith (R-Johnston) retired to run for Governor. David Rouzer (R-Johnston) defeated Kay Carroll (D-Johnston) in the General Election.


T hose are the words of James Madison, one of America’s founding fathers and a staunch ad-vocate of government transparency as means of strengthening representative government. North Carolinians might be surprised to learn

that Madison had much to say on the subject of govern-ment transparency. Most of what he believed about the subject could be distilled to a couple of simple truths: those with access to knowledge and information gained influ-ence over those who lacked such access; and the ability to acquire information is as important as knowledge itself.

Madison’s lifelong interest was the preservation of this new democracy called the United States. He understood the threats posed by human nature and the machinery of government. The Father of the Constitution was a cru-sader against concentrated government power and a great proponent of checks and balances. He also knew that any government that claimed to be representative, but did not provide information to the public about the state or the means of acquiring relevant information, would be a weak democracy and only serve those with access to the informa-tion. Simply put, Madison believed that representative government without openness and transparency devolves into government by the few – for the few.

Even though Madison passed away more than one hundred and seventy years ago, his thoughts about the need for government transparency still ring true. Sadly, if Madison were alive today and living in North Carolina, he’d be very concerned. In the last few years, numerous lawmakers and legislative leaders have been convicted of abusing their office and sent to prison. Widespread waste and fraud infest many government programs. And moreover, important budget and legislative decisions are increasingly made in meetings closed to the public and media, and removed from the light of any public scrutiny.

Not surprisingly, the reigning political interests are do-ing what they can to oppose legislation that would provide greater public access to information. In 2007, SB 860 spon-

Open Government in North Carolina:

sored by former Senator Robert Pittenger (R-Mecklenburg) would have required the state controller to disclose relevant information on state expenditures over $25,000 – includ-ing grants and contracts – on a searchable Web site. The bill never made it out of the Appropriations Committee. In 2008, SB 2064, “The Open Government Act” passed in the Senate but failed to get a vote in the House. This legislation would have provided “reasonable” attorneys’ fees for suc-cessful plaintiffs in public records disputes.

BY BOB LUEBKE

GLO

BALC

UTS

.CO

M


A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both

An Idea Whose Time Has Come

— JAMES MADISON, LETTER TO W.T. BERRY. DATED AUGUST 4, 1822


10 • CIVITAS REVIEW • JANUARY 2009

Back To The Future

These developments, and the general political environ-ment, have sullied the reputation of state government. They may also help to explain why 70 percent of respondents in a recent Civitas poll said that the only way to change the culture of corruption in state government is to change legislative leadership.

Anyone who tries to track state spending will discover the lack of transparency and be forced to ask some trou-bling questions: Why is it not possible to track revenue and expenditures by state budget function? Why aren’t the

Why is it not possible to track revenue and expenditures by state budget function?”

Transparency, continued from pg 9

Investigative Journalism Training And Luncheon Texas Watchdog Editor Trent Seibert – whose work exposed the high utility bills racked up by global warming advocate and former Vice President Al Gore – will be in the Triangle on March 12 and 13. Seibert will lead a two-day training session, sponsored by Civitas Institute, for those interested in learning how to expose government corruption, waste and fraud by using various investigative resources.Who: Trent Seibert, editor of Texas Watchdog What: Training – $25/per day, includes lunch. Attend one or both days. To hear Mr. Seibert talk about his work on exposing Al Gore and political corruption, there will be an open lunch on Thursday, March 12 for $15. The cost to attend both days is $40.When: March 12 and 13Please R.S.V.P. to Alex Crafts at your earliest convenience via email at [email protected] or 919-834-2099. There is limited space available. Please check www.nccivitas.org for additional details.

CIVITAS MONTHLY POLL LUNCH SCHEDULE HAS CHANGEDThe monthly Civitas Institute poll lunch has moved to the last Thursday of each month. The luncheons, which were the third Wednesday every month, provide results of the latest Civitas Poll.

Civitas • Events

details of contracts the government makes with non-profits or outside organizations readily available? Why is it so dif-ficult for parents or taxpayers to find out basic budget and academic information about their local school? According to the John Locke Foundation, the vast majority of state and local governments fail to provide citizens information about how tax dollars are spent. A May 2008 John Locke Founda-tion report concluded, 20 out of 22 state agencies earned no better than a D-plus when it comes to making budget and spending reports available online. Seven of those agencies earned failing grades.

Efforts to improve government transparency can cer-tainly take many forms. One of the most important of those forms is financial transparency. In response to citizen activ-ism, governments across the country are passing initiatives to become more open and more transparent. At the federal level, the Coburn-Obama Transparency Act of 2006 created an Internet database of federal spending. Texas, Missouri and Kansas have created similar state level databases. Many other states are using legislation or executive orders to move this process forward. Regrettably, North Carolina lawmakers have chosen to ignore this trend. Americans for Tax Reform, a national taxpayer organization that tracks state transpar-ency efforts, shows North Carolina as one of 13 states that lacks progress in the area of financial transparency.

North Carolinians ought to be encouraged by the statements made by Governor Perdue (D) to make gov-ernment more open and still transparent. Conservatives should be vigilant in watching her actions and to hold the governor to her promises. Voters can also support legisla-tion that calls on the government to release spending data, including information regarding government contracts, grants to nonprofits, check registers and personnel data.

The development of fiscal transparency Web sites (e.g. www.fiscalaccountability.org, and www.showmethespend-ing.org) can prove especially effective in providing public access to basic information such as budgets, expenditures contracts and public salaries. These sites can be produced at a relatively low cost and provide immense public benefits. They facilitate the sharing of public information, serve as a check on state power and improve governance. If banks can provide our citizens with up-to-date financial information, is there any reason why our state agencies shouldn’t be able to provide the same?

Madison believed open government to be a prereq-uisite for a healthy democracy and the antidote against government by those who have special knowledge and privileged access to information. Efforts to enhance gov-ernment transparency will strengthen democracy and im-prove governance for all citizens. It is the necessary work of anyone who seeks to preserve freedom and liberty.

JANUARY 2009 • CIVITAS REVIEW • 11www.nccivitas.org

W e’ve all heard about the national financial crisis facing our country. But are you aware of another type of financial crisis emerging right here in the Old North State?

Due to overzealous spending commitments and less than expected revenue, North Carolina’s state budget is fac-ing a major revenue shortfall — what many would label a “budget crisis.” This self-inflicted crisis has many observers experiencing a strong sense of déjà vu.

North Carolina’s last budget crisis in 2001 unfolded in eerily similar circumstances, and the fact that the state finds itself in yet another hole indicates that lawmakers learned very little from that experience.

For starters, as was the case in 2001, the current situa-tion results from a rapid, shortsighted buildup of spending commitments during healthy economic times that simply can not be met when the economy — and thus revenue — dries up.

Examining state budgets of the late 1990’s shows an average annual spending increase of 9.2 percent during the four years leading up to 2000-01. Likewise, the four years prior to our current budget saw annual average spending hikes of 8.64 percent.

Credit should be given, however, to outgoing Gover-nor Mike Easley (D) for his proactive approach to the situ-ation. No doubt Easley remembers the difficult choices he faced when inheriting an $800 million shortfall when first assuming office back in January 2001.

This time around, legislative economists are pro-jecting the current gap to reach $1.6 billion or beyond. Easley had the foresight to take action rather than let the next governor inherit a potentially unmanageable budget gap.

“What I want to do, given this economic uncertainty, is make sure we hold back money just in case there’s a shortfall,” Easley said. “I’d rather have (the money) and not need it than need it and not have it.”

Back To The Future In 2001, Easley was forced to swiftly plug the budget

hole, and the results were not pretty. Among other things, Easley redirected money from the state employee pension fund (prompting a lawsuit on behalf of the state employees’ union eventually won in 2006), held back funds from local governments (also prompting a lawsuit), and raided the unemployment insurance fund.

Making matters worse was how state leaders attempt-ed to balance the 2001-02 budget. Desperate for more revenue to cover their escalating spending obligations, countless tax increases were implemented. Thus, North Carolina became the only state in the Union to raise income taxes (and one of only a handful to raise taxes at all) during the recession. As UNC economist James Smith noted in September 2001, “It’s one of the all-time stupidest things done by a legislature anywhere. You don’t raise taxes during a recession, or even in a dismal economic environment.”

The now infamous “temporary” taxes on sales and in-come (along with the authorized 1⁄2 cent local sales tax hike) created by the 2001-02 budget have imposed more than $5 billion in new taxes on North Carolinians. That year’s budget also included tax increases on HMOs, medical insurance companies, liquor, telecommunications and satellite TV.

Because higher taxes discourage investment and job growth by draining resources from the private sector, North Carolina recovered from the last recession slower than most of the nation. Unemployment has remained above the na-tional average for seven straight years, and was on pace to do so again in 2008. Per capita income fell further behind the national average, and the child poverty rate climbed from 17th highest in the nation to 7th highest.

A statewide poll in 2001 showed that 63 percent of voters preferred the budget shortfall be resolved by cut-ting spending, compared to only 17 percent who favored raising taxes.

Back to the present: Easley has called for spending cuts as high as 5 percent for state agencies, a hiring freeze, limiting travel and a delay of any major purchases by the state. Easley implemented similar actions in early 2001 as well (imposing a 4 percent cut on most agencies). These fis-cally responsible actions, however, may prove to be insuf-ficient given the rapidly declining state of the economy.

New Governor Bev Perdue (D) will have some tough decisions to make, but raising taxes (again) should in no way be considered. Listen to the economists. Listen to the people — no new taxes.

BY BRIAN BALFOUR

North Carolina’s Homegrown Financial “Crisis” Is Highly Similar to 2001

This article appeared in the Oct. 25, 2008 edition of the Raleigh News & Observer

I n D E P T H

12 • CIVITAS REVIEW • January 2009

D ue to overzealous spending commitments and unrealistic revenue projections, North Carolina government is facing a “budget crisis.” In short, the state budget spends significantly more money than is available.

Recent projections estimate the current gap could grow as large as $1.6 billion.

With a budget crisis looming, lawmakers should consider all financial options at their disposal. One such option is the massive Golden LEAF fund currently man-aged by unelected, unaccountable political appointees. Dissolving the 10-year old Golden LEAF organization would produce approximately $720 million in assets to help fill the current budget gap, and also provide annual revenue in the future of about $70 million toward Gen-eral Fund operations.

As this article will detail, the funds managed by Golden LEAF are already subject to political whim and under the influence of powerful state lawmakers. A more responsible measure would be to transfer the current Golden LEAF funds to the General Fund where the spending will be sub-ject to greater oversight by the elected leaders in the North Carolina General Assembly.

No one is suggesting that the projects currently being funded by Golden LEAF money should be eliminated. Rather, they should undergo the same scrutiny and priori-tization process as other state spending contained in North Carolina’s budget.

Moreover, it makes little sense to spend $2.2 million in annual administrative costs (not to mention the $3.6 million recently spent on its new headquarters) for the foundation to continue to dole out money that could just as easily be appropriated in the annual budget.

WHY DISSOLVE GOLDEN LEAF?BACKGROUNDThe Golden Longterm Economic Advancement Founda-tion, or Golden LEAF, was established in 1999 to receive and disburse one half of North Carolina’s national Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) funds. The MSA was an agreement resulting from a lawsuit filed by several states against the major tobacco manufacturers. Manufacturers

were accused of misleading the public about the dangers of smoking, and a number of states sought compensation for the excess financial burden smokers placed on their Medicaid systems.

Created largely at the behest of then Attorney General Mike Easley (D), the foundation was expected to receive roughly $2.3 billion in payments over a 25 year period.

Currently, Golden LEAF has assets totaling $720 million, with the annual MSA payments in the $70 million range.

The terms of the Master Settlement Agreement were rather vague, with no clearly defined uses for the funds being dispersed to states. Expectations, especially within the public health community, were that the MSA funds would be directed to programs designed to reduce smok-ing and enhance public health among recipient states. The flexibility of the agreement, however, did allow for some discretion in how funds were spent in each state.

Golden LEAF’s Web site describes itself as a “nonprofit devoted to advancing the economic well being of North Carolinians and to transforming its economy.” In short, the foundation grants money to various “economic develop-ment” projects throughout the state. Golden LEAF does claim to focus on areas that have traditionally been depen-dent upon the tobacco industry, but many public health ad-vocates would argue that devoting half of North Carolina’s settlement funds on economic development violates the spirit of the agreement itself.

Moreover, in spite of its claims of “advancing the economic well being of North Carolinians, Golden LEAF has become a highly politicized organization subject to the whims of Governor Easley and other power players in the General Assembly. The brief history of Golden LEAF has been riddled with grants to local pet projects, cases of favoritism and blatant cronyism.

In short, it is a slush fund that needs to be dissolved.

A POlitiCAl tOOlWhen Golden LEAF was created, Easley declared that the foundation will be “one that operates outside the grasp of political pressure.” Likewise, Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand (D – Cumberland) stated: “A charitable trust shouldn’t have anything to do with politics.”

BY BRIAN BALFOUR

I n D E P T H

Tapping a Corrupt, Unaccountable Organization to Help Fill the Budget Hole

Time To Turn Over A New Leaf

January 2009 • CIVITAS REVIEW • 13www.nccivitas.org

These proclamations quickly proved to be a sham. For starters, the foundation’s 15-member board is

comprised entirely of political appointees, with the gov-ernor, president pro tem of the Senate and speaker of the House each responsible for five selections.

Todd Cohen, editor and publisher of the Raleigh-based Philanthropy Journal, observed, “the political make-up of the board has saddled the foundation with the perception that it is a political tool.” Cohen further concluded, “Golden LEAF is by definition and nature a political creature subject to the whims and agendas of politicians.”

“MUlti-MilliON DOllAR SlUSh FUND”The political nature of Golden LEAF’s Board of Directors has corrupted the foundation’s grant-making process. Rather than an objective analysis of which projects will best advance the “economic well being of North Carolin-ians,” grants have all too often been decided by political turf wars and power plays. A review of pet projects and questionable items funded by the foundation, in fact, prompted the Capital Monitor to state, “many are con-cluding that Golden LEAF has been nothing more than a multi-million dollar slush fund.”

Similarly, former Representative Stephen LaRoque (R-Lenoir) proclaimed, “In Raleigh, Golden LEAF is known as the governor’s slush fund.” LaRoque seemingly came to this conclusion after one of his favored projects was denied funding after being promised support, while the Black Heritage Society received $50,000 for a mu-seum in Kinston. Not coincidentally, the BHS included a number of Easley campaign contributors.

Further, several items that could easily be described as pork projects have been financed by Golden LEAF, including:• A horse park in Hoke County• A museum honoring bluegrass musician Earl Scruggs

in Cleveland County• The failed Parton Entertainment Center in Halifax

County• Local biking & hiking trails• A Drag Racing Hall of Fame• An art museum in the mountains• A training program for commercial truck drivers

The foundation undoubtedly funds several projects that many would consider worthy. Such worthy causes, however, would still receive funding if the foundation’s

money were redirected to the state’s General Fund budget and determined to be a top priority by legislators. The key point is that currently Golden LEAF finances projects rang-ing from more legitimate to downright wasteful, all without any oversight or debate among elected officials.

PlAyiNG FAvORiteSIt should come as no surprise to learn Golden LEAF is a breeding ground of political cronyism.

According to the Capital Monitor, “Golden LEAF’s board is filled with generous campaign contributors and political cronies. Members serving in 2008 include Jessie Bunn, who contributed $2,500 to Democrats like Jim Hunt and the NC Democratic Party; William Clarke, who gave $3,000 to various Democrats including former Speaker Jim Black; John Harmon, who contributed $5,000 to Demo-crats like Beverly Purdue; and former Democratic Party Chair Lisbeth Evans. Senate President Pro Tempore Marc Basnight’s nephew has also been a member of the Board.”

All told, the current 15 board members have con-tributed nearly half a million to political campaigns and committees – roughly 90 percent of said donations going to Democrats. (See accompanying chart for the six most generous board members and the recipients of some of their most relevant donations.)

Moreover, a noticeable pattern emerges when one examines the timing of board appointments and the ap-pointees’ political contributions. • Lisbeth Evans donated $20,000 to the state Demo-

cratic Party and the legal maximum check for $4,000 to Easley’s campaign in 2000. Easley appointed Evans to the board in 2001.

Tapping a Corrupt, Unaccountable Organization to Help Fill the Budget Hole

Time To Turn Over A New Leaf

Total BoardMember Political Appointed RelevantDonations Contributions By

Lisbeth Evans $113,120 Easley $12,000toEasleysince2000; $52,350toNCDemocratic Partysince1995

Frank Holding $82,895 Basnight $11,250toBasnightsince2000

David T. Stephenson III $67,250 Basnight $4,000toBasnightsince2000; $20,000in2003toNCDemocratic Party;$4,500toEasleysince2000

H. Kel Landis $54,505 Easley $7,500toEasleysince1994

Richard Holder $33,210 Easley $10,700toEasleysince1992, includingthelegalmaximumof $4,000in2000

Wade Barber $23,995 Hackney $5,750toHackneysince1990, includinglegalmaximumof $4,000inSept.2007


I n D E P T H

• John D. Merritt gave the legal maximum donation of $4,000 to Easley’s campaign in both 1999 and 2000. Easley appointed Merritt to the board in 2001 (Merritt gave another $4,000 to Easley in 2004).

• David T. Stephenson III gave $20,000 to the state Democratic Party in 2003. Basnight, who yields considerable influence over how state party funds are allocated, appointed Stephenson to the board in 2004.

• Wade Barber donated the legal maximum $4,000 to Hackney in 2007. Barber was appointed to the board by Hackney in 2008.

• H. Kel Landis donated $3,000 to Easley in the 2000 campaign cycle. Easley appointed Landis to the board in 2000.

• Edgar Roach donated $3,000 to Easley’s campaign during 2004. By the end of that year Roach was sitting on the board – appointed by Easley.Not only is the board stacked with cronies, but there

has also been ample evidence of political favoritism sur-rounding some of Golden LEAF’s grants.

• John Crumpler, who donated a total of $8,000 to Easley’s 2000 campaign (the maximum amount legally allowed in a campaign cycle), was promptly rewarded in 2002 when a fund he organized received $30 mil-lion from Golden LEAF.

• Capitol Monitor reported: “a group including Charles Davenport, brother of former Golden LEAF Board Chairman Lawrence Davenport, received $10 million from the Foundation for biofuels production.”

• When Dell Computer landed a $3.5 million grant from Golden LEAF, Dell’s lobbying efforts were led by a business associate of one of the Foundation’s board members.

GOlDeN leAF OR GOlDeN PARAChUte?A recent Philanthropy Journal article recounts how Eas-ley, along with Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight, delayed for several months the hiring of a new founda-tion president to replace outgoing Valeria Lee. The reason – Easley wanted to find a position for his departing top economic advisor, Dan Gerlach.

According to the article, “Eleventh hour requests from Governor Mike Easley and state Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight have extended by three months the search for a new leader for the Golden LEAF Foundation, laying the funder open to charges of political meddling.”

Golden LEAF received hundreds of applications for the position, hired a consulting firm to aide in the process, narrowed the search down to four finalists who were all interviewed by the full board, but yet Easley still managed to convince the foundation to delay their decision until Gerlach was freed up from his duties negotiating the state budget throughout the summer of 2008.

Gerlach, it should be noted, did not submit an appli-cation prior to the initial application deadline.

Naturally, Gerlach was awarded the position, along with its hefty $189,000 annual salary.

“Easley’s intervention seems like the clumsy move of a lame-duck governor to find an exit strategy for a top aide,” noted Cohen.

CONCLUSIONThe case for dissolving Golden LEAF is compelling. As the state faces a daunting budget hole, now is the time to break up the foundation and utilize the current assets and future revenue for General Fund operations. The taxpayers will be better served as hundreds of millions of dollars will no longer be directed to a politically corrupt foundation with little oversight. Transferring these monies to the General Fund will provide greater scrutiny over their disbursal and hold lawmakers accountable for how the funds are spent.

The Koch Associate Program is a highly selective, year-long career opportunity for promising leaders and

entrepreneurs interested in a non-profit career. While in the program, Associates develop the knowl-

edge, skills, and experience necessary for successful futures with market-oriented think tanks, policy

institutes, and other non-profit organizations. Associates work in full-time roles at non-profit organizations.

One day each week, they come together at the Foundation to study Market-Based Management.

The non-profit roles cover various fields, including:

policy research

measurement and analysis

marketing and communications

grassroots education

donor relations

We are an equal opportunity employer. M/F/D/V

Applications are due by March 16, 2009.

For more information or to apply for the

2009-10 Koch Associate Program, please visit

cgkfoundation.org


Renewing CONSERVATISM

WINTER 2009 • CIVITAS REVIEW • 17www.nccivitas.org

Renewing


CONSERVATISM

Elections are a convenient calendar date to stop for a moment to review

where we’ve been and to analyze where we are going. What follows

are essays that contemplate the future of conservatism in North Caro-

lina and the nation. They are contributions from Civitas readers and

articles written by leaders of North Carolina-based organizations. The

opinions expressed in them are those of the writers and do not reflect

the opinion of Civitas or the organizations.

When considering the future of conservatism, or any philosophy, it is

important to remember that personalities come and go, but core principles will stand

the test of time. The conservative movement is alive and well, but it is in need of

some self reflection. It has invested itself in one party that has been happy to take the

mantle of conservatism at election time and forget about the principles when govern-

ing. Conservatives must hold politicians from all parties accountable to the core

principles that those much more eloquent than I can explain. Conservatives should

embrace politicians who support a conservative way of thinking, but not embrace

political standpoints because they support the fleeting needs of a politician.

My contribution to what should distinguish conservatives is fairly simple.

Conservatives should, to the greatest extent possible, embrace freedom. That, on the

most basic level, is the freedom for an individual to acquire the skills necessary to

have the possibility of succeeding. That is not a guarantee of success or a freedom

from failure. Conservatism is a governing philosophy that has government remove

obstacles, enforce the rules fairly and not interfere in the marketplace or family. It

also means conservatives get involved in their communities at the local level to put

principle into practice. We must help show that private charities have always been

more effective at handling charity than government. Government should be the char-

ity of last resort, not first response.

By concentrating on the big issues and effectively communicating how conser-

vative policies can help people from all walks of life, we can reenergize a movement

that has produced great results. It won the Cold War; it moved millions of people

from welfare to work; it balanced the federal budget; and it allowed our nation to

grow into the greatest economic power on earth. No need to tamper with success,

just a need to remind ourselves how we got here.

I hope the following essays get you thinking and

doing. If you would like to submit an essay, send your

contribution to [email protected] and we will

be publishing selected ones online at www.nccivitas.org.

Francis X. De Luca

Executive Director

Civitas Institute

Visi

on

s o

f A

mer

icA

/Jo

e so

hm

/ G

etty

imA

Ges


In 2004, with Ronald Reagan’s beautiful memorial service fresh in our minds, Americans re-elected President Bush and returned Republican Congres-sional majorities. Commentators and pundits extolled

Reagan’s ideas; believers and critics alike praised him. Con-servatives were energized, but Republicans mischaracter-ized that energy and proceeded to vote antithetically to all that Reagan stood for, which was not expanding budgets, socialist programs, bigger government, and compromising on core conservative beliefs.

Conservatives will rally around a candidate who “talks the talk and walks the walk” and runs a faithful, honest and positive campaign. Liberals can go negative, lie and get away with it, but conservatives expect more from their candidates. They want to do more than hold their noses and vote. They want to plaster that bumper sticker on their car and plant that yard sign in front of their home with pride! For such a candidate, they will volunteer, make phone calls, raise money and show up to vote – but it must be someone faith-ful to conservative values.

And those values are fairly simple. 1. The best government is that closest to the people.

We see our county commissioners and aldermen in the grocery store or at church – they provide the best government for our money!

2. Life is sacred and the family is the backbone of our society. Protect that.

3. Laws must be made by our elected representatives, not by judges from a carefully crafted lawsuit.

4. Taxes must be fair, and resources spent wisely. If God asks for 10 percent, government should never ask for more than 30 percent!

5. Elected officials should hold themselves to the highest ethical standards.

6. Create business regulations that promote capital-ism, free markets, competition and safety. Not social engineering, not environmental manifestos, not monopolies.

7. Provide a quality education for every student, and if public schools fail, allow students to take their allot-ted funds and spend them where they can excel.

8. Enforce the law – these include immigration, justice and order.

9. Provide a safety net for those in need, but encourage private charities to partner with government to meet needs. Government can provide for physical needs, but charities serve the soul.Conservatives must encourage those elected officials

who support our ideals. So often, they only hear from complainers. We must be informed and involved citizens in our communities, state and country. We cannot allow our

CONSERVATISM Renewing

isto

cKPh

oto

.co

m

dissatisfaction with the status quo keep us from the polls again. Finally, we must extract the best from our elected officials who have not seen the wisdom of the conservative way; otherwise we will become marginalized and irrelevant in the next election cycle.Mary McCandlessWinston-Salem, NC

Conservatism is Still Alive

Where was conservatism in November, and where is it now? It can be argued that conservatism was largely absent on the November 2008 ballot, leaving many

questioning its continued presence. Has America moved to a center-left country, and has our state of North Caro-lina moved as well? I argue against this national and state perception. Conservatism remains alive – very much a part of this country – and is worth fighting to preserve.

There is no question that conservatives feel they were handed defeat on Nov. 4; North Carolina conservatives cannot be excluded. While I argue that conservatism is still alive, why does it feel so absent?

In North Carolina, more than 1.2 million straight party ticket votes were cast for the Democrats, with less than 882,000 straight Republican ticket votes tallied. Conservatives did not turn out like the liberals, and for this, we were punished. The sentiment, among many, was that conservative values were not represented on the ballot, so conservatives chose to stay at home. This should be discouraging, but also recognized as a problem that can be solved. We must become more effective in delivering the conservative message on behalf of our selected candidates so as to motivate fellow conservatives to vote on Election Day; it does make a difference.

I firmly believe that conservative values are still an important part of this country and our state. Conserva-tives carry an enormous amount of pride in established ideals; generally prefer a traditional situation to change; and want to hold true to the principles of our Founding Fathers. We should not look to redefine ourselves, but instead maintain our strong identity through core beliefs of smaller government, strong national defense and tax cuts. Will our image need some work? Yes, because it has been tainted largely by the media and our recent inability to pull a large majority of the voting population to our side. It is possible and it must be done.

I refuse to believe that anyone desires or enjoys defeat; it is painful, however it must not become that which defines conservatism after new administrations begin in Janu-ary 2009. Conservatism is worth fighting to preserve. Its


principles are too important to forsake and its impact has been too great to watch fade away. Therefore, conservatives must join together, redefine our ideals, fervently stick to our principles and effectively communicate our message in order to regain the presence we desire. If we are willing to do this, we will bring conservatism back to the forefront of the political scene and we will be encouraged to find a large majority of North Carolinians standing with us.Leigh TuckerChapel Hill, NC

Conservatism in North Carolina

If conservatism is a movement, it is one of the oldest in the history of mankind. Its precepts are to be found in Judeo-Christian philosophy, the basis of the American culture. Freedom, liberty, self-determina-

tion, individual responsibility and the adherence to a set of commandments delivered from our Maker: these are the ideals against which American conservatives measure themselves and their chosen leaders. Their actions are judged not by man, but ultimately by God.

American conservatives today are searching for bold leaders who not only espouse these truths, but also live according to them. Consider the movement’s ancestors and current leaders: Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Jesus of Naza-

reth, Martin Luther, Edmund Burke, John Locke, George Washington, Milton Friedman, William F. Buckley, Pope John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. These people have risked their reputations, for-tunes and even their lives in their advocacy of conservatism and in their pursuit of virtue.

It’s bold action that conservatives expect from their leaders today, not rhetoric. An unambiguous statement of conservative principles, and a set of clear, measurable goals, should cover all key topics: the sanctity of life and family, the economy, individual liberty, our state government, elec-tion reform, education, our judiciary, the environment and national policy.

But it’s not enough just to have a platform. To reverse the damage that liberalism has caused our nation, all con-servatives can take action in their lives now to assure the future of their progeny and our great country. For instance, they can:• Work only in the private sector to reduce their depen-

dence on government.• Educate their children in non-government schools.

If alternatives do not exist, they can start a private school as others have done.

• Reduce their tax liability by studying the state and federal tax code, and by working to reduce all forms of taxation.fo

un

din

GfA

ther

s.in

fo


• Eschew debt by living within their means, working towards financial independence by their retirement.

• Pursue self employment, providing more control over their own destiny.

• Hold political office, but only when they have gained the wisdom to lead others and when they do not have to rely on holding office to support their family.

• Advocate for the FairTax, by far the best alternative to current federal and state tax codes.

• Speak out publicly whenever and wherever conserva-tism is under attack.No, conservatism is not a movement; it is a way of life.

While its roots can be found in the oldest chapters of the Bible, those who truly live according to its principles remain rare. Leaders who publicly endorse conservatism and legislate according to its timeless, unequivocal fundamentals are even rarer. But those who do will ultimately prevail, and be remembered for millennia yet to come. Kent P. MisegadesCary, NC

Since the end of this past election, I have been quiz-zing other conservatives to see if they remember Ronald Reagan’s nickname as president. You might be surprised how many times the response was,

“You mean Dutch” and how many times they had forgotten it was “the Great Communicator.”

To me, that crystallizes the primary challenge facing today’s conservatives; after years of electoral success, we have become politically flabby and it is time to get back in shape, but that means expanding not contracting.

While I agree with all who claim we must go back to “first principles,” I must add that is not enough. We must do as Reagan and the other conservative giants did long ago and communicate conservative principles and positions so that they are relevant to the average voter. Now, the average voter does not care much about the niceties of political ideology, or the slant of the media, or even who controls the commit-tee chairmanships in Congress. They - anyone reading this is probably not an average voter – care about paying the mortgage, the price of gas, and whether their kid’s teacher is competent and not a child molester.

We have to remember that again. We have to do the hard and time consuming work of listening to concerns and explaining why our ideas will make lives better. Just saying, “she’s a liberal” is not going to cut the mustard anymore.

The radical left likes to portray us as grumpy bigots who hate the poor and just about everyone else. These false charges are designed to pull average voters away from us. But we only play into their hands when our only argu-

ments are stuffy, ideological ones about what cannot be done to help them.

That is why I say we must seek to expand, rather than to contract. That means offering a positive message that draws people to it, just as Reagan did. That means turning moderates into conservatives with strong, vibrant reasoning, not “purg-ing” them because they do not meet our idea of “purity.” And that does not mean kicking out part of the base because some think their beliefs are politically passé. That means expanding the base. That means being proud enough of what we believe to help others to believe in it too.

Conservatives face grave challenges today, but to a large degree they are of our own making. The polls say the majority of voters still believe in our positions and ideas – that was not the case 30 or 40 years ago. But make no mistake; the average voter is confused about what a conservative stands for after the past few years. Let’s remember how our political forebears did it and show them.Lee TeagueCharlotte, NC

What Would Jesse Say?

These days I am often asked “what would Jesse say,” concerning the election results and what appears to be a return to the liberal policies of the 1970s. Although Senator Helms would most certainly

be disappointed, I doubt he would have been surprised. He would point out that we have far too often strayed from our principles on key issues in order to seek more political power. This has allowed the opposition to co-opt conserva-tives on important issues, like the need for fiscal restraint. Senator Helms would remind us that, although we should be willing to compromise our preferences, we should never compromise our principles.

Just as Senator Helms worked with President Clinton to reorganize the State Department, reform welfare and modify United Nations funding, we should look for ways to work with President Obama and Governor Perdue to strengthen our economy and protect the American people. However, this does not mean we should compromise our conservative principles on the altar of bi-partisanship.

Senator Helms would urge us to be part of the “loyal op-position” in the fight against big government, tax-and-spend policies that are likely to dominate Washington and Raleigh. We must be willing to lead the fight for individual liberty, free enterprise, limited government, a strong national defense and strong families.

In every situation, we must do what the Senator asked his staff to do daily; determine the right course of action based on conservative principles, not on what is politically


isto

cKPh

oto

.co

m


expedient. We must then have the courage of our convictions and be willing to fight for what we believe is right.

Senator Helms believed in the American people. He believed that if you offer them a true choice between con-servative and liberal values, they will most often side with conservatives. After all, a recent Rasmussen survey found that 59 percent of the American people agreed with the sentiment expressed by Ronald Reagan in his first inaugural address: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” And did not President Barack Obama cam-paign on a platform of tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans?

We must never give up and never become part of the problem we are trying to solve. As the Senator said on many occasions, “The good Lord does not require us to win every time - he just calls on us to fight.” And as the Senator proved so often in his thirty year senate career, with a little perseverance and creativity, the seeds of victory often grow out of defeat. John DoddPresident of the Jesse Helms Center

Conservatism Didn’t Lose on Election Day

For the past eight years, conservatives have observed Bush Derangement Syndrome and various paranoid delusions among Democratic partisans and liberal activists. They should not now succumb to the

same temptations in response to an overwhelming Demo-cratic performance in 2006 and 2008.

Americans will be glad to see this long and tiring race concluded. They will be properly proud of the fact that their country, long bearing the scars of slavery and segregation, has elected an African-American president. They will be excited to see new faces in the administration in Washington, and are no doubt pleased that our 20-year period of having either Bushes or Clintons as presidents won’t be continuing next year. They will wish President Obama well, and hope for the best.

We are all Americans.Here in North Carolina, the Obama phenomenon played

at least a modest role in electing Kay Hagan (D-Guilford) to the U.S. Senate, and likely played a decisive role in elect-ing Beverly Perdue (D) as governor. Perdue faced a spirited challenge from Pat McCrory (R), one that she probably would have lost had turnout in Democratic precincts not soared to unprecedented heights at the prospect of electing Obama.

But in 2008, in this very Democratic year, Republi-cans gained a seat in the state senate, held their own in the state house, kept their Council of State losses to one, retained a majority on the state supreme court, and gained

ground in some county offices. In 2004, silly conservative pundits wrote off the national Democratic Party after suc-cessful GOP campaigns for president and Congress gave the party unified control in Washington. Two years later, those pundits were forced to backtrack, embarrassed. Now, there’s a good chance that silly liberal pundits will do something similar.

What the 2006 and 2008 election cycles demonstrated, it seems to me, is the upper limit of democratic political performance in today’s North Carolina. When the wind is strongly at their backs, Democrats will now elect state execu-tives by solid, but not overwhelming, margins and maintain majorities in the General Assembly, though again not over-whelming ones. My guess is that North Carolina Democrats aren’t likely to have the same institutional advantages going into the next two cycles, in 2010 and 2012.

Furthermore, while Republican politicians lost many races this year while espousing some conservative views, that doesn’t mean that conservatism itself is unpopular. Polling before and after the vote showed that North Carolina remains a center-right state, with a clear preference for candidates who promise fiscal restraint and eschew liberal politics. In her last campaign ads, Perdue attacked McCrory on immigration and taxes, much as Mike Easley (D), former governor of North Carolina, maneuvered himself to Richard Vinroot’s (R) right on taxes in the last competitive governor’s race, in 2000.

Indeed, fiscal conservatism was on the ballot in North Carolina – in 16 separate county votes on proposed sales, real-estate, and meals taxes. All 16 tax-hike referenda went down to defeat, often by huge margins. So since 2007, when the General Assembly gave counties authorization to raise sales or real-estate taxes, voters have rejected them 65 out of 73 times.

You know, at some point this will start to look like a trend.John HoodJohn Locke Foundation President

“Polling before and after the vote showed that north Carolina remains a Center-right state, with a Clear PreferenCe for Candidates who Promise fisCal restraint and esChew liberal PolitiCs.”

Conservatives: Think Global, Act Local

Did you know limited government and low taxes did pretty well in the November elec-tions in North Carolina? In 16 separate counties, proposed sales, real-estate and meals

taxes were on the ballot. All referenda went down in defeat – often by huge margins.

This is positive proof that conservatives can attract non-traditional allies in the fight over big government and the imposition of higher taxes at the local and state levels. For example, Americans for Prosperity (AFP) in November defeated a proposed meals tax in Durham County by a whopping 72 percent. The AFP taxpayer victory was so impressive that this type of tax is unlikely to be considered again. A coalition of very non-traditional allies, including the very left-leaning Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People, worked with AFP to defeat the tax. Money raised from the tax would have been used to build a minor league baseball museum and other

“cultural” projects. While 72 percent of Durham voters disliked the tax increase, 75 percent of them voted for President Obama, proving that the message of low taxes is attractive to people of all political parties.

All 15 tax-hike referenda, on proposed sales and real-estate taxes, were also struck down in November. After the General Assembly gave counties authorization to raise sales or real-estate taxes in 2007, voters have consistently rejected them 65 out of 73 times.

Conservatives are out of power on the national and state levels, meaning conservative solutions to problems will not get a fair hearing in either Washington D.C. or Raleigh for the next two years. It is important to note, in a dreadful GOP year, when senators and representatives were falling right and left, not one incumbent Republican governor lost.

Conservatives now must hope people like John Hoeven, Jon Huntsman, Jim Douglas and Mitch Daniels – Republicans re-elected as governors of North Dakota, Utah, Vermont and Indiana – can not only prove Repub-licans can be trusted with power, but can also succeed in implementing conservative solutions to problems on the state level.

Haley Barbour, the governor of Mississippi, recently stated that governors can be the catalyst for party revival: “When the other party has the White House and both houses of Congress, as they did then and will now, the only place people can actually see Republican ideas being implemented is in the states.”

Political rock stars like Alaska’s Sarah Palin and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal must put a new face on con-servative ideas. The public must see examples of school choice, personal liberty and low taxes making people more prosperous in the states.

While the General Assembly is going to face real challenges in 2009 from previous money mismanage-ment, there are real opportunities on the local and coun-ty level in North Carolina for local conservative leaders to shine. As conservatives devise a rebound, they would be well served to act on the local level in North Carolina to promote our ideas, which will always perform better than the failed big govern-ment policies of the past. Dallas Woodhouse

Americans for Prosperity State Director of North Carolina


Alaska Governor Sarah PalinLouisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich

CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP C O N F E R E N C E

You won’t want to miss this one! Details will follow in the Civitas Review, Civitas weekly newsletters or www.nccivitas.org.

Hope to see you there.

Mark your calendar! The annual Conservative Leadership Conference will be held in Raleigh in Fall 2009. The conference

will again offer you the chance to attend forums and hear national and state speakers. You will also meet and mingle with

conservatives from across North Carolina as well as receive practical training on grassroots-campaign techniques.

Some of the invited guests are:


isto

cKPh

oto

.co

m


RALEIGH — A recent vote could pave the way for North Carolina drivers to pay higher taxes and fees, tolls on some of the state’s busiest roads, and a new charge tied to every mile they drive.

The state’s 21st Century Transportation Committee approved a plan Dec. 10 that recommends those changes to the new General Assembly. “You’ve seen the goal, basi-cally to take the [state road transportation] system from a D rating a to a B rating over 10 years and to give us a truly effective multimodal transportation network, and with that, to reduce congestion and improve the efficiency and pro-ductivity of the system, to increase safety, and to improve the environment,” said Stephen Zelnak, the Martin Marietta Materials executive who chaired the committee’s financial group, during a November meeting.

Most of the committee’s recommendations involve more concepts than numbers, said chairman Brad Wilson. “There’s lots of level of detail that could have been included in some of these recommendations, but the committee discussed … trying to strike a balance between furthering a concept and idea and not invading the purview of the General Assembly in developing the details around some of these notions.”

Wilson described committee ideas as “a menu of op-tions.” If lawmakers like the menu items, drivers would dig deeper into their pockets to address part of the $64 billion price tag North Carolina transportation officials have as-signed to projects scheduled through 2030.

The 21st Century committee’s proposals would cover only a fraction of that cost. Earlier this year, Wilson urged his colleagues to develop a plan he dubbed “10 for 10.” It would identify at least $1 billion a year in new funding sources for the next 10 years.

Charging by the mileThe newest idea is a fee tied to “vehicle miles traveled,” charging drivers based on the number of miles they drive. A VMT fee would help the state cope with declining

For Transportation Cash

revenues from the state fuel and highway-use taxes, which provide more than 80 percent of the N.C. Department of Transportation’s budget, Wilson said.

“Both of those taxes are in steady decline and will not serve to meet the needs of North Carolina in the future,” he said. “So if we want to still subscribe to the philosophical approach that North Carolina has taken since 1921 — that is, ‘user pays’ — we will need to discuss and decide how it is that we are going to measure use going forward. That brings you to a discussion of ‘vehicle miles traveled.’”

Deciding to adopt a VMT fee is a first step, Wilson said. “Once you get your mind around that that’s what you should do, then the devil’s in the details.”

The committee decided to include no VMT statistics in its final report, but a draft unveiled in early November sug-gested a charge of 1⁄4 cent to 1⁄2 cent per mile for passenger vehicles. The driver would pay $25 to $50 for every 10,000 miles he drives. The charge would be tied to the mileage recorded when the driver has his car inspected each year. “The fee — depending on the range, of course — would generate somewhere between $165 million [and] $330 mil-lion annually,” Wilson said.

In that draft, trucks would face a higher charge: 1⁄2 cent to $0.02 per mile depending on the truck’s weight. Depending on the fee structure, those charges could gener-ate another $40 million to $80 million for the state.

Wilson emphasized to his committee that the numbers printed in the draft were designed as a starting point. Some committee members wanted to know how the new fee would affect drivers already paying inspection fees, vehicle registration fees, and property taxes for their cars. “We will run a hypothetical, trying to use an average property tax rate, make an assumption on vehicle miles traveled, add in the inspection fee and the registration fee, so you could see what that total might look like in an average situation.”

Some VMT supporters like the fee as an alternative to the gas tax. North Carolina drivers could end up paying both, Wilson said.

BY MITCH KOKAI


State officials eye toll roads and a pay-per-mile odometer tax

Cruisin’


CRUISIN’, continued from pg 23

“Does this [VMT] replace the fuel tax?” Wilson asked. “Well, the answer is, ‘It could, but probably not.’ But it might be a combination of vehicle miles traveled and fuel tax. The point is: if this is an approach North Carolina wanted to move to, that’s the kind of question the General Assembly ultimately would have to answer. You would want to do a lot of math to understand exactly what you are accomplishing.”

Among the math problems to be answered is the average number of miles people drive each year; the model revealed an assumed average of 12,000 miles annually. That model “excused” 2,000 miles from the new fee, Wil-son said. “We’re going to validate that,” Wilson explained. “It may be 12,000 [miles]. Somebody said it could be as high as 18,000.”

The 21st Century committee decided later not to move forward with those calculations, Wilson said. Com-mittee members did not want to delve too deeply into legislators’ decisions about the details of the new VMT.

Other taxes and feesDrivers across the state also could pay a higher sales tax to help fund roads and other transportation projects. The 21st Century Transportation Committee will recommend a local-option sales tax of up to 1 percent for counties, cities, and metropolitan regions.

Adding the words “up to” before “1 percent” eased at least some concern for committee members involved with another piece of legislation called House Bill 2363, dubbed the “intermodal bill.” It would allow a number of local communities to seek voter approval for half-cent sales tax increases devoted exclusively to transit projects.

Intermodal bill supporters raised fears that a new local-option transportation tax could compete with their idea. “I would not like to see us put local governments in the position of pitting the road people against the transit people for this referendum,” Rep. Becky Carney, D-Meck-lenburg, told colleagues.

A late addition to the committee’s recommendations would dedicate $170 million each year to fund an “inter-modal initiative.”

Another recommendation on the table is an increase in the Highway Use Tax owners pay when they buy their cars. The committee suggests raising that tax rate from 3 percent to 4 percent over a two-year period. The commit-tee also suggests investigating a differential scale based on cars’ fuel efficiency.

The full 1 percent increase could generate $200 million each year, but Wilson cautioned colleagues to remember that estimate is based on the state’s collection history. “Automobile sales are probably the worst they’ve ever been since the inven-tion of the automobile, and as a result we see declining rev-enues now — dramatic — with the current Highway Use Tax.”

The 21st Century Committee discussed a recommen-dation to urge lawmakers to move scrapping the gas-tax cap — enacted in 2006 following a steep increase in gasoline prices — that is slated to disappear in July under current state law. “As a result of the cap, North Carolina has not received $430 million in fuel tax revenue that it would have received otherwise,” Wilson said.

Two weeks later, the committee decided to remove that recommendation from its list. Members decided they did not need to recommend a step that’s already part of existing state law.

North Carolina could charge different taxes for gaso-line and diesel fuel in the future, and drivers would see their current $28 vehicle registration fees more than double during the next three years, if lawmakers adopt other recommendations. Once the three-year increase is com-plete, drivers would pay $58 for registration. The higher fee could raise $195 million each year.

Lawmakers would be forced to decide how many miles, if any, they would exempt from the new fee, Wilson said. Committee discussion also raised questions about how the new fee would exempt miles North Carolina driv-ers accumulate outside the state.

There’s also a “social equity issue,” said committee mem-ber Nina Szlosberg, who also serves on the N.C. Board of Transportation. “[There are] concerns about it disproportion-ately hurting low-income families who might have to travel farther to get to their work,” Szlosberg said. “Having some sort of mechanism in that recommendation [could] mitigate for that, and that may be starting with a bucket of miles that everybody gets so that they’re not harmed in any way.”

Despite her concerns about social equity of the new charge, Szlosberg asked colleagues to recommend that the General Assembly consider a local-option VMT. The com-mittee accepted that idea with little debate Nov. 19.

Committee members also have questioned how a VMT charge would affect a taxi driver or the owner of a delivery truck. Wilson responded that future discussions could include a ceiling on charges or some sort of graduated scale for the charge. The committee left those details to state lawmakers.

Automobile sales are probably the worst they’ve ever been since the invention of the automobile, and as a result we see declining revenues now — dramatic — with the current Highway Use Tax.”



Lawmakers might also consider changing the reg-istration process. “You may also consider whether you charge on the basis of weight for the passenger vehicle,” Wilson explained. “That was the contrast between the Prius and the Hummer … whether or not there should be any differential in registration cost based on the weight of passenger vehicles.”

Road bondsThe committee removed all numbers from its earlier discussion of a statewide bond package to “accelerate construction on high-traffic, high-congestion roadways.” The earlier draft suggested a bond package of $2 billion to $3 billion.

“This idea is and needs to be left on the table, recog-nizing we really don’t know what the debt capacity of the state is presently, what it might be in the future,” Wilson said. “We have the transition in the Treasurer’s office.”

Outgoing State Treasurer Richard Moore has issued reports in recent years warning lawmakers against borrow-ing too much money. Moore emphasized the need to keep state debt levels low enough for North Carolina to maintain its AAA bond rating. New Treasurer Janet Cowell took over for Moore in early January.

Drivers could see some fee increases based on infla-tion. The committee has endorsed a recommendation to index registration, title, and driver’s license fees to the Consumer Price Index. “Those fees would automatically change on a periodic basis,” Wilson said. “You would have to define the period, of course, without requiring legislative action, as it does now.”

The committee recommends turning all of Interstate 95 into a toll road and adding tolls on I-77 from South Carolina to the I-40 interchange in Statesville. Committee members have also recommended that the General Assem-bly seek permission to add tolls at the state border on every interstate highway.

The committee by mid-November dropped a pro-posal to add tolls to all urban loop roads. Some commit-tee members noted their fears that tolls paid by drivers on one urban loop could be diverted to projects in other parts of the state.

The one specific project mentioned during the discus-sion was a new bridge over the Yadkin River proposed for I-85 north of Salisbury. It could cost more than $400 mil-lion, Wilson said. Funding for that bridge could be tied to a bond package. The new bridge could also be built with toll road funding or with help from the federal transportation budget. The federal option was most popular with commit-tee members. “The point is we’ve got to figure out a way to pay for the Yadkin River Bridge,” Wilson said.

Using existing fundsAlong with new taxes and fees, North Carolina could get more money for transportation projects within the exist-ing state budget. One option involves ending transfers of highway money to pay for the state’s other bills. The committee will also recommend freeing up millions for transportation projects by shifting funding for the N.C. Highway Patrol and driver’s education, along with elimi-nating a money transfer linked to sales tax exemptions for N.C. DOT purchases.

The 21st Century Transportation Committee is pur-suing more than just funding ideas. The group has been trying to find ways to “clear out unnecessary regulatory underbrush,” Wilson said earlier this year. Ideas include “improved long-term planning” and “improved manage-ment and execution” by the transportation department and other agencies.

Discussion about higher taxes and fees ignores a key issue, according to Joseph Coletti, John Locke Founda-tion Fiscal Policy Analyst. “First, we need to figure out what we’re paying the money for,” Coletti said in an in-terview with Carolina Journal. “That’s one of the problems we have with our transportation budget. We raise all this money from drivers, but we don’t put all the money into roads for those drivers.”

“We spend money on mass transit,” he added. “We spend money on ferries. We spend money on a number of things. So the first thing is let’s make sure that we’re spend-ing the money we already have on roads. Then we can talk about how we fund those.”

Coletti supports additional toll road options, but he dislikes the idea of a local-option sales tax for transporta-tion. He offers mixed reviews to the suggestion of a new charge for “vehicle miles traveled.”

“The gas tax is becoming a less efficient means of rais-ing revenue, and so if you switch to vehicle miles driven, especially if you do it based on weight of the vehicle or something like that, you could replace the gas-tax revenue with a vehicle miles tax,” he said.

Instead of replacing the gas tax, it looks as if the 21st Century Transportation Committee wants to add to that tax with the new VMT charge, Coletti said. “They’re always talking about how do we raise more money, not how do we raise the existing amount of money better. Especially with the numbers they were throwing around – 1/4 cent to 1/2 cent per mile – that would only raise about half the money of the existing gas tax. Whatever they’re talking about right now is an addition to the tax drivers already pay.”

Mitch Kokai is an associate editor for the Carolina Journal.

This article ran in its December issue.


A lthough North Carolinians filled out a long ballot this November, voters in other states were faced with even more decisions. In addition to voting for can-didates, voters in 36 states voted on a

total of 61 ballot initiatives and popular referenda. Nearly half of the measures passed.

As conservatives in North Carolina wrestle with how to bring continuing issues such as government spending limits and the protection of marriage forward, some have turned their thoughts to promoting ballot initiatives in North Carolina. However, as voters in other states have learned, initiatives are a mixed blessing for any political group. Some issues that are considered conservative are popular at the ballot box. Other issues that are typically considered liberal are equally popular.

Who Uses Initiatives?Across the United States, 27 states permit ballot initia-tives or popular referenda. These states are primarily in the western half of the country – North Carolina and most other southern states do not permit citizens to place mea-sures on the ballot.

What Types of Initiatives Are Popular?Since 1898, citizens have used the initiative process to force a popular vote on a variety of issues – some large and con-troversial, others merely unusual. Californians, for example, have used initiatives to pass a “Three Strikes” law for repeat felons, to deny benefits to illegal immigrants, and to ban the slaughter of horses for human consumption.

Some initiative subjects seem to hold particular appeal. Minimum wage increases, marriage amendments, medical marijuana use, and state lotteries have been most popular. • Ten states have raised or established a minimum

wage through initiatives. Four states voted down minimum wage initiatives, but voters in two of these states later passed initiatives on the same topic.

• Eleven states have restricted marriage to the union of one man and one woman through initiatives; one state has voted down such an initiative.

• Ten states have legalized marijuana for medical purposes through initiatives; two states have voted down such initiatives.

• Ten states have authorized lotteries through initiatives.• Eight states have enacted campaign finance reforms

through initiatives; one state has voted down reforms.• Citizens in 13 states have placed a total of 27 abor-

tion initiatives on ballots. However, this seems to be one issue that voters are not receptive to on election day. Initiatives regarding abortion – whether to limit abortions, limit funding, allow public funding, or loosen restrictions on abortions – have for the most part failed at the ballot box.

• A handful of states have proposed initiatives – with mixed success – to restrict tax or government spending increases or refer tax increases to a vote of the people. Two states have used initiatives to require that income tax brackets be adjusted annu-ally for inflation.

• Other topics in multiple states have included smok-ing bans, cigarette taxes, and eminent domain. Animal rights activists have also seen victories in bans on certain types of traps and in the treatment of livestock.

BY CHLOE GOSSAGE

As voters have learned, initiatives are a mixed blessing for any political group.”

Ballot Measures Nationwide

Ballot initiatives, permitted in 24 states, allow citizens to place issues directly on the ballot by petition. In most of these states, citizens can amend the constitu-tion or write new statutes through initiatives. Popular referenda, also permitted in 24 states, allow citizens – again by petition – to place a measure on the ballot to repeal a law. All states, including North Carolina, allow the legislature to place proposals or constitutional amendments on the ballot through referenda. All states except Delaware require a popular vote to amend the state constitution.



Advantages of Ballot Initiatives: “Will of the People.” When the will of the people is not in alignment with the will of the legislature or legislative leadership, citizens can use ballot measures to write laws or repeal them. In 1996, for example, Alaska voters passed an initiative prohibiting “land-and-shoot” wolf hunting. In 2000, the Alaska Legisla-ture passed a bill overturning the ban. That same year, Alaska voters put the initiative back on the ballot and reinstated the ban.

“Civic Engagement.” According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, states with ballot mea-sures see turnout that is 3 to 5 percent higher than states without measures in presidential election years. However, regional differences between states with and without initiatives may also contribute to turnout differences.

Drawbacks to Ballot Initiatives: “Unintended Consequences.” Initiatives have been known to have significant unintended consequences. In 1978, for

example, voters in California reacted to rising property taxes by rolling back tax rates and capping tax increases through Proposition 13. While the initiative successfully slowed tax growth, today it is also blamed for giving the state increased control over local finances.

“Legislation in a Vacuum.” Voters have used the initiative process to create new programs and identify funds for those programs outside the state’s budget process. This can limit state legislatures’ abilities to prioritize limited resources.

For more information on ballot initiatives and refer-enda, see:1. The Initiative & Referendum Institute, University of

Southern California. www.iandrinstitute.org2. The National Conference of State Legislatures, 2008

Ballot Measure Update and Initiative & Referendum

Database. www.ncsl.org Much of the information in this article was drawn

from the above sources.



A s the latest crop of freshmen legislators be-gin their orientation tours around Raleigh, they are likely to miss a gas station just off of Interstate 40, a scant two and a half miles away from the State Capitol. Most of

the new lawmakers will know little of this location’s sad his-tory and its connection with the General Assembly. This is the spot where a 22-year old pregnant mother of two, Jenna Nielsen was murdered in June of 2007.

As Nielsen’s family mourned their losses and awaited justice, it was her father, Kevin Blaine, who learned that, while Nielsen’s killer would be charged with murder, the killer would not be charged with the murder of Nielsen’s expected third child; a boy that she and her husband had decided to name Ethen. Thus began a new phase in Blaine’s life: public advocate.

What Nielsen’s father soon found out was that the death of an unborn child and mother is a surprisingly frequent occurrence in North Carolina and the law does not address it. In just three short years, the murder of pregnant women has become a regular feature in North Carolina news reports. A cursory search of media head-lines show that within the last three years alone, at least seven young pregnant women have been murdered in North Carolina. Despite this wave of horrific crimes, the law in this state is silent.

National outrage over the deaths of Laci Petersen, and her unborn son Connor, led to changes in federal law in 2004, making the killing of a pregnant woman’s unborn child a separate offense. A majority of states have similar laws, yet to date, this state does not. North Carolina is one of only 14 states to not charge killers separately for the

BY JEFF MIXON

North Carolina Still Lacks Fetal Homicide Law


deaths of unborn children. This is no mere oversight on the part of the Legislature.

Former Representative Trudi Walend (R- Transylvania) first introduced the Un-born Victims of Violence Bill in 2003, but it was to no avail. After being introduced multiple times in both chambers of the North Carolina Legislature, liberal lawmak-ers have blocked the bills from even being considered in committee. After Nielsen’s death, her family and church rallied in front of the Legislature and numerous lawmakers called on the leadership of the North Carolina House of Representatives to move the bill out of committee.

While the Legislature refuses to address the problem, the voters of North Carolina hold clear views on the subject of fetal murder. A Civitas DecisionMaker

poll of likely voters in April 2008 showed 82 percent in support of changing the law to charge murderers separately for the unborn victims. Unfortunately, the wishes of the electorate have yet to be heard by lawmakers on Jones Street in Raleigh.

So what is blocking the bill? Regrettably, efforts to protect pregnant women have attracted the attention of a very powerful lobby in Raleigh. Anytime the word “unborn” is used, abortion advocates tend to come out of the woodwork. These so-called defenders of “choice” fear that current, legal methods of abortion would somehow be outlawed by prosecuting murderers.

The key word in this debate is choice. The mothers of Ethen, Elijah and Brianna made the choice to have their children. This choice was taken from them by their killers. While abortion defenders worry about giving legal status to a fetus, left-leaning legal scholars suggest that the matter may already be decided.

Harvard University law professor and nationally recognized legal intellect, Alan Dershowitz points this out in Fundamental Cases: The Twentieth Century; Court Battles

that Changed our Nation, “And to prove that we all believe fetuses have certain status different from a, for example, sperm or egg, we would all agree that if a woman were pregnant and desperately wanted to have a child, and a man attacked her and beat her stomach purposely in order to kill that fetus, that that would be an extremely serious crime. Even if the mother herself wasn’t hurt, killing of

the fetus would be a serious crime when done against a woman who wanted to give birth to the child. So we know that the fetus in the body of a woman who wants to bear it as a child has a protected legal status – it ought to have a protected legal status.”

Duke University law Professor Hampton Dellinger is no opponent of abortion. He has been a close ally of the National Abortion Rights League (NARAL), as well as the Solicitor General of the United States under former President Bill Clinton. With regard to fetal homicide laws, Dellinger has said, “I don’t think they undermine Roe v. Wade. I just think that proposals like this ought to be considered on their own merit.”

Only time will tell if North Carolina’s lawmakers will address this threat to pregnant women and their yet to be born children. North Carolina should discontinue its island of isolation mentality, which allows murderers of unborn children the right to freely walk away without significant consequences.

RECENT NC FETAL HOMICIDE VICTIMS (first column)April 2005: Janet Abaroa • Baby Abaroa, first trimester

November 2006: Michelle Young • Baby Young, five months

(second column)December 2007: Ebony Robinson • Son Elijah, eight months

June 2007: Jenna Nielsen • Son Ethen, eight and a half months

December 2007: Maria Lauterbach • Baby Lauterbach, eight months

February 2007: Leanna Newman • Daughter Brianna, eight months (not pictured)

(third column)June 2008: Megan Touma • Baby Touma, seven months


BY CHRIS HAYES


O ver the past 10 years, North Carolina has benefited from a massive wave of in-migration of residents from the Northeast and Midwest. Areas around Raleigh and Charlotte, as well as the mountains and

beaches, have seen tremendous growth as the secret of North Carolina’s natural resources and favorable econom-ic conditions have become more publicized.

These residents from our northern neighbor states came to North Carolina seeking freedom and prosperity. The crippling effects of forced unionization has devastated their states’ economies and left a depressed region of high unemployment, high taxes and the despair of economic trouble. North Carolina’s (and much of the South’s) low taxes and right-to-work status have become a magnet for good paying jobs and high quality of life.

Unfortunately, these same pariah-like labor unions that caused the economic problems of the upper Midwest have decided to follow those transplants down here — to North Carolina — as they seek fertile ground to expand their dwindling memberships. Over the past three election cycles, union involvement in North Carolina’s elections continues to increase, with 2008 alone being a record year for union spending, totaling in excess of $4.7 million to influence our elections.

The emergence of big labor’s involvement in North Carolina’s elections has developed quickly since 2004. While state and national teachers’ unions have been active in North Carolina for a number of years, it has been the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) that has gar-nered the quickest rise to prominence as a force of the left.

It all started back in 2003, when after feeling neglected and underappreciated by Gov. Mike Easley (D), the State

Employees Association of NC (SEANC) went out seeking partners to be a more forceful advocate for employees’ is-sues. They found their partner in the SEIU and by February 2004, the SEANC Board of Governors approved a five-year partnership with SEIU; SEIU agreed to provide the funding and SEANC the infrastructure and manpower to advance a common pro-labor agenda. High on the agenda for the SEIU and teachers’ unions is an overturn of North Carolina’s half-century old ban on collective bargaining by state employees.

In the 2004 elections, the new SEIU/SEANC partner-ship became immediately involved — contributing in excess of $1.5 million to campaigns, including a $500,000 donation to the Republican Governor’s Association in sup-port of Patrick Ballantine’s bid for governor. Other labor unions such as the Teamsters, the NC Association of Edu-cators (NCAE), the National Education Association (NEA) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) contributed an additional $700,000 to campaigns.

In total, Big Labor directly spent more than $2.2 million in North Carolina during the 2004 election cycle with an overwhelming majority of the money going to either Demo-cratic candidates or Democratic campaign committees.

The 2006 election cycle saw a slight decrease in cam-paign spending by labor unions in North Carolina. Despite not having any statewide elections on the ballot, labor unions still spent in excess of $1.2 million on Legislative races. Again, the SEIU was the major player, investing nearly $600,000 in the coffers of Democratic candidates and committees.

In 2008, Big Labor took its spending to a level unseen in North Carolina politics. According to reports filed with the state board of elections through Oct. 25, Big Labor spent in excess of $4.7 million influencing North Carolina elections – more than the previous two election cycles combined. The NEA alone spent nearly $2 million in the primary and general elections supporting Bev Perdue’s (D) candidacy for governor. Once again, SEIU dispensed more than $1.8 million to North Carolina campaigns, with

Big Labor’s

inNC Big Splash


$1.1 million in cash going directly to the North Carolina Democratic Party.

The majority of these funds were spent in support of Perdue, helping her eke out a narrow win over Republican challenger Pat McCrory. With this much invested in her candidacy and successful election, Big Labor is going to want action on its agenda.

And Big Labor’s agenda is one that is counterproduc-tive for North Carolina — higher costs, lost jobs and less freedom for parents in education is just the beginning. Due to Big Labor’s influence, any attempt at increasing school choice for parents is, for all intents and purposes, dead. The NEA invested heavily to make that issue go away for at least another four years.

Perhaps the biggest issue that labor will push will be the overturning of North Carolina’s ban on collective bargaining for public employees. There is little argument that collective bargaining will bring about higher costs for

taxpayers. According to SEANC’s own research, collective bargaining increases salaries for state and local govern-ment employees by 5 to 6 percent. With every percentage increase in salary costing taxpayers approximately $120 million, collective bargaining could cost taxpayers more than $600 million per year.

So as we embrace the new transplants to North Caro-lina from traditionally heavily unionized states, let’s make sure that we don’t let in the failed policies of Big Labor that have led their former home states to economic ruin. The unions are trying to buy their way into prominence in North Carolina; let’s show them they’re not welcome.

Labor Spending in 2008 elections

NEA - $1,905,194

SEIU - $1,810,566

Teamsters - $325,117

NCAE - $254,830

SEANC - $241,706

UFCW - $112,000

IBEW - $36,500

CWA - $13,750

UAW - $9,000

Get ready for your campaign by signing up today for the Civitas Institute Blueprint to Victory Training.

Whether you are running for mayor, town council or school board, Civitas training can help.

Candidates Don’t Miss the Boat in 2009!

For information email Jeff Mixon at [email protected] or call (919) 747-8058.

ISTO

CKPH

OTO

.CO

M

100 South Harrington StreetRaleigh, N.C. 27603-1814

NON-PROFIT ORG.US POSTAGE

PAIDHICKORY, NCPERMIT #104

nccivitas.org

Documents

Civitas Review January 2009